welp. Not all religion is evil or even focused on worshiping gods. I'm not religious myself but I have respect for many of the different philosophies out there, Religion Atheism Fedora making Love to pinecones catnip Cheese unpopular opinion pofffin
Click to expand


welp. Not all religion is evil or even focused on worshiping gods. I'm not religious myself but I have respect for many of the different philosophies out there,

Not all religion is evil or even focused on worshiping gods. I'm not religious myself but I have respect for many of the different philosophies out there, and sure, I do hate a few, but I'm not as spiteful as other atheists seem to be towards all religion. Frankly, I think it's pretty ignorant.

  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 15203
Favorited: 11
Submitted: 03/19/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to infinitereaper submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - infinitereaper (03/19/2014) [+] (3 replies)
stickied by infinitereaper

Just a few religions I think have pretty cool philosophies and cultural value.
#2 - yarr (03/19/2014) [-]
Oh wow, you actually made the most popular opinion in an unpopular opinion meme.
Oh wow, you actually made the most popular opinion in an unpopular opinion meme.
User avatar #18 to #2 - fyaq (03/19/2014) [-]

Welcome, I can see its your first time on the internet.
User avatar #19 to #18 - yarr (03/19/2014) [-]
If you don't think it's a popular opinion, you haven't been on the internet much.
Just make a votepoll and I'll guarantee you that around 90% will answer the same.

+ op wouldn't make this post if it wasn't a popular opinion, who would want red thumbs.
User avatar #5 to #2 - infinitereaper (03/19/2014) [-]
"popular" I've been here long enough to know that being pro religion in the atheist circle jerk isn't exactly what you call "friendly"
What's popular is saying "Christianity teaches love and tolerance, etc."

It isn't popular to call Richard Dawkings a douchebag, it isn't popular to say certain religions have value (like Taosim or Buddishm) and it isn't popular to insult atheists.
It's very divided. ********* material at times.
#115 to #5 - ohemgeezus (03/20/2014) [-]
A small minority of FJ hates religion on its own, just about everyone hates religion when it's in reference to WBC and other **** groups.

I have yet to see a post on FJ that made it to the front page where all it is is, "LEL TUMB DIS UP IF U H8 RELIGIN XDDDDDDD".
User avatar #104 to #5 - yarr (03/20/2014) [-]
You have a positive amount of thumbs for a reason, mate. Just look at the positive to negative thumbs ratio.
I thumbed down because it wasn't a proper use of the meme, not because I disagree.
#89 - kibbleking (03/20/2014) [-]
I honestly don't care. If someone doesn't like me, fine. I don't like them. But if they get up in my **** I'm going to get in there **** too.
#65 - datblkkid ONLINE (03/20/2014) [-]
A religion post that doesn't include religion bashing?
It's like getting a $20 for just being a nice guy.
Let Black Jesus give you a hug
#54 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
To respond to a few quotes I've seen in the past few religious threads

"Christianity hasn't killed anyone in like 1000 years."
User avatar #56 to #54 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
In the long term we can hope that religion will change the nature of man and reduce conflict. But history is not encouraging in this respect. The bloodiest wars in history have been religious wars.
-Richard M. Nixon
User avatar #62 to #54 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/20/2014) [-]
in regards to the image, hitler only used Christianity as a weapon to brainwash his people. white people did this with slavery.

faith in a hard time is an effective method. kinda like in the movie "the book of eli"

This doesnt mean Christianity is wrong in any way. It just means that people can be dicks when they use it.

Hitler wasnt a Christian
#64 to #62 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
That's a pretty sad cop out, not going to lie. I suggest you read mein kampf. He's actually pretty strict about following the bible.
User avatar #66 to #64 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/20/2014) [-]
seriously. Hitler was not a Christian.
He just used it as a tool.
#70 to #66 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
That's what's called an opinion. I, for one, prefer to use facts. He was as much, if not more a Christian than most men.
User avatar #74 to #70 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/20/2014) [-]
if he was a Chrisitan, he wouldnt touch the Jews
User avatar #73 to #70 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/20/2014) [-]
Its fact that he wasnt.
#75 to #73 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
Yeah? Where's your evidence?
User avatar #77 to #75 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/20/2014) [-]
but im not going to be drawn into a back and forth.
im trying to not be so argue-ey
User avatar #76 to #75 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/20/2014) [-]
The Bible states that the Jews are GOD's people. GOD basically says "if anyone messes with you, ive got you"
Christians- especially those " more Christian than most men" would know that

