x
Click to expand

davidispissed

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/11/2011
Last Login:5/19/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 279 total,  440 ,  161
Comment Thumbs: 3712 total,  5453 ,  1741
Content Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 27 Content: Peasant → Level 28 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 70% (70/100)
Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:1
Content Views:27809
Times Content Favorited:16 times
Total Comments Made:1882
FJ Points:3953

latest user's comments

#61 - while you make a valid point, the tibetans remaining with the …  [+] (6 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -2
User avatar #65 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
And many Chinese asked the government to leave the Tibetans alone, so they're in the same boat, aren't they? People can change and join different things, and many have. The Dalai Lama is, by majority, considered the rightful leader and ruler of Tibet.

Well no it wouldn't. That would be like saying that many people like escargot and so they have it on the average menu at a cafe, which would be sensible, actually.

Yes I did. No it wouldn't. By the very nature of what it is, to be involved in politics and rulership is to have a political ideology. Whether this is entwined within religion or not is completely irrelevant. You cannot get into politics without having a political ideology regardless of your religious affiliation, and you cannot get into religion without having a religious ideology, regardless of your political affiliation. They can exist perfectly independently of eachother.

Yes it is. It's also easy to escape accountability by saying "I'm just following orders". As stated before, evil men will be evil and good men will be good, regardless of what sect they are affiliated with or why.

Is that so? All, roughly, 27,000 religions that have existed since the birth of civilization? Not to mention unrecorded or unheard of ones. All of them are made specifically to subject people? (Which of course is different from the majority subjecting people, in your view, I suppose)
User avatar #67 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
so you are happy now with the world?
it can't get better?
there is a minimum of evil?
religion isn't harming anyone?
the removal of oppression of any sort isn't worth it?
fundamentals in positions of power aren't a threat to the human race as a whole?
someone who believes the world will end for their god's glory with a finger on the launch button is the most terrifying thing in the world. Scarier than hell, scarier than the prospect of being alone in the universe, scarier than the possibility that we are evil by nature. the fact that most christians believe the armageddon and return of christ will ahppen in their lifetime and wish to be one of god's vessels deeply increases the probability that one man will be in a position to initiate Mutually Assured Destruction. Show me the world is fine with religion and I'll tip my hat but if you can show even the slightest amount of evidence that religion and theism of any sort is harmful, then is it not our job as good men to expose that and to free people from that oppression?

If communism is oppressive and is to be destroyed, then what makes religious oppression any different?

I stand by my statement. religion should be removed from human society, the dalai lama teaches a religionthat uses self immolation and separatism as forms of peaceful protest and that is the peaceful religion. How do these beliefs help his people? they don't. if any oppression can be removed should it not be removed?

I am aware that there will alwaays be retarded belief in the supernatural, but must it always become religion, or can it remain as an opinion formed by someone who has yet to discover an answer?

when we rely on religion for the answer, we stop lookiing for the real answers and this is oppressive, too.

So I reitterate, is it not our job as god men to stand up for what we know to be right?

The greatest evil is not committed by the actions of evil men, but by the inaction of good men. It is not enough to no do evil, we should do good.
User avatar #75 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
I never said Communism was oppressive. No political ideology inherently is. I was just making a point that Atheists are just as capable of evil as religious people, and since you would have pulled the "But religious people do it more" card, I wanted to pull the "but historically, Atheists have done it at a great magnitude".

He doesn't teach that, actually. Self-immolation was not his idea.

Religions do not help people? Are you not aware that Catholicism alone is one of if not thee biggest contributor to charity in all of history?

So it's only stupid when it has to do with religion, but not on its own? See, this is the problem with you, is that you are absolutely, 100% convinced that ANYTHING that has to do with religion is fundamentally BAD, and that NOTHING good can come of it. Even if the exact same beliefs were held outside of the spectrum of 'religion', you'd be fine with it, but it's the title that gets you. That's why people dislike you and insult you, you know, it's not because "Oh I'm right and they're just mindless sheep", it's because you are deluding yourself and everyone else can see it.

Well, what I believe is right has a lot to do with personal freedom. "True democracy", as you put it. Yet apparently, what you believe to be right is limiting opportunities that you personally find harmful. Earlier you said that you would not make everyone eat escargot because you alone thought it was inherently delicious, but right now you are literally preaching to ban all religons everywhere because you alone believe they are inherently evil. Can't you see your own hypocrisy? Can't you see your own delusion? Do you even know what you say?

You preach of doing good and having the best intentions for man, but you literally sound like a dictator when you preach of stripping personal freedom and opportunity because "I know what's best more than you". If a religious person ever said that to you, you would nearly murder with rage.
User avatar #78 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
to be honest if the world were at pace with religion, i would be perfectly happy, but it isn't. the reason being that religion is broken. holy books are rewritten by politicians as a means to an end and no one lives by any religion's moral code, but love to throw its laws around when it fits their small world view. as i stated before i would be fine if christians actually cared about what christ said, or if buddhists lived peaceably with others, offering aid when needed, not forsaking their own life or that of his neighbor as the great Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) asked them to do. jesus said love, but christians hate. Buddha said be polite and obey, buddhists maim themselves in revolt.
Religion is broken and is hurting people. if it wasn't broken, i would be happy. what do you do with the broken toy? you fix it, or throw it away.

i believe that people can believe what they like, but they cannot use it to harm others. laws should protect the populace, not reinforce belief. You believe in God? fine. you think Gays should be exiled or even killed? i think it's time to retire, Sen. Cruz. I'm not sying that belief is to be forbidden. belief is not religion. religion is a repetition of any activity such as prayer or discipline. but once again, it is broken. t has become the repetition of propaganda and hate-speech, and terror. When a killer continues to kill, you put him away. many things have great potential as other things, but are used wrongly.
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
Everything can always get better, but the way of being better is not to limit opportunities. It is neither positive nor negative to be religious or non-religious, but it IS negative to ban religion as it is to force it. You're trying to hard to make it seem like the "Cause-all, end-all" of problems, yet even in areas where it was or is banned, evil still sprouted and wars still raged as they did everywhere else, you're just either too blind or arrogant to see it, and so are absolutely convinced that YOUR way is the way to absolute peace despite the fact it has been tried, many times before, and failed because it is not.

Well no, considering that christians do not run the world, and christianity as a whole is only 1/3 of the most powerful religions right now, and even then that doesn't include every other religion, or Atheism, or even places that really aren't fundamentally religious. Honestly, you're turning into a paranoid loony because you're both so terrified of religion and convinced that it's so awful, and nobody could ever tell you otherwise no matter what. I look at you the exact same way that I do to feminists who claim all men are inherently evil and oppressors, and everyone else should look at you that way too: An insensible person who will never listen to anything outside of his own argument.

It IS fine with religion, and just by living in peace you are able to see that, but you refuse to accept it and will refuse to accept it even if true peace was achieved. I get a feeling that you would rather have total war with Atheists than world peace if literally every person was religious.

No, because many religions do as much harm as they do good. It is not like a gun where it only has one function, it has many functions and can be used in many different ways. What you're suggesting is like banning a swiss-army knife with many different tools because ONE side of it might be used to hurt.
#83 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
too much text, needed some pics
#60 - first, the crusades and holocaust kinda beat out communism. …  [+] (3 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it 0
#97 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Actually they don't. Records of the crusades are very shoddy and corrupted by now (which is only to be expected, of course. Everyone was bias and nobody was a scholar), but the general agreed amount of death is 1-2 million people. That doesn't sound like much now, but it really was a lot for its time

The Holocaust has a death total of a generally agreed 11 million (not including the the war itself as it involved many different faiths and ideologies. Some of which were Atheist). I'll be liberal here and give you a grand total of 13 million dead.

Now, Mao Zedong was just ONE communist leader, and while he is considered one of the worst tyrants in history, he is still one man and had a grand total of 49-78,000,000 deaths alone. Even if we completely cut out things caused by him indirectly and even missing/captured people, we would still have 40-50 million deaths. Nearly 4x more than both the Holocaust and the Crusades. And may I remind you, that is just ONE communist regime, out of the many there have been.

You do realize that not every religion is like the Monotheistic ones we have today, right? Have you even studied religion before you decided you hated it? Have you even looked throughout history at it, and it's many wonderful achievements of propelling mankind (including in Mesopotamia, where it was religion that urged the building and innovation of technology, medicine, and engineering, which was the pillar of which civilizations after it were built)?
User avatar #64 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
during the crusades, the church actively suppressed scientific advancement in health and sanitation thereby leading to the spread of the bubonic plague as well as deaths caused by simple, preventable illnesses. also, while the catholic church records are incomplete, the hindus, who also inhabitted the area, kept records also. so did the muslims and hebrews. there are more ways to kill than in combat. by suppressing the knowledge of the people, the murdered countless millions. in fact, doctors didn't know to wash their hands until 1847. how many do you think died from surgical infection before then?

In order to preserve life, scientific advances in medicine, sanitation and agriculture are necessary. Religions around the world have all suppressed this knowlege. can you count those deaths? no one can, there are simply too many to count.

Also, Mao Zedong betrayed his own country and laws. again it is a lack of accountability under a false ideology.
#56 - no, because that is the christian way. if people wish to belie…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/10/2014 on you know it -2
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
That doesn't sound like democracy to me at all.

That's true, but by a certain stretch of logic, he could supply those needs BY the medium of medicine, sanitation, ect.

It's not unacceptable, it is perfectly reasonable (you can also just say "Cow shit". Really. "Bovine excrement" is neither funny nor does it make you sound smart). But does that mean that everything provided BY religion or religious people is also off limits to Atheists?
#55 - so you refuse to read any other source but from him? that's li…  [+] (11 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -2
#82 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #86 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
if you have a valid, relevant point, make it. if not, butt the fuck out.
#88 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
Tibetans are from tibet
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
No, I refuse to read any source that does not have a reference, and so far you have given none. Did you even read those articles? Or did you just google "Why the Dalai Lama is evil" and copy and paste?

Didn't you just say you were a believer of true democracy? If a majority of a portion of a country wants a different religion, ideology, or leader, isn't it your opinion that they should get it?

Actually the topic of the debate, as it started, was that the Dalai Lama was a tyrant, and I am proving he is not.

If you'd like to change topics though, we certainly can once you concede that you have no basis for this one.
User avatar #61 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
while you make a valid point, the tibetans remaining with the lama class priest were far from the majority and many tibetans left that system and embraced communism, even under a dictator. and no, i dont believe that if a majority wants a religion that it should be allowed, because that is essentially like saying that since i like escargot, i think everyone does. you yourself stated that religion i different from politics. All I am saying is the only true separation of the two wold be the nonexistence of religion. and to be honest i would even be happy to see it made law that a mameber of a religious organization (which serves a monarchy as previously stated) cannot rule in a democracy and that other religious people should be held accountable by laws of the land and of their faith. if christians gave half a fuck about what christ actually said, it would be different, but they don't. the issue is accountability and it's easy to escape responsibility by saying, "God said."

religion is just a way to keep people controlled and ignorant while avoid responsibility for your actions.
User avatar #65 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
And many Chinese asked the government to leave the Tibetans alone, so they're in the same boat, aren't they? People can change and join different things, and many have. The Dalai Lama is, by majority, considered the rightful leader and ruler of Tibet.

Well no it wouldn't. That would be like saying that many people like escargot and so they have it on the average menu at a cafe, which would be sensible, actually.

Yes I did. No it wouldn't. By the very nature of what it is, to be involved in politics and rulership is to have a political ideology. Whether this is entwined within religion or not is completely irrelevant. You cannot get into politics without having a political ideology regardless of your religious affiliation, and you cannot get into religion without having a religious ideology, regardless of your political affiliation. They can exist perfectly independently of eachother.

Yes it is. It's also easy to escape accountability by saying "I'm just following orders". As stated before, evil men will be evil and good men will be good, regardless of what sect they are affiliated with or why.

Is that so? All, roughly, 27,000 religions that have existed since the birth of civilization? Not to mention unrecorded or unheard of ones. All of them are made specifically to subject people? (Which of course is different from the majority subjecting people, in your view, I suppose)
User avatar #67 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
so you are happy now with the world?
it can't get better?
there is a minimum of evil?
religion isn't harming anyone?
the removal of oppression of any sort isn't worth it?
fundamentals in positions of power aren't a threat to the human race as a whole?
someone who believes the world will end for their god's glory with a finger on the launch button is the most terrifying thing in the world. Scarier than hell, scarier than the prospect of being alone in the universe, scarier than the possibility that we are evil by nature. the fact that most christians believe the armageddon and return of christ will ahppen in their lifetime and wish to be one of god's vessels deeply increases the probability that one man will be in a position to initiate Mutually Assured Destruction. Show me the world is fine with religion and I'll tip my hat but if you can show even the slightest amount of evidence that religion and theism of any sort is harmful, then is it not our job as good men to expose that and to free people from that oppression?

If communism is oppressive and is to be destroyed, then what makes religious oppression any different?

I stand by my statement. religion should be removed from human society, the dalai lama teaches a religionthat uses self immolation and separatism as forms of peaceful protest and that is the peaceful religion. How do these beliefs help his people? they don't. if any oppression can be removed should it not be removed?

I am aware that there will alwaays be retarded belief in the supernatural, but must it always become religion, or can it remain as an opinion formed by someone who has yet to discover an answer?

when we rely on religion for the answer, we stop lookiing for the real answers and this is oppressive, too.

So I reitterate, is it not our job as god men to stand up for what we know to be right?

The greatest evil is not committed by the actions of evil men, but by the inaction of good men. It is not enough to no do evil, we should do good.
User avatar #75 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
I never said Communism was oppressive. No political ideology inherently is. I was just making a point that Atheists are just as capable of evil as religious people, and since you would have pulled the "But religious people do it more" card, I wanted to pull the "but historically, Atheists have done it at a great magnitude".

He doesn't teach that, actually. Self-immolation was not his idea.

Religions do not help people? Are you not aware that Catholicism alone is one of if not thee biggest contributor to charity in all of history?

So it's only stupid when it has to do with religion, but not on its own? See, this is the problem with you, is that you are absolutely, 100% convinced that ANYTHING that has to do with religion is fundamentally BAD, and that NOTHING good can come of it. Even if the exact same beliefs were held outside of the spectrum of 'religion', you'd be fine with it, but it's the title that gets you. That's why people dislike you and insult you, you know, it's not because "Oh I'm right and they're just mindless sheep", it's because you are deluding yourself and everyone else can see it.

Well, what I believe is right has a lot to do with personal freedom. "True democracy", as you put it. Yet apparently, what you believe to be right is limiting opportunities that you personally find harmful. Earlier you said that you would not make everyone eat escargot because you alone thought it was inherently delicious, but right now you are literally preaching to ban all religons everywhere because you alone believe they are inherently evil. Can't you see your own hypocrisy? Can't you see your own delusion? Do you even know what you say?

