Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Miguel Lopez
27111 Followers
Franke Normand
0 Followers
Complex Magazine
3026 Followers
Carter Aus
10 Followers
thetinkrisAug 2, 2010
The quality of recent XKCDs just make me sad...
torturorAug 2, 2010
Dugg for beating that dumbass binky bulls**t, cheers.
aericAug 2, 2010
How did you manage that anyway? It says you posed 1 min after binky.
kajaragoAug 2, 2010
no, one minute before binky.
takamalakAug 2, 2010
Aw, someone making fun of your little man on a stick?
therightcliqueAug 3, 2010
A.) You completely missed the point of the comic and B.) Regardless of what happens with little men and sticks, this was a s**t comic, as usual.
joecool1986Aug 2, 2010
I don't know why people are burying you down. You're totally right. +1
(I accidentally typed "+!" at first and then corrected it, but then I thought that I'd wish you a "bang" as well)
emjayseaAug 2, 2010
Yeah, that Mister Rogers one was f'ing weak.
volaitle86Aug 2, 2010
They have all been f**king weak
dibbkdAug 2, 2010
All week.
almostwoAug 2, 2010
++ Kudos. binky79 need this kind of lessons
protodonAug 2, 2010
sometimes you just run out of clever.
therightcliqueAug 3, 2010
Like at birth in the case of the XKCD author.
vegxAug 3, 2010
xkcd is generally terrible. Maybe we've finally entered an age where they'll stop making the front page.
iwashere2Aug 3, 2010
struck a nerve huh?
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Yes it did. Atheists don't like to be treated the way they treat others.
liljimmynordinAug 3, 2010
Fundie Christians don't like that someone out there is standing up to them.
atreyuholmAug 3, 2010
Yuh those stick figures are really lacking in quality lately....
/endsarcasm
diggmat1cAug 3, 2010
Actually, I liked this one. I do agree though.
binky79Aug 2, 2010
This is the best xkcd ever!
llanowarAug 2, 2010
No, no it's not.
vincent21212Aug 2, 2010
I was his first bury.
vincent21212Aug 2, 2010
I said first bury, not first reply, schgentlemen.
gottlosAug 2, 2010
Did you actually get pissed off that people dugg you down and then actually mention that? Wow I feel so superior to you right now.
d4rk354b3rAug 2, 2010
Burying binky79 does not make you a cool cat.
douglasqAug 2, 2010
Was gonna pity digg you til you called people 'gentlemen'.
vincent21212Aug 2, 2010
never did I call them gentlemen.
cooterbrown000Aug 2, 2010
i was your last.
vincent21212Aug 2, 2010
I was your first, pussy
labdiscoAug 3, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
iamacyborgAug 3, 2010
@Labdisco
Apparently it's a reference to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XccUMOQ978
sputnikvAug 2, 2010
dugg for consistency!
929yellowjacketAug 2, 2010
Buried for consistency.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
u cant bury contsysties?
Seriously dude, I just wanted to show you my new avatar. I figured you would get a kick out of it.
Later.
929yellowjacketAug 3, 2010
Ahahaha that picture is excellent wolfgang! I'm going to need something similar. That stupid bitch put some ridiculous s**t in her profile about me.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
How can I get you my email address without making it hyper public?
929yellowjacketAug 5, 2010
Good question my friend. Do you have a spam email address you could post? Then I could email your spam address with my legit address.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
raviddossholland@hotmail.com
thereddarrenAug 2, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
hyperbolebluesAug 2, 2010
Lisa... needs braces? What?
simplyfungusAug 2, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
dlan4327Aug 2, 2010
Lisa needs braces
ptearAug 2, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
doshindudeAug 2, 2010
Lisa needs braces
eroc668Aug 2, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
norbiuAug 2, 2010
Lisa needs braces
vsujohn2Aug 2, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
BlibbleAug 2, 2010
Lisa needs braces
hydesAug 2, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
bacwerdsmanAug 2, 2010
Lisa needs braces
wontstoptalkingAug 2, 2010
(hate to combo-break, but can someone please explain?)
sotoninAug 2, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
mrsaundercookAug 2, 2010
@wontstoptalking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd9Yibf_UXE
Lisa needs braces
random12345Aug 2, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
danthe1manAug 2, 2010
Lisa needs braces
felixsauveAug 2, 2010
**Drops pen**
warriorpoetistAug 2, 2010
Thanks a lot Carl! now I lost my train of thought...
screamingpixelAug 2, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
jeffdAug 2, 2010
Lisa needs braces!
flip2tripAug 3, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
vincent21212Aug 3, 2010
What's the story behind this meme? At 27, I think I've finally become uncool.
labdiscoAug 3, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
vincent21212Aug 3, 2010
touche...
allantronAug 3, 2010
If we give up our dental plan... I'll have to pay for Lisa's braces!
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
*Drops pencil in butt crack* Haha, bullseye!
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
DENTAL PLAN
marxshruggedAug 2, 2010
The next xkcd will be even better.
clouds31Aug 2, 2010
Only if binky says it is.
scottishcookieAug 2, 2010
You said that about the last one!
nightsweatAug 2, 2010
This is the best "This is the best XKCD ever!" ever!
boreddiggerAug 2, 2010
I hate you binky
azathothhAug 2, 2010
Buried for not being first. I'm disapointed Binky.
mhuntAug 2, 2010
To be fair to Binky, this XKCD was submitted twice. The first time it was submitted, it has only one comment. That would be Binky, of course. This one was submitted 6 minutes later, probably while Binky was making his comment on the first one.
maskedslackerAug 2, 2010
You do realize that binky is a script, right?
joecool1986Aug 2, 2010
………………………………..¸„-~~^**^~~–,„¸___¸„-~-‘,¨’,~-,„¸…………………………………
……………………………¸„-“´ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ’, ‘, : :`"-„………………………………
…………………………¸„” : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ¸`› ‘, : : : `-„……………………………………
………………………..„” : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ,’ ,-‘`, `, : : : :”-„…………………………………
………………………„” : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :¯: : ,’ ,’ : : : : :”„…………………………………
……………………..ƒ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ‘, ‘, : : : : : :`¸………………………………
……………………..| : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : `, ‘, : : : : : :'|………………………………
……………………..| : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : `”´ : : : : : :'|……………………………
……………………..”„:¸¸,„„„¸¸,-, : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :ƒ……BURY HIM!