and we see what happened to hitler. He was a twisted dude.
#78 to #76 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
And every Christian cherry picks the bible to have it suit them best in saying that this book doesn't count or that scripture is obsolete. Doesn't make him any more or less wrong or any more or less Christian than any other Christian.
User avatar #79 to #78 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/20/2014) [-]
#81 to #79 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, do you have personal qualms with poly-blend clothing or dancing? Oh, wait, that book doesn't count.
User avatar #83 to #81 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/20/2014) [-]
User avatar #67 to #64 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/20/2014) [-]
HItler also said the Bible made the germans the chosen ones etc.
#100 to #54 - pxthreezerothree (03/20/2014) [-]
“In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.”

“Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.”

“Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries.”
-quotes from Hitler's Table Talks

Speaking to crowds and political statements do not always reflect a person's true opinion. Fighting against Christianity was political suicide and Hitler knew it.
User avatar #110 to #100 - jewsburninindaoven (03/20/2014) [-]
His prejudice against jews descends from social tension generated by Christianity in the first place. So even if he wasn't Christian, his prejudices were results of it.
User avatar #109 to #100 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
it really is tough to decide his true intentions as much of what he said could easily be taken as just crowd pleaser or manipulation
its why i stay out of major political situations (also why the argument below is about what a crusade is and nothing actually about the war)
theres too many interpretations and no matter how much proof or how long you debate youll allways find people who disagree
#55 to #54 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
"The holocaust wasn't a Christian act, Hitler was a known atheist!"
#151 to #55 - kungfulouie (03/20/2014) [-]
So, just because someone claims to be Christian, whatever they do embodies whatever religion they claim to be?  That's retarded dude, and not how logic works.  Check this out.   
"I believe that when a noble wiener dog, chosen by God, holds a lit Roman candle betwixt it mighty mandibles, it means that all Jews should drown any fish they own in no less then a bathtub full of soy sauce".   
That's a [insert chosen religion] belief now because... I said it.
So, just because someone claims to be Christian, whatever they do embodies whatever religion they claim to be? That's retarded dude, and not how logic works. Check this out.
"I believe that when a noble wiener dog, chosen by God, holds a lit Roman candle betwixt it mighty mandibles, it means that all Jews should drown any fish they own in no less then a bathtub full of soy sauce".

That's a [insert chosen religion] belief now because... I said it.
#152 to #151 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
Not at all, it means that his actions were based on Christianity as he perceived it and in conjunction with many parts of the bible and modern adaptations of the bible he was not wrong.
User avatar #153 to #152 - kungfulouie (03/20/2014) [-]
As he perceived it? That sounds like when the Son of Sam killed a bunch of teenagers because his neighbor's dog told him to. That doesn't mean Hitler's a Christian, it just means he's a ******* psychopath.
#155 to #153 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
What makes yours, or any other person's perception of Christianity any more valid than his?
User avatar #156 to #155 - kungfulouie (03/20/2014) [-]
I'm gonna go with "Gassing innocent naked people".
#157 to #156 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
That's his perception, just like your views on Christianity are yours. Beither of yours are more valid than the other's.
User avatar #158 to #157 - kungfulouie (03/20/2014) [-]
Exactly. The difference isn't gun control, or religion, or video games. It's whether or not you're a murderous psychopath.
#159 to #158 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
Religion was clearly the catalyst here and to deny that is ridiculous. He killed the Jewsbecause in that fictional book the Jews killed Jesus. It's that cut and dry and yet every day Atheists are blamed for being the ones responsible. How he chose to interpret the book was his call but the book was the catalyst.
User avatar #160 to #159 - kungfulouie (03/20/2014) [-]
Catalyst? How about him getting kicked out of Art school. Was that a catalyst? You bet. Or how about his poop problems? Also probably a catalyst. What I'm trying to say is regardless of external circumstance, whatever they may be, the bottom line was, alone in his thoughts, he was a slathering psychotic. The how's and when's are something his mom can debate with his therapist.
User avatar #154 to #153 - kungfulouie (03/20/2014) [-]
Or, MORE likely, was abusing something he knew held some people's hearts, strictly for power, because the "not-be-a-sociopath" part of his brain was busted.
User avatar #58 to #55 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
tho to be fair also the first quote is wrong the last crusade was in 1348 which is less than 1000 years ago
#60 to #58 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
I'd say the Holocaust was as much a crusade as any other.
User avatar #61 to #60 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
the crusades were a set of expeditions set out to regain the holy lands from the muslins
so i have to argue that hitler was not doing that
#63 to #61 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
Suppose that's a matter of semantics, as far as I know it's a war sanctioned by the church to further the progression of Christianity.
User avatar #69 to #63 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
even if we go under that broader generalization of crusade we can still argue that
1.Hitler was not trying to kick out jews for being jews because they were not Christianity
he was kicking out jews because he didnt like then (note the further hate on them over other religions)
even more against it is he wasnt against the religion Judaism but the people jews which is actually a different think you can be jewish and Christian
#80 to #69 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
He was killing them because he blamed them for being the ones who murdered Jesus. That and his breeding with his mother (or was it grandmother?) being essentially a slave to a Jew is what made him hate them.
User avatar #88 to #80 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
im not saying he wasnt against the religion or anyhting just that there are too many differences between the holocaust and a crusade
#90 to #88 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
Yeah, suppose that's just more if you take the historical definition or a more literal one.
User avatar #92 to #90 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
well to be fiar tho if we dont limit it somehow then the whole "Christianity hasn't killed anyone in like 1000 years." thing could be said to say yea well somewhere some crazy guy probably killed someone over religion just the other day
#94 to #92 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
Yeah, at that point we could count the guy who killed 90 or so kids in the name of Christianity after he molested them. He said he molested them of his own accord but killed them peacefully because the bible said they should be stoned to death if brought back in such a state.
User avatar #95 to #94 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
so lets redefine our argument
we are strictly speaking on deaths that were caused by the Christian church not just the people fallowing it ..as this puts it on the religion itself not just random fanatics