You preach of doing good and having the best intentions for man, but you literally sound like a dictator when you preach of stripping personal freedom and opportunity because "I know what's best more than you". If a religious person ever said that to you, you would nearly murder with rage.
User avatar #78 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
to be honest if the world were at pace with religion, i would be perfectly happy, but it isn't. the reason being that religion is broken. holy books are rewritten by politicians as a means to an end and no one lives by any religion's moral code, but love to throw its laws around when it fits their small world view. as i stated before i would be fine if christians actually cared about what christ said, or if buddhists lived peaceably with others, offering aid when needed, not forsaking their own life or that of his neighbor as the great Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) asked them to do. jesus said love, but christians hate. Buddha said be polite and obey, buddhists maim themselves in revolt.
Religion is broken and is hurting people. if it wasn't broken, i would be happy. what do you do with the broken toy? you fix it, or throw it away.

i believe that people can believe what they like, but they cannot use it to harm others. laws should protect the populace, not reinforce belief. You believe in God? fine. you think Gays should be exiled or even killed? i think it's time to retire, Sen. Cruz. I'm not sying that belief is to be forbidden. belief is not religion. religion is a repetition of any activity such as prayer or discipline. but once again, it is broken. t has become the repetition of propaganda and hate-speech, and terror. When a killer continues to kill, you put him away. many things have great potential as other things, but are used wrongly.
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
Everything can always get better, but the way of being better is not to limit opportunities. It is neither positive nor negative to be religious or non-religious, but it IS negative to ban religion as it is to force it. You're trying to hard to make it seem like the "Cause-all, end-all" of problems, yet even in areas where it was or is banned, evil still sprouted and wars still raged as they did everywhere else, you're just either too blind or arrogant to see it, and so are absolutely convinced that YOUR way is the way to absolute peace despite the fact it has been tried, many times before, and failed because it is not.

Well no, considering that christians do not run the world, and christianity as a whole is only 1/3 of the most powerful religions right now, and even then that doesn't include every other religion, or Atheism, or even places that really aren't fundamentally religious. Honestly, you're turning into a paranoid loony because you're both so terrified of religion and convinced that it's so awful, and nobody could ever tell you otherwise no matter what. I look at you the exact same way that I do to feminists who claim all men are inherently evil and oppressors, and everyone else should look at you that way too: An insensible person who will never listen to anything outside of his own argument.

It IS fine with religion, and just by living in peace you are able to see that, but you refuse to accept it and will refuse to accept it even if true peace was achieved. I get a feeling that you would rather have total war with Atheists than world peace if literally every person was religious.

No, because many religions do as much harm as they do good. It is not like a gun where it only has one function, it has many functions and can be used in many different ways. What you're suggesting is like banning a swiss-army knife with many different tools because ONE side of it might be used to hurt.
#83 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
too much text, needed some pics
#49 - also, im not an anarchist, i beleive in true democracy. but yo…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -1
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
I'm not actually a christian, which is also why I don't care about you calling the holy books/sacred texts bullshit in lower comments either. In those comments, I was just trying to point out that it was stupid of YOU to trust information without sources and references, and not only stupid, but hypocritical.

Do you honestly believe that without religion, people would be nicer? Again, Communism as a political ideology has murdered more people than any one religion or religious war, and that's specifically anti-religion. Religion is a tool, it's a medium for a point, the exact same way you'd put a hammer to a nail instead of your fist. If an evil man is truly evil, he will be so regardless of religious beliefs and even twist the beliefs to justify their crimes. And likewise, if a good man is truly good, he will be good regardless of religious beliefs. Any single ideal only serves to express the person you are, and while certain ideals attract certain people, it means different things to all of them.

I actually don't despise anything. Just as well, you don't want to get on with life because you're not minding yourself, you make judgements and extreme opinions about those around you, and by doing so you are obviously allowing people to return those judgements and opinions. I get the feeling you see yourself as a very righteous, noble, and yet still humble person, and I can't imagine the amount of mental gymnastics you do to do just that.

User avatar #60 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
first, the crusades and holocaust kinda beat out communism.

also, religion is oppression. it binds the mind and works of those who believe it with threat of pain and torture, it has slaughtered countless men, women and children, it has divided families and it has inspired the worst in mankind. it kept the world in chains for 500 years while the high priests were living in palaces. you want to compare totalitarianism to religion, then I will. Gods and kings both demand unwavering, unquestioning loyalty. deviation means death. gods and king both repress education in the hopes of maintaining an ignorant populace, one that doesn't ask questions. Both restrict basic rights and both demand blood sacrifice. so i ask you, is my desire to rid the world of religion any less moral than everyone's desire to rid it of totalitarianism?
#97 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Actually they don't. Records of the crusades are very shoddy and corrupted by now (which is only to be expected, of course. Everyone was bias and nobody was a scholar), but the general agreed amount of death is 1-2 million people. That doesn't sound like much now, but it really was a lot for its time

The Holocaust has a death total of a generally agreed 11 million (not including the the war itself as it involved many different faiths and ideologies. Some of which were Atheist). I'll be liberal here and give you a grand total of 13 million dead.

Now, Mao Zedong was just ONE communist leader, and while he is considered one of the worst tyrants in history, he is still one man and had a grand total of 49-78,000,000 deaths alone. Even if we completely cut out things caused by him indirectly and even missing/captured people, we would still have 40-50 million deaths. Nearly 4x more than both the Holocaust and the Crusades. And may I remind you, that is just ONE communist regime, out of the many there have been.

You do realize that not every religion is like the Monotheistic ones we have today, right? Have you even studied religion before you decided you hated it? Have you even looked throughout history at it, and it's many wonderful achievements of propelling mankind (including in Mesopotamia, where it was religion that urged the building and innovation of technology, medicine, and engineering, which was the pillar of which civilizations after it were built)?
User avatar #64 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
during the crusades, the church actively suppressed scientific advancement in health and sanitation thereby leading to the spread of the bubonic plague as well as deaths caused by simple, preventable illnesses. also, while the catholic church records are incomplete, the hindus, who also inhabitted the area, kept records also. so did the muslims and hebrews. there are more ways to kill than in combat. by suppressing the knowledge of the people, the murdered countless millions. in fact, doctors didn't know to wash their hands until 1847. how many do you think died from surgical infection before then?

In order to preserve life, scientific advances in medicine, sanitation and agriculture are necessary. Religions around the world have all suppressed this knowlege. can you count those deaths? no one can, there are simply too many to count.

Also, Mao Zedong betrayed his own country and laws. again it is a lack of accountability under a false ideology.
#47 - also, i fail to see how faith in religious ******** is …  [+] (2 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -2
#81 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
It's not (although it can be related to political leaders in some cases), which is why I specifically separated the two as different things. Read my comment again.
#46 - read comment 39, ****** . i've given much evidence. and …  [+] (3 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -2
User avatar #52 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
More oppressive than, say, you demanding a ban on all religion? And what if people refuse? Would you kill them, exile them, and them set up as examples of what happens if people don't follow your laws?

I'm just trying to follow your train of logic here.
User avatar #56 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
no, because that is the christian way. if people wish to believe in nonsense, then they will not be allowed to benefit from the works of those who do not.

if god supplies all your needs, then you don't need medicine or sanitation, etc.

it's religious freedom by making you live what you beleive and if this is unnacceptable, then you must agree that those beliefs are absolute bovine excrement.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
That doesn't sound like democracy to me at all.

That's true, but by a certain stretch of logic, he could supply those needs BY the medium of medicine, sanitation, ect.

It's not unacceptable, it is perfectly reasonable (you can also just say "Cow shit". Really. "Bovine excrement" is neither funny nor does it make you sound smart). But does that mean that everything provided BY religion or religious people is also off limits to Atheists?
#54 - if only al-qaida missed targets like you miss points. 04/10/2014 on This is the End +1
#43 - so one oppressor is greater than another? only religi…  [+] (14 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it 0
User avatar #44 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
He's not an oppressor though. Again, you have given NO evidence that the Dalai Lama is a tyrant beyond your own opinions and unsourced materials.

Really? Despite the fact that a Communist Russia sent hundreds of thousands to their death? Buddhists are non-violent, nor do they believe in a final death, that's HOW they protest, to show devotion to their faith and belief as you would fight in the army for your country or government. The fact you do not understand this just shows how narrow a view you have. In all serious, Communism as a political ideology has sent more people to their deaths than religion has.

How in any way is that a 'false ideology'? It's not a religious belief, it's a subjective political standpoint. Well it is different, because, again, it's based on politics rather than religion, which are very different things.

I can't imagine what world you must live in, where anything that promotes any type of control is inherently wrong. So what, you are an Atheist Anarchist who lives in the woods and happens to gain and internet connection through a make-shift computer?
User avatar #49 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, im not an anarchist, i beleive in true democracy. but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? no. you wouldn't because you follow the order to worship a ronz age genocidal, baby-killing king.

Religion is the cause for 90 percent of war, famine, brutality, scientific repression, human rights suppression and death. I'll concede that there will always be bad men, but at least there won't be a society built around the spread of stupidity and terrorism.

Who is the true anarchist here? the man who still believes in a God that despises his own creation, or the man who simply wants us to get on with life in the smoothest manner possible.
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
I'm not actually a christian, which is also why I don't care about you calling the holy books/sacred texts bullshit in lower comments either. In those comments, I was just trying to point out that it was stupid of YOU to trust information without sources and references, and not only stupid, but hypocritical.

Do you honestly believe that without religion, people would be nicer? Again, Communism as a political ideology has murdered more people than any one religion or religious war, and that's specifically anti-religion. Religion is a tool, it's a medium for a point, the exact same way you'd put a hammer to a nail instead of your fist. If an evil man is truly evil, he will be so regardless of religious beliefs and even twist the beliefs to justify their crimes. And likewise, if a good man is truly good, he will be good regardless of religious beliefs. Any single ideal only serves to express the person you are, and while certain ideals attract certain people, it means different things to all of them.

I actually don't despise anything. Just as well, you don't want to get on with life because you're not minding yourself, you make judgements and extreme opinions about those around you, and by doing so you are obviously allowing people to return those judgements and opinions. I get the feeling you see yourself as a very righteous, noble, and yet still humble person, and I can't imagine the amount of mental gymnastics you do to do just that.

User avatar #60 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
first, the crusades and holocaust kinda beat out communism.

also, religion is oppression. it binds the mind and works of those who believe it with threat of pain and torture, it has slaughtered countless men, women and children, it has divided families and it has inspired the worst in mankind. it kept the world in chains for 500 years while the high priests were living in palaces. you want to compare totalitarianism to religion, then I will. Gods and kings both demand unwavering, unquestioning loyalty. deviation means death. gods and king both repress education in the hopes of maintaining an ignorant populace, one that doesn't ask questions. Both restrict basic rights and both demand blood sacrifice. so i ask you, is my desire to rid the world of religion any less moral than everyone's desire to rid it of totalitarianism?
#97 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Actually they don't. Records of the crusades are very shoddy and corrupted by now (which is only to be expected, of course. Everyone was bias and nobody was a scholar), but the general agreed amount of death is 1-2 million people. That doesn't sound like much now, but it really was a lot for its time

The Holocaust has a death total of a generally agreed 11 million (not including the the war itself as it involved many different faiths and ideologies. Some of which were Atheist). I'll be liberal here and give you a grand total of 13 million dead.

Now, Mao Zedong was just ONE communist leader, and while he is considered one of the worst tyrants in history, he is still one man and had a grand total of 49-78,000,000 deaths alone. Even if we completely cut out things caused by him indirectly and even missing/captured people, we would still have 40-50 million deaths. Nearly 4x more than both the Holocaust and the Crusades. And may I remind you, that is just ONE communist regime, out of the many there have been.

You do realize that not every religion is like the Monotheistic ones we have today, right? Have you even studied religion before you decided you hated it? Have you even looked throughout history at it, and it's many wonderful achievements of propelling mankind (including in Mesopotamia, where it was religion that urged the building and innovation of technology, medicine, and engineering, which was the pillar of which civilizations after it were built)?
User avatar #64 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
during the crusades, the church actively suppressed scientific advancement in health and sanitation thereby leading to the spread of the bubonic plague as well as deaths caused by simple, preventable illnesses. also, while the catholic church records are incomplete, the hindus, who also inhabitted the area, kept records also. so did the muslims and hebrews. there are more ways to kill than in combat. by suppressing the knowledge of the people, the murdered countless millions. in fact, doctors didn't know to wash their hands until 1847. how many do you think died from surgical infection before then?

In order to preserve life, scientific advances in medicine, sanitation and agriculture are necessary. Religions around the world have all suppressed this knowlege. can you count those deaths? no one can, there are simply too many to count.

Also, Mao Zedong betrayed his own country and laws. again it is a lack of accountability under a false ideology.
User avatar #47 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, i fail to see how faith in religious bullshit is a political view.
#81 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
It's not (although it can be related to political leaders in some cases), which is why I specifically separated the two as different things. Read my comment again.
User avatar #46 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
read comment 39, fucker. i've given much evidence. and even if that one man isn't oppressive, religion still is.
User avatar #52 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
More oppressive than, say, you demanding a ban on all religion? And what if people refuse? Would you kill them, exile them, and them set up as examples of what happens if people don't follow your laws?

I'm just trying to follow your train of logic here.
User avatar #56 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
no, because that is the christian way. if people wish to believe in nonsense, then they will not be allowed to benefit from the works of those who do not.

if god supplies all your needs, then you don't need medicine or sanitation, etc.

it's religious freedom by making you live what you beleive and if this is unnacceptable, then you must agree that those beliefs are absolute bovine excrement.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
That doesn't sound like democracy to me at all.

That's true, but by a certain stretch of logic, he could supply those needs BY the medium of medicine, sanitation, ect.

It's not unacceptable, it is perfectly reasonable (you can also just say "Cow shit". Really. "Bovine excrement" is neither funny nor does it make you sound smart). But does that mean that everything provided BY religion or religious people is also off limits to Atheists?
#77 - make it autoplay chassidic music whilst opening 100 copies of … 04/10/2014 on USB Prank +2
#76 - sorry that i confused your homosexual symbol with someone else…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/10/2014 on dumb blond -14
#105 - anonymous (04/11/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolls 6,393**

That's from a show called Panty & Stocking. It just shares a similar colour palette.

Also I can't really make out what you are arguing.
User avatar #106 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
i'm making the point that you feel justified in correcting me on that, but yet i'm seen as the enemy for expressing my opinion.
#40 - and all I'm saying is that I at least brought evidence. Also y…  [+] (16 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it 0
User avatar #41 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
You didn't, though. Everything you've given has either been your own opinion or unsourced articles.