……………………...”„`-~^~-,„”- : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :_ : : „”………………………………
………………………..”„ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :‘,`,¸-“………………………………
………………………….”-„: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ‘„”……………………………………
…………………………….”-„ : :¸„~-„¸ : : : : : : : : : : : : ¸,„„¸ : : : „-“………………………………………
……………………__………| : | · · | |`-„ : : :¸ : :¸ : : ¸„-˜ | | · `„ „-“*~–„¸……¸„–-„¸…………………………
…………………„-˜·:·:`”-„¸„-~”„ :`¸ · ·| | · “-,¸ :¸’ : ‘¸ ¸„-´· · ‘| | · „” “„ ::::::: ¯`”¸” ·:·:·”„………………………
…………………| ·:·:·:„-“ ::::::`”~`„-„’„’¸_¸„-˜¨¯ „ „ :`¨`-„¸ · ·| |„-“¸„-“ :::::::::::: ‘„·:·:·: |`*°~~–-,„¸……………
…………………| ·:·:·’„ ::::::::::::: `”*-„ : : : : : : : : : : :¯`”’˜,„´ ::::::::::::::::::| ·:·:· | ::::::::::::¯¨`”~-„¸……
……………..¸„-“´„ ·:·:·| :::::::::::::::::::”¸ : „-“˜¯`”’”´¯`”’-„ : :„”/ ::::::::::::::::::: ', ·:·:,’ :::::::::::::::::::::: `”-„…
…………..¸-˜ :::: \ ·:·:”„ :::::::::::::::::::,”-„"**¯¯`**~–-“¸„-“,’ ::::::::::::::::::::: ,' ·:·,’ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |…
……….¸„-“ :::::::: ”„ ·:·’, :::::::::::::::::: ’, ¨'`-„¸_ :_¸„-*˜ ;; ƒ ::::::::::::::::::::::,’ ·:,’ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |…
........„-“ ::::::::::::: "¸ ·: \ ::::::::::::::::::: '\ ;;;;; ¯ ;;;;;;;; ,' :::::::::::::::::::::: / ·¸-‘ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,’…
…..„” ::::::::::::::::::::`-„ ·’, ::::::::::::::::::::`-„ ;;;;;;;;;;;; ,’ :::::::::::::::::::::::,’„„˜¸____ ::::::_¸„- :::::::::: ƒ…
…„” :::::::::::: `”~-„ :::::`-¸’\ ::::::::::::::::::::::`-„ ;;;;;; „-“ ::::::::::::::::::::::::/………..,´¯¯¯ :::::::::::::: ƒ…
.„” ::::::::::::::::::::::``-„¸¸-˜ `”-„:::::::::::::::::::::: `-,„-^˜ :::::::::::::::::::::::::: I………..,’ ::::::::::::::::::: ,’…
/ ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ¸„-~`^*¯¨`-„ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: „“……….,’ ::::::::::::::::::: ,’…
”„ :::::::::::::::::::::¸-” : : : : : :¸ :`-„ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: „”………¸„~`˜¯¯¨`”*~„¸ ::::: ,’……
–`”-„ ::::::::::::::: ƒ : : : : : : : `¸ ¸ `¸——————————————-˜—¸,„-^”˜ : : : : : : : : : “„ ::„” ——–
;·;·;·`”~–„¸_ ::::: ”¸ : : : : :`» : ¸-“¸„-“ ;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·¸„-*˜ ¸„-~~-„ : : : : : ¸,„-~”~” ·;·;·;·;·;
;·;·;·;·;··;·;· ¯¨`””˜´`”*~–-~´–-^'˜ ¯;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·¯¯¯ ;·¸„-*˜„-~^*”˜˜¯ ;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;
; ;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·; ¯¯·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;
jmull836Aug 2, 2010
wtf is that thing?
hydesAug 2, 2010
you may want to kill yourself
wontstoptalkingAug 2, 2010
Humans can kill themselves simply by not doing anything! By not moving they get no source of food, which, in their species, leads to death! Death by inactivity proves their incompetence!
So just try doing that, jmull.
mrsaundercookAug 2, 2010
jmull, as disgusted as I am by your ignorance I feel a sort of sadness. Perhaps your window wasn't maximized and the image was skewed, or perhaps you truly have never seen the show Futurama, which would be infinitely unfortunate. If the latter is the truth, please go download the all available episodes, watch them, then return to Digg.
jmull836Aug 2, 2010
Wow, most offensive thing I've ever said on digg apparently. Never thought a futurama reference would fall on deaf ears for me. Is it morbo? I couldn't tell. If so, this one's a bit clearer:
/77766/
7GR@RRRRRRRR@@@RRRRRRRRQ7
7G#R@RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@K@R@R@R
6#RRRR@@RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@@KK@RR@@@Q
##RRRRRRRRR@@RRRRRRRRRRRRR@@K@@#R@RR@@@6
7#RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@@RR@RRRR@^
##RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@RK@RRRR@@
/#RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRKKRRRRR@@G
G##RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@@
##RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@@
##RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@RRRRRRR@@/
##RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@/
/#RRRKKR@RRRRRRRRRRRR@@@RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@
@#R@@@KK@RRR@@@@@@@RRRRR@@@RRRRRRRRRRRRRR@R
/RRRR@RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@RR@@@
7#RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@@@
(#RRR@@RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@@@
RR@@RR6tK@@RRR@RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@6
K@R6~~t@/t@@R@RRRR@@RR@KR//G@@@@@
@@t~~SR///G@R@@@RRR@S~~@6//@@@G
RKS/~SS~//~6@@@R@@St~~~RR//@@@6
GRR@RttK//tS@@R@R@@6~~~~RS/R@R@@/
QQG6 (GGGGGS@@@@@@@@RRRRRRRR@@RRR@R@R@@GGGG( ((77
76%33@GGGGGGGGGGG@@@RRRRRRRRRRRRR@@@@SGGGGGGGGGR7336G
Q%66SSGGGGGGGGGGGG@RRRRRR@@@@RRRR@@@GGGGGGGGGGGsK%33G
R%66GSGGGGGGGGGGGGR@#RRR@@@@@R##R@@SGGGGGGGGGGGeK%33G
(@%366SGGGGGGGGGGGGQ@@#RR@@@@@@#RR@@SGGGGGGGGGGGGK%33Q
KK3666RGGGGGGGGGGGGe@R@#RRRRRRRRR@@@GGGGGGGGGGGGeK%33RG
3GGS666KGGGGGGGGGGGGG@R@@#RR@RR@@@@R@GGGGGGGGGGGGSG36SeG6
7GGGR3%3GSGGGGGGGGGGGGS@RRR@@@@@@RRR@KGGGGGGGGGGGGK33sRGGQ
^SGGGGRS%6RGGGGGGGGGGGGG@@@@@@@@R@R@@@sGGGGGGGGGGGGR%S@GGGGG
QGGGGGeSK3SSGGGGGGGGGGGGG@@@@@@@@@@@@GGGGGGGGGGGGGSS6KGGGGGG/
QGGGGGGGGeR6KGGGGGGGGGGGGGS@@@@@@@@@@KGGGGGGGGGGGGGR3KGGGGGGGG
SGGGGGGGGGGK@eGGGGGGGGGGGGGG@@@@@@@@RGGGGGGGGGGGGGeRSGGGGGGGGG6
GRGGGGGGGGGGGGGRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGK@@@@@GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGRGGGGGGGGGGGG/
RsGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGeKSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGKeGGGGGGGGGGGGQ7
(GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG@RGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGe@GGGGGGGGGGGGGGQ
6GGGGGGGGGGGGSR@RSeGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGRe@S@ReGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGS@SGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSKRRGSssGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSKReGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGeRKeGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG(
sGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGK@GGGGGGGGGGGGGeKRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG(
6GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGS@R@@SGGGGGGGGGGe@@eGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/
(GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG@@RRR@@R@SGGG@@@@RRRR@RGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSG
/SGGGGGGGGGGGGGGe@RRRRRRRR@@@@@R@RRRRR@@@@eGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGe%
(6SKKSGGGGGQ@@RRRRR@@@R@@RR@RRRRRR@@@@eGGGGGGGGGGGGGGes
^(37 (G@@R@@( G@@RRR@@@@@@SGGGGGGGGGSG(^
(6/(G@@@@G/
/@@G
jmull836Aug 2, 2010
woooow, after seeing this at home it's a lot better
vincent21212Aug 3, 2010
lol
Sent from my iPhone
orion846Aug 2, 2010
fail
dogfoodAug 2, 2010
http://digg.com/users/binky79/history.rss
tomlhareAug 2, 2010
Dugg down for not being first
skibadoweebopAug 2, 2010
You're late Binky!
co7926Aug 2, 2010
xkcd life equation = k[T*(t+c)*P]
where:
P - popularity. a scale of 1 to 10. (no units)
T - Time it takes to create the xkcd (in s).
t+c - Time it stays on the front page plus the time it takes for comments to cease, with c beginning at time of submission (in s)
k - and of course, our constant, binky (in s^-1)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dawnraid101Aug 2, 2010
I love the stages that this meme takes. People start burying it, then the nostalgia factor kicks in, then people get tired of it and bury it again, then digg it once its fresh again.
I for one find find the cycle kind of relaxing, as if it marks the passage of time, and the diggs signify the seasons that the comment will go through. I will be deeply disturbed once this comment leaves the page for good; no matter how low it goes under the threshold, or whether it breaks 1000 diggs, it always gladdens me to see that some things always stay the same no matter of outside opinions.