and i feel that not only is this a good definition of what we are speaking about it has the unfortunate effect of excluding Hitler

unless you can define it better i feel that our debate comes to a close
#96 to #95 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
Well, the church did end up backing Hitler though it was mostly out of fear I think. No one really wanted to become a martyr for their religious beliefs so they kinda went along with it.
User avatar #97 to #96 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
this information definitely would fuel your argument well but i cant find any article referencing the church backing Hitler
many Christians backed him agreeing that he was doing the right thing but nothing about the church itself
User avatar #84 to #80 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
yes this may be true but he went after the jewish people more than just the religion
in the crusades changing religion woulda saved your life (assuming you got outa the way of the soldiers who just liked killing) also as i said he went against jews more than everything else (disabilities races gays...)
but not the religion more of the people like if your born to a jewish family your a jew religion or not
it wasnt Judaism he was against
User avatar #71 to #69 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
i like how i was going to number these but got mixed around while googling to double check my facts sorry for such a mixed up confusing comment
User avatar #59 to #58 - quotes (03/20/2014) [-]
thats also assuming Christians didnt kill anyone after the crusades which isnt true either but crusades are more popular choices
#17 - gurubear (03/19/2014) [-]
I only think people would hate a religion if it hurts people, even though i don't think much people hate religion.    
I think most people feel the same. Like, i don't believe in Santa Claus, but i don't hate him or the people who believe in him.
I only think people would hate a religion if it hurts people, even though i don't think much people hate religion.
I think most people feel the same. Like, i don't believe in Santa Claus, but i don't hate him or the people who believe in him.
User avatar #20 to #17 - infinitereaper (03/19/2014) [-]
but how can you not believe in Santa Clause
User avatar #22 to #20 - gurubear (03/19/2014) [-]
I tell you:

No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seemes logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a pokey 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.
User avatar #23 to #22 - gurubear (03/19/2014) [-]
The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal anount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

353,000 tons travelling at 650 miles per second creates enourmous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

User avatar #24 to #23 - infinitereaper (03/19/2014) [-]
but muh christmas spirit (magic)
your argument is invalid
User avatar #25 to #24 - gurubear (03/19/2014) [-]
Damn, I guess i only say:

Christmas: 1
Atheist: 0
User avatar #72 to #17 - meierme (03/20/2014) [-]
so you post that with a gif of a person that made it a court martial offence to practice Christianity while active duty.
User avatar #146 to #72 - gurubear (03/20/2014) [-]
Yes... you got me! This was my idea all along! To show how evil Obama really is!!
User avatar #32 to #17 - rhetoricalfunny (03/20/2014) [-]
What if someone went around and started killing people cause he thinks Santa Claus told him to.
Would you hate Santa then?
#40 to #32 - thefates (03/20/2014) [-]
No. I'd hate the ************ that was killing people.
User avatar #144 to #40 - rhetoricalfunny (03/20/2014) [-]
So then why is it so different when a religious person kills someone and says god told them to?
User avatar #161 to #144 - thefates (03/20/2014) [-]
It isn't. I hate people who do that.
User avatar #190 to #161 - rhetoricalfunny (03/21/2014) [-]
That was the only point I was trying to make