Also, the Dalai Lama didn't demand anything. The monks lit themselves on fire in protest of the Chinese regime, you know, the one that always had more slaves, more people dying, more oppressed classes?
User avatar #43 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so one oppressor is greater than another?

only religion makes people believe that to fight oppression you must die.
that brings me back to my actual point religion is inherently evil and oppressive and should thereby be outlawed.

yeah china is a bunch of dicks, but they still follow a false ideology (i.e. totalitarian communism) but how is that monarchy any different from christianity or islam or even budhism? I put it to you that it is not.

whenever one party is in control of all others, it is evil, be it a man, a priest, or a god.
User avatar #44 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
He's not an oppressor though. Again, you have given NO evidence that the Dalai Lama is a tyrant beyond your own opinions and unsourced materials.

Really? Despite the fact that a Communist Russia sent hundreds of thousands to their death? Buddhists are non-violent, nor do they believe in a final death, that's HOW they protest, to show devotion to their faith and belief as you would fight in the army for your country or government. The fact you do not understand this just shows how narrow a view you have. In all serious, Communism as a political ideology has sent more people to their deaths than religion has.

How in any way is that a 'false ideology'? It's not a religious belief, it's a subjective political standpoint. Well it is different, because, again, it's based on politics rather than religion, which are very different things.

I can't imagine what world you must live in, where anything that promotes any type of control is inherently wrong. So what, you are an Atheist Anarchist who lives in the woods and happens to gain and internet connection through a make-shift computer?
User avatar #49 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, im not an anarchist, i beleive in true democracy. but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? no. you wouldn't because you follow the order to worship a ronz age genocidal, baby-killing king.

Religion is the cause for 90 percent of war, famine, brutality, scientific repression, human rights suppression and death. I'll concede that there will always be bad men, but at least there won't be a society built around the spread of stupidity and terrorism.

Who is the true anarchist here? the man who still believes in a God that despises his own creation, or the man who simply wants us to get on with life in the smoothest manner possible.
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
I'm not actually a christian, which is also why I don't care about you calling the holy books/sacred texts bullshit in lower comments either. In those comments, I was just trying to point out that it was stupid of YOU to trust information without sources and references, and not only stupid, but hypocritical.

Do you honestly believe that without religion, people would be nicer? Again, Communism as a political ideology has murdered more people than any one religion or religious war, and that's specifically anti-religion. Religion is a tool, it's a medium for a point, the exact same way you'd put a hammer to a nail instead of your fist. If an evil man is truly evil, he will be so regardless of religious beliefs and even twist the beliefs to justify their crimes. And likewise, if a good man is truly good, he will be good regardless of religious beliefs. Any single ideal only serves to express the person you are, and while certain ideals attract certain people, it means different things to all of them.

I actually don't despise anything. Just as well, you don't want to get on with life because you're not minding yourself, you make judgements and extreme opinions about those around you, and by doing so you are obviously allowing people to return those judgements and opinions. I get the feeling you see yourself as a very righteous, noble, and yet still humble person, and I can't imagine the amount of mental gymnastics you do to do just that.

User avatar #60 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
first, the crusades and holocaust kinda beat out communism.

also, religion is oppression. it binds the mind and works of those who believe it with threat of pain and torture, it has slaughtered countless men, women and children, it has divided families and it has inspired the worst in mankind. it kept the world in chains for 500 years while the high priests were living in palaces. you want to compare totalitarianism to religion, then I will. Gods and kings both demand unwavering, unquestioning loyalty. deviation means death. gods and king both repress education in the hopes of maintaining an ignorant populace, one that doesn't ask questions. Both restrict basic rights and both demand blood sacrifice. so i ask you, is my desire to rid the world of religion any less moral than everyone's desire to rid it of totalitarianism?
#97 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Actually they don't. Records of the crusades are very shoddy and corrupted by now (which is only to be expected, of course. Everyone was bias and nobody was a scholar), but the general agreed amount of death is 1-2 million people. That doesn't sound like much now, but it really was a lot for its time

The Holocaust has a death total of a generally agreed 11 million (not including the the war itself as it involved many different faiths and ideologies. Some of which were Atheist). I'll be liberal here and give you a grand total of 13 million dead.

Now, Mao Zedong was just ONE communist leader, and while he is considered one of the worst tyrants in history, he is still one man and had a grand total of 49-78,000,000 deaths alone. Even if we completely cut out things caused by him indirectly and even missing/captured people, we would still have 40-50 million deaths. Nearly 4x more than both the Holocaust and the Crusades. And may I remind you, that is just ONE communist regime, out of the many there have been.

You do realize that not every religion is like the Monotheistic ones we have today, right? Have you even studied religion before you decided you hated it? Have you even looked throughout history at it, and it's many wonderful achievements of propelling mankind (including in Mesopotamia, where it was religion that urged the building and innovation of technology, medicine, and engineering, which was the pillar of which civilizations after it were built)?
User avatar #64 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
during the crusades, the church actively suppressed scientific advancement in health and sanitation thereby leading to the spread of the bubonic plague as well as deaths caused by simple, preventable illnesses. also, while the catholic church records are incomplete, the hindus, who also inhabitted the area, kept records also. so did the muslims and hebrews. there are more ways to kill than in combat. by suppressing the knowledge of the people, the murdered countless millions. in fact, doctors didn't know to wash their hands until 1847. how many do you think died from surgical infection before then?

In order to preserve life, scientific advances in medicine, sanitation and agriculture are necessary. Religions around the world have all suppressed this knowlege. can you count those deaths? no one can, there are simply too many to count.

Also, Mao Zedong betrayed his own country and laws. again it is a lack of accountability under a false ideology.
User avatar #47 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, i fail to see how faith in religious bullshit is a political view.
#81 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
It's not (although it can be related to political leaders in some cases), which is why I specifically separated the two as different things. Read my comment again.
User avatar #46 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
read comment 39, fucker. i've given much evidence. and even if that one man isn't oppressive, religion still is.
User avatar #52 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
More oppressive than, say, you demanding a ban on all religion? And what if people refuse? Would you kill them, exile them, and them set up as examples of what happens if people don't follow your laws?

I'm just trying to follow your train of logic here.
User avatar #56 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
no, because that is the christian way. if people wish to believe in nonsense, then they will not be allowed to benefit from the works of those who do not.

if god supplies all your needs, then you don't need medicine or sanitation, etc.

it's religious freedom by making you live what you beleive and if this is unnacceptable, then you must agree that those beliefs are absolute bovine excrement.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
That doesn't sound like democracy to me at all.

That's true, but by a certain stretch of logic, he could supply those needs BY the medium of medicine, sanitation, ect.

It's not unacceptable, it is perfectly reasonable (you can also just say "Cow shit". Really. "Bovine excrement" is neither funny nor does it make you sound smart). But does that mean that everything provided BY religion or religious people is also off limits to Atheists?
#39 - correct, but by your logic, they are not worth reading. so you…  [+] (13 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -2
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Read the first comment of the first source. It explains why it's worthless (if you don't want to: Basically, they are an extremist religious group that the Dalai Lama holds no sway over. Of course he does not approve, but they would not listen to him).

Second source is obviously bias, a Chinese news outlet blaming him for rising violence, rather than, say, themselves pushing a hostile way of life.

Third source is the same as the first.

The fourth claims he is an evil man simply because he does not believe in god.

In the fifth I can't read a single damn thing. A subscription page pops up and I can't close it, and it covers all the text.

And once more, the sixth source fails to provide any type of source of its own. It has absolutely no references to go by, which it should considering such specific information.

I apologize for not seeing this sooner. My internet crapped out and I guess it didn't register as you replying, but it was still a waste of time.
User avatar #55 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so you refuse to read any other source but from him? that's like saying "well, he says he didn't kill her, everyone else saw it, i'm letting him go."

The entire conflict between China and Tibet revolves, still, around differences in religious ideology. The master race wanted to keep land that (even at that time) belonged to the government. it was still dictated by a beleif in a deity. you can argue all you want that you would like to fellate the dalai lama, but you still haven't proven why religion is worth keeping. That is still the topic of debate here. can you name one religion that is innocent or even true?
#82 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #86 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
if you have a valid, relevant point, make it. if not, butt the fuck out.
#88 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
Tibetans are from tibet
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
No, I refuse to read any source that does not have a reference, and so far you have given none. Did you even read those articles? Or did you just google "Why the Dalai Lama is evil" and copy and paste?

Didn't you just say you were a believer of true democracy? If a majority of a portion of a country wants a different religion, ideology, or leader, isn't it your opinion that they should get it?

Actually the topic of the debate, as it started, was that the Dalai Lama was a tyrant, and I am proving he is not.

If you'd like to change topics though, we certainly can once you concede that you have no basis for this one.
User avatar #61 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
while you make a valid point, the tibetans remaining with the lama class priest were far from the majority and many tibetans left that system and embraced communism, even under a dictator. and no, i dont believe that if a majority wants a religion that it should be allowed, because that is essentially like saying that since i like escargot, i think everyone does. you yourself stated that religion i different from politics. All I am saying is the only true separation of the two wold be the nonexistence of religion. and to be honest i would even be happy to see it made law that a mameber of a religious organization (which serves a monarchy as previously stated) cannot rule in a democracy and that other religious people should be held accountable by laws of the land and of their faith. if christians gave half a fuck about what christ actually said, it would be different, but they don't. the issue is accountability and it's easy to escape responsibility by saying, "God said."

religion is just a way to keep people controlled and ignorant while avoid responsibility for your actions.
User avatar #65 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
And many Chinese asked the government to leave the Tibetans alone, so they're in the same boat, aren't they? People can change and join different things, and many have. The Dalai Lama is, by majority, considered the rightful leader and ruler of Tibet.

Well no it wouldn't. That would be like saying that many people like escargot and so they have it on the average menu at a cafe, which would be sensible, actually.

Yes I did. No it wouldn't. By the very nature of what it is, to be involved in politics and rulership is to have a political ideology. Whether this is entwined within religion or not is completely irrelevant. You cannot get into politics without having a political ideology regardless of your religious affiliation, and you cannot get into religion without having a religious ideology, regardless of your political affiliation. They can exist perfectly independently of eachother.

Yes it is. It's also easy to escape accountability by saying "I'm just following orders". As stated before, evil men will be evil and good men will be good, regardless of what sect they are affiliated with or why.

Is that so? All, roughly, 27,000 religions that have existed since the birth of civilization? Not to mention unrecorded or unheard of ones. All of them are made specifically to subject people? (Which of course is different from the majority subjecting people, in your view, I suppose)
User avatar #67 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
so you are happy now with the world?
it can't get better?
there is a minimum of evil?
religion isn't harming anyone?
the removal of oppression of any sort isn't worth it?
fundamentals in positions of power aren't a threat to the human race as a whole?
someone who believes the world will end for their god's glory with a finger on the launch button is the most terrifying thing in the world. Scarier than hell, scarier than the prospect of being alone in the universe, scarier than the possibility that we are evil by nature. the fact that most christians believe the armageddon and return of christ will ahppen in their lifetime and wish to be one of god's vessels deeply increases the probability that one man will be in a position to initiate Mutually Assured Destruction. Show me the world is fine with religion and I'll tip my hat but if you can show even the slightest amount of evidence that religion and theism of any sort is harmful, then is it not our job as good men to expose that and to free people from that oppression?

If communism is oppressive and is to be destroyed, then what makes religious oppression any different?

I stand by my statement. religion should be removed from human society, the dalai lama teaches a religionthat uses self immolation and separatism as forms of peaceful protest and that is the peaceful religion. How do these beliefs help his people? they don't. if any oppression can be removed should it not be removed?

I am aware that there will alwaays be retarded belief in the supernatural, but must it always become religion, or can it remain as an opinion formed by someone who has yet to discover an answer?

when we rely on religion for the answer, we stop lookiing for the real answers and this is oppressive, too.

So I reitterate, is it not our job as god men to stand up for what we know to be right?

The greatest evil is not committed by the actions of evil men, but by the inaction of good men. It is not enough to no do evil, we should do good.
User avatar #75 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
I never said Communism was oppressive. No political ideology inherently is. I was just making a point that Atheists are just as capable of evil as religious people, and since you would have pulled the "But religious people do it more" card, I wanted to pull the "but historically, Atheists have done it at a great magnitude".

He doesn't teach that, actually. Self-immolation was not his idea.

Religions do not help people? Are you not aware that Catholicism alone is one of if not thee biggest contributor to charity in all of history?

So it's only stupid when it has to do with religion, but not on its own? See, this is the problem with you, is that you are absolutely, 100% convinced that ANYTHING that has to do with religion is fundamentally BAD, and that NOTHING good can come of it. Even if the exact same beliefs were held outside of the spectrum of 'religion', you'd be fine with it, but it's the title that gets you. That's why people dislike you and insult you, you know, it's not because "Oh I'm right and they're just mindless sheep", it's because you are deluding yourself and everyone else can see it.

Well, what I believe is right has a lot to do with personal freedom. "True democracy", as you put it. Yet apparently, what you believe to be right is limiting opportunities that you personally find harmful. Earlier you said that you would not make everyone eat escargot because you alone thought it was inherently delicious, but right now you are literally preaching to ban all religons everywhere because you alone believe they are inherently evil. Can't you see your own hypocrisy? Can't you see your own delusion? Do you even know what you say?

You preach of doing good and having the best intentions for man, but you literally sound like a dictator when you preach of stripping personal freedom and opportunity because "I know what's best more than you". If a religious person ever said that to you, you would nearly murder with rage.
User avatar #78 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
to be honest if the world were at pace with religion, i would be perfectly happy, but it isn't. the reason being that religion is broken. holy books are rewritten by politicians as a means to an end and no one lives by any religion's moral code, but love to throw its laws around when it fits their small world view. as i stated before i would be fine if christians actually cared about what christ said, or if buddhists lived peaceably with others, offering aid when needed, not forsaking their own life or that of his neighbor as the great Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) asked them to do. jesus said love, but christians hate. Buddha said be polite and obey, buddhists maim themselves in revolt.
Religion is broken and is hurting people. if it wasn't broken, i would be happy. what do you do with the broken toy? you fix it, or throw it away.

i believe that people can believe what they like, but they cannot use it to harm others. laws should protect the populace, not reinforce belief. You believe in God? fine. you think Gays should be exiled or even killed? i think it's time to retire, Sen. Cruz. I'm not sying that belief is to be forbidden. belief is not religion. religion is a repetition of any activity such as prayer or discipline. but once again, it is broken. t has become the repetition of propaganda and hate-speech, and terror. When a killer continues to kill, you put him away. many things have great potential as other things, but are used wrongly.
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
Everything can always get better, but the way of being better is not to limit opportunities. It is neither positive nor negative to be religious or non-religious, but it IS negative to ban religion as it is to force it. You're trying to hard to make it seem like the "Cause-all, end-all" of problems, yet even in areas where it was or is banned, evil still sprouted and wars still raged as they did everywhere else, you're just either too blind or arrogant to see it, and so are absolutely convinced that YOUR way is the way to absolute peace despite the fact it has been tried, many times before, and failed because it is not.