Godspeed Binky.
libertarianslolAug 2, 2010
came here for binky
caseycooldAug 3, 2010
stayed here to bury the haters
grillp0c4lyp5eAug 2, 2010
f**k off binky
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Do people even take digg seriously anymore?
caseycooldAug 3, 2010
who the f**k takes a meme seriously?
ther3dmenaceAug 3, 2010
The internet is serious business
stancar200Aug 3, 2010
Look at your comment, now back to mine. Now back at your comment now back to mine. Sadly it isn't mine, but if you stopped trolling and started posting legitimate comments it could look like mine. Look down, back up, where are you? You're scrolling through comments, writing the comment your comment could look like. What did you post? Back at mine, it's a reply saying something you want to hear. Look again the reply is now diamonds. Anything is possible when you think before you post.
notthatnoiseAug 3, 2010
I'm on a message board.
gravydavyAug 3, 2010
It's time to let it go, binky. Just let it go.
d4rthv4derAug 3, 2010
I'm blocking you, Binky. It's not funny, never was funny, and never will be funny. People stop encouraging the tard.
bodiezAug 3, 2010
BINKY MY LORD I WILL DIE FOR YOUR HONOR AND WILL DIGG YOU UP AS LONG AS YOU LIVE MY LIEGE
iamacyborgAug 3, 2010
Wow, currently @ +424/-424. This may be the most controversial comment in this history of Digg.
samoutAug 3, 2010
["binky79 Blocked user. Show (26 replies)"]
-Proudly since '09.
Thank god some diggers are coming to their senses. s**t's OLD.
danedabeanerAug 2, 2010
Yay! Let's bust out some racy religion jokes! /s
sbceaAug 2, 2010
racy?
christoastAug 2, 2010
how does not believing in something make you annoying?
Man all these non-astrologers are just as annoying as astrologers
such stupid logic
danedabeanerAug 3, 2010
I'm sorry man. I just don't like when people bag on my religion because even though I may not agree with what they're saying I don't bag on them or tell them that they are dumb for thinking that way. Sorry if it sounded like that. You have a completely valid point.
badbeatAug 3, 2010
There's a big difference. If you don't believe, you're agnostic. If you believe that God does not exist, you're atheist. Essentially, the comic is saying that the atheists out there who push their belief that God does not exist are just as annoying as the fundamentalists who push their belief that God does exist.
liljimmynordinAug 3, 2010
BadBeat has it completely wrong.
Agnostic - "I don't think it's possible to know one way or the other."
Atheist - "Whether or not it's possible to know, I don't believe there is a god."
Also, the comic actually has nothing to do with which side is annoying. It's about the people who spout their disdain for both because they'd rather vapidly criticize from the sidelines than actually get in the game.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
So you'd hear about the Amish woman who cheated on her husband?
She saw two Mennonite!
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
http://instantrimshot.com/
c6h14Aug 2, 2010
I feel the same way. Not toward the religion argument, just superior in general.
texmexrexAug 2, 2010
Then you have found your home son. Welcome to Digg.
jguy584Aug 2, 2010
They're both idiots.
takamalakAug 2, 2010
So you're the guy on the left?
acetracerAug 2, 2010
Digg s**ts a brick in 3...2...1....
*grabs popcorn*
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
When you see it, he'll grab popcorn.
kajaah117Aug 2, 2010
Okay, these are just bad on-purpose now right?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Saying that there is absolutely nothing and saying that that is the only way it can be is a religion unto itself.
egaeus76Aug 2, 2010
Strawman much?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I'm considering digging Dilberto just so more people can see your reply. Well done, sir.
issacharAug 2, 2010
Not really. I've met religious atheists in real life, not just on the internet where they could be dogs in disguise.
Of course not every atheist is a "religious atheist", but they do exist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
issachar I bet you think that just talking back to theists is "proselytizing".
seanflyonAug 2, 2010
There are 2 views that are both labeled atheism:
1) The belief in the absence of God.
2) The absence of belief in God.
The first in a religion, the second is not.
issacharAug 2, 2010
@ Sensor,
You have bet incorrectly. Perhaps you've met only non-proselytizing atheists. The same is not true of my experience.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Sean,
That is what I meant.
stikytAug 3, 2010
@issachar
Wow, so Atheists expressing themselves on the internet anonymously makes them dogs now? This my friends is the double standard of religious expression in today's society, any confrontational Atheist no matter convincing their argument is automatically measured up to the most insane fundamentalist. Simply because the fundamentalist has been around forever.
ruckfulesAug 2, 2010
If we subtract the issue of worship, a deity or deities, holy writ and rituals, and absolutely everything else that distinguishes a religion from any other practice, then you're absolutely correct.
captininsanityAug 2, 2010
Atheism isn't a religion in a sense that it doesn't dictate how people live their lives, but I know what you are getting at. It would better be explained that atheists can be very closed minded to the concept that there may be some validity to things that are "spiritual".
harabeckAug 2, 2010
"atheists can be very closed minded to the concept that there may be some validity to things that are "spiritual". "
Uh well, considering there is not any solid evidence behind anything spiritual, atheists see no reason to consider such things. The fact is, that according to the evidence, there is nothing valid about the supernatural at all.
captininsanityAug 2, 2010
Unfortunately most attempts to document such things come from "paranormal" researchers who often come off as tin foil hat guys, but there are many documented cases where things happen that are outside of what we can currently explain. At the risk of killing my own validity I will say I've had paranormal experiences first hand. I'm not asking you to believe that it was caused by some dead guys soul or by aliens. I just want people to be able to be able to research answers for these types of things without going tin foil hat, or just outright discounting them because they sound impossible.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Aug 2, 2010
to me, spiritually is closely linked to the placebo effect.
the more you believe in something the more likely it is to work.
as the 'faith' in modern medicine has increased so as the strength of the placebo effect, so much so that some modern medics no longer show any beneficial effect over a sugar-pill.
spiritually does the same thing.
some of the effects of spirituality are very real, but the reasons people convince themselves they work are most likely no real. (corroborated by the fact that the effect is the same, even if the beliefs vary greatly and are often contradictory)
sibtigerAug 2, 2010
You understand religion primarily as something that dictates how people live their lives? I disagree. I believe religion answers the question: "How do I have peace when my conscience screams my guilt?" If that's the question religion answers, then atheism is religion in that it silences the conscience with the *belief* that I am accountable to no one and my guilt is imagined.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
@captininsanity
It doesn't matter who is doing the research. If there is real evidence to be found, that is independent of who finds it. You say there are "documented cases", but what you really mean is, "someone claims this happened to them". Anecdotes are not evidence.
captininsanityAug 2, 2010
@Harabeck Well the problem with independent groups collecting evidence is we live in the days of photoshop and video editing. Sure there are thousands of reported ghost images, but most are probably fake. There millions of people with first hand anecdotes that know it's possible. Research their claims. It's either something paranormal, or something science has not yet discovered.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Atheism is just an answer to the theistic claims of gods. Nothing more. Atheists can believe in ghosts etc. However many are skeptics because they require the same standards of evidence for gods and any other claims.
countess666Aug 2, 2010
medics = medicine
captininsanityAug 2, 2010
@sensor Your line between Atheism and Agnosticism seems blurrier than most Atheists would accept.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
@captininsanity
"There millions of people with first hand anecdotes that know it's possible,"
They think they know it's possible. Our perceptions are extremely unreliable.
"Research their claims. "
I used to fall head over heals for all of that stuff. I've spent countless hours watching shows and researching about bigfoot, ufo's, ghosts, christianity, and other such myths. And you know what? I got really tired of nothing but stories and hearsay. Not once clear photograph, recording or measurement of any of that. An expedition goes out to find bigfoot with a wildlife camera that takes a picture when it senses something and they find nothing. But wait! They stay one more day and "forget" to replace the batteries, and they find footprints the next day! Imagine that! Ghost hunters run around in an old house hearing weird noises and tripping over themselves. Then look at pictures of weird shadows and listen to static. Amazing! It's the same damn story with all of that s**t. Each phenomena has its own kind of story but the result is always the same. For some strange reason, they can never find solid evidence. It's all just a scam. It's just a form of entertainment that keeps stringing along so you'll buy books and boost ratings.
"It's either something paranormal, or something science has not yet discovered."
This is what is called a false dichotomy. It's a logical fallacy where you incorrectly state that there are only two possibilities. It could be hallucinations, optical illusions, people lying, or any number of other perfectly normal explanations, all of which are far more likely than the paranormal explanation and well know in the realm of science.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
@tininsanity - First of all, you are correct when you say that there are certain events that are outside of what we can currently explain. However, this doesn’t mean that we should immediately label those events as spiritual or supernatural. It simply means, we cannot CURRENTLY explain them.