A ****** religious person - religion = A ****** person
#191 to #190 - thefates (03/21/2014) [-]
You suck at proving points.
User avatar #192 to #191 - rhetoricalfunny (03/21/2014) [-]
Or you suck at getting them
User avatar #193 to #192 - thefates (03/21/2014) [-]
You didn't need to prove a point everyone already agreed with.
User avatar #147 to #32 - gurubear (03/20/2014) [-]
I would properly hate that guy! But i don't think i can blame it on Santa Claus!
User avatar #119 to #17 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
Ha, look at this faggot, he doesn't believe in Santa Claus. I bet he thinks Spiderman isn't real either.
#50 to #17 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
You do realize that Christianity has a higher death toll than anything else in history period?
User avatar #102 to #50 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
Shhhh, that's not respecting their beliefs.
User avatar #118 to #50 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
Wasn't that Communism as an ideology? (I'm not even trying to be sarcastic, it's a genuine question).
User avatar #150 to #50 - kungfulouie (03/20/2014) [-]
Both religion and politics often get abused and/or misrepresented for different personal, political, or socioeconomic reasons. That has less to do with those ideas, and more to do with people being people.
User avatar #148 to #50 - gurubear (03/20/2014) [-]
Yeah i know. But in my opinion the people who kill in name of religion is only retarded people or people who are been brainwash (to put it roughly). These people will kill for any reason that could be an ideology, and or even his own fantasy. So in the end, religion is not the real enemy, but the poverty and cruelty behind it!
#130 to #50 - anon (03/20/2014) [-]
That's a pretty big generalization of all religions considered "Christian"   
The Catholic church was the main if not the only church that executed people for stupid 			****		. Yeah, they were 			*******		 dumb, but generalizing the death rate to "christianity" is kind of dumb.
That's a pretty big generalization of all religions considered "Christian"
The Catholic church was the main if not the only church that executed people for stupid **** . Yeah, they were ******* dumb, but generalizing the death rate to "christianity" is kind of dumb.
User avatar #111 - snakephallus (03/20/2014) [-]
Exactly, but friendly debates are alright. Like my how my atheist friend and myself (Agnostic) yell at each other in the name of our beliefs.
#124 - graknab (03/20/2014) [-]
Oh boy, my favorite le mememe. Mr. Pelican-That-Everyone-Agrees-With. 10/10 good ****
User avatar #99 - newyorkmade (03/20/2014) [-]
This website used to be so funny..
User avatar #106 to #99 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
The comments are where the humor is.
User avatar #87 - koolkidkonnor (03/20/2014) [-]
the solution to all that **** is simply "mind your own ******* business"
User avatar #35 - robinwilliamson (03/20/2014) [-]
Except then you look at history and see that it's quite reasonable that people are outraged, because religions that are hated are 99.999% of the time the very old non-eastern primitive thinking outdated ones, and if you look at the core doctrines and the first societies that adopted the old ones, you realize it's meant to be exactly how the fundamentalists behave, and not meant to change.

No hate against religion has ever been so severe as religious hate. Religion takes advantage of the not staying within the bounds of reason, and once you're past that point by doctrine, it's of course going to have continually a more harmful effect than if you were to throw out the outdated things. To date, that would be things like Eastern religious sorts of things like Taoism, nature religion like Shinto, basically ones that just focus on spirituality, and not so much an attempt of making up morals and throwing claims around.
User avatar #34 - gammajk (03/20/2014) [-]
If there is a large group of people who have extremist views, come to other countries and expect those countries to bend to their culture, then I will not tolerate those people.
#33 - okamiterasu ONLINE (03/20/2014) [-]
User avatar #28 - charagrin (03/20/2014) [-]
Preaching against intolerance is itself a form of intolerance.
User avatar #30 to #28 - TheHutchie (03/20/2014) [-]
This is why the world's not making any progress.

Progress is recession. Recession is also recession.

