Which is worse : Ebola or Religion ?

[mistermack]

The two seem to be very similar.

New religions mutate from older ones. They spread, just like a virus. They kill millions of people, and often alter their behaviour to help the spread of the virus.

Ebola kills more victims, about 50%. But that means that the dead victims can't spread the virus.
Ebola is not as deadly as smallpox, because smallpox kills more slowly, so more people can be infected.
Religion kills a lower percentage, and kills more slowly still. But overall, it kills more people than smallpox and ebola, and has far more behaviour control than either.

My vote is religion. Top of the deadly league.
Even if Ebola REALLY takes off and kills lots of people, it will never match religion.

[NineBerry]

My top votes would go to nationalism and capitalism.

[mistermack]

My top votes would go to nationalism and capitalism.

Nationalism yes, but it's usually very strongly linked to religion.

But capitalism, what's the alternative to money?

[NineBerry]

What's the Alternative to God?

[Animavore]

I'd rather suffer the discomfort of an hour of Mass than a few days, probably my last few days, dying from internal bleeding.

[cronus]

Religion is Ebola. There are no moderate cases. You either have it or you don't. And mortality is 70% and rising in both cases.

[laklak]

Mortality is 100%, no matter your religion, gender, nationality, race, or politics. Ain't nobody gets out of this alive.

[klr]

Religion. We'll find a cure for Ebola and/or be able to contain it, given sufficient time and resources. Religion is a lot harder to deal with, and has killed a lot more people.

[Seth]

The two seem to be very similar.

New religions mutate from older ones. They spread, just like a virus. They kill millions of people, and often alter their behaviour to help the spread of the virus.

Ebola kills more victims, about 50%. But that means that the dead victims can't spread the virus.
Ebola is not as deadly as smallpox, because smallpox kills more slowly, so more people can be infected.
Religion kills a lower percentage, and kills more slowly still. But overall, it kills more people than smallpox and ebola, and has far more behaviour control than either.

My vote is religion. Top of the deadly league.
Even if Ebola REALLY takes off and kills lots of people, it will never match religion.

Irreligion, however, has killed more people than ebola and religion combined and is coming close to matching the Black Plague in it's lethality.

[cronus]

The two seem to be very similar.

New religions mutate from older ones. They spread, just like a virus. They kill millions of people, and often alter their behaviour to help the spread of the virus.

Ebola kills more victims, about 50%. But that means that the dead victims can't spread the virus.
Ebola is not as deadly as smallpox, because smallpox kills more slowly, so more people can be infected.
Religion kills a lower percentage, and kills more slowly still. But overall, it kills more people than smallpox and ebola, and has far more behaviour control than either.

My vote is religion. Top of the deadly league.
Even if Ebola REALLY takes off and kills lots of people, it will never match religion.

Irreligion, however, has killed more people than ebola and religion combined and is coming close to matching the Black Plague in it's lethality.

It is a protective mechanism to have a low dosage of de-activated atheism. Religion vs atheism and religion will always lose. Bodycount matters. Whose side you on? The guy with gnu or the guy in the trench?

[mistermack]

Irreligion, however, has killed more people than ebola and religion combined and is coming close to matching the Black Plague in it's lethality.

Who exactly was driven by a lack of religion to kill people?

[pErvinalia]

Don't try and reason with him.

Anyway, my answer to the OP is: Scumple!

[Seth]

Irreligion, however, has killed more people than ebola and religion combined and is coming close to matching the Black Plague in it's lethality.

Who exactly was driven by a lack of religion to kill people?

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and every other Marxist dictator on earth.

[pErvinalia]

But they didn't kill people out of a lack of belief in God. They did it for the same reason Hitler did it. They were just cunts.

[mistermack]

Irreligion, however, has killed more people than ebola and religion combined and is coming close to matching the Black Plague in it's lethality.

Who exactly was driven by a lack of religion to kill people?

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and every other Marxist dictator on earth.

That is such a pathetic fallacy, that if you weren't a declared troll, I would say you are incredibly stupid.
As it is, it's a pathetic attempt at trolling, pretty stupid in it's own right.