Also, if you closely examine those ‘documented events’ I’ll bet that the evidence rely mostly on just human experience, which we know is not the most reliable or trusted of evidence. Look at all the nonsense that ancient people across history believed in; heck look at what some people these days believe. There are tribes in Papua New Guinea that truly believe in flying witches for fuk sakes! Human experience is a bitch for sure.
In my personal opinion, if there’s any truth in the supernatural, it’ll remarkable easy to find testable empirical evidence for it, period.
emjayseaAug 2, 2010
It's interesting how some people equate spirituality with the paranormal, where it may be true that evolutionarily speaking, we are spiritual animals who achieve peak efficiency (on whatever scale you care to measure by) only when that spirituality is nurtured in some fashion. I'm agnostic/borderline atheist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
@emjaysea - True, fairly recently spirituality has been given a secular connotation which is more of a personal experience, not necessarily subscribing to any religion. However my post was referring to religious spirituality, which is pretty darn supernatural if you ask me… For example: “when I die my soul would fly to heaven or hell… or, I know late Gramdma’s looking out for me when I’m in danger “
liljimmynordinAug 3, 2010
Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying that abstention from eating is, in a sense, taking part in a meal.
It's like saying that pacifism is a type of violence.
Really, though, saying Atheism is a religion is like saying you're an idiot.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I certainly see your point, and I am aware that some atheists can be "religious" about their lack of beliefs, but I'd just like to go on record as not actually being like that. Atheism to me has nothing to do with any sort of dogmatic views about the world - first and foremost, I consider myself a skeptic, and as such, atheism is just a natural extension of that.
matty348Aug 2, 2010
I think that would make you more of an agnostic then
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
To me, an agnostic is someone who actually considers the question and gives it thought. If evidence is presented which proves me wrong, I'll change my mind, but for the time being, I don't even see the point in pondering the question.
emjayseaAug 2, 2010
You're an idiot. You obviously have considered the question, and you seem to be saying you don't believe one way or the other. That's agnosticism. No, you can't just make up your own definition. If, on the other hand, you believe that there is no god, as in, none, whatsoever, then you're an atheist. Again, that's the definition, and it isn't currently open to debate, nor do I think Webster will contact you if it ever comes open to debate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sageerrantAug 2, 2010
I am an agnostic atheist. To clarify: I do not believe in the existence of any deity, for lack of evidence; I remain open to any such evidence.
This whole atheist-agnostic-theist spectrum is bulls**t. If you look at the definitions of the words involved, it simply cannot work that way. What people commonly describe as "agnosticism" is actually agnostic atheism. What they describe as "theism" is agnostic theism: belief in a deity, with the understanding that this belief rests on faith, not evidence. The alternative, which is much rarer, is gnostic (a)theism: belief (or lack thereof) in a deity, paired with the belief that there is solid proof one way or the other.
Most people who identify as atheist or agnostic believe (or rather, don't believe) the same thing.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
@emjaysea - You are wrong. In order to say there is no god(s), of course you'll have to ponder the question first. Rocknog is saying that with the evidence at hand, there's no god(s). This makes him an atheist. An agnostic says that it is impossible to know that god(s) exists; which as far as I know, it’s not what Rocknog is saying at all in this thread.
paulcooperAug 3, 2010
It's perfectly acceptable for rocknog to briefly ponder the question, then decide that due to lack of evidence him thinking about it would achieve nothing - since there is nothing to ponder (no evidence, no case). It would purely philosophical.
I think that the only real difference between an atheist and agnostic. The agnostic will spending time debate purely philosophical matters with them-self to try and reconcile their beliefs; the atheist will simply not waste their time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Allow me to clarify. I don't think there is a God. I see no evidence for God's existence, and so based on that, I live my life with the assumption that he does not exist. I am 99% God is not real. And that remaining 1% isn't doubt, it's the simple acknowledgment that if evidence were presented, I would change my mind. The only reason at all that I'm not 100% is because in the extremely unlikely event that God suddenly appeared before me, I wouldn't tell him that he doesn't exist. I don't think anyone would say otherwise in that situation. However, since God doesn't have a habit of suddenly appearing in front of people, for all practical intents and purposes, I live my life as though he does not exist.
metis2Aug 3, 2010
Anyone that claims to know anything about what happens after you die is full of s**t.
therightcliqueAug 3, 2010
This statement is absolutely all there is to it. No more argument needed. Nobody here or anywhere else knows the answer and never will know it in any way that can be communicated to the living. Why can't we all agree that we don't know s**t and just go about our lives?
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
@metis - I disagree; I would rely on regarded neuroscientists for me to base an opinion on this matter. Obviously they have much more insight than us. So far, the consensus amongst them is pretty much: after we die, we go to the same place we were before we were conceived… Makes a lot of sense if you ask me. You cannot just say we don’t know. Scientists actually know quite a lot how the brain works.
metis2Aug 4, 2010
what do scientists say about how a dead brain works?
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
scientist gain insight on the humand mind,
takamalakAug 2, 2010
You know what is hilarious, judging from these comments and others from the internet; religious people HATE to find out that people they admire, or things they love were developed by atheists. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cygnus2112Aug 2, 2010
Likewise, it annoys atheists when you point out Einstein was agnostic. As was Darwin.
I think it's high time we start not caring what other people believe in, as long as they don't try to kill us for it.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
Newflash: Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. You can have agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. When people are just considered "agnostic" with no other modifier, you can actually think of it as short for agnostic atheism. Others would label this as "weak atheism".
A good quote: "According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the existence of any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with a probability that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, he prefers to categorize himself as a "de facto atheist"."
jb4062Aug 2, 2010
Dugg for tolerance.
toxicityjAug 2, 2010
It would be unscientific for a scientist to be Atheist over agnostic....or theistic (i guess)
jj101Aug 2, 2010
Likewise, it annoys atheists (citation needed) when you point out Einstein was agnostic (citation needed, as well as time machine perhaps). As was Darwin (as before). And most of the past respected scientists and founding fathers were either Christian or Agnostic, not atheist (multiple citations needed).
I think it's high time we start not caring what other people believe in, as long as they don't try to kill us because of it (or make their unfounded beliefs into law; or force the teaching of these beliefs to others; or give out degrees in these untestable, unscientific beliefs; or allow children to be indoctinated into their belief systems before they are of an age where they can choose for themselves; or try and gather money of people who can't afford ti give it; or condemn safe sex teachings in places like Africa that are rife with AIDs.)
In fact what the f**k are you talking about! Not caring about the fact that a significant part of the population believe in fairy tales as adults is retarded and patronising and bordering on apathetic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shukribgAug 2, 2010
cygnus2112: here is this, to avoid more confusion
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic
Most atheist, like myself, don't claim there is no god, we simply don't believe in it. Gnosticism comes from knowledge, and theism form belief. It clear that none of us really "knows" that there is a god, so whatever we believe, we are all agnostics. Except priests and assh**e atheist who claim to know; Those are gnostics
ausjpAug 3, 2010
"Except priests and assh**e atheists who claim to know; Those are gnostics"
And plenty of theists.
realdeal83Aug 3, 2010
I like how jj101 freaks out and demands citations from cygnus2112 but doesn't ask for the same from takamalak.
Newflash: these are comments and replies to comments, they are suppose to be based on peoples personal views and thoughts. Though I think your comments are purely based on the thoughts of others you have read and you probably put not real thought or intelligence into anything you type on the internet. In short citations are not required.
paulcooperAug 3, 2010
Wait who is annoyed about scientists being agnostic? It would be very difficult to be fully fledge athiest during that time period, it takes time to break out of such social pressure.
Voltaire being a thiest kinda bummed me out though.
charlesdkraussAug 2, 2010
Religious people hate a lot of things that they shouldn't.
therightcliqueAug 3, 2010
I know. I f**king hate that.
issacharAug 2, 2010
That is true, although I'd generalize that. People don't like finding out that people who create things they admire believe or do things they loathe.
