>>2034368

>Atheism: There is no god. We need to figure shit out on our own. Deal with it

>Nihilism: There is no point to existence. The universe is purposeless.

>Secular Humanism: We are Humanity. We are God. We will fix all problems, real, percieved, and imaginary. VICTIS OMNI SUPERBIS!

>Apatheism: I don't give a fuck. You do? Fuck off and leave me in peace.

>General Paganism: You should respect and appease the spirits and gods of the world, as our ancestors did.

>Celtic: We live with one foot in the finite and orderly world, and one foot in the infinite and shifting spirit worlds. Recognize this to be fact, and be sure to respect and fear our otherworldy neighbors.

>Germanic, Nordic: BLOOD AND THUNDER!

>Sun Cult: The sun is the source of life. Let us worship it!

>>2034373

>Taoism: There must be balance in all things. Burma Shave.

>Deism: There is a god(s), and it(they) are probably benevolent and probably have an ultimate plan in mind.

>Female Deity Worship: Our Mother created us and gave us life and all things good. Let us worship her for this! Also, she's hot.

>Greek, Roman: THROW DOWN THE TOWEL AND PARTY HARD!

>Jainism: ALL THE WORLD IS GOODNESS AND PUPPIES! You can't kill that criminal, HE'S MADE OF ADORABLE PUPPIES. OH NO, MUGGERS ARE BEATING THE PUPPY BLOOD OUT OF KITTEN VEINS!

>Egyptian Pantheon: The afterlife is srs biznss, and the gods wear fursuits. Did I mention they make the universe work?

>Solipsism: I. AM. ALL.

>Christianity: God is three beings that are actually one but not. He made everything. His second in command rebelled, got kicked out, showed humans how to be fuckups, got emasculated, and humanity got cursed because they were fuckups. God sent himself/his son/a ghost to get himself killed so he could ignore how fucked up humanity is. Promises eventual GOOD END.

>Islam: There is One god, and one true prophet. All who believe in both are saved. All who are not are infidels, and must be killed or converted.

>Judaism: We argue all the time because we are trying to distract ourselves. Why? Because as God's Chosen People, if we fuck up, he won't even grant us the mercy of death before he damns us.

>Buddhism :You will reincarnate eternally into one life of suffering after another, until you eventually achieve enlightenment and enter Nirvana, which is a beautiful vacation resort in the bahamas where you can lounge for all eternity as a spiritual immortal.

Sikh: ?

>Satanism: Lucifer was right! DOWN WITH THE MAN! FUCK YEAH SUCCUBI!

>Hinduism: Everyone has a Karma meter. Make sure to take a pitstop at your local Karma station or you might find yourself dead in the middle of nowhere, metaphoricaly/literally/spiritually speaking.

>>2034375

>Agnosticism: I dunno, how about you? I dunno, how about you? I dunno, how about you?

>Scientology: It was all aliens. Now give us your money or we break your kneecaps.

Idortism: ?

>>2034377
Agnosticism should be

"Shit, being an atheist doesn't give that same feeling of intellectual superiority it did before. I know, I'll base my worldview on a poorly-understood logical technicality!"

It would be nice to break up some of the traditions within the bigger religions, too. The better parts of Buddhism could be promoted to at least okay tier, as could Christian Gnosticism and mysticism.

reminder: making tier lists is Real Dumb, especially for religion

and you're Real Dumb if you do it

>>2034386
I didn't make the image. I'm just making fun of it.

>>2034377
I believe Idortism refers to all those parody religions like the FSM. So "lol edgy im an atheist but not really LOL RAMEN" is a good description I guess?

>>2034405
OP might as well add Bokononism. It's the only religion with a warning label.

>>2034399

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

>>2034409
Sorry, babe. Still falls under Idortism.

>>2034414
Bullshit it does

why aren't jainism and buddhism in the okay tier? they have a strong commitment against even annoying people.

>>2034405
/v/ here

Idortism means you have all the consoles.

>>2034434

which is why buddhists never wage religious war on anyone…

owait

sri lanka

nevermind

>>2034442
the conflict in sri lanka was awesome for precisely this reason, btw

>>2034412
Thomas Jefferson was Catholic...

>>2034444

all buddhist monks getting to fisticuffs when other monks think maybe killing all the hindus isn't the best idea

>>2034449

lolwut.jpg

>>2034449
no, he wasn't. he certainly believed in a higher power, and he could with some stretching be called a christian, but he was absolutely not a catholic.

>>2034454
deist, then?

>>2034462
I think that's the usual consensus, but it's a topic of significant debate. Anyone involved in a debate that touches on religion and politics in America wants Jefferson on their side.