Catch 22, ************* .
#15 - anon (03/19/2014) [-]
No it is not, religion is cancer.
User avatar #123 to #15 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
You sound like the Chinese when they invaded Tibet and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people just because they were monks.
#7 - pointblankhits (03/19/2014) [-]
Good to hear a bit of truth, It seems that funnyjunk is mostly a massive atheist circle jerk as was stated in a previous comment
Good to hear a bit of truth, It seems that funnyjunk is mostly a massive atheist circle jerk as was stated in a previous comment
User avatar #6 - thelucci (03/19/2014) [-]
Religion that spreads hate and intolerance is the only religion I see a reason not to tolerate. You can believe what you want, but there's no reason to treat others badly because of it
User avatar #8 - sinery (03/19/2014) [-]
Religion tend to enforce itself upon the other rather than the other way around.
User avatar #11 to #8 - VincentKing ONLINE (03/19/2014) [-]
#16 to #11 - anon (03/19/2014) [-]
True but I've heard plenty people say their child won't take science or protests the teaching of science. And in reality science is pretty much the basis of the modern world, and is formed from the world around us, while religion is a belief system. Teaching science in school is literally teaching them about the world around us. Besides science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not against teaching about religions (plural) in school, I'm against teaching religion in science class because it isn't science.
#13 to #11 - pettdavids (03/19/2014) [-]
Well, in all honesty, I see a lot more cars running using science than religion. Also computers, planes, houses, infrastructure, and well, anything applicable, really.
I find reality a good means of measuring the truth of certain theories/beliefs.
User avatar #14 to #13 - VincentKing ONLINE (03/19/2014) [-]
wait, are you serious? Thats like saying "I like hamburgers over video games because it satisfies my hunger"

The two cant be compared in the same category. Science is there to help understand the universe, and can explain how things work (which does explain many inventions) while religion is a thing people turn to for faith and to feel like someone is watching over them.
User avatar #85 to #14 - kungfulouie (03/20/2014) [-]
I believe in both science and God. I think science is a part of God. Like life as a concept defines not only all of science, but also out into the infinite unknown that surrounds us, as far as we can squint at, and unknown by definition is beyond. Science attempts to understand it, but what it knows changes constantly, as it should. But life is what makes everything else background, things to experience. So I guess life and everything in it, including science, is my concept of God. Or something. Kinda.
User avatar #86 to #85 - kungfulouie (03/20/2014) [-]
And good. Good's good too.
#145 to #14 - pettdavids (03/20/2014) [-]
No, it is like saying "I go to a hamburger joint for a hamburger because it satisfies my hunger, and to an arcade to play video games" as school, IN MY OPINION, is for learning how the world works and how one can participate in the community. Churches are already there to learn about religion and practice it.
#36 to #14 - anon (03/20/2014) [-]
religion is schizophrenia.
User avatar #138 to #11 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
Where have you been? A ******** of people have been saying that, and some people in the Midwest, South, and Texas have actually called for the teaching of Creationism as a substitute to evolution, or at least be taught alongside it.
#51 to #11 - zeedeveel (03/20/2014) [-]
A number of religious people are fighting evolution being taught in schools with just that mentality. I'd say moreso that Atheists complaining about creationism being taught.
User avatar #38 to #11 - robinwilliamson (03/20/2014) [-]
That's because you don't live in Texas
User avatar #41 to #38 - thefates (03/20/2014) [-]
Houston (Cypress that is) is just fine. I hear Waco has problems though.
#21 to #8 - anon (03/19/2014) [-]
Whatever is popular tends to force itself upon the other. Atheism is popular now, so it's what's getting pushed.
User avatar #105 to #21 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
Atheism isn't popular. It's about 4% of the U.S.
User avatar #121 to #105 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
It's popular in Canada, as well as in many south eastern countries.
User avatar #122 to #121 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
Well, to be honest all I care about is America since that's where I live, and we're a deeply disliked and distrusted minority here. **** , I can't even hold political office in quite a few states.
User avatar #126 to #122 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
Sure you can, it's just not popular. Is there really a law PREVENTING you from gaining office based on religious beliefs?

In all honesty, it seems to just be part of a "don't ask, don't tell" thing now-a-days.
#132 to #126 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

-North Carolina:
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

-South Carolina:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

So yeah, not just elections but also witness testimony. To be fair, Torcaso v. Watkins overturned the Maryland statute as un-Constitutional, but the rest haven't been challenged, mainly because it's political suicide to admit that you're a nonbeliever, let alone an Atheist, and that would be a prerequisite to challenging the state constitutions.