A lot of diggers seem terribly upset that Orson Scott Card is a Mormon and quite adamantly Republican.
takamalakAug 2, 2010
Good point.
pinkfish411Aug 2, 2010
I've run across a lot of liberal diggers too who seem to desperately cling to the hope that Obama is really a closet atheist. It's like they don't want to believe that they could share the same political values as a Christian.
charlesdkraussAug 2, 2010
Actually I hope that he is a closet Atheist, but just because someone isn't an Atheist doesn't mean I can't possibly agree on the same things.
issacharAug 2, 2010
@pinkfish411,
I've got that impression sometimes too, and it seems weird to me. The opposite would be more logical. If your political beliefs are only shared by people who also share a minority spiritual belief, your political beliefs would rarely be implemented. You'd think people would be happy to find out that people with different spiritual beliefs shared their political beliefs.
Tribalism is odd.
toxicityjAug 2, 2010
I was shocked when I found out he was Mormon, just because I think Mormonism is REALLY freaking weird. However, I love his books and he will forever be one of my all-time favorite authors.
And books like Lost Boys, which feature Mormon families, are very interesting because you get a look at a religion that a lot of people know nothing about.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
@pinkfish411
I'd just like to point out that if a politician was an atheist, it would be absolute political suicide to admit it. I don't know about Obama in particular, but I guarantee there are some who are hiding their atheism just because they value their career.
elranzerAug 2, 2010
Actually, the most annoying thing about Orson Scott Card is that, despite his social conservatism and support of George W Bush, he *claims* to be a Democrat.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_only_issue_this_election_d.html
therightcliqueAug 3, 2010
Mormons are very, very, creative people. Look at the Book of Mormon. You have to have a lot of free time a wild imagination to make stuff like that up.
kinggorillaAug 2, 2010
Atheists invented Jesus???
charlesdkraussAug 2, 2010
Actually that statement is more or less correct.
Until man created religion/superstitions everyone was an atheist. Being an atheist is the default idea.
Then man created superstitions.
stuffradioAug 2, 2010
I don't hate something just because an Atheist developed it. You're stupid, buried
therightcliqueAug 3, 2010
Did you just bury a comment developed by an atheist? GASP!
stuffradioAug 3, 2010
51 other people have also... :)
theduffster89Aug 2, 2010
These comments suck.
baphclassAug 2, 2010
Best comment in thread.
schwab002Aug 2, 2010
This has never been more appropriate.
frankoceanAug 3, 2010
Digg is not a place for a true debate about not religion, but about the discussion how we come to be.
In one hand you got fundamentalists preaching about a 6000 year earth, in the other hand you got extreme atheist who jack off to dawkins and such. Both sides take things way too literal
The voices in the middle get digg down because both sides hate them the same.
"Yeah the Bible and God is stupid cuz it says that the earth is 6000 years old and promotes the worst things everr"
"Well yeah, the earth is only 6000 years cuz that's the word of God, and shut the hell up!, and atheist are the same with commie bastards and stuff".
In reality? nowhere the Bible says that the earth is 6000 years old.
Ignorance is a blizz.
jjuanml22Aug 14, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
billbillsonAug 2, 2010
There is an object. You can not investigate or interact with this object in any way. You can not see it, hear it, measure it, touch it, or smell it. Does this object exist?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grolschAug 2, 2010
Can you see, hear, touch, smell a quark?
illinestAug 2, 2010
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/top-quark-first-evidence.html
16 years ago - get with the times.
carbonetcAug 2, 2010
Guess you skipped over "you can not investigate..."
harabeckAug 2, 2010
We can measure a quark in other ways. How can we measure a god?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
You fail science. Go back to school, or STFU.
ender52Aug 2, 2010
Maybe we can and just haven't figured out how yet.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
@ender52
It is foolish to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Maybe we just haven't figured out how to measure invisible pink unicorns too.
johnfluxAug 2, 2010
You only need to specify 'You can not measure it' - the rest is superfluous.
And the answer - there's no reason to believe that it exists, and thus you should live your life as if it does not.
yellowsnowconeAug 2, 2010
Look up Pascal's wager and you will conclude the opposite.
According to Pascal's wager, if you don't know whether God exists, it is better to live your life as though he DOES exists.
If you're right, you have eternal salvation. But if you're wrong, you lose nothing.
Whereas if you choose to believe God DOESN'T exist, being right allows you to lead a sinful life. But being wrong means eternal damnation. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnfluxAug 2, 2010
yellowsnowcone, lol, a 4 year old could disprove that.
> If you're right, you have eternal salvation.
Assuming he wants to be worshiped and you worship him in the correct way. Assuming that he bases his rewards based on how people worship him.
> But if you're wrong, you lose nothing.
Except all the hundreds of problems that religion causes.
Try this:
You must worship ME, johnflux, and I'll send you to heave, or else I'll make you burn in hell.
Now you might think the chance that I have that power is very low, but by pascal's wager you should still worship me. Oh and some Gods require you to pray 5 times a day. Maybe you should do that just incase too? And some require you to not eat certain foods.
Oh, and it might be required that you kill witches, or else they'll cause you to burn in hell. You might think that unlikely, but why take the risk? Pascal's wager clearly indicates that you should burn witches in that case.
carbonetcAug 2, 2010
@yellowsnowcone
Look up Pascal's Wager and you'll realize that it's routinely used as an example of poor reasoning.
cartman86Aug 2, 2010
Yeah pascal's wager is specific to Catholicism. Problem is that it's not the only religion. There are many hells you could end up being sent to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jb4062Aug 2, 2010
There is no proof either way.
It's like trying to prove magic pink unicorns that fly around giving children bubble gum exist and also happens to be just as useful.
countess666Aug 2, 2010
we have indirect evidence for the likelihood of their existence(the sheer amount of stars and the amount of planets we've found around stars, even with our primitive tools).
and we have a single example of a civilisation, namely us(proving that they can exist)
yet most people live their lives as if other civilisations do not exist.
god has none of those things, yet a lot of people live their lives as if he/she/it/they do/does.
johnfluxAug 3, 2010
> Or more practically the existence of alien civilizations.
We can attempt to measure them. We can look for radio signals etc.
carbonetcAug 2, 2010
There may be a question that humanity can never answer. We can only guess at it without ever being able to verify whether we're correct or even more correct than someone else. Is there a point in trying? Do we gain anything except the artificial sense of certainty that our psyches crave?
"Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?" -- http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
harabeckAug 2, 2010
The answer is simple. You go with the null hypothesis unless there is evidence to contrary.
yellowsnowconeAug 2, 2010
You're attempting to apply scientific method to arrive at a scientific truth.
However, religious people do not require scientific confirmation. They only require faith.
This is why there is a gulf between Atheists and Theists ... both sides have two different criteria for arriving at a truth. And that gulf can never be reconciled.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
Except that they are only arriving at a truth withing their own minds. A scientific truth will always be true, and thus it can be applied to improving ourselves and our civilization. A religious truth only makes you feel better (or feel horrible, or justified in bigotry or killing or whatever else you want...).
cartman86Aug 2, 2010
Plus when it benefits them a scientific truth is acceptable.
jeffdAug 2, 2010
The way I see it, it seems some people actually have the ability to believe in something simply because they want to despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. I can't do that and truthfully I wouldn't really want that ability. I would rather be honest with myself then self deceiving even when the latter option would be beneficial to me.
No matter how much I would like something to be true, I can't make myself believe something is true when all the evidence I've seen is to the contrary. I may be unsure on the truth of a concept but I can't change from being unsure about something to being sure it is true (or untrue) just because I want it to be true or because it would make my life easier to think it was.
crossmrAug 2, 2010
Do you have to bring up your balls in every conversation we have?
mxm111Aug 2, 2010
Define "exists" and you will get your answer.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
A thought. That's all God is: a thought.
bstew22Aug 2, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
yellowsnowconeAug 2, 2010
It's true. I find rabid atheism annoying. I don't understand why atheists insist on converting you to their non-beliefs.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
Why do theists insist on perpetuating the persecution of homosexuals or rewriting history? Theism is causing real harm in the US, how are we the bad guys for speaking out?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
because you're all turning into that which you're fighting.
yellowsnowconeAug 2, 2010
Exactly what McWhiskey said ...
