4 Idiots Who Show Up Wherever Religion Is Discussed Online
Other charts you might enjoy:
The Rise and Fall of an Internet Meme
The Bad Drunk's Guide to Partying
Cheats for Surviving the Mall: 6 Enemies to Avoid
Five Surefire Ways to Piss off a Smoker
Gangstas vs. Rednecks: Weirdly Similar Subcultures
The Smart Phone Ownership Cycle
Lurking: The Most Common Form of Online Creepiness
Treating Waiters Like Human Beings: A Chart For Beginners
The Hard Hitting Questions Asked by Club DJs
Green Lantern vs. Green Hornet: Telling Them Apart
What Your Awful Font Choices Say About You
Enjoy making stuff like this? Post it here and we'll pay you $50 if we like it.
I'm not sure thinking you're Carl Sagan but appearing to Bill Maher is really all that bad. Maybe you're not as smart as you think, but you're evidently funnier.
ReplyReligion is a sham.
Replyand here we have exhibit A
The good book is good because the good book said it's good
ReplyIt's true cause a really good book would
I loved that
The sad thing about the "You're f***ed if you don't join my religion guy" is that they're usually Radical Christians who give other Christians a bad name. They don't realize they would probably win more people by not condemning people like it's their job.
Replyi have to say, i do tend to have an animosity towards christianity, and it's bad I know, but it's because nearly every christian i've personally known was one of those guys. If someone tells me being wiccan is going to make me rot in hell and that all the good intentions and loving nature in the world doesn't matter...i'm sorry, in my head that paints everyone in their group a very bad shade. I know i shouldn't generalize about groups of people, but it's human nature i suppose. kinda like how all nickelback fans are idiots. but really, they are.
A large amount of the people commenting are acting like 12 year olds or pretentious assholes. Intolerance runs on all sides in the battle over religion. People will believe what they believe, no matter what your opinion is. The end.
Replythe f**k religion guy sees him self as prince humperdink?
ReplySorry about this but... Really
I'd be pretty happy if people saw me as Bill Maher.
ReplyYou'd be happy to be seen as a pain in the ass, self-righteous tart? Someone has a low self opinion.
I like purple ponies.
ReplyBlasphemer!!! God is not a purple pony! He is an Alien! I swear..I can see him now! I see the light...I see the...ahhhhhhhhhhh!! Ok. Next time I do this...I am so NOT replying while walking on the railroad tracks!
I have the "Your going to hell guy" on me all the time.
Replyone random youyber kept sending me messages because he 'cared about' me, and kept trying to convert me to christianity over the internet. Which category does he fit into?
Reply'manipulative twatwaffle'
I'd love to be seen as Bill Maher...
ReplyI am nowhere on the list, even if I often end up in religious flame wars.
ReplyOnly reason for that is because I am religious to a degree and end up being called retarded because I am not an atheist.
ALWAYS happens.
Super humans like me must be rare...
amen i honestly find it those who resort to using the word retard that are the idiots if you canot make your case without insulting the opposition then who can take you seriously?
Why do I get minus for stating that I always get insulted?
You kind of prove my point by doing it, so I should thank you, whoever it was.
The "You're Fucked If You Don't Join My Religion" guy is always the most misinformed redneck (or middleclass white kid programmed to hate) who thinks all muslims are terrorists....of all categories, I have to identify as a "Fuck Religion" guy.
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesAgreed. I am most certainly a "Fuck Religion" guy. Part of it is because most religious people would likely want to kill me and my friends and would burn my mother at the stake if they could. Wanting to kill me and everyone I know doesn't really endear yourself to me, you know?
yeah but the "fuck religion" guy is also the guy who kills because someone believes in a better place after death so .... wait why are people so adament about the non existence of god when if he were real you would have eternal happienes as opossed to uh nothing
@nocenslupus, I think you mean "religious guy" kills because he thinks there's a better place after death... So he's just helping folks get there a little quicker, right?
"if god were real..." Yeah, and if magical leprichauns were real, we could all find pots of gold at the end of rainbows as opossed to uh nothing.
Wouldn't it be great, if only wishing something were true, was enough to make it real, huh?
Real religious people don't kill anyone.
but not all religions have such violent animosity towards others, there are peaceful religions that accept everyone else freely.
thanks cracked, once again you summed up things again. Oh and thanks for introducing me to carl sagan. I'm expecting a "cracked says thank you" any second now. Oh, your'e probably gonna read this years from now, but don't name your kid Frodo, however awesome it may sound at the moment
Replyi thought the "purple ponies" guy was funny. you don't see many of those around.
ReplyMe too. I probably could have done it better.
So, the only way to win is not to talk about it? Sounds kind of stupid.
ReplyNo, the only way to talk about it is to have an understanding discussion and not judge the other person's views. If you act like a courteous human being then you can talk about it.
What a joke, I love how the "fuck religion" guy simply said it's not common sense. In addition, his was the only comment that had correct spelling and actually made sense. Also, Bill Maher is an extremely intelligent and funny man, and the artist equivocates him with a KKK member? Pretty bad comic.
Reply Hide All See All 11 Replies"Common sense" - the human situation makes no sense at all. Time and space are infinite, and infinity cannot be properly contemplated by the human intellect. There is no justifiable explanation for how or why we, or anything we interact with, actually exists. Yet, you insist that "religion" doesn't "make sense". Your position is the stupidest of all.
Eden, do not say that the human intellect cannot contemplate infinity, just because yours can't. As a mathematician, I assure you that we can.
Are you contemplating it properly? Are you thinking of the implications of existing as an apparently finite being while you sit and take a shit? Do your actions taken in your everyday life represent a full awareness of the most awesome mysteries of your existence? I wouldn't say that's exactly the case. Also, I am a mathematician as well.
