Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Especially Anti-Islam.

Discuss.

Anti-Semitism is bad mostly because of the clearly vicious and undeserved genocide committed during WWII. That being said, it's not treated in the same light as other genocides, but Ukrainians and Cambodians generally don't own media conglomerates either. It's a bit of exposure. Here in America and the West, black slavery is considered a big deal. But there are more people in slavery or slave-like conditions at this moment in time than all the ones raised and rears under the lash in America. But because racial inequality is only just eroding, similar to how we are still only a few generations from the Holocaust, it's most prominent. Humans as a whole aren't big on history, and their actual understanding of the web of events which lead to today is muddy at best.

That being said, there's always some group who hates a religion, usually for silly reasons like conflict in dogma or aggressive preaching, wearing the wrong hat, eating the wrong animal, etc. But that's what you get when you put a code of ethics put together thousands of years ago by people who could barely read silently if at all and say it's more important than the non-violent, non-abrasive person sitting beside you.

Now, for visual aids...

http://www.religifake.com/image/religion/1312/anti-religion-posts-vik-religion-1386456320.jpg

http://mesosyn.com/rp-15.jpg

https://img0.etsystatic.com/015/1/5830090/il_340x270.411692316_evy2.jpg

http://dailyatheistquote.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/h-l-mencken.jpg

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/03/Motivation-If-God-Made-Humans-From-Dust.jpg

Anti-Semitism is hostility or prejudice toward Jews; simply criticising Judaism does not qualify.

Additionally, unlike Muslims, Jews are also an ethnic group.

So an antitheist criticising Judaism would not be anti-Semitism, but a white nationalist advocating separation from or violence toward Jews would be.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Anti-Semitism is hostility or prejudice toward Jews; simply criticising Judaism does not qualify.

Additionally, unlike Muslims, Jews are also an ethnic group.

So an antitheist criticising Judaism would not be anti-Semitism, but a white nationalist advocating separation from or violence toward Jews would be.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Anti-Semitism is bad mostly because of the clearly vicious and undeserved genocide committed during WWII.

What exactly do you mean here? Do you think the moral status of anti-Semitism was debatable prior to the Holocaust? Perhaps you think there is a causal link between anti-Semitism and unjustifiable mass murder, a link that you might not think exists between say, anti-Arabism (or whatever the term is) and unjustifiable mass murder...


Originally posted by Stealth Moose
That being said, it's not treated in the same light as other genocides, but Ukrainians and Cambodians generally don't own media conglomerates either. It's a bit of exposure. Here in America and the West, black slavery is considered a big deal. But there are more people in slavery or slave-like conditions at this moment in time than all the ones raised and rears under the lash in America. But because racial inequality is only just eroding, similar to how we are still only a few generations from the Holocaust, it's most prominent. Humans as a whole aren't big on history, and their actual understanding of the web of events which lead to today is muddy at best.

What are you trying to establish here, other than a tired cynicism with regards to humanity's abilities to treat all moral obscenities equally.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
That being said, there's always some group who hates a religion, usually for silly reasons like conflict in dogma or aggressive preaching, wearing the wrong hat, eating the wrong animal, etc. But that's what you get when you put a code of ethics put together thousands of years ago by people who could barely read silently if at all and say it's more important than the non-violent, non-abrasive person sitting beside you.

What is it in the code of ethics put together a thousand years ago that causes this conflict? What do the code of ethics produced a thousand years ago have that modern political ideologies (which lead to the deaths of thousands) don't have? If people only had their pop-music tastes to differentiate themselves from other groups, do you think the already heated/hateful Bieber debates would lead to similar death tolls?

Now, for visual aids...

http://www.religifake.com/image/religion/1312/anti-religion-posts-vik-religion-1386456320.jpg

Inevitably you will...

http://mesosyn.com/rp-15.jpg

Why?

https://img0.etsystatic.com/015/1/5830090/il_340x270.411692316_evy2.jpg

So does Sean Hannity...

http://dailyatheistquote.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/h-l-mencken.jpg

That religion makes people good would be a defence/explanation of its position within a society, a case even non-believers might (and do) make. I'm not sure which particular religion has ever used the moral quality of its adherents as an argument to justify its creedal claims. Mr. Mencken is stroking the cat but feeding the dog.

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/03/Motivation-If-God-Made-Humans-From-Dust.jpg

Presumably for the same reason that there is still carbon in the universe outside of human beings.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Especially Anti-Islam.

Discuss. Because non-theists with micropenis (Such as Shakyamunison and Stealth Moose for example) need someone to pick on to make their penises seem less tiny.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Because non-theists with micropenis (Such as Shakyamunison and Stealth Moose for example) need someone to pick on to make their penises seem less tiny.

What?

What word do you need explained to you?

Originally posted by NemeBro
What word do you need explained to you?

Sorry, I understand the sentence but, not knowing the history, I'm unclear as to whether this is some sort of sarcasm (in which i take you to be a theist) or another kind of sarcasm (in which i take you to be a non-theist).

It doesn't matter who he is. What matters is his plan.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
It doesn't matter who he is. What matters is his plan.

Though I have contempt for everything you represent, your avatar demands my respect.

No one cared who I was until I put on the avatar.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Sorry, I understand the sentence but, not knowing the history, I'm unclear as to whether this is some sort of sarcasm (in which i take you to be a theist) or another kind of sarcasm (in which i take you to be a non-theist). I'm an agonostic, which is sort of like an atheist but smarter.