I'm not sure if Atheism has any tenants, but if it does, I would suspect one of them should be that people are free to believe whatever they want to believe.
And not all theists are homophobic. I think you'll find many religious people also support gay rights and the right to marry.
Also, it's possible for people to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time ... which is why religion hasn't died despite the advance of science since the 1800s.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
@McWhiskey
"because you're all turning into that which you're fighting. "
So because some atheists are vocal, they are the same as theists? Is theism really that simple and shallow? You just have to be loud and god accepts you? Even I don't buy that. Atheists are responding to very real problems in our world. Again, how the hell is wrong to express your beliefs (especially when your beliefs are backed up by science, logic and critical thinking...)?
staffaAug 2, 2010
It depends on what you mean by atheism.
According to wiki
Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that god does not exist.
Which is a tenant that I find unsupported by evidence and on the same level as any other religion. This is what I think of when I hear Atheism and I am well described by this comic in finding such atheists just as annoying as any other theist.
Negative atheism is the belief that the answer to the question that religion is trying to provide is unknown and may even be unknowable. Often I get in arguments with atheists only to find out that this is what they believe and we actually agree. The term I use to describe this is agnostic.
So if you are a positive atheist, you have a tenant, it is unsupported and I find you just as wrong as any other theist. But whatever, I have friends on both sides, its all good.
If you are a negative atheist, just call yourself an agnostic and stop trolling me.
esantipapaAug 2, 2010
You need to put people in groupings that your mind can understand is laughable... i know a lot of atheists, and few ascribe such bulls**t terminology to their current understanding of reality. Most are 6.9 on the Dawkins scale... that is to supposed that they're like 99.7% certain there is no god, leaving .3% to error or miscalculation... and that .3% is eventually going to be .2%
jj101Aug 2, 2010
@ yellowsnowcone:
"it's possible for people to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time"
It is completely impossible for people to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time without being schizophrenic - you can accept two possible explanations might be true but not believe both to be true if they contradict each other. See 1984 doublespeak for more information.
"one of them should be that people are free to believe whatever they want to believe."
On the assumption that this has no impact on anyone else. Once these beliefs start impacting people other than the believer then the issue is different. See: condemning the use of birth control, teaching of "intelligent design" in schools, banning of gay marriage.
esantipapaAug 2, 2010
... that is *supposed to mean*
pleasejustdieAug 2, 2010
I don't believe god exists, in any fashion, as such I would be what staffa describes as a positive atheist. However, I also believe people have a right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't force their beliefs on others. So if people ask me why I believe what I believe, I'll tell them, but I don't just go around harassing people for their beliefs just because they differ with mine.
And I tend to just ignore fanatical people. Its the guys who stay at my door trying to convert me after I tell them to go away that annoy me and force me to lay a verbal can of whoop-ass on them.
yellowsnowconeAug 2, 2010
@jj101 You're a bit of a smug assh**e. I hope you don't mind me saying that.
You allude to 1984 and doublespeak and so I presume you've read a book before. The ability to hold contradictory beliefs at the same time is not schizophrenia, it's F. Scott Fitzgerald and he famously said it was that quality that “the true test of a first-rate mind."
Again, this is why religion has not since the advent of science in the 1800s, despite pronouncements that "God is dead." Faith survived and people discovered they could have both FAITH and a scientific mind.
I agree with you that people are free to believe what they want to believe. But when you talk about banning gay marriage or birth control, that is forcing me to believe what you want me to believe and that's not what I support.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jj101Aug 2, 2010
@snowcone:
"@jj101 You're a bit of a smug assh**e. I hope you don't mind me saying that."
You're free to belive that if you want...
Re F Scott Fitzgerald - I believe his quote was : “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” That is not the same as believing both to be true. I would assume he is talking about seeing both sides of teh coin - ie being able to empathise with both parties in a dispute for instance. That is different to being believing two contradictory statements to be true.
"Again, this is why religion has not declined since the advent of science in the 1800s,"
You say that like its a simple fact that I should just accept. It is merely your opinion. I would argue that there are myriad reasons for the persistance of belief (ie fear of the unknown, misinterpretation of unexplained events/phenomenon, group dynamics, lack of education, political power and money). There is a whoile filed (called memetics) that nicely explains.
"But when you talk about banning gay marriage or birth control, that is forcing me to believe what you want me to believe and that's not what I support."
I'm not forcing you to believe anything. I am saying that laws should not be passed based on other peoples beliefs. The catholic church (among others) has consistently condemned the use of and teaching of birth control. This has had disastrous consequences, espicially in places like Africa where aids is an epidemic. A belief in a sky man should have no bearing on reality when it comes to making judgements about basic health care and eductaion. If you disagree then fine, don't wear condoms, but don't tell a bunch of poor, uneducated people who you have taught to fear your god that wearing condoms is a sin.
If there is a god he surely won't thank the church for causing the suffering and deaths of millions of people.
cartman86Aug 2, 2010
It's hard to tell on the internet what people mean sometimes, but this comic is AGAINT people who say that "militant atheism is annoying"
designerutahAug 2, 2010
I find rabid atheists less annoying than rabid believers, but they're both annoying. The real difference to me is that the atheists as a group aren't trying to create legislation to support their morality. They aren't trying to legislate religion out of existence. The only legislation they seem to be after as a group is to keep religion out of our laws (except to protect the right to worship). This is a far cry from the legislation and enforced morality that believers are working towards. Which is ultimately why I find the believers more annoying I suppose.
sageerrantAug 2, 2010
*tenet
Thank you for noticing.
Oh, and staffa... that's some bulls**t right there. There is no such thing as an "agnostic" without some other belief attached. In this case, that would be theism or atheism. The vast majority of those who identify as atheist are actually agnostic atheists. It's not our fault your definition is based on the minority.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
unitedatheismAug 2, 2010
Suppose you have a soft-drink company which makes a cola better than pepsi and coke. (I know, it's a matter of taste, but let's fake it is not for simplicity..)
Now, suppose you are so, SO confident on that that you decide that you don't have to do advertising, all you have to do is sell it, and they will come and buy it.
After 15 years on that, you've conclude that not just you're not outselling others but, in fact, people think that your cola is crappy somehow, and you know, in this scenario, taste is not the reason of that.
What went wrong?
mcgriddsAug 2, 2010
i don't care if a person believes in a god or not. what i do care about is if they use their beliefs to affect government policy. who cares what people believe just so long as they don't force it on someone else either by government policy or just trying to convert people. I'm for people calling out legislation that is religious based and the people behind that religious based legislation, but i'm not a fan of people telling me that i'm wrong for believing what i believe. that is like telling someone you are stupid for liking peanut butter on your celery. well it's not hurting anyone if i just eat it in peace and not brag about how good it is or tell other people who enjoy carrots and ranch that they are stupid.
mxm111Aug 2, 2010
Yey for generalizing! (Hint, not all atheists are "rabid")
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Most self-proclaimed atheists don't know the actual meaning of the word. Atheism is NOT a lack of belief, but a specific belief.
"I don't believe in god" doesn't imply atheism. Atheism is, by its classical definition, the belief that there is no god.
Whether you're religious or an atheist, you have a belief about something you cannot possibly know. That's why atheists are often as preachy and holier-than-thou as religious people. Frankly I prefer the company of people who don't need beliefs about that which they cannot know.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
designerutahAug 2, 2010
From both the dictionaries I consulted, and the root meaning of adding an "a" to theism to indicate the opposite, it would seem that atheism is nothing more than the lack of a belief in God. Now, if you want to go with the sub-categories of atheism, then strong atheism fits your definition by having a belief that God doesn't exist.
Simply:
Deism: A belief in a supreme being or beings.
Theism: A belief in a personal supreme being or beings.
Atheism: A lack of belief in a supreme being or beings.
Gnostic: Having knowledge to prove the claim.
Agnostic: Lacking knowledge to prove the claim.
So. It's possible to be a Gnostic Deist if you think you have proof that some supreme being exists, but this being isn't a personal God. Or you can be an Agnostic Atheist (weak atheism) lacking a belief in a supreme being, but willing to accept proof if available. Or Gnostic Atheist (strong atheism) feeling you have proof that supreme being doesn't exist (a stupid position in my mind as how do you prove a negative?)
sageerrantAug 2, 2010
No. Just no. That is entirely wrong. If I ask you right now, whether or not you believe there is any sort of god, what would you say? "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer. I'm not asking what you know, but what you believe. That is a yes/no question. For anyone who does not actively believe in a god, including those who have never pondered the question, the default answer is "no". That is all it takes to be an atheist.