This can't have been made by someone older than 15. 4/10.

Now, what would you call an Atheist who give credence to certain aspects of Buddhist philosophy and practices meditation? A secular Buddhist? A confused Atheist? A mindful nonbeliever? I know i'm not the only one of us around

>>2034480
A dilettante, I'd say.

I don't see how you could troll anybody with these.

They're just really, really simplified and naive explanations of each religion.

>>2034485
Why is that? I don't think believing in the metaphysical aspects of Buddhism is crucial for practicing mindfulness and meditation. Meditation has scientifically and neurologically proven benefits.

>>2034405
Idortism a joke on agnosticism, sort of.

The idort meme means someone who owns all the consoles (when created it meant someone who owned both PSP and DS), in this context it would mean either someone who for some reason practices MULTIPLE religions, or agnosticism, which is all religions in a sense.

Pic related, an idort.

>>2034491
>They're just really, really simplified and naive explanations of each religion.
Which makes it ideal troll material.
They are too short to simply tl;dr, not so untrue as to be discounted, and naive enough in representation to convince others that there is enough of a chance to reform OP to bother posting.

>>2034462
>he is Catholic
>nope
>in that case he is a deist
lolwut.jpg

>>2034495
what can you tell me about Sikh?

>>2034497
No, not really.

>Atheism: There is no god. We need to figure shit out on our own. Deal with it

What about this would get an Athiest mad?

>Nihilism: There is no point to existence. The universe is purposeless.
>Secular Humanism: We are Humanity. We are God. We will fix all problems, real, percieved, and imaginary. VICTIS OMNI SUPERBIS!
>Apatheism: I don't give a fuck. You do? Fuck off and leave me in peace.
>General Paganism: You should respect and appease the spirits and gods of the world, as our ancestors did.

How would any of these get anyone mad?
The only thing that would tick anyone off is that you're not taking their religion seriously.

At most you'll just a get a small lecture.

I mean, I guess it depends on where you plan to troll, but this is pretty beginner-level stuff.
For starters, you seem to be under the impression that you can't have anything that's easily discounted. A good troll persona is one that has absurd views to the very core.
Your first introduction should be short and sweet, and hold view that is incorrect to incite a response. The first post should never be something that would get an angry reply, but it should set the foundation for your second. The incorrect view should believable that someone might have, but not such a common fallacy that it could be parodied or seen as a trope.
Then when they correct you, this is where you logic unravels, as you deny their correcting with even more absurd views. Still staying behind the delicate line of disbelief, but absurd enough that they wouldn't have ever thought they'd need to explain this to someone.

>>2034524
For example, in piracy threads on /v/, suggesting pirating games is stealing is an obvious troll. It's such a common mistake in piracy debates that's been corrected so many times, nobody believes you're serious. At most they'll write a one sentence correction, if you demand more of an explanation that probably means you're not trolling, they won't even bother discussing anything with you.

But what you can do is call them entitled.
1. You demean them, you act pretentious, angering them, making them feel they need to correct you
2. When they reply with it analogies and such, you can nitpick at the analogy for dumb reasons

What you're doing is like saying Nihilism and then saying "Having existential crisis in college". It's just an insult, no one's going to take you seriously.

What you want is "I don't understand how my actions effect others and that when I make a change on the world, even if it's tiny on the grand scale of things, it's still making a difference to a huge amount of people".

>>2034507
Dunno.

Something for hindus:
Not all believe in not eating cow. They're supposed to treat animals with respect if they help them out. Some interpret that as not eating cows, because they helped in farms and gave milk, and still do today. Some interpret that as not eating any animals since they all contribute in some way. Some interpret that as treating them with respect, but still eating them, as their meat is another way they help humans out.

A lot of hindus don't realize it's an interpretation, they're raised to either eat beef or not.

So say something like
>misinterpret your own religion and worship cows when it never actually says to do that anywhere

Also karma meter effects your NG+.

>>2034494

The metaphysical aspects of Buddhism are essential parts of the religion. Bowdlerizing their belief system until you've reduced it to the few mundane practices you can wrap your head around doesn't make you any kind of practitioner of Buddhism; it makes you a silly hipster who's trying way too hard to be a unique snowflake. If you want to meditate, you can do that without pretending that it's "Buddhism."

Also, sage

>>2034533
>>2034524
Well thanks! Saved for future reference.
Have some surprisingly good music in thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiKPgmN5jTg

I don't troll much, so I've little practice in it. However, upon finding the OP pic, it just looked like it might be easy enough for me to pull off.