Well no, considering that christians do not run the world, and christianity as a whole is only 1/3 of the most powerful religions right now, and even then that doesn't include every other religion, or Atheism, or even places that really aren't fundamentally religious. Honestly, you're turning into a paranoid loony because you're both so terrified of religion and convinced that it's so awful, and nobody could ever tell you otherwise no matter what. I look at you the exact same way that I do to feminists who claim all men are inherently evil and oppressors, and everyone else should look at you that way too: An insensible person who will never listen to anything outside of his own argument.

It IS fine with religion, and just by living in peace you are able to see that, but you refuse to accept it and will refuse to accept it even if true peace was achieved. I get a feeling that you would rather have total war with Atheists than world peace if literally every person was religious.

No, because many religions do as much harm as they do good. It is not like a gun where it only has one function, it has many functions and can be used in many different ways. What you're suggesting is like banning a swiss-army knife with many different tools because ONE side of it might be used to hurt.
#83 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
too much text, needed some pics
#38 - Comment deleted 04/10/2014 on you know it 0
#37 - Comment deleted 04/10/2014 on you know it 0
#35 - that man you see there is Tenzin Gyatso, the current dalai lam…  [+] (18 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it 0
User avatar #36 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Considering I can't enlarge the picture, I don't have context, don't have any form of reference, and (excuse me for the racist remark) he doesn't really look much different in terms of features to those bodies, all I have to confirm that he is the current Dalai Lama is your own word, and you've already proven you're bias.
User avatar #40 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
and all I'm saying is that I at least brought evidence. Also you should look at his demands for self-immolation of his followers in 2008. he demanded his people set fire to themselves in protest.
User avatar #41 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
You didn't, though. Everything you've given has either been your own opinion or unsourced articles.

Also, the Dalai Lama didn't demand anything. The monks lit themselves on fire in protest of the Chinese regime, you know, the one that always had more slaves, more people dying, more oppressed classes?
User avatar #43 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so one oppressor is greater than another?

only religion makes people believe that to fight oppression you must die.
that brings me back to my actual point religion is inherently evil and oppressive and should thereby be outlawed.

yeah china is a bunch of dicks, but they still follow a false ideology (i.e. totalitarian communism) but how is that monarchy any different from christianity or islam or even budhism? I put it to you that it is not.

whenever one party is in control of all others, it is evil, be it a man, a priest, or a god.
User avatar #44 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
He's not an oppressor though. Again, you have given NO evidence that the Dalai Lama is a tyrant beyond your own opinions and unsourced materials.

Really? Despite the fact that a Communist Russia sent hundreds of thousands to their death? Buddhists are non-violent, nor do they believe in a final death, that's HOW they protest, to show devotion to their faith and belief as you would fight in the army for your country or government. The fact you do not understand this just shows how narrow a view you have. In all serious, Communism as a political ideology has sent more people to their deaths than religion has.

How in any way is that a 'false ideology'? It's not a religious belief, it's a subjective political standpoint. Well it is different, because, again, it's based on politics rather than religion, which are very different things.

I can't imagine what world you must live in, where anything that promotes any type of control is inherently wrong. So what, you are an Atheist Anarchist who lives in the woods and happens to gain and internet connection through a make-shift computer?
User avatar #49 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, im not an anarchist, i beleive in true democracy. but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? no. you wouldn't because you follow the order to worship a ronz age genocidal, baby-killing king.

Religion is the cause for 90 percent of war, famine, brutality, scientific repression, human rights suppression and death. I'll concede that there will always be bad men, but at least there won't be a society built around the spread of stupidity and terrorism.

Who is the true anarchist here? the man who still believes in a God that despises his own creation, or the man who simply wants us to get on with life in the smoothest manner possible.
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
I'm not actually a christian, which is also why I don't care about you calling the holy books/sacred texts bullshit in lower comments either. In those comments, I was just trying to point out that it was stupid of YOU to trust information without sources and references, and not only stupid, but hypocritical.

Do you honestly believe that without religion, people would be nicer? Again, Communism as a political ideology has murdered more people than any one religion or religious war, and that's specifically anti-religion. Religion is a tool, it's a medium for a point, the exact same way you'd put a hammer to a nail instead of your fist. If an evil man is truly evil, he will be so regardless of religious beliefs and even twist the beliefs to justify their crimes. And likewise, if a good man is truly good, he will be good regardless of religious beliefs. Any single ideal only serves to express the person you are, and while certain ideals attract certain people, it means different things to all of them.

I actually don't despise anything. Just as well, you don't want to get on with life because you're not minding yourself, you make judgements and extreme opinions about those around you, and by doing so you are obviously allowing people to return those judgements and opinions. I get the feeling you see yourself as a very righteous, noble, and yet still humble person, and I can't imagine the amount of mental gymnastics you do to do just that.

User avatar #60 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
first, the crusades and holocaust kinda beat out communism.

also, religion is oppression. it binds the mind and works of those who believe it with threat of pain and torture, it has slaughtered countless men, women and children, it has divided families and it has inspired the worst in mankind. it kept the world in chains for 500 years while the high priests were living in palaces. you want to compare totalitarianism to religion, then I will. Gods and kings both demand unwavering, unquestioning loyalty. deviation means death. gods and king both repress education in the hopes of maintaining an ignorant populace, one that doesn't ask questions. Both restrict basic rights and both demand blood sacrifice. so i ask you, is my desire to rid the world of religion any less moral than everyone's desire to rid it of totalitarianism?
#97 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Actually they don't. Records of the crusades are very shoddy and corrupted by now (which is only to be expected, of course. Everyone was bias and nobody was a scholar), but the general agreed amount of death is 1-2 million people. That doesn't sound like much now, but it really was a lot for its time

The Holocaust has a death total of a generally agreed 11 million (not including the the war itself as it involved many different faiths and ideologies. Some of which were Atheist). I'll be liberal here and give you a grand total of 13 million dead.

Now, Mao Zedong was just ONE communist leader, and while he is considered one of the worst tyrants in history, he is still one man and had a grand total of 49-78,000,000 deaths alone. Even if we completely cut out things caused by him indirectly and even missing/captured people, we would still have 40-50 million deaths. Nearly 4x more than both the Holocaust and the Crusades. And may I remind you, that is just ONE communist regime, out of the many there have been.

You do realize that not every religion is like the Monotheistic ones we have today, right? Have you even studied religion before you decided you hated it? Have you even looked throughout history at it, and it's many wonderful achievements of propelling mankind (including in Mesopotamia, where it was religion that urged the building and innovation of technology, medicine, and engineering, which was the pillar of which civilizations after it were built)?
User avatar #64 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
during the crusades, the church actively suppressed scientific advancement in health and sanitation thereby leading to the spread of the bubonic plague as well as deaths caused by simple, preventable illnesses. also, while the catholic church records are incomplete, the hindus, who also inhabitted the area, kept records also. so did the muslims and hebrews. there are more ways to kill than in combat. by suppressing the knowledge of the people, the murdered countless millions. in fact, doctors didn't know to wash their hands until 1847. how many do you think died from surgical infection before then?

In order to preserve life, scientific advances in medicine, sanitation and agriculture are necessary. Religions around the world have all suppressed this knowlege. can you count those deaths? no one can, there are simply too many to count.

Also, Mao Zedong betrayed his own country and laws. again it is a lack of accountability under a false ideology.
User avatar #47 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, i fail to see how faith in religious bullshit is a political view.
#81 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
It's not (although it can be related to political leaders in some cases), which is why I specifically separated the two as different things. Read my comment again.
User avatar #46 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
read comment 39, fucker. i've given much evidence. and even if that one man isn't oppressive, religion still is.
User avatar #52 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
More oppressive than, say, you demanding a ban on all religion? And what if people refuse? Would you kill them, exile them, and them set up as examples of what happens if people don't follow your laws?

I'm just trying to follow your train of logic here.
User avatar #56 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
no, because that is the christian way. if people wish to believe in nonsense, then they will not be allowed to benefit from the works of those who do not.

if god supplies all your needs, then you don't need medicine or sanitation, etc.

it's religious freedom by making you live what you beleive and if this is unnacceptable, then you must agree that those beliefs are absolute bovine excrement.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
That doesn't sound like democracy to me at all.

That's true, but by a certain stretch of logic, he could supply those needs BY the medium of medicine, sanitation, ect.

It's not unacceptable, it is perfectly reasonable (you can also just say "Cow shit". Really. "Bovine excrement" is neither funny nor does it make you sound smart). But does that mean that everything provided BY religion or religious people is also off limits to Atheists?
#32 - so because an article cites no sources you don't believe it. …  [+] (17 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -2
User avatar #33 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Well yes, there are many books that make claims without sources

Such as the bible, koran, talmud, dhammapada...

But of course, just because they have no sources or references doesn't mean they're not true, right?
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Read the first comment of the first source. It explains why it's worthless (if you don't want to: Basically, they are an extremist religious group that the Dalai Lama holds no sway over. Of course he does not approve, but they would not listen to him).

Second source is obviously bias, a Chinese news outlet blaming him for rising violence, rather than, say, themselves pushing a hostile way of life.

Third source is the same as the first.

The fourth claims he is an evil man simply because he does not believe in god.

In the fifth I can't read a single damn thing. A subscription page pops up and I can't close it, and it covers all the text.

And once more, the sixth source fails to provide any type of source of its own. It has absolutely no references to go by, which it should considering such specific information.

I apologize for not seeing this sooner. My internet crapped out and I guess it didn't register as you replying, but it was still a waste of time.
User avatar #55 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so you refuse to read any other source but from him? that's like saying "well, he says he didn't kill her, everyone else saw it, i'm letting him go."

The entire conflict between China and Tibet revolves, still, around differences in religious ideology. The master race wanted to keep land that (even at that time) belonged to the government. it was still dictated by a beleif in a deity. you can argue all you want that you would like to fellate the dalai lama, but you still haven't proven why religion is worth keeping. That is still the topic of debate here. can you name one religion that is innocent or even true?
#82 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #86 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
if you have a valid, relevant point, make it. if not, butt the fuck out.
#88 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
Tibetans are from tibet
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
No, I refuse to read any source that does not have a reference, and so far you have given none. Did you even read those articles? Or did you just google "Why the Dalai Lama is evil" and copy and paste?

Didn't you just say you were a believer of true democracy? If a majority of a portion of a country wants a different religion, ideology, or leader, isn't it your opinion that they should get it?

Actually the topic of the debate, as it started, was that the Dalai Lama was a tyrant, and I am proving he is not.

If you'd like to change topics though, we certainly can once you concede that you have no basis for this one.
User avatar #61 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
while you make a valid point, the tibetans remaining with the lama class priest were far from the majority and many tibetans left that system and embraced communism, even under a dictator. and no, i dont believe that if a majority wants a religion that it should be allowed, because that is essentially like saying that since i like escargot, i think everyone does. you yourself stated that religion i different from politics. All I am saying is the only true separation of the two wold be the nonexistence of religion. and to be honest i would even be happy to see it made law that a mameber of a religious organization (which serves a monarchy as previously stated) cannot rule in a democracy and that other religious people should be held accountable by laws of the land and of their faith. if christians gave half a fuck about what christ actually said, it would be different, but they don't. the issue is accountability and it's easy to escape responsibility by saying, "God said."

religion is just a way to keep people controlled and ignorant while avoid responsibility for your actions.
User avatar #65 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
And many Chinese asked the government to leave the Tibetans alone, so they're in the same boat, aren't they? People can change and join different things, and many have. The Dalai Lama is, by majority, considered the rightful leader and ruler of Tibet.

Well no it wouldn't. That would be like saying that many people like escargot and so they have it on the average menu at a cafe, which would be sensible, actually.

Yes I did. No it wouldn't. By the very nature of what it is, to be involved in politics and rulership is to have a political ideology. Whether this is entwined within religion or not is completely irrelevant. You cannot get into politics without having a political ideology regardless of your religious affiliation, and you cannot get into religion without having a religious ideology, regardless of your political affiliation. They can exist perfectly independently of eachother.

Yes it is. It's also easy to escape accountability by saying "I'm just following orders". As stated before, evil men will be evil and good men will be good, regardless of what sect they are affiliated with or why.

Is that so? All, roughly, 27,000 religions that have existed since the birth of civilization? Not to mention unrecorded or unheard of ones. All of them are made specifically to subject people? (Which of course is different from the majority subjecting people, in your view, I suppose)
User avatar #67 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
so you are happy now with the world?
it can't get better?
there is a minimum of evil?
religion isn't harming anyone?
the removal of oppression of any sort isn't worth it?
fundamentals in positions of power aren't a threat to the human race as a whole?
someone who believes the world will end for their god's glory with a finger on the launch button is the most terrifying thing in the world. Scarier than hell, scarier than the prospect of being alone in the universe, scarier than the possibility that we are evil by nature. the fact that most christians believe the armageddon and return of christ will ahppen in their lifetime and wish to be one of god's vessels deeply increases the probability that one man will be in a position to initiate Mutually Assured Destruction. Show me the world is fine with religion and I'll tip my hat but if you can show even the slightest amount of evidence that religion and theism of any sort is harmful, then is it not our job as good men to expose that and to free people from that oppression?

If communism is oppressive and is to be destroyed, then what makes religious oppression any different?

I stand by my statement. religion should be removed from human society, the dalai lama teaches a religionthat uses self immolation and separatism as forms of peaceful protest and that is the peaceful religion. How do these beliefs help his people? they don't. if any oppression can be removed should it not be removed?

I am aware that there will alwaays be retarded belief in the supernatural, but must it always become religion, or can it remain as an opinion formed by someone who has yet to discover an answer?

when we rely on religion for the answer, we stop lookiing for the real answers and this is oppressive, too.

So I reitterate, is it not our job as god men to stand up for what we know to be right?

The greatest evil is not committed by the actions of evil men, but by the inaction of good men. It is not enough to no do evil, we should do good.
User avatar #75 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
I never said Communism was oppressive. No political ideology inherently is. I was just making a point that Atheists are just as capable of evil as religious people, and since you would have pulled the "But religious people do it more" card, I wanted to pull the "but historically, Atheists have done it at a great magnitude".

He doesn't teach that, actually. Self-immolation was not his idea.

Religions do not help people? Are you not aware that Catholicism alone is one of if not thee biggest contributor to charity in all of history?

So it's only stupid when it has to do with religion, but not on its own? See, this is the problem with you, is that you are absolutely, 100% convinced that ANYTHING that has to do with religion is fundamentally BAD, and that NOTHING good can come of it. Even if the exact same beliefs were held outside of the spectrum of 'religion', you'd be fine with it, but it's the title that gets you. That's why people dislike you and insult you, you know, it's not because "Oh I'm right and they're just mindless sheep", it's because you are deluding yourself and everyone else can see it.