It's not that at all. Every major election has many, many religious questions directed at candidates, and many people didn't vote for Obama because they thought he was Muslim. You can get away with it in smaller elections and maybe even Representative, but for Senator, governor, or President? Please, you'd be painted as a baby eating devil worshiper in a week flat.
User avatar #139 to #132 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
I never said you could do it easily as an Atheist, but you still COULD. It's not as if they can test your amount of faith.

Indeed, it seems there are laws regarding Atheism. Than again... 1. In Fairbanks, Alaska, it is illegal to serve alcohol to a moose.
2. In Glendale, Arizona, it is illegal to drive a car in reverse, so virtually everyone in a mall parking lot is breaking the law.
3. In San Francisco, California, it is illegal to wipe your car with used underwear. So, is it okay to use clean underwear?
4. In Quitman, Georgia, it's illegal to change the clothes on a storefront mannequin unless the shades are down.
5. In South Bend, Indiana, it's illegal for monkeys to smoke cigarettes. Apparently cigars are okay, but only if the monkey goes outside.
6. In New Orleans, Louisiana, it's against the law to gargle in public.
7. In Boston, Massachusetts, it's illegal to take a bath unless one has been ordered by a physician to do so.
8. In Minnesota, women may face 30 days in jail for impersonating Santa Claus.
9. In Hornytown, North Carolina, it's illegal to open a massage parlor.
User avatar #141 to #139 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
First they don't exist, now they're not discriminatory? They ask you under oath if you believe in a higher power, and if you say not then you are barred from serving (assuming you got elected in the first place), and if you say yes and are caught in the lie then you will be guilty of perjury. First you doubt the existence of the laws, now you claim that they are not discriminatory.

Well, the funny thing here is that none of those laws discriminate in a manner that DIRECTLY VIOLATES THE ******* CONSTITUTION. They're also not in the state constitutions, and are often outdated laws that nobody bothered to vote to take off of the books. These statutes are very much active and applicable now. There is no parallel between not being able to serve because of your religious beliefs and not being able to sell alcohol to a ******* moose, and the comparison is insulting.
User avatar #143 to #141 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
You're over-reacting. I did not say they didn't exist, I asked if there actually were laws

Nor did I say they were not discriminatory, I said they are probably not taken seriously.

Do not put words in my mouth. It is not polite.

Fine, very well, you win. Atheists are oppressed and it sucks to be you. Suck it up.
User avatar #149 to #143 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
There are laws, they are "taken seriously", as in they are still enforceable, institutionalized discrimination that exists in spite of violating the Constitution. But it's not a big deal since it doesn't affect you, right? It affects other people, so no biggie, they just need to get over it.

You're a ******* cunt, you know that? "Wow, I know there's institutionalized discrimination against you, but suck it up!" If you're an American then you're pretty damned un-American, and if you aren't then don't ever come to my country if you would please.
User avatar #162 to #149 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
Just like I suppose the "not wearing anything red in public" is absolutely enforced in Croix Wisconsin.

The funny thing is, earlier you said you didn't care about anywhere else because it doesn't affect you, and now you're ragging on me because...I don't care when it doesn't affect me? Technically, if I was American, I would be VERY American, because I would be standing beside the laws set by the constitution regardless of how silly they were.
User avatar #163 to #162 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
You obviously don't understand how the American law system works if you think that a state constitution statute is on terms with an archaic law that hasn't been removed from the books.

You got me there, but you're arguing in favor of American law, and as such are open to criticism. You would not be American at all since the national Constitution trumps state constitutions in all levels of the law, hence the state constitutional law being un-Constitutional. Again, a deep misunderstanding of how American law works.
User avatar #164 to #163 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
Well good for you. Go argue that to someone who can actually change **** instead of bitching on the internet and maybe you'll get something done.
User avatar #166 to #164 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
I've actually written my Congresspeople and governor multiple times, but no response. America doesn't have the best track record with caring about unliked minorities, if you haven't noticed.

You're still a cunt.
User avatar #167 to #166 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
And you're still a bitch.