I just don't think that entitles me toward being a ********** towards theists.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
No one cared who I was until I put on the avatar.

Clever girl...

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm an atheist.

I just don't think that entitles me toward being a ********** towards theists.

And that, we can all respect.

Actually was a typo, technically I'm an agnostic.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Sorry, I understand the sentence but, not knowing the history, I'm unclear as to whether this is some sort of sarcasm (in which i take you to be a theist) or another kind of sarcasm (in which i take you to be a non-theist). He was 100% serious. The penis shortage in this thread is magnificent.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm an agonostic, which is sort of like an atheist but smarter.

I just don't think that entitles me toward being a ********** towards theists. An agnostic is NOT an Atheist but smarter. Agnostics are usually under the position that "religion is possible, I just look at evidence" and distrust atheism because of embarasment, reputation or some other arbitrary emotional reason.

An agnostic treats the stances "wizard in clouds created everything" vs "that story is bullshit" as equal stances. That doesn't make you smarter, that's a delusion like theists are deluded. I could just as easily say "I misplaced my keys in another pocket last night" vs "A fairy took my keys and is testing my faith until it returns them to me" as equal stance, and even though there isn't any evidence to disprove fairies, critical thought would dictate the more sensible theory....not due to what the masses believe, but due to consistent logic.

Atheists are smarter than agnostics, agnostics are weaselly atheists or theists and will eventually be shown as one or the other.

Anyway, anti-semitism.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
An agnostic is NOT an Atheist but smarter. Agnostics are usually under the position that "religion is possible, I just look at evidence" and distrust atheism because of embarasment, reputation or some other arbitrary emotional reason.

An agnostic treats the stances "wizard in clouds created everything" vs "that story is bullshit" as equal stances. That doesn't make you smarter, that's a delusion like theists are deluded. I could just as easily say "I misplaced my keys in another pocket last night" vs "A fairy took my keys and is testing my faith until it returns them to me" as equal stance, and even though there isn't any evidence to disprove fairies, critical thought would dictate the more sensible theory....not due to what the masses believe, but due to consistent logic.

Atheists are smarter than agnostics, agnostics are weaselly atheists or theists and will eventually be shown as one or the other.

Anyway, anti-semitism.

Good job using a blanket statement for all Agnostics

No different than someone saying "All Atheist are religion hating chronic masturbators with daddy issues.", but that would be silly and stupid and stupidly silly.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good job using a blanket statement for all Agnostics

No different than someone saying "All Atheist are religion hating chronic masturbators with daddy issues.", but that would be silly and stupid and stupidly silly. I thought all Atheists were that? ermm

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Especially Anti-Islam.

Discuss.

I'm against most hate-ons for religious groups- or, more specifically, for the people that follow them.


I'd like it if people stopped being religious, but on the flip side, I do very much hate, "Let's go and invade all the Muslim countries!" or "All Muslims are terrorists!" crap.

I think the way to handle someone having a belief system you don't like is to try and encourage them to change via positive methods like discussion.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
An agnostic is NOT an Atheist but smarter. Agnostics are usually under the position that "religion is possible, I just look at evidence" and distrust atheism because of embarasment, reputation or some other arbitrary emotional reason.

An agnostic treats the stances "wizard in clouds created everything" vs "that story is bullshit" as equal stances. That doesn't make you smarter, that's a delusion like theists are deluded. I could just as easily say "I misplaced my keys in another pocket last night" vs "A fairy took my keys and is testing my faith until it returns them to me" as equal stance, and even though there isn't any evidence to disprove fairies, critical thought would dictate the more sensible theory....not due to what the masses believe, but due to consistent logic.

Atheists are smarter than agnostics, agnostics are weaselly atheists or theists and will eventually be shown as one or the other.

Anyway, anti-semitism. Of course religion is possible, I mean, look at how many of them are around today, much less have been around historically.

Originally posted by Q99
I'm against most hate-ons for religious groups- or, more specifically, for the people that follow them.

I'd like it if people stopped being religious, but on the flip side, I do very much hate, "Let's go and invade all the Muslim countries!" or "All Muslims are terrorists!" crap.

I think the way to handle someone having a belief system you don't like is to try and encourage them to change via positive methods like discussion. How would you actually go about convincing someone that something they've been taught to believe all their life is wrong without making them feel antagonized though?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Of course religion is possible, I mean, look at how many of them are around today, much less have been around historically. Perhaps I should have said "god is possible"

Obviously God/greater power is possible.

Only a completely arrogant assclown with inferior genitalia would pretend to know that God/greater power doesn't exist or has never existed as an absolute truth.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously God/greater power is possible.

Only a completely arrogant assclown with inferior genitalia would pretend to know that God/greater power doesn't exist or has never existed as an absolute truth. That's all I was saying.

They just don't understand you like I do.

Originally posted by Robtard
They just don't understand you like I do. Ha! Gay.


But no srsly, that was buaetiful. I cry evrtim.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously God/greater power is possible.

Only a completely arrogant assclown with inferior genitalia would pretend to know that God/greater power doesn't exist or has never existed as an absolute truth. It exists in imagination. It's make believe. The chances of make believe existing is 0, because nothing in make believe has ever come true. Therefore the chances of god existing is 0. Zero chance, not possible.

Simple logic. Can't believe it's not obvious to some.