Well, what I believe is right has a lot to do with personal freedom. "True democracy", as you put it. Yet apparently, what you believe to be right is limiting opportunities that you personally find harmful. Earlier you said that you would not make everyone eat escargot because you alone thought it was inherently delicious, but right now you are literally preaching to ban all religons everywhere because you alone believe they are inherently evil. Can't you see your own hypocrisy? Can't you see your own delusion? Do you even know what you say?

You preach of doing good and having the best intentions for man, but you literally sound like a dictator when you preach of stripping personal freedom and opportunity because "I know what's best more than you". If a religious person ever said that to you, you would nearly murder with rage.
User avatar #78 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
to be honest if the world were at pace with religion, i would be perfectly happy, but it isn't. the reason being that religion is broken. holy books are rewritten by politicians as a means to an end and no one lives by any religion's moral code, but love to throw its laws around when it fits their small world view. as i stated before i would be fine if christians actually cared about what christ said, or if buddhists lived peaceably with others, offering aid when needed, not forsaking their own life or that of his neighbor as the great Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) asked them to do. jesus said love, but christians hate. Buddha said be polite and obey, buddhists maim themselves in revolt.
Religion is broken and is hurting people. if it wasn't broken, i would be happy. what do you do with the broken toy? you fix it, or throw it away.

i believe that people can believe what they like, but they cannot use it to harm others. laws should protect the populace, not reinforce belief. You believe in God? fine. you think Gays should be exiled or even killed? i think it's time to retire, Sen. Cruz. I'm not sying that belief is to be forbidden. belief is not religion. religion is a repetition of any activity such as prayer or discipline. but once again, it is broken. t has become the repetition of propaganda and hate-speech, and terror. When a killer continues to kill, you put him away. many things have great potential as other things, but are used wrongly.
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
Everything can always get better, but the way of being better is not to limit opportunities. It is neither positive nor negative to be religious or non-religious, but it IS negative to ban religion as it is to force it. You're trying to hard to make it seem like the "Cause-all, end-all" of problems, yet even in areas where it was or is banned, evil still sprouted and wars still raged as they did everywhere else, you're just either too blind or arrogant to see it, and so are absolutely convinced that YOUR way is the way to absolute peace despite the fact it has been tried, many times before, and failed because it is not.

Well no, considering that christians do not run the world, and christianity as a whole is only 1/3 of the most powerful religions right now, and even then that doesn't include every other religion, or Atheism, or even places that really aren't fundamentally religious. Honestly, you're turning into a paranoid loony because you're both so terrified of religion and convinced that it's so awful, and nobody could ever tell you otherwise no matter what. I look at you the exact same way that I do to feminists who claim all men are inherently evil and oppressors, and everyone else should look at you that way too: An insensible person who will never listen to anything outside of his own argument.

It IS fine with religion, and just by living in peace you are able to see that, but you refuse to accept it and will refuse to accept it even if true peace was achieved. I get a feeling that you would rather have total war with Atheists than world peace if literally every person was religious.

No, because many religions do as much harm as they do good. It is not like a gun where it only has one function, it has many functions and can be used in many different ways. What you're suggesting is like banning a swiss-army knife with many different tools because ONE side of it might be used to hurt.
#83 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
too much text, needed some pics
#38 - davidispissed has deleted their comment.
#37 - davidispissed has deleted their comment.
#30 - i also have pictures if you want.  [+] (21 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -1
#96 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #31 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Any context for them?
User avatar #35 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
that man you see there is Tenzin Gyatso, the current dalai lama. Doesn't look too distraught, does he?
User avatar #36 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Considering I can't enlarge the picture, I don't have context, don't have any form of reference, and (excuse me for the racist remark) he doesn't really look much different in terms of features to those bodies, all I have to confirm that he is the current Dalai Lama is your own word, and you've already proven you're bias.
User avatar #40 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
and all I'm saying is that I at least brought evidence. Also you should look at his demands for self-immolation of his followers in 2008. he demanded his people set fire to themselves in protest.
User avatar #41 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
You didn't, though. Everything you've given has either been your own opinion or unsourced articles.

Also, the Dalai Lama didn't demand anything. The monks lit themselves on fire in protest of the Chinese regime, you know, the one that always had more slaves, more people dying, more oppressed classes?
User avatar #43 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so one oppressor is greater than another?

only religion makes people believe that to fight oppression you must die.
that brings me back to my actual point religion is inherently evil and oppressive and should thereby be outlawed.

yeah china is a bunch of dicks, but they still follow a false ideology (i.e. totalitarian communism) but how is that monarchy any different from christianity or islam or even budhism? I put it to you that it is not.

whenever one party is in control of all others, it is evil, be it a man, a priest, or a god.
User avatar #44 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
He's not an oppressor though. Again, you have given NO evidence that the Dalai Lama is a tyrant beyond your own opinions and unsourced materials.

Really? Despite the fact that a Communist Russia sent hundreds of thousands to their death? Buddhists are non-violent, nor do they believe in a final death, that's HOW they protest, to show devotion to their faith and belief as you would fight in the army for your country or government. The fact you do not understand this just shows how narrow a view you have. In all serious, Communism as a political ideology has sent more people to their deaths than religion has.

How in any way is that a 'false ideology'? It's not a religious belief, it's a subjective political standpoint. Well it is different, because, again, it's based on politics rather than religion, which are very different things.

I can't imagine what world you must live in, where anything that promotes any type of control is inherently wrong. So what, you are an Atheist Anarchist who lives in the woods and happens to gain and internet connection through a make-shift computer?
User avatar #49 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, im not an anarchist, i beleive in true democracy. but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? no. you wouldn't because you follow the order to worship a ronz age genocidal, baby-killing king.

Religion is the cause for 90 percent of war, famine, brutality, scientific repression, human rights suppression and death. I'll concede that there will always be bad men, but at least there won't be a society built around the spread of stupidity and terrorism.

Who is the true anarchist here? the man who still believes in a God that despises his own creation, or the man who simply wants us to get on with life in the smoothest manner possible.
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
I'm not actually a christian, which is also why I don't care about you calling the holy books/sacred texts bullshit in lower comments either. In those comments, I was just trying to point out that it was stupid of YOU to trust information without sources and references, and not only stupid, but hypocritical.

Do you honestly believe that without religion, people would be nicer? Again, Communism as a political ideology has murdered more people than any one religion or religious war, and that's specifically anti-religion. Religion is a tool, it's a medium for a point, the exact same way you'd put a hammer to a nail instead of your fist. If an evil man is truly evil, he will be so regardless of religious beliefs and even twist the beliefs to justify their crimes. And likewise, if a good man is truly good, he will be good regardless of religious beliefs. Any single ideal only serves to express the person you are, and while certain ideals attract certain people, it means different things to all of them.

I actually don't despise anything. Just as well, you don't want to get on with life because you're not minding yourself, you make judgements and extreme opinions about those around you, and by doing so you are obviously allowing people to return those judgements and opinions. I get the feeling you see yourself as a very righteous, noble, and yet still humble person, and I can't imagine the amount of mental gymnastics you do to do just that.

User avatar #60 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
first, the crusades and holocaust kinda beat out communism.

also, religion is oppression. it binds the mind and works of those who believe it with threat of pain and torture, it has slaughtered countless men, women and children, it has divided families and it has inspired the worst in mankind. it kept the world in chains for 500 years while the high priests were living in palaces. you want to compare totalitarianism to religion, then I will. Gods and kings both demand unwavering, unquestioning loyalty. deviation means death. gods and king both repress education in the hopes of maintaining an ignorant populace, one that doesn't ask questions. Both restrict basic rights and both demand blood sacrifice. so i ask you, is my desire to rid the world of religion any less moral than everyone's desire to rid it of totalitarianism?
#97 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Actually they don't. Records of the crusades are very shoddy and corrupted by now (which is only to be expected, of course. Everyone was bias and nobody was a scholar), but the general agreed amount of death is 1-2 million people. That doesn't sound like much now, but it really was a lot for its time

The Holocaust has a death total of a generally agreed 11 million (not including the the war itself as it involved many different faiths and ideologies. Some of which were Atheist). I'll be liberal here and give you a grand total of 13 million dead.

Now, Mao Zedong was just ONE communist leader, and while he is considered one of the worst tyrants in history, he is still one man and had a grand total of 49-78,000,000 deaths alone. Even if we completely cut out things caused by him indirectly and even missing/captured people, we would still have 40-50 million deaths. Nearly 4x more than both the Holocaust and the Crusades. And may I remind you, that is just ONE communist regime, out of the many there have been.

You do realize that not every religion is like the Monotheistic ones we have today, right? Have you even studied religion before you decided you hated it? Have you even looked throughout history at it, and it's many wonderful achievements of propelling mankind (including in Mesopotamia, where it was religion that urged the building and innovation of technology, medicine, and engineering, which was the pillar of which civilizations after it were built)?
User avatar #64 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
during the crusades, the church actively suppressed scientific advancement in health and sanitation thereby leading to the spread of the bubonic plague as well as deaths caused by simple, preventable illnesses. also, while the catholic church records are incomplete, the hindus, who also inhabitted the area, kept records also. so did the muslims and hebrews. there are more ways to kill than in combat. by suppressing the knowledge of the people, the murdered countless millions. in fact, doctors didn't know to wash their hands until 1847. how many do you think died from surgical infection before then?

In order to preserve life, scientific advances in medicine, sanitation and agriculture are necessary. Religions around the world have all suppressed this knowlege. can you count those deaths? no one can, there are simply too many to count.

Also, Mao Zedong betrayed his own country and laws. again it is a lack of accountability under a false ideology.
User avatar #47 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, i fail to see how faith in religious bullshit is a political view.
#81 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
It's not (although it can be related to political leaders in some cases), which is why I specifically separated the two as different things. Read my comment again.
User avatar #46 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
read comment 39, fucker. i've given much evidence. and even if that one man isn't oppressive, religion still is.
User avatar #52 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
More oppressive than, say, you demanding a ban on all religion? And what if people refuse? Would you kill them, exile them, and them set up as examples of what happens if people don't follow your laws?

I'm just trying to follow your train of logic here.
User avatar #56 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
no, because that is the christian way. if people wish to believe in nonsense, then they will not be allowed to benefit from the works of those who do not.

if god supplies all your needs, then you don't need medicine or sanitation, etc.

it's religious freedom by making you live what you beleive and if this is unnacceptable, then you must agree that those beliefs are absolute bovine excrement.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
That doesn't sound like democracy to me at all.

That's true, but by a certain stretch of logic, he could supply those needs BY the medium of medicine, sanitation, ect.

It's not unacceptable, it is perfectly reasonable (you can also just say "Cow shit". Really. "Bovine excrement" is neither funny nor does it make you sound smart). But does that mean that everything provided BY religion or religious people is also off limits to Atheists?
#27 - keep reading the dalai family has a longer …  [+] (19 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -2
User avatar #29 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
I will not. That article contains no sources for its information, and thus is practically worthless unless you were some snobby Atheist who thought he was fundamentally better than any type of religious practice.

Also, even if any of it did happen to be true, there are multiple posts below it refuting it and proving it is the GREATER lesser of far many evils. So either way, you'd still be wrong.
User avatar #32 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so because an article cites no sources you don't believe it.

i know a whole book that cites no sources.
User avatar #33 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Well yes, there are many books that make claims without sources

Such as the bible, koran, talmud, dhammapada...

But of course, just because they have no sources or references doesn't mean they're not true, right?
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Read the first comment of the first source. It explains why it's worthless (if you don't want to: Basically, they are an extremist religious group that the Dalai Lama holds no sway over. Of course he does not approve, but they would not listen to him).

Second source is obviously bias, a Chinese news outlet blaming him for rising violence, rather than, say, themselves pushing a hostile way of life.

Third source is the same as the first.

The fourth claims he is an evil man simply because he does not believe in god.

In the fifth I can't read a single damn thing. A subscription page pops up and I can't close it, and it covers all the text.

And once more, the sixth source fails to provide any type of source of its own. It has absolutely no references to go by, which it should considering such specific information.

I apologize for not seeing this sooner. My internet crapped out and I guess it didn't register as you replying, but it was still a waste of time.
User avatar #55 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so you refuse to read any other source but from him? that's like saying "well, he says he didn't kill her, everyone else saw it, i'm letting him go."

The entire conflict between China and Tibet revolves, still, around differences in religious ideology. The master race wanted to keep land that (even at that time) belonged to the government. it was still dictated by a beleif in a deity. you can argue all you want that you would like to fellate the dalai lama, but you still haven't proven why religion is worth keeping. That is still the topic of debate here. can you name one religion that is innocent or even true?
#82 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #86 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
if you have a valid, relevant point, make it. if not, butt the fuck out.
#88 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
Tibetans are from tibet
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
No, I refuse to read any source that does not have a reference, and so far you have given none. Did you even read those articles? Or did you just google "Why the Dalai Lama is evil" and copy and paste?

Didn't you just say you were a believer of true democracy? If a majority of a portion of a country wants a different religion, ideology, or leader, isn't it your opinion that they should get it?

Actually the topic of the debate, as it started, was that the Dalai Lama was a tyrant, and I am proving he is not.

If you'd like to change topics though, we certainly can once you concede that you have no basis for this one.
User avatar #61 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
while you make a valid point, the tibetans remaining with the lama class priest were far from the majority and many tibetans left that system and embraced communism, even under a dictator. and no, i dont believe that if a majority wants a religion that it should be allowed, because that is essentially like saying that since i like escargot, i think everyone does. you yourself stated that religion i different from politics. All I am saying is the only true separation of the two wold be the nonexistence of religion. and to be honest i would even be happy to see it made law that a mameber of a religious organization (which serves a monarchy as previously stated) cannot rule in a democracy and that other religious people should be held accountable by laws of the land and of their faith. if christians gave half a fuck about what christ actually said, it would be different, but they don't. the issue is accountability and it's easy to escape responsibility by saying, "God said."

religion is just a way to keep people controlled and ignorant while avoid responsibility for your actions.
User avatar #65 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
And many Chinese asked the government to leave the Tibetans alone, so they're in the same boat, aren't they? People can change and join different things, and many have. The Dalai Lama is, by majority, considered the rightful leader and ruler of Tibet.

Well no it wouldn't. That would be like saying that many people like escargot and so they have it on the average menu at a cafe, which would be sensible, actually.

Yes I did. No it wouldn't. By the very nature of what it is, to be involved in politics and rulership is to have a political ideology. Whether this is entwined within religion or not is completely irrelevant. You cannot get into politics without having a political ideology regardless of your religious affiliation, and you cannot get into religion without having a religious ideology, regardless of your political affiliation. They can exist perfectly independently of eachother.

Yes it is. It's also easy to escape accountability by saying "I'm just following orders". As stated before, evil men will be evil and good men will be good, regardless of what sect they are affiliated with or why.