I already said you won and that you were an oppressed minority, you could have dropped it and you didn't. You just like complaining.
User avatar #168 to #167 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
You were obviously saying that facetiously, not in a way that you actually admitted that you were wrong, then you said "suck it up", implying that you didn't think it matters anyways. Don't pretend like that was a legitimate admission that I was correct.
User avatar #169 to #168 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
Well of course I don't think you're correct, but you don't think I'm correct either. That's where things break down. If we are unwilling to listen to eachother, regardless of our stances and reasonings, we will never be able to make a breakthrough. I made an argument, you tossed it aside, you made an argument, I tossed it aside: right here is where the problem started, so instead of continuing for five hours with you calling me a cunt and me calling you a bitch I figured it would be best to just stop right then.
User avatar #172 to #169 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
You're not though because several of the things you said run directly counter to how American law operates. It calls into question any of your opinion on a matter that you appear to have at least some lack of understanding on. But fine, I probably shouldn't care what you think, just another person who does not give a **** about who is discriminated against, as long as it's a group they don't like.
User avatar #177 to #172 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
That's rough, cause so do I.
User avatar #175 to #172 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
You like having the last word, don't you.
User avatar #176 to #175 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
User avatar #173 to #172 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
Now you get it!
User avatar #174 to #173 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
User avatar #140 to #139 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
10. In Fargo, North Dakota, it's illegal to lie down and fall asleep with your shoes on.
11. In Oxford, Ohio, it is illegal for a woman to disrobe in front of a man's picture. Is it legal if his eyes are closed in the photo?
12. In Oklahoma, people who make ugly faces at dogs can be fined or jailed. Apparently, it's okay for bulldogs to make ugly faces at people because they can't help it.
13. In Marion, Oregon, ministers are forbidden from eating garlic or onions before delivering a sermon.
14. In Morrisville, Pennsylvania, women need a permit to wear makeup.
15. In South Dakota, it's illegal to lie down and fall asleep in a cheese factory.
16. At restaurants in Memphis, Tennessee, all pie must be eaten on the premises, as it is illegal to take unfinished pie home.
17. In Utah, birds have the right-of-way on all highways.
18. In Seattle, Washington, women who sit on men's laps on buses or trains without placing a pillow between them face an automatic six-month jail term.
19. In Nicholas County, West Virginia, no clergy member may tell jokes or humorous stories from the pulpit during church services.
20. In St. Croix, Wisconsin, women are not allowed to wear anything red in public.

As you can see, there are many silly laws in the United States, but I doubt anyone actually follows them. It's just a guide-line, much like your laws most likely are.
User avatar #44 - useroftheLOLZ (03/20/2014) [-]
No, hatred and intolerance against religion along with accepting that the magical, totally exists, imaginary friend, doesn't in fact, exist, is part of being a mature adult, who can accept reality. Religion does more harm than good, it's core beliefs impede scientific discovery, it causes people to not give a **** about the status quo with the world, because in their eyes, we will all end up going to heaven anyway, it steps on social rights, it's blatant brain washing, and it's a lie. Believe what you want, but I won't accept that people should just be left alone. People are going to have kids, which will be taught to believe their parents beliefs, thus continuing the cycle. The world doesn't need religion, it needs science to help continue our existence on earth, and at the most basic of levels, religion and science cannot co exists in the same world.

Bring on the flame, and the hate, my body is ready, because dear ******* god, how dare does someone have a controversial opinion, kind of like the ******* point to this god damn mother ******* meme.
User avatar #68 to #44 - lolollo (03/20/2014) [-]
You know what's funny? That getting people like you butthurt is as easy as pointing out that atheism is a religion.
User avatar #120 to #68 - jagenblitz (03/20/2014) [-]
No it isn't.
User avatar #125 to #120 - lolollo (03/20/2014) [-]
You're not exactly disproving my point with your scintillating response.
User avatar #127 to #125 - jagenblitz (03/20/2014) [-]
Because if someone tells you you're wrong, clearly that makes them butthurt. I also don't think you know what the word scintillating means, since my comment was not meant to be witty, and it most certainly wasn't meant to be sparkly.
User avatar #129 to #127 - lolollo (03/20/2014) [-]
You're pretty butthurt.
User avatar #131 to #129 - jagenblitz (03/20/2014) [-]
Ya know, I never understood why people resort to the whole "lul ur butthurt" thing when they realize they have no argument. It's such a low form of trolling it doesn't even deserve to be called as such. It just makes you look like an idiot, not to mention the one who's actually butthurt.
User avatar #133 to #131 - lolollo (03/20/2014) [-]
I've been trolling the entire time.
Are you really that dense.
Go reread the first comment I made.
Seriously, do you really think me putting everything in spoilers is necessary?
You're falling for a troll like a fat kid falls for an all you can eat buffet.
User avatar #134 to #133 - jagenblitz (03/20/2014) [-]
"It's such a low form of trolling it doesn't even deserve to be called as such."

I already recognized that you were trying to troll. I just said that it doesn't even deserve to be called trolling, because the point is to make me angry, not make yourself look like the idiot and the butthurt one.