Now, as to what you know about the existence of a god, that's another question altogether. If you do know, you're a gnostic (a)theist. If you don't know, you're an agnostic (a)theist. The matter of knowing is just a descriptor for the believing or lack thereof.
People who "don't need beliefs" don't exist. Regardless of how little impact it has on your life, you are not suspended in some meditative state between belief and disbelief. If you claim to be, you're just an atheist trying to deny that your default position is lack of belief, even though you can't prove with absolute certainty that you're correct.
brandonj60Aug 3, 2010
@sageerrant:
I agree with most of what you're saying, but "I don't know" is a very acceptable answer. Imagine a lifelong Christian who's going through a rough patch in their life and has begun to question whether he was wrong about God all along. He clearly used to believe in God, but now he's not sure anymore. There is no "yes" or "no" for this individual. And that's just one clearcut case, there's plenty of reasons why a belief cannot simply be described in such a black/white fashion, and doing so oversimplifies the circumstances.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
@sageerrant and designerutah:
I respect that you took the time to write some well thought-out answers, but I have to disagree on a couple of key points.
The problem is that some dictionary definitions are in conflict with the classical definition. It creates unfortunate confusion when trying to discuss this topic. But hey, anyone can write a dictionary. Study the Greek philosophers (their word "atheos" means "no god", meant to contrast the word "theos" or "god") and you'll quickly glean that atheism in the context of philosophic discussion means a specific belief that there is no deity.
"I do not believe in god" does not equal "I believe that there is no god" although the latter does include the former like squares include rhombuses. It IS possible to not believe in god without the need to believe that there is no god.
If I'm stuck on the classical definition, it's only because I've spent many years steeped in the study of religion, philosophy, and mythology. There are all sorts of examples of classic definitions being bastardized by popular dictionaries and this is a glaring one. To lose the classical definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and theism would be a shame because when they are mutually understood, they give us better tools to discuss concepts that are very difficult to express verbally. If you are comfortable with throwing out the classic definitions in favor of popular ones, then this discussion is moot, as is the collective wisdom of the Greek philosophers who gave us these words.
Finally, the concept that that we need beliefs about everything is false, although I can see how someone who is stuck on the need to believe would be incredulous about those of us who are comfortable with not believing. The realization that we don't know s**t is inherently frightening, so the super-ego kicks in and fills in the gaps with beliefs. The super-ego can be subdued, but it is only through massive, humiliating soul-searching that we can learn to do it and it requires constant work to maintain any semblance of temporary freedom from it. There's nothing meditative about it and it lasts only until you catch yourself slipping again. For now, I am very comfortable without any belief whatsoever pertaining to theism or atheism. Maybe when I'm a scared monkey on my deathbed that will change, but it won't negate where I am now.
sageerrantAug 3, 2010
I started a lengthy response to that several times, but I can't get one rolling without boring myself, so I'll simplify things a bit. The term "atheism" is irrelevant if there is no distinction between non-belief in gods and belief in no gods; while the phrasing may present these as two distinct beliefs, examine the actions of those who hold them, and you should see no difference whatsoever. For all practical purposes, non-belief is belief in not, however much skepticism that belief may be tempered with.
Instead of trying to explain away this binary belief system as the result of fear an insecurity, and take it at face value. To hold no belief at all is nonsense. It is literally meaningless. The very moment one is presented with the concept of an unfamiliar being, it joins all previous beings as something which exists, or as a fabrication of some sort. Even if that belief changes in light of new evidence, it is impossible to hold the notion of a physical thing without attributing some manner of existence value to it, however loosely.
To speak personally, I am not so strongly attached to my belief that there is no god that I would allow it to define my understanding of belief in general; in fact, I switched from a position similar to the one you claim because I realized it was untenable, and was forced rather uncomfortably into admitting my already-formed but largely unrecognized position on the matter as a result.
I doubt this will sway you, and to be honest, I retain some doubt myself. But in examining my own position, in regards to both theism and belief in general, I've yet to find any reason beyond idealism that it might be otherwise.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
I think under the right lens either of us could be correct. Thanks for keeping it respectful.
Perhaps we're saying something similar even. You say that to hold no belief is impossible. I say it's a balancing act. Within that act, I'm countering beliefs with each other to maintain that neutral pH insofar as that's possible, so yes I'm entertaining all sorts of beliefs to get as close as I can to holding none. Perhaps holding no belief about something is impossible and that's something I'll reflect on, but staying as close as possible seems a noble goal, if a little vain.
cartman86Aug 2, 2010
I don't believe in Zeus. I don't believe in Thor. I don't believe in Jesus (as a God). I'm atheist. What is so hard to understand? Technically i'm an agnostic atheist toward whatever God I haven't heard of yet, but by any valuable meaning I have no reason to believe in Thor. This is why this xkcd is so great. People who have to spend there whole time arguing about definitions and tone of arguments when in reality they believe the same exact thing can kiss my ass.
jestersupremeAug 2, 2010
You spelled "their" wrong.
cartman86Aug 2, 2010
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
boomchockalockaAug 2, 2010
It's not like atheists are going door-to-door proselytizing.
imustbeemoAug 2, 2010
or wearing necklaces and bracelets advertising our system of beliefs to the world.
dbonnevilleAug 3, 2010
Yes, they just sell books and go on tour and debate people all the time.
darthjureAug 3, 2010
I'm an atheist, but no one at work knows it. I'm a closet atheist. I wouldn't deny it, but it hasn't come up. How is that annoying? Most people probably know an atheist, but don't know that they're an atheist.
makemeburnAug 3, 2010
Theism or Non-theism does not exclude the fact that some people are f**king assh**es that can't accept that you don't believe in what they believe in (.....or don't believe in.....)
oriondrAug 3, 2010
I find people who don't collect stamps are usually assh**es.
diggerbezAug 3, 2010
I just wish everyone believed in exactly what I believe in. What is wrong with you people?
dirtyfriesAug 2, 2010
xkcd, atheists, and digg
this is going to explode
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I can't shake the feeling that you're also watching the comments with one hand down your pants. Not that I necessarily blame you, it's just a disturbing image that I can't get out of my head.
dirtyfriesAug 2, 2010
It's probably because I said "this is going to explode"
:-p
maskedslackerAug 2, 2010
I actually did have my hand in my pants as I read your comment.
madeingermanyAug 2, 2010
Maybe if you toss in a brick...
joglebyAug 2, 2010
I'm agnostic when it comes to who I find the most annoying.
nodiskAug 2, 2010
You believe the truth of who you find the most annoying to be unknowable?
Personally I have these comments that I read when I need to know the truth. After hours of exploration and contemplation on these comments, I believe the answer is obvious!
But of course I'm only sharing my own private witness with you, jogleby.
I'll let you find your own path. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peaceshotAug 2, 2010
I arrived early in an XKCD submission! My comment will be seen!
*drowns in a sea of buries*
huntermcwhiteAug 2, 2010
why is it this particular webcomic that gets put on Digg every day? Why don't you people just go to the comic's website?
smokeydabearAug 2, 2010
Because it's not good enough that you'd make a special trip everyday to see it, but alright enough to get excited when it comes on Digg's front page.
corbinm1226Aug 2, 2010
ew that sounds like work
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Because we can't bury it on the xkcd website.
unitedatheismAug 2, 2010
Why does that "in god we trust" have to appear in every single note?
Maybe Randall Munroe is god, and he's just telling people off to challenge their creed, man.
727super27Aug 2, 2010
In before the "that was the best XKC-" oh wait, no there it is, right at the top.
krieggAug 2, 2010
I don't believe in Athests.
elcadAug 2, 2010
I'm very nihilistic about other people's beliefs.
diceauAug 2, 2010
Your mother doesn't believe in you.
ziffelAug 2, 2010
Trust me, I'm very real.
princeamorAug 2, 2010
Ouch.
esantipapaAug 2, 2010
Zing!
wontstoptalkingAug 2, 2010
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
Not sure why I felt inclined to add this in, but I just saw that episode last night, and I thought it was incredibly well done.
demenziaAug 3, 2010
Was he asking a question to God though?