Is that so? All, roughly, 27,000 religions that have existed since the birth of civilization? Not to mention unrecorded or unheard of ones. All of them are made specifically to subject people? (Which of course is different from the majority subjecting people, in your view, I suppose)
User avatar #67 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
so you are happy now with the world?
it can't get better?
there is a minimum of evil?
religion isn't harming anyone?
the removal of oppression of any sort isn't worth it?
fundamentals in positions of power aren't a threat to the human race as a whole?
someone who believes the world will end for their god's glory with a finger on the launch button is the most terrifying thing in the world. Scarier than hell, scarier than the prospect of being alone in the universe, scarier than the possibility that we are evil by nature. the fact that most christians believe the armageddon and return of christ will ahppen in their lifetime and wish to be one of god's vessels deeply increases the probability that one man will be in a position to initiate Mutually Assured Destruction. Show me the world is fine with religion and I'll tip my hat but if you can show even the slightest amount of evidence that religion and theism of any sort is harmful, then is it not our job as good men to expose that and to free people from that oppression?

If communism is oppressive and is to be destroyed, then what makes religious oppression any different?

I stand by my statement. religion should be removed from human society, the dalai lama teaches a religionthat uses self immolation and separatism as forms of peaceful protest and that is the peaceful religion. How do these beliefs help his people? they don't. if any oppression can be removed should it not be removed?

I am aware that there will alwaays be retarded belief in the supernatural, but must it always become religion, or can it remain as an opinion formed by someone who has yet to discover an answer?

when we rely on religion for the answer, we stop lookiing for the real answers and this is oppressive, too.

So I reitterate, is it not our job as god men to stand up for what we know to be right?

The greatest evil is not committed by the actions of evil men, but by the inaction of good men. It is not enough to no do evil, we should do good.
User avatar #75 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
I never said Communism was oppressive. No political ideology inherently is. I was just making a point that Atheists are just as capable of evil as religious people, and since you would have pulled the "But religious people do it more" card, I wanted to pull the "but historically, Atheists have done it at a great magnitude".

He doesn't teach that, actually. Self-immolation was not his idea.

Religions do not help people? Are you not aware that Catholicism alone is one of if not thee biggest contributor to charity in all of history?

So it's only stupid when it has to do with religion, but not on its own? See, this is the problem with you, is that you are absolutely, 100% convinced that ANYTHING that has to do with religion is fundamentally BAD, and that NOTHING good can come of it. Even if the exact same beliefs were held outside of the spectrum of 'religion', you'd be fine with it, but it's the title that gets you. That's why people dislike you and insult you, you know, it's not because "Oh I'm right and they're just mindless sheep", it's because you are deluding yourself and everyone else can see it.

Well, what I believe is right has a lot to do with personal freedom. "True democracy", as you put it. Yet apparently, what you believe to be right is limiting opportunities that you personally find harmful. Earlier you said that you would not make everyone eat escargot because you alone thought it was inherently delicious, but right now you are literally preaching to ban all religons everywhere because you alone believe they are inherently evil. Can't you see your own hypocrisy? Can't you see your own delusion? Do you even know what you say?

You preach of doing good and having the best intentions for man, but you literally sound like a dictator when you preach of stripping personal freedom and opportunity because "I know what's best more than you". If a religious person ever said that to you, you would nearly murder with rage.
User avatar #78 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
to be honest if the world were at pace with religion, i would be perfectly happy, but it isn't. the reason being that religion is broken. holy books are rewritten by politicians as a means to an end and no one lives by any religion's moral code, but love to throw its laws around when it fits their small world view. as i stated before i would be fine if christians actually cared about what christ said, or if buddhists lived peaceably with others, offering aid when needed, not forsaking their own life or that of his neighbor as the great Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) asked them to do. jesus said love, but christians hate. Buddha said be polite and obey, buddhists maim themselves in revolt.
Religion is broken and is hurting people. if it wasn't broken, i would be happy. what do you do with the broken toy? you fix it, or throw it away.

i believe that people can believe what they like, but they cannot use it to harm others. laws should protect the populace, not reinforce belief. You believe in God? fine. you think Gays should be exiled or even killed? i think it's time to retire, Sen. Cruz. I'm not sying that belief is to be forbidden. belief is not religion. religion is a repetition of any activity such as prayer or discipline. but once again, it is broken. t has become the repetition of propaganda and hate-speech, and terror. When a killer continues to kill, you put him away. many things have great potential as other things, but are used wrongly.
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
Everything can always get better, but the way of being better is not to limit opportunities. It is neither positive nor negative to be religious or non-religious, but it IS negative to ban religion as it is to force it. You're trying to hard to make it seem like the "Cause-all, end-all" of problems, yet even in areas where it was or is banned, evil still sprouted and wars still raged as they did everywhere else, you're just either too blind or arrogant to see it, and so are absolutely convinced that YOUR way is the way to absolute peace despite the fact it has been tried, many times before, and failed because it is not.

Well no, considering that christians do not run the world, and christianity as a whole is only 1/3 of the most powerful religions right now, and even then that doesn't include every other religion, or Atheism, or even places that really aren't fundamentally religious. Honestly, you're turning into a paranoid loony because you're both so terrified of religion and convinced that it's so awful, and nobody could ever tell you otherwise no matter what. I look at you the exact same way that I do to feminists who claim all men are inherently evil and oppressors, and everyone else should look at you that way too: An insensible person who will never listen to anything outside of his own argument.

It IS fine with religion, and just by living in peace you are able to see that, but you refuse to accept it and will refuse to accept it even if true peace was achieved. I get a feeling that you would rather have total war with Atheists than world peace if literally every person was religious.

No, because many religions do as much harm as they do good. It is not like a gun where it only has one function, it has many functions and can be used in many different ways. What you're suggesting is like banning a swiss-army knife with many different tools because ONE side of it might be used to hurt.
#83 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
too much text, needed some pics
#38 - davidispissed has deleted their comment.
#37 - davidispissed has deleted their comment.
#474 - i was phone. 04/10/2014 on Secrets +2
#24 - the lama class of tibet were the elite class. they held all th…  [+] (43 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -3
User avatar #26 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
According to American sinologist A. Tom Grunfeld there were a few slaves in Tibet. Grunfeld quotes Sir Charles Bell, a British colonial official in India and a Tibet scholar who wrote of slaves in the form of small children being stolen or bought from their parents, too poor to support them, to be brought up and kept or sold as slaves.[19] Grunfeld omits Bell's elaboration that in 1905, there were "a dozen or two" of these, and that it was "a very mild form of slavery".[20] According to exile Tibetan writer Jamyang Norbu, later accounts from Westerners who visited Tibet and even long-term foreign residents such as Heinrich Harrer, Peter Aufschnaiter, Hugh Richardson and David Macdonald make no mention of any such practice, which suggests that the 13th Dalai Lama must have eliminated this practice altogether in his reforms

Ah, such a tyrant!

In any case, none of anything else you said is included in there. No mention of death, armies of slaves, or harems. Not even of anyone complaining, frankly. If you only have your personal opinion to support your arguments, it would probably be best if you didn't try.
#30 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
i also have pictures if you want.

#96 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #31 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Any context for them?
User avatar #35 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
that man you see there is Tenzin Gyatso, the current dalai lama. Doesn't look too distraught, does he?
User avatar #36 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Considering I can't enlarge the picture, I don't have context, don't have any form of reference, and (excuse me for the racist remark) he doesn't really look much different in terms of features to those bodies, all I have to confirm that he is the current Dalai Lama is your own word, and you've already proven you're bias.
User avatar #40 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
and all I'm saying is that I at least brought evidence. Also you should look at his demands for self-immolation of his followers in 2008. he demanded his people set fire to themselves in protest.
User avatar #41 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
You didn't, though. Everything you've given has either been your own opinion or unsourced articles.

Also, the Dalai Lama didn't demand anything. The monks lit themselves on fire in protest of the Chinese regime, you know, the one that always had more slaves, more people dying, more oppressed classes?
User avatar #43 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so one oppressor is greater than another?

only religion makes people believe that to fight oppression you must die.
that brings me back to my actual point religion is inherently evil and oppressive and should thereby be outlawed.

yeah china is a bunch of dicks, but they still follow a false ideology (i.e. totalitarian communism) but how is that monarchy any different from christianity or islam or even budhism? I put it to you that it is not.

whenever one party is in control of all others, it is evil, be it a man, a priest, or a god.
User avatar #44 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
He's not an oppressor though. Again, you have given NO evidence that the Dalai Lama is a tyrant beyond your own opinions and unsourced materials.

Really? Despite the fact that a Communist Russia sent hundreds of thousands to their death? Buddhists are non-violent, nor do they believe in a final death, that's HOW they protest, to show devotion to their faith and belief as you would fight in the army for your country or government. The fact you do not understand this just shows how narrow a view you have. In all serious, Communism as a political ideology has sent more people to their deaths than religion has.

How in any way is that a 'false ideology'? It's not a religious belief, it's a subjective political standpoint. Well it is different, because, again, it's based on politics rather than religion, which are very different things.

I can't imagine what world you must live in, where anything that promotes any type of control is inherently wrong. So what, you are an Atheist Anarchist who lives in the woods and happens to gain and internet connection through a make-shift computer?
User avatar #49 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, im not an anarchist, i beleive in true democracy. but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? no. you wouldn't because you follow the order to worship a ronz age genocidal, baby-killing king.

Religion is the cause for 90 percent of war, famine, brutality, scientific repression, human rights suppression and death. I'll concede that there will always be bad men, but at least there won't be a society built around the spread of stupidity and terrorism.

Who is the true anarchist here? the man who still believes in a God that despises his own creation, or the man who simply wants us to get on with life in the smoothest manner possible.
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
I'm not actually a christian, which is also why I don't care about you calling the holy books/sacred texts bullshit in lower comments either. In those comments, I was just trying to point out that it was stupid of YOU to trust information without sources and references, and not only stupid, but hypocritical.

Do you honestly believe that without religion, people would be nicer? Again, Communism as a political ideology has murdered more people than any one religion or religious war, and that's specifically anti-religion. Religion is a tool, it's a medium for a point, the exact same way you'd put a hammer to a nail instead of your fist. If an evil man is truly evil, he will be so regardless of religious beliefs and even twist the beliefs to justify their crimes. And likewise, if a good man is truly good, he will be good regardless of religious beliefs. Any single ideal only serves to express the person you are, and while certain ideals attract certain people, it means different things to all of them.

I actually don't despise anything. Just as well, you don't want to get on with life because you're not minding yourself, you make judgements and extreme opinions about those around you, and by doing so you are obviously allowing people to return those judgements and opinions. I get the feeling you see yourself as a very righteous, noble, and yet still humble person, and I can't imagine the amount of mental gymnastics you do to do just that.

User avatar #60 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
first, the crusades and holocaust kinda beat out communism.

also, religion is oppression. it binds the mind and works of those who believe it with threat of pain and torture, it has slaughtered countless men, women and children, it has divided families and it has inspired the worst in mankind. it kept the world in chains for 500 years while the high priests were living in palaces. you want to compare totalitarianism to religion, then I will. Gods and kings both demand unwavering, unquestioning loyalty. deviation means death. gods and king both repress education in the hopes of maintaining an ignorant populace, one that doesn't ask questions. Both restrict basic rights and both demand blood sacrifice. so i ask you, is my desire to rid the world of religion any less moral than everyone's desire to rid it of totalitarianism?
#97 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Actually they don't. Records of the crusades are very shoddy and corrupted by now (which is only to be expected, of course. Everyone was bias and nobody was a scholar), but the general agreed amount of death is 1-2 million people. That doesn't sound like much now, but it really was a lot for its time

The Holocaust has a death total of a generally agreed 11 million (not including the the war itself as it involved many different faiths and ideologies. Some of which were Atheist). I'll be liberal here and give you a grand total of 13 million dead.

Now, Mao Zedong was just ONE communist leader, and while he is considered one of the worst tyrants in history, he is still one man and had a grand total of 49-78,000,000 deaths alone. Even if we completely cut out things caused by him indirectly and even missing/captured people, we would still have 40-50 million deaths. Nearly 4x more than both the Holocaust and the Crusades. And may I remind you, that is just ONE communist regime, out of the many there have been.

You do realize that not every religion is like the Monotheistic ones we have today, right? Have you even studied religion before you decided you hated it? Have you even looked throughout history at it, and it's many wonderful achievements of propelling mankind (including in Mesopotamia, where it was religion that urged the building and innovation of technology, medicine, and engineering, which was the pillar of which civilizations after it were built)?
User avatar #64 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
during the crusades, the church actively suppressed scientific advancement in health and sanitation thereby leading to the spread of the bubonic plague as well as deaths caused by simple, preventable illnesses. also, while the catholic church records are incomplete, the hindus, who also inhabitted the area, kept records also. so did the muslims and hebrews. there are more ways to kill than in combat. by suppressing the knowledge of the people, the murdered countless millions. in fact, doctors didn't know to wash their hands until 1847. how many do you think died from surgical infection before then?

In order to preserve life, scientific advances in medicine, sanitation and agriculture are necessary. Religions around the world have all suppressed this knowlege. can you count those deaths? no one can, there are simply too many to count.

Also, Mao Zedong betrayed his own country and laws. again it is a lack of accountability under a false ideology.
User avatar #47 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, i fail to see how faith in religious bullshit is a political view.
#81 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
It's not (although it can be related to political leaders in some cases), which is why I specifically separated the two as different things. Read my comment again.
User avatar #46 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
read comment 39, fucker. i've given much evidence. and even if that one man isn't oppressive, religion still is.
User avatar #52 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
More oppressive than, say, you demanding a ban on all religion? And what if people refuse? Would you kill them, exile them, and them set up as examples of what happens if people don't follow your laws?

I'm just trying to follow your train of logic here.
User avatar #56 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
no, because that is the christian way. if people wish to believe in nonsense, then they will not be allowed to benefit from the works of those who do not.

if god supplies all your needs, then you don't need medicine or sanitation, etc.

it's religious freedom by making you live what you beleive and if this is unnacceptable, then you must agree that those beliefs are absolute bovine excrement.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
That doesn't sound like democracy to me at all.

That's true, but by a certain stretch of logic, he could supply those needs BY the medium of medicine, sanitation, ect.

It's not unacceptable, it is perfectly reasonable (you can also just say "Cow shit". Really. "Bovine excrement" is neither funny nor does it make you sound smart). But does that mean that everything provided BY religion or religious people is also off limits to Atheists?
User avatar #27 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
keep reading

www.antimoon.com/forum/t13141.htm

the dalai family has a longer history than that one article.
User avatar #29 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
I will not. That article contains no sources for its information, and thus is practically worthless unless you were some snobby Atheist who thought he was fundamentally better than any type of religious practice.