Seriously dude. If you actually have to come out and say "Lol I was trolling the whole time and you fell for it" your trolling sucks.
User avatar #135 to #134 - lolollo (03/20/2014) [-]
snape kills dumbledore
User avatar #136 to #135 - jagenblitz (03/20/2014) [-]
That's sad.
User avatar #137 to #136 - lolollo (03/20/2014) [-]
I know, how could he.
#113 to #44 - anon (03/20/2014) [-]
> it's core beliefs impede scientific discovery,
Must be an accident that Newton was religious, George Lemarties, the guy who originally proposed the big bang theory was religion, Gregor mendel, genetics, etc. Gee, in fact it seems a majority of religious men in the past were scientists. In fact, before religion came along and proposed that we share scientific discoveries, many were kept secret. Historically speaking religion may in fact be responsible for the explosion of scientific discoveries.
>It's blatant brainwashing
subjective to the scenario in which it happened. Should parent be a militant atheist to the point they don't tolerate their child having religious beliefs, that would be brainwashing
>it's a lie
we don't know for sure
>at the most basic of levels, religion and science cannot co exists in the same world
Well that's just outright wrong.
User avatar #142 to #113 - useroftheLOLZ (03/20/2014) [-]
>The religious masses will oppose scientific advancement if it conflicts with their beliefs
>The way many Abrahamic religions have a cultural norm of forcing the parents beliefs onto the child, from birth to death
>Lack of proof does not mean it's true, by that logic, I could say Santa truly exists, why? Because I am his son, and I have a book written by a bunch of different people, that's been rewritten hundreds of times, and it's all true because it says so in the book
>Science is the factual explaining of the inter-workings of the universe, Religion is a philosophical/religious approach, that has no proof, what so ever, other than because a book/person/scroll say's it's proof. Science says there may have been a Big Bang and provides proof as to why and how the universe was created, and that humanity is nothing more than a series of lucky coincidences. Religion says, here is a old as dirt book, it's been rewritten about a hundred times, translated even more, some of it's been changed to reflect how we like it, and it's right because it says so.
#47 to #44 - infinitereaper (03/20/2014) [-]
This is exactly why this opinion is "unpopular" becuase of retards like you who ******* think all religions are monotheistic ones like Christianity.
******* Taoism, ******* Buddhism, you dumb **** , they are literally lifestyle philosophies at their core aimed at concepts of morality and ethics

"they can't coexist" that is the stupidest ******* thing I have ever heard. What is wrong with a an 8th Fold Path that teaches compassion, cleanliness whatever, etc.
What's wrong with ********* should have stickied those links from the start.

Holy ******* *****
how ignorant can you be.
User avatar #53 to #47 - useroftheLOLZ (03/20/2014) [-]
So what? You can believe what ever the **** you want, doesn't mean that I'm not going to advocate that the ******** that surrounds religion, isn't stopped, or for that matter, it goes away.

I honestly don't give a damn what it preaches, morality isn't dependent upon one having a religion, and a lack of religious beliefs isn't the cause of one being amoral. You can be atheist, and be a moral as all hell, individual, and you can be a zealot, while having some of the most twisted senses of morality, and vice versa.

Religion, even if it teaches acceptance, peace, and all that jazz, is still the belief that there is a superhuman god/s. It's basically a way of explaining how the universe works. While science is another way that is grounded in reality. And for that matter, you can't ******* use science to prove that religion is truly correct, because it's a philosophical way of answering a question, while science is well, the scientific way of answering a question. It's two entirely different, entirely conflicting systems.

And I don't ******* care, I think that the world would be a hell of a lot better off without the vast majority of the population believing in their imaginary friend, up in the skies. The likes of Taoists, and Buddhists, are in the .001 percent that I actually like, but that still doesn't mean that I accept that Taoism and Buddhism should exist.

tl;dr you don't ******* need religion to be a good person, and the world would be, in the long run, a hell of a lot better without religion.
User avatar #108 to #47 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/20/2014) [-]
Buddhism is an atheistic religion though, and I'm pretty sure Taoism is too. Not defending this guy, but just pointing it out, especially since when he says "religion" it's just because he's too stupid/lazy to say "Abrahamic religions" (since those are the only ones that exist I guess). I hate people like this guy because they just enforce the negative Atheist stereotype and give people more of a reason to hate me on principle.
User avatar #3 - skullball (03/19/2014) [-]
How is this a unpopular opinion?
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)