I have difficulty believing that you are a mathematician, since if your answers to my questions are any guide you have no concept of logic.
And how dare you tell me that I'm not contemplating infinity properly when by your own admission you cannot do it at all.
Carrie, I don't think we can communicate properly. You are not able to think outside the narrow parameters of the socially-accepted world view common today. Furthermore, your insistence of talking down to me, while simultaneously railing to counter my position, or even bring up any legitimate points against it (while also not coming forth with your own position) is becoming extremely tedious.
You are very boring, and you are embarrassing yourself by e tone you take with me. Bring something other than vague nagging or inappropriate condescension or gtfo.
How you can call me narrow minded, when you have claimed that you know better than anyone else what is the absolute truth.
As for refusing to come forth with my own position, you have clearly failed to understand my point at all. 'My position' is not relevant to this discussion. I have not asked you to agree with 'my position'. I have not said you are wrong. I have only asked you to defend the claim that you made, since you appear to expect me to believe it.
You say that I am boring: you are under no obligation to continue this discussion if you do not want to.
As fr 'vague nagging', I am being as explicit as is humanly possible with my questions, the very opposite of vague. I have repeated my questions a number of times only because you continue to refuse to answer them.
Bring me something other than insults and repetitions of the same vague statement of your opinion which you would have me take as a reasoned argument and and infallible proof.
Ok, for starters, I assess that you entered this debate with the position that there is no Absolute Truth, saying: "Everyone's truth is valid, therefore, there cannot be one Absolute Truth", which, of course, is an absolute statement, thereby contradicting your entire premise. Throughout the discussion I seem to remember you "sort of" agreeing with me that there in fact must exist an Absolute Truth. Now you have demanded that I quantify the exact parameters of such a thing, which is inappropriate win the context of the debate, as that falls under philosophical territory. It can be done, using the most hardcore logical analysis of the human situation, but It can be done only after the existence of an Absolute Truth is "proven" (and is has nothing to do with "scientific" proofs).
Another take would be that you accuse of emptily insisting that I am correct "because I said so", to which I reply: "Your basis for that assertion is comply because 'you say so', or rather, because other leading minds within the scientific community 'said so'." So we have reached a dead-end of communication.
No, I didn't say there is no absolute truth. I said I didn't think it was evident that there was, and asked you to provide some reasoning for your assertion that there was. I never said whether I thought there was or not; I certainly didn't say that there definitely wasn't.
I have also tried in vain to make you understand that whether there is or isn't an absolute truth, and whether we can know that there is or not, I do not believe we can know precisely what it is, and in my view it is incredible arrogance to suppose that no-one else should be allowed their opinion on what is and is not right.
As for your second paragraph, when I say that you have provided no justification for any of your assertions, I am saying nothing about what any scientist say, nor am I saying that there is no justification for said assertions. I am simply referring to the fact that if you do have justification, you have not, in any of your comments, told me it.
How is this difficult to understand?
If you defy my position, you support throwing people into ovens. And any other absurdly horrific Hellish scenarios as it pertains to humanity. I argue that it is more logical to protect the "sanctity" of fragile human sensibilities. I don't care what words anyone uses to support such a position - it is simply not logical to concur that such a scenario is acceptable. The most stupid deity or afterlife scenario is acceptable to "Hell on Earth".
It has become clear that you are either trolling me - successfully, I am ashamed to say - or you are truly incapable of understanding my arguments. I cannot make it any clearer or more explicit, but your reply still misses the point by several light years.
As regards your latest reply to the lower post:
> I apologise for inadvertently giving the impression that your previous reply had contained insults. I was referring to various other points in that thread where I had asked you to restate something and you had resorted to talking down to and insulting me rather than simply trying to clarify.
> I also apologise for the few occasions where I may have talked down, but when attempting to debate with someone who consistently refuses to address any of your questions, it is easy to get frustrated. Yet I do not think it is fair of you to call me out for talking down to you, when you have done the same in at least equal measure.
I shall not be continuing this discussion, since for the reasons stated above, I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless.
You have failed to give me any reason to agree with you, despite all the help I tried to give you to do so, although you have succeeded in making me leave the argument, so I guess you'll consider yourself to have 'won'.
The first quarter or so of this argument was quite enjoyable, so thank you for debating me. Goodbye.
Carrie.
Religion should be judged by what it teaches, not what the majority of its followers do. For example, Catholicism teaches against use of pornography, yet most "Catholics" watch porn. Islam teaches that terrorism is one of the worst crimes there are, to be punished in the harshest way prescribed, that only enemy belligerents are to be attacked, and that suicide is a terrible sin, yet the major terror organizations in the middle east often suicide bomb civilian targets.
ReplyIn short, every religion has its nutcases, but that doesn't mean that every religion is evil.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Islam is a nation, not a religion.
And from everything I've read or heard from or about "true" muslim teachings based on the original quran, ..is that they pretty much teach the exact opposite of what you just said above.
Only the folks that take it seriously are called zelots, and the folks who are half assed in their beliefs, who pick and choose what parts of the quran to follow, are called reasonable.
So, Catholicism should be judged on the fact that until the 1960's it taught that Jews were evil? That it taught that the earth was flat? That it taught that a sky fairy made the world in 6 days?
Honestly, your summation is the other way around. Every religion has good people, doesn't mean that every religion isn't evil.
I like that most of the comments are perfect examples of the categories described here.
ReplyYou just made my day. XD
looks like I'm idiot #1.
ReplyBut seriously, these four show up not just in comments, but religion in general.
Me too!