Also, even if any of it did happen to be true, there are multiple posts below it refuting it and proving it is the GREATER lesser of far many evils. So either way, you'd still be wrong.
User avatar #32 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so because an article cites no sources you don't believe it.

i know a whole book that cites no sources.
User avatar #33 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Well yes, there are many books that make claims without sources

Such as the bible, koran, talmud, dhammapada...

But of course, just because they have no sources or references doesn't mean they're not true, right?
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Read the first comment of the first source. It explains why it's worthless (if you don't want to: Basically, they are an extremist religious group that the Dalai Lama holds no sway over. Of course he does not approve, but they would not listen to him).

Second source is obviously bias, a Chinese news outlet blaming him for rising violence, rather than, say, themselves pushing a hostile way of life.

Third source is the same as the first.

The fourth claims he is an evil man simply because he does not believe in god.

In the fifth I can't read a single damn thing. A subscription page pops up and I can't close it, and it covers all the text.

And once more, the sixth source fails to provide any type of source of its own. It has absolutely no references to go by, which it should considering such specific information.

I apologize for not seeing this sooner. My internet crapped out and I guess it didn't register as you replying, but it was still a waste of time.
User avatar #55 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so you refuse to read any other source but from him? that's like saying "well, he says he didn't kill her, everyone else saw it, i'm letting him go."

The entire conflict between China and Tibet revolves, still, around differences in religious ideology. The master race wanted to keep land that (even at that time) belonged to the government. it was still dictated by a beleif in a deity. you can argue all you want that you would like to fellate the dalai lama, but you still haven't proven why religion is worth keeping. That is still the topic of debate here. can you name one religion that is innocent or even true?
#82 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #86 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
if you have a valid, relevant point, make it. if not, butt the fuck out.
#88 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
Tibetans are from tibet
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
No, I refuse to read any source that does not have a reference, and so far you have given none. Did you even read those articles? Or did you just google "Why the Dalai Lama is evil" and copy and paste?

Didn't you just say you were a believer of true democracy? If a majority of a portion of a country wants a different religion, ideology, or leader, isn't it your opinion that they should get it?

Actually the topic of the debate, as it started, was that the Dalai Lama was a tyrant, and I am proving he is not.

If you'd like to change topics though, we certainly can once you concede that you have no basis for this one.
User avatar #61 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
while you make a valid point, the tibetans remaining with the lama class priest were far from the majority and many tibetans left that system and embraced communism, even under a dictator. and no, i dont believe that if a majority wants a religion that it should be allowed, because that is essentially like saying that since i like escargot, i think everyone does. you yourself stated that religion i different from politics. All I am saying is the only true separation of the two wold be the nonexistence of religion. and to be honest i would even be happy to see it made law that a mameber of a religious organization (which serves a monarchy as previously stated) cannot rule in a democracy and that other religious people should be held accountable by laws of the land and of their faith. if christians gave half a fuck about what christ actually said, it would be different, but they don't. the issue is accountability and it's easy to escape responsibility by saying, "God said."

religion is just a way to keep people controlled and ignorant while avoid responsibility for your actions.
User avatar #65 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
And many Chinese asked the government to leave the Tibetans alone, so they're in the same boat, aren't they? People can change and join different things, and many have. The Dalai Lama is, by majority, considered the rightful leader and ruler of Tibet.

Well no it wouldn't. That would be like saying that many people like escargot and so they have it on the average menu at a cafe, which would be sensible, actually.

Yes I did. No it wouldn't. By the very nature of what it is, to be involved in politics and rulership is to have a political ideology. Whether this is entwined within religion or not is completely irrelevant. You cannot get into politics without having a political ideology regardless of your religious affiliation, and you cannot get into religion without having a religious ideology, regardless of your political affiliation. They can exist perfectly independently of eachother.

Yes it is. It's also easy to escape accountability by saying "I'm just following orders". As stated before, evil men will be evil and good men will be good, regardless of what sect they are affiliated with or why.

Is that so? All, roughly, 27,000 religions that have existed since the birth of civilization? Not to mention unrecorded or unheard of ones. All of them are made specifically to subject people? (Which of course is different from the majority subjecting people, in your view, I suppose)
User avatar #67 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
so you are happy now with the world?
it can't get better?
there is a minimum of evil?
religion isn't harming anyone?
the removal of oppression of any sort isn't worth it?
fundamentals in positions of power aren't a threat to the human race as a whole?
someone who believes the world will end for their god's glory with a finger on the launch button is the most terrifying thing in the world. Scarier than hell, scarier than the prospect of being alone in the universe, scarier than the possibility that we are evil by nature. the fact that most christians believe the armageddon and return of christ will ahppen in their lifetime and wish to be one of god's vessels deeply increases the probability that one man will be in a position to initiate Mutually Assured Destruction. Show me the world is fine with religion and I'll tip my hat but if you can show even the slightest amount of evidence that religion and theism of any sort is harmful, then is it not our job as good men to expose that and to free people from that oppression?

If communism is oppressive and is to be destroyed, then what makes religious oppression any different?

I stand by my statement. religion should be removed from human society, the dalai lama teaches a religionthat uses self immolation and separatism as forms of peaceful protest and that is the peaceful religion. How do these beliefs help his people? they don't. if any oppression can be removed should it not be removed?

I am aware that there will alwaays be retarded belief in the supernatural, but must it always become religion, or can it remain as an opinion formed by someone who has yet to discover an answer?

when we rely on religion for the answer, we stop lookiing for the real answers and this is oppressive, too.

So I reitterate, is it not our job as god men to stand up for what we know to be right?

The greatest evil is not committed by the actions of evil men, but by the inaction of good men. It is not enough to no do evil, we should do good.
User avatar #75 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
I never said Communism was oppressive. No political ideology inherently is. I was just making a point that Atheists are just as capable of evil as religious people, and since you would have pulled the "But religious people do it more" card, I wanted to pull the "but historically, Atheists have done it at a great magnitude".

He doesn't teach that, actually. Self-immolation was not his idea.

Religions do not help people? Are you not aware that Catholicism alone is one of if not thee biggest contributor to charity in all of history?

So it's only stupid when it has to do with religion, but not on its own? See, this is the problem with you, is that you are absolutely, 100% convinced that ANYTHING that has to do with religion is fundamentally BAD, and that NOTHING good can come of it. Even if the exact same beliefs were held outside of the spectrum of 'religion', you'd be fine with it, but it's the title that gets you. That's why people dislike you and insult you, you know, it's not because "Oh I'm right and they're just mindless sheep", it's because you are deluding yourself and everyone else can see it.

Well, what I believe is right has a lot to do with personal freedom. "True democracy", as you put it. Yet apparently, what you believe to be right is limiting opportunities that you personally find harmful. Earlier you said that you would not make everyone eat escargot because you alone thought it was inherently delicious, but right now you are literally preaching to ban all religons everywhere because you alone believe they are inherently evil. Can't you see your own hypocrisy? Can't you see your own delusion? Do you even know what you say?

You preach of doing good and having the best intentions for man, but you literally sound like a dictator when you preach of stripping personal freedom and opportunity because "I know what's best more than you". If a religious person ever said that to you, you would nearly murder with rage.
User avatar #78 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
to be honest if the world were at pace with religion, i would be perfectly happy, but it isn't. the reason being that religion is broken. holy books are rewritten by politicians as a means to an end and no one lives by any religion's moral code, but love to throw its laws around when it fits their small world view. as i stated before i would be fine if christians actually cared about what christ said, or if buddhists lived peaceably with others, offering aid when needed, not forsaking their own life or that of his neighbor as the great Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) asked them to do. jesus said love, but christians hate. Buddha said be polite and obey, buddhists maim themselves in revolt.
Religion is broken and is hurting people. if it wasn't broken, i would be happy. what do you do with the broken toy? you fix it, or throw it away.

i believe that people can believe what they like, but they cannot use it to harm others. laws should protect the populace, not reinforce belief. You believe in God? fine. you think Gays should be exiled or even killed? i think it's time to retire, Sen. Cruz. I'm not sying that belief is to be forbidden. belief is not religion. religion is a repetition of any activity such as prayer or discipline. but once again, it is broken. t has become the repetition of propaganda and hate-speech, and terror. When a killer continues to kill, you put him away. many things have great potential as other things, but are used wrongly.
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
Everything can always get better, but the way of being better is not to limit opportunities. It is neither positive nor negative to be religious or non-religious, but it IS negative to ban religion as it is to force it. You're trying to hard to make it seem like the "Cause-all, end-all" of problems, yet even in areas where it was or is banned, evil still sprouted and wars still raged as they did everywhere else, you're just either too blind or arrogant to see it, and so are absolutely convinced that YOUR way is the way to absolute peace despite the fact it has been tried, many times before, and failed because it is not.

Well no, considering that christians do not run the world, and christianity as a whole is only 1/3 of the most powerful religions right now, and even then that doesn't include every other religion, or Atheism, or even places that really aren't fundamentally religious. Honestly, you're turning into a paranoid loony because you're both so terrified of religion and convinced that it's so awful, and nobody could ever tell you otherwise no matter what. I look at you the exact same way that I do to feminists who claim all men are inherently evil and oppressors, and everyone else should look at you that way too: An insensible person who will never listen to anything outside of his own argument.

It IS fine with religion, and just by living in peace you are able to see that, but you refuse to accept it and will refuse to accept it even if true peace was achieved. I get a feeling that you would rather have total war with Atheists than world peace if literally every person was religious.

No, because many religions do as much harm as they do good. It is not like a gun where it only has one function, it has many functions and can be used in many different ways. What you're suggesting is like banning a swiss-army knife with many different tools because ONE side of it might be used to hurt.
#83 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
too much text, needed some pics
#38 - davidispissed has deleted their comment.
#37 - davidispissed has deleted their comment.
#22 - you realize the dalai llama is a religous tyrant... i…  [+] (46 new replies) 04/10/2014 on you know it -3
#95 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #23 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Give me an example of how that is true.
User avatar #24 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
the lama class of tibet were the elite class. they held all the money and power and commanded armies of slaves and harems. anyone who dissented was put to death. the dalai lama was the creme de la creme of this class.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_classes_of_Tibet
User avatar #26 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
According to American sinologist A. Tom Grunfeld there were a few slaves in Tibet. Grunfeld quotes Sir Charles Bell, a British colonial official in India and a Tibet scholar who wrote of slaves in the form of small children being stolen or bought from their parents, too poor to support them, to be brought up and kept or sold as slaves.[19] Grunfeld omits Bell's elaboration that in 1905, there were "a dozen or two" of these, and that it was "a very mild form of slavery".[20] According to exile Tibetan writer Jamyang Norbu, later accounts from Westerners who visited Tibet and even long-term foreign residents such as Heinrich Harrer, Peter Aufschnaiter, Hugh Richardson and David Macdonald make no mention of any such practice, which suggests that the 13th Dalai Lama must have eliminated this practice altogether in his reforms

Ah, such a tyrant!

In any case, none of anything else you said is included in there. No mention of death, armies of slaves, or harems. Not even of anyone complaining, frankly. If you only have your personal opinion to support your arguments, it would probably be best if you didn't try.
#30 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
i also have pictures if you want.

#96 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #31 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Any context for them?
User avatar #35 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
that man you see there is Tenzin Gyatso, the current dalai lama. Doesn't look too distraught, does he?
User avatar #36 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Considering I can't enlarge the picture, I don't have context, don't have any form of reference, and (excuse me for the racist remark) he doesn't really look much different in terms of features to those bodies, all I have to confirm that he is the current Dalai Lama is your own word, and you've already proven you're bias.
User avatar #40 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
and all I'm saying is that I at least brought evidence. Also you should look at his demands for self-immolation of his followers in 2008. he demanded his people set fire to themselves in protest.
User avatar #41 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
You didn't, though. Everything you've given has either been your own opinion or unsourced articles.

Also, the Dalai Lama didn't demand anything. The monks lit themselves on fire in protest of the Chinese regime, you know, the one that always had more slaves, more people dying, more oppressed classes?
User avatar #43 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so one oppressor is greater than another?

only religion makes people believe that to fight oppression you must die.
that brings me back to my actual point religion is inherently evil and oppressive and should thereby be outlawed.

yeah china is a bunch of dicks, but they still follow a false ideology (i.e. totalitarian communism) but how is that monarchy any different from christianity or islam or even budhism? I put it to you that it is not.

whenever one party is in control of all others, it is evil, be it a man, a priest, or a god.
User avatar #44 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
He's not an oppressor though. Again, you have given NO evidence that the Dalai Lama is a tyrant beyond your own opinions and unsourced materials.

Really? Despite the fact that a Communist Russia sent hundreds of thousands to their death? Buddhists are non-violent, nor do they believe in a final death, that's HOW they protest, to show devotion to their faith and belief as you would fight in the army for your country or government. The fact you do not understand this just shows how narrow a view you have. In all serious, Communism as a political ideology has sent more people to their deaths than religion has.

How in any way is that a 'false ideology'? It's not a religious belief, it's a subjective political standpoint. Well it is different, because, again, it's based on politics rather than religion, which are very different things.

I can't imagine what world you must live in, where anything that promotes any type of control is inherently wrong. So what, you are an Atheist Anarchist who lives in the woods and happens to gain and internet connection through a make-shift computer?
User avatar #49 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, im not an anarchist, i beleive in true democracy. but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? no. you wouldn't because you follow the order to worship a ronz age genocidal, baby-killing king.

Religion is the cause for 90 percent of war, famine, brutality, scientific repression, human rights suppression and death. I'll concede that there will always be bad men, but at least there won't be a society built around the spread of stupidity and terrorism.

Who is the true anarchist here? the man who still believes in a God that despises his own creation, or the man who simply wants us to get on with life in the smoothest manner possible.
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
I'm not actually a christian, which is also why I don't care about you calling the holy books/sacred texts bullshit in lower comments either. In those comments, I was just trying to point out that it was stupid of YOU to trust information without sources and references, and not only stupid, but hypocritical.

Do you honestly believe that without religion, people would be nicer? Again, Communism as a political ideology has murdered more people than any one religion or religious war, and that's specifically anti-religion. Religion is a tool, it's a medium for a point, the exact same way you'd put a hammer to a nail instead of your fist. If an evil man is truly evil, he will be so regardless of religious beliefs and even twist the beliefs to justify their crimes. And likewise, if a good man is truly good, he will be good regardless of religious beliefs. Any single ideal only serves to express the person you are, and while certain ideals attract certain people, it means different things to all of them.

I actually don't despise anything. Just as well, you don't want to get on with life because you're not minding yourself, you make judgements and extreme opinions about those around you, and by doing so you are obviously allowing people to return those judgements and opinions. I get the feeling you see yourself as a very righteous, noble, and yet still humble person, and I can't imagine the amount of mental gymnastics you do to do just that.