>>2034533
but pirating games is stealing? not sure what's going on here

>>2034399

How to make a q2 comic.

Panel 1
q2 is minding his own business.

Panel 2
Antagonist comes along and makes a strawman arguement that hardly addresses the current discourse of the antagonist's issue.

Panel 3
q2 easily reveals the strawman for what it is.

Panel 4
Instead of focusing the debate on the relevant points, the antagonist indulges in ad hominem.

And optional panel 5.
q2 spells out the point made in panel 3 in a condescending fashion.

Now you make one.

>>2034507

You must not shave your beard or body hair. You must cover your head hair with a turban. You must wear special underwear. You must carry a little sword. It's okay to kill if it is in defense of your people. You must bomb around town in a blinged out Chrysler, high out of your tree on crown royal and weed, blasting rap music on your way to carry out an honor killing/random beating.

>>2034569
It isn't "stealing", because the content is copied, not just transferred to someone else's ownership.

>>2034576
that's an incredibly reductionist way of looking at it, tho. there's no physical transfer of an object, but you're taking possession of something that they have created and are selling without paying for it. how is that not stealing?

>>2034580
Oh, I'm not denying it's wrong or that is should be punished, but you cannot define it as "stealing". It's copyright infringement/piracy.

>>2034585
from a moral perspective, it seems rather indistinguishable from stealing. when you steal something, you take it as your own, without compensation to or acquiescence from the owner. the fact that it's copied, instead of physically taken, seems immaterial.

>>2034580
>>2034587
please be trolling

>>2034587
From a moral perspective, unless the game is made by a struggling indie dev in his basement then everyone involved has already been compensated for their labour and you will do no harm whatsoever by making an illegal copy for free.

From a political perspective, property is theft in the first place.

>>2034587
From a moral perspective you may think so, but it is not stealing.

SCENARIO 1
You make a game. You have a warehouse full of copies of that game which you sell directly to the customers. Each copy of the game cost $5 to produce. Now, I break into your warehouse and steal one copy of that game. I got the entire, physical product for free, while you just lost both those $5 it cost to produce that physical copy, AND the potential of that particular copy of the game being bought at full-price.

SCENARIO 2
You make a game. You have a warehouse full of copies of that game which you sell directly to the customers. One of your customers then copies the contents of the game disk and uploads them to the internet. Someone downloads it, and they now have the game. They play it for free, BUT you did not technically lose anything - all your game copies are still in your warehouse or sold. What you lost is (usually) the POTENTIAL to make money off a customer. I say "usually" because you technically didn't lose anything, even the potential - the person still MAY buy it. It's just that usually they don't.

This is why you cannot equate piracy with stealing.

>>2034599
>Proudhon

>>2034599
I'm not saying it's wrong, but it certainly is theft.

>>2034603
The $5 loss for the physical copy of the game is trivial. The significant fact is that the person lost the potential of the sale, because you took something that was for sale without paying for it. That's what makes it theft. It's more damaging in the first case, but it's still theft in the second. This is not a complicated concept here guys.

>>2034614
>I'm not saying it's wrong, but it certainly is theft.
Too obvious. You need to work on that a bit more.

>This is not a complicated concept here guys.
This too. Never put statements like that in your posts when trolling.

Overall, fairly good for a first troll. 7-8/10.

>>2034614
It's demonstrably not theft, even if you think it's morally equivalent. You don't get to decide what words mean.

>>2034564
Except that your presupposition that Buddhism is a strict dogmatic religion is false. It's traditions are malleable. Many genuine Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation, for example.

>>2034614
>The $5 loss for the physical copy of the game is trivial. The significant fact is that the person lost the potential of the sale, because you took something that was for sale without paying for it. That's what makes it theft. It's more damaging in the first case, but it's still theft in the second. This is not a complicated concept here guys.

Yeah well that's how the free market works. Why should you be payed when I can get your material for free or at a greatly reduced cost. I'm not some moral actor out there looking to rightly compensate the various people who may have been at one point or another involved in the production or distribution of this item; I want it for as little as I can get it for and if I can get it for that then I'm going to. That's capitalism.

If you think you're being run out of business then quit. Let the market dry up and then re-release your product when the demand is satisfactory and you believe no one will take the initiative to rob you because the cost of circumventing you is too high. Or spend some of your income to buy up lobbyists and lawyers to shut down portions of the market that you dislike and find counterproductive to your business models. Get in there with the enforcers of regulated state capitalism and stake your claim to their power being exercised on your market interest's behalf.

Your death at the hands of piracy is another businesses' life. If you can't compete then so be it.