User avatar #60 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
first, the crusades and holocaust kinda beat out communism.

also, religion is oppression. it binds the mind and works of those who believe it with threat of pain and torture, it has slaughtered countless men, women and children, it has divided families and it has inspired the worst in mankind. it kept the world in chains for 500 years while the high priests were living in palaces. you want to compare totalitarianism to religion, then I will. Gods and kings both demand unwavering, unquestioning loyalty. deviation means death. gods and king both repress education in the hopes of maintaining an ignorant populace, one that doesn't ask questions. Both restrict basic rights and both demand blood sacrifice. so i ask you, is my desire to rid the world of religion any less moral than everyone's desire to rid it of totalitarianism?
#97 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Actually they don't. Records of the crusades are very shoddy and corrupted by now (which is only to be expected, of course. Everyone was bias and nobody was a scholar), but the general agreed amount of death is 1-2 million people. That doesn't sound like much now, but it really was a lot for its time

The Holocaust has a death total of a generally agreed 11 million (not including the the war itself as it involved many different faiths and ideologies. Some of which were Atheist). I'll be liberal here and give you a grand total of 13 million dead.

Now, Mao Zedong was just ONE communist leader, and while he is considered one of the worst tyrants in history, he is still one man and had a grand total of 49-78,000,000 deaths alone. Even if we completely cut out things caused by him indirectly and even missing/captured people, we would still have 40-50 million deaths. Nearly 4x more than both the Holocaust and the Crusades. And may I remind you, that is just ONE communist regime, out of the many there have been.

You do realize that not every religion is like the Monotheistic ones we have today, right? Have you even studied religion before you decided you hated it? Have you even looked throughout history at it, and it's many wonderful achievements of propelling mankind (including in Mesopotamia, where it was religion that urged the building and innovation of technology, medicine, and engineering, which was the pillar of which civilizations after it were built)?
User avatar #64 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
during the crusades, the church actively suppressed scientific advancement in health and sanitation thereby leading to the spread of the bubonic plague as well as deaths caused by simple, preventable illnesses. also, while the catholic church records are incomplete, the hindus, who also inhabitted the area, kept records also. so did the muslims and hebrews. there are more ways to kill than in combat. by suppressing the knowledge of the people, the murdered countless millions. in fact, doctors didn't know to wash their hands until 1847. how many do you think died from surgical infection before then?

In order to preserve life, scientific advances in medicine, sanitation and agriculture are necessary. Religions around the world have all suppressed this knowlege. can you count those deaths? no one can, there are simply too many to count.

Also, Mao Zedong betrayed his own country and laws. again it is a lack of accountability under a false ideology.
User avatar #47 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
also, i fail to see how faith in religious bullshit is a political view.
#81 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
It's not (although it can be related to political leaders in some cases), which is why I specifically separated the two as different things. Read my comment again.
User avatar #46 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
read comment 39, fucker. i've given much evidence. and even if that one man isn't oppressive, religion still is.
User avatar #52 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
More oppressive than, say, you demanding a ban on all religion? And what if people refuse? Would you kill them, exile them, and them set up as examples of what happens if people don't follow your laws?

I'm just trying to follow your train of logic here.
User avatar #56 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
no, because that is the christian way. if people wish to believe in nonsense, then they will not be allowed to benefit from the works of those who do not.

if god supplies all your needs, then you don't need medicine or sanitation, etc.

it's religious freedom by making you live what you beleive and if this is unnacceptable, then you must agree that those beliefs are absolute bovine excrement.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
That doesn't sound like democracy to me at all.

That's true, but by a certain stretch of logic, he could supply those needs BY the medium of medicine, sanitation, ect.

It's not unacceptable, it is perfectly reasonable (you can also just say "Cow shit". Really. "Bovine excrement" is neither funny nor does it make you sound smart). But does that mean that everything provided BY religion or religious people is also off limits to Atheists?
User avatar #27 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
keep reading

www.antimoon.com/forum/t13141.htm

the dalai family has a longer history than that one article.
User avatar #29 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
I will not. That article contains no sources for its information, and thus is practically worthless unless you were some snobby Atheist who thought he was fundamentally better than any type of religious practice.

Also, even if any of it did happen to be true, there are multiple posts below it refuting it and proving it is the GREATER lesser of far many evils. So either way, you'd still be wrong.
User avatar #32 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so because an article cites no sources you don't believe it.

i know a whole book that cites no sources.
User avatar #33 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Well yes, there are many books that make claims without sources

Such as the bible, koran, talmud, dhammapada...

But of course, just because they have no sources or references doesn't mean they're not true, right?
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
Read the first comment of the first source. It explains why it's worthless (if you don't want to: Basically, they are an extremist religious group that the Dalai Lama holds no sway over. Of course he does not approve, but they would not listen to him).

Second source is obviously bias, a Chinese news outlet blaming him for rising violence, rather than, say, themselves pushing a hostile way of life.

Third source is the same as the first.

The fourth claims he is an evil man simply because he does not believe in god.

In the fifth I can't read a single damn thing. A subscription page pops up and I can't close it, and it covers all the text.

And once more, the sixth source fails to provide any type of source of its own. It has absolutely no references to go by, which it should considering such specific information.

I apologize for not seeing this sooner. My internet crapped out and I guess it didn't register as you replying, but it was still a waste of time.
User avatar #55 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
so you refuse to read any other source but from him? that's like saying "well, he says he didn't kill her, everyone else saw it, i'm letting him go."

The entire conflict between China and Tibet revolves, still, around differences in religious ideology. The master race wanted to keep land that (even at that time) belonged to the government. it was still dictated by a beleif in a deity. you can argue all you want that you would like to fellate the dalai lama, but you still haven't proven why religion is worth keeping. That is still the topic of debate here. can you name one religion that is innocent or even true?
#82 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #86 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
if you have a valid, relevant point, make it. if not, butt the fuck out.
#88 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
Tibetans are from tibet
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2014) [-]
No, I refuse to read any source that does not have a reference, and so far you have given none. Did you even read those articles? Or did you just google "Why the Dalai Lama is evil" and copy and paste?

Didn't you just say you were a believer of true democracy? If a majority of a portion of a country wants a different religion, ideology, or leader, isn't it your opinion that they should get it?

Actually the topic of the debate, as it started, was that the Dalai Lama was a tyrant, and I am proving he is not.

If you'd like to change topics though, we certainly can once you concede that you have no basis for this one.
User avatar #61 - davidispissed (04/10/2014) [-]
while you make a valid point, the tibetans remaining with the lama class priest were far from the majority and many tibetans left that system and embraced communism, even under a dictator. and no, i dont believe that if a majority wants a religion that it should be allowed, because that is essentially like saying that since i like escargot, i think everyone does. you yourself stated that religion i different from politics. All I am saying is the only true separation of the two wold be the nonexistence of religion. and to be honest i would even be happy to see it made law that a mameber of a religious organization (which serves a monarchy as previously stated) cannot rule in a democracy and that other religious people should be held accountable by laws of the land and of their faith. if christians gave half a fuck about what christ actually said, it would be different, but they don't. the issue is accountability and it's easy to escape responsibility by saying, "God said."

religion is just a way to keep people controlled and ignorant while avoid responsibility for your actions.
User avatar #65 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
And many Chinese asked the government to leave the Tibetans alone, so they're in the same boat, aren't they? People can change and join different things, and many have. The Dalai Lama is, by majority, considered the rightful leader and ruler of Tibet.

Well no it wouldn't. That would be like saying that many people like escargot and so they have it on the average menu at a cafe, which would be sensible, actually.

Yes I did. No it wouldn't. By the very nature of what it is, to be involved in politics and rulership is to have a political ideology. Whether this is entwined within religion or not is completely irrelevant. You cannot get into politics without having a political ideology regardless of your religious affiliation, and you cannot get into religion without having a religious ideology, regardless of your political affiliation. They can exist perfectly independently of eachother.

Yes it is. It's also easy to escape accountability by saying "I'm just following orders". As stated before, evil men will be evil and good men will be good, regardless of what sect they are affiliated with or why.

Is that so? All, roughly, 27,000 religions that have existed since the birth of civilization? Not to mention unrecorded or unheard of ones. All of them are made specifically to subject people? (Which of course is different from the majority subjecting people, in your view, I suppose)
User avatar #67 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
so you are happy now with the world?
it can't get better?
there is a minimum of evil?
religion isn't harming anyone?
the removal of oppression of any sort isn't worth it?
fundamentals in positions of power aren't a threat to the human race as a whole?
someone who believes the world will end for their god's glory with a finger on the launch button is the most terrifying thing in the world. Scarier than hell, scarier than the prospect of being alone in the universe, scarier than the possibility that we are evil by nature. the fact that most christians believe the armageddon and return of christ will ahppen in their lifetime and wish to be one of god's vessels deeply increases the probability that one man will be in a position to initiate Mutually Assured Destruction. Show me the world is fine with religion and I'll tip my hat but if you can show even the slightest amount of evidence that religion and theism of any sort is harmful, then is it not our job as good men to expose that and to free people from that oppression?

If communism is oppressive and is to be destroyed, then what makes religious oppression any different?

I stand by my statement. religion should be removed from human society, the dalai lama teaches a religionthat uses self immolation and separatism as forms of peaceful protest and that is the peaceful religion. How do these beliefs help his people? they don't. if any oppression can be removed should it not be removed?

I am aware that there will alwaays be retarded belief in the supernatural, but must it always become religion, or can it remain as an opinion formed by someone who has yet to discover an answer?

when we rely on religion for the answer, we stop lookiing for the real answers and this is oppressive, too.

So I reitterate, is it not our job as god men to stand up for what we know to be right?

The greatest evil is not committed by the actions of evil men, but by the inaction of good men. It is not enough to no do evil, we should do good.
User avatar #75 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
I never said Communism was oppressive. No political ideology inherently is. I was just making a point that Atheists are just as capable of evil as religious people, and since you would have pulled the "But religious people do it more" card, I wanted to pull the "but historically, Atheists have done it at a great magnitude".

He doesn't teach that, actually. Self-immolation was not his idea.

Religions do not help people? Are you not aware that Catholicism alone is one of if not thee biggest contributor to charity in all of history?

So it's only stupid when it has to do with religion, but not on its own? See, this is the problem with you, is that you are absolutely, 100% convinced that ANYTHING that has to do with religion is fundamentally BAD, and that NOTHING good can come of it. Even if the exact same beliefs were held outside of the spectrum of 'religion', you'd be fine with it, but it's the title that gets you. That's why people dislike you and insult you, you know, it's not because "Oh I'm right and they're just mindless sheep", it's because you are deluding yourself and everyone else can see it.

Well, what I believe is right has a lot to do with personal freedom. "True democracy", as you put it. Yet apparently, what you believe to be right is limiting opportunities that you personally find harmful. Earlier you said that you would not make everyone eat escargot because you alone thought it was inherently delicious, but right now you are literally preaching to ban all religons everywhere because you alone believe they are inherently evil. Can't you see your own hypocrisy? Can't you see your own delusion? Do you even know what you say?

You preach of doing good and having the best intentions for man, but you literally sound like a dictator when you preach of stripping personal freedom and opportunity because "I know what's best more than you". If a religious person ever said that to you, you would nearly murder with rage.
User avatar #78 - davidispissed (04/11/2014) [-]
to be honest if the world were at pace with religion, i would be perfectly happy, but it isn't. the reason being that religion is broken. holy books are rewritten by politicians as a means to an end and no one lives by any religion's moral code, but love to throw its laws around when it fits their small world view. as i stated before i would be fine if christians actually cared about what christ said, or if buddhists lived peaceably with others, offering aid when needed, not forsaking their own life or that of his neighbor as the great Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) asked them to do. jesus said love, but christians hate. Buddha said be polite and obey, buddhists maim themselves in revolt.
Religion is broken and is hurting people. if it wasn't broken, i would be happy. what do you do with the broken toy? you fix it, or throw it away.

i believe that people can believe what they like, but they cannot use it to harm others. laws should protect the populace, not reinforce belief. You believe in God? fine. you think Gays should be exiled or even killed? i think it's time to retire, Sen. Cruz. I'm not sying that belief is to be forbidden. belief is not religion. religion is a repetition of any activity such as prayer or discipline. but once again, it is broken. t has become the repetition of propaganda and hate-speech, and terror. When a killer continues to kill, you put him away. many things have great potential as other things, but are used wrongly.
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2014) [-]
Everything can always get better, but the way of being better is not to limit opportunities. It is neither positive nor negative to be religious or non-religious, but it IS negative to ban religion as it is to force it. You're trying to hard to make it seem like the "Cause-all, end-all" of problems, yet even in areas where it was or is banned, evil still sprouted and wars still raged as they did everywhere else, you're just either too blind or arrogant to see it, and so are absolutely convinced that YOUR way is the way to absolute peace despite the fact it has been tried, many times before, and failed because it is not.

Well no, considering that christians do not run the world, and christianity as a whole is only 1/3 of the most powerful religions right now, and even then that doesn't include every other religion, or Atheism, or even places that really aren't fundamentally religious. Honestly, you're turning into a paranoid loony because you're both so terrified of religion and convinced that it's so awful, and nobody could ever tell you otherwise no matter what. I look at you the exact same way that I do to feminists who claim all men are inherently evil and oppressors, and everyone else should look at you that way too: An insensible person who will never listen to anything outside of his own argument.

It IS fine with religion, and just by living in peace you are able to see that, but you refuse to accept it and will refuse to accept it even if true peace was achieved. I get a feeling that you would rather have total war with Atheists than world peace if literally every person was religious.

No, because many religions do as much harm as they do good. It is not like a gun where it only has one function, it has many functions and can be used in many different ways. What you're suggesting is like banning a swiss-army knife with many different tools because ONE side of it might be used to hurt.
#83 - spinaltap (04/11/2014) [-]
too much text, needed some pics
#38 - davidispissed has deleted their comment.
#37 - davidispissed has deleted their comment.
#59 - nope. 04/10/2014 on dumb blond -15
#16 - better than sochi 04/10/2014 on The Kim Jong Inn +6
#15 - cables that don't function with cables......  [+] (1 new reply) 04/10/2014 on The Kim Jong Inn +13
User avatar #17 - lokiwins (04/10/2014) [-]
I am the smarterest at 4 am. Elevators*

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1500
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - badboywantsu (03/29/2014) [-]
i had to add you your name speaks to me since my names david too
User avatar #4 to #3 - davidispissed (03/29/2014) [-]
really? mine too.


*awkward realization*
User avatar #5 to #4 - badboywantsu (03/29/2014) [-]
i work in a place with 4 other people named dave it ends up with confusion all the time
User avatar #6 to #5 - davidispissed (03/29/2014) [-]
insay all the davids should unite and take over the world.
User avatar #7 to #6 - badboywantsu (03/29/2014) [-]
i'm in we are many we are strong we have a pretty awesome name ha
 Friends (0)