Heh.
oriondrAug 2, 2010
I believe everybody is at least agnostic ;)
akronite14Aug 14, 2010
If you think that people lay down their lives for a religion they aren't positive is true (well, their positive that they think it is true), you're kidding yourself.
mxm111Aug 2, 2010
"I don't believe in Atheists."
They exists regardless your believes.
alenonimoAug 2, 2010
Believers doesn't know nothing about how reality works.
Maybe they read The Secret and are just wishing us away, hoping that works.
stuffradioAug 2, 2010
Your grammar doesn't exist.
vicerexciserAug 3, 2010
Alenonimo doesn't know nothing about how English grammar works.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Fortunately, our lack of belief does not depend on your lack of belief.
kaervektooAug 3, 2010
Okay, Morpheus.
mrkev150Aug 3, 2010
I don't believe in atheists either. Nobody knows what happens if we die. Do we have a spirit? Does our consciousness just drift into nothing once the neurons cease to function? Nobody knows for sure what happens except what you can observe physically through corpses...mainly turning into worm food. Perhaps there is another dimension that your mind or spirit travels through. Maybe your consciousness merges with someone who share your genetics in one way or another... Who knows.
You're a agnostic? Cool, I can believe that. I however, find it ludicrous when someone claims there is without a reasonable doubt that nothing can possibly happen after you die except decomposition. Yes atheists, your faith is astounding.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paulcooperAug 3, 2010
We all believe what we want to believe, it's all we do."
All the evidence shows that yes, in fact we do simply decompose as does any other organic being once it dies. You choose to remain ignorant of this by not investigating your own questions and instead choosing to believe what makes you feel warm and fuzzy, and attempt to discredit anyone who would challenge that blind ignorance by saying that they are relying on 'faith' too, even though that is plainly wrong.
mrkev150Aug 3, 2010
No s**t we decompose. You missed the point completely. You call me ignorant, therefore you must know all the answers correct? No matter what you claim, nobody...NOBODY knows exactly what happens when YOU die. You can observe a dead corpse decomposing, not the consciousness and beyond IF there is a such thing. The main point is that we don't know.
You don't seem to understand the concept that even Einstein has pondered. If we can test and observe everything in this dimension, do others not exist? How can one observe the fourth dimension past this one? Atheism, to many, is blind ignorance. Just like you said "We all believe what we want to believe, it's all we do." For you to ascertain such ridiculous claims of knowing all is very asinine. I do respect people that claim that they don't know when it comes to an afterlife, God or shifts in consciousness. All so called atheists are simply agnostics believing in what they want to believe.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
akronite14Aug 14, 2010
So, are all the religious people just Agnostics simply believing what they want to believe? No, because either way Agnosticism is the middle ground where you don't think you know/care.
Atheists are Atheists, Christians are Christians, and Muslims are Muslims, etc.... No need to pretend people out there are vehement in their beliefs just because you haven't made a decision on what you want to believe (not that there is a problem, I am basically the same way).
The only thing we know for a fact is what happens in the physical. There is no evidence that we have a spirit or that a conscience can exist without its physical host. That's where people fill in the gaps with their own theories and then become dick-holes about it.
For the most part, Atheists use no faith. They lack it and only believe what can be observed and proven. To say they have faith because you can't prove a negative (such as "there is no such thing as spirits") is silly IMO. Atheists don't believe in anything basically, there is no faith involved.
smapteAug 2, 2010
i resemble that remark.
vdoogsAug 2, 2010
Not exactly sure how "the remark" looks like you, but I'll take your word for it.
dolandolandolanAug 2, 2010
It is a comical misuse of the word, you see?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I have been to a few atheist meetups and the hardcore ones do sound exactly like fundie christians. In fact, many have their own stories of persecution to tell as well. I'm not saying that persecution doesn't happen. I just think acting like being persecuted is some sort of badge of honor is ridiculous for either party. Personally, I don't believe that anyone is qualified to determine that there is or isn't some magical being in the sky, let alone speak on its behalf. So I guess that makes me agnostic. *shrug*
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I have no objections to anything you've said here. But I do object to some of the things that get carried out in the name of religion. So, I can see why people might think some atheists sound like they're being persecuted. You only have to look as far as a Texas school book to see what I mean.
outpastplutoAug 3, 2010
If you come out to someone as an atheist they tend to think of you as a devil worshiper or believe that demon is going to pop out of you. I can hardly fault an open atheist for having a persecution complex. If you are lucky, people will thing that you are some sort of strange protestant. Usually, you just get people objecting to you.
You've got the likes of Bush saying that Atheists shouldn't be citizens and really no one besides other atheists standing up for you.
You would probably get less flack for coming out as gay.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
Not to say that atheists should go around whining but: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
lektroluvAug 2, 2010
But the problems arise when that magical being in the sky tells those people to kill others because of their (non)belief, refuse some people to get married or be together and even make it a law.
Equally annoying? Perhaps. But equally dangerous? Not even close.
pinkfish411Aug 2, 2010
Yeah, they're equally dangerous when an atheistic ideology tells its people to annihilate religious people because religion is an "opiate" that interferes with social revolution. Yes, religious and atheistic ideologies have both been extremely destructive throughout history.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lektroluvAug 2, 2010
I guess it's kind of ironic to quote one of the "radical atheists", but here goes:
"The problem with fascism and communism, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
- Sam Harris
harabeckAug 2, 2010
@pinkfish411
Throughout history? How many other examples beyond that one can you find? I bet you can count them on one hand.
Further, I would argue that you're not talking about atheistic ideologies at all. Rather, they just replaced one kind of deity with another.
pinkfish411Aug 2, 2010
The problem with Harris's reply is his use of the term "religion." It's as if he's suggesting that blind allegiance and insanity and oppression and violence are inherent parts of religious belief, whereas when atheists are guilty of such things, it's simply because they haven't sufficiently freed themselves from religion's evil grip. Does this mean that all the religious people out there who value critical thinking, oppose personality cults and blind allegiances, aren't truly religious, regardless of their belief in God and religious doctrines?
On the other hand, atheism seems to be simply equated with rationality. Does this mean that people who sincerely disbelieve in the existence of a god aren't truly atheistic if they're acting in ways that Harris finds unreasonable?
Harris's quote sums up a lot of what I think is wrong with the "new atheist" movement. At heart, they seem to be concerned with defended reason against irrationality, which is a noble thing. But when they often take that extra step of equating religion with blind faith and atheism with rational enlightenment, not only do their arguments become all tangled and confused, but they alienate a lot of people who share their commitment to reason but don't think that reason necessarily leads to atheism.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
esantipapaAug 2, 2010
pinkfish... reason SHOULD lead people away from religion... I think that's the idea Sam Harris and others are trying to push. Religion is a loaded word, but its exactly what I think is intended... the organizational structure, the formal gathering systems.... the cult side of being a member of a cult. I hate the us vs. them attitude of new atheism, but when it comes down to it... we have to do something to stop our species from self-destructing with faith.
pinkfish411Aug 2, 2010
@Harabeck
The history of atheism's influence on society is much smaller than religion's, because atheism (or more specifically, the rejection of religion, since some forms of Eastern religions are "atheistic") has always been a minority position in human civilization, so we can't realistically expect to find an equal number of incidents of atheism impacting the world, either or evil or for good. But to stick with the example of Russia, something I have particular expertise in, the radical atheism is hardly simply a Soviet phenomenon. Even a century before the revolution you already had a growing atheist intelligentsia that often passionately and uncritically devoted itself to whatever political fad floated in from Western Europe, and that century or so of atheist fanaticism is one of the things that set the stage for the eventual Soviet takeover and tyranny (people late Dostoevsky, in the latter part of the 19th century, were already predicting that the agenda of the atheist intelligentsia would lead to political disaster for Russia). This isn't to say that Christians weren't doing similarly silly things, but only that the atheists' atheism certainly wasn't transforming them into some kind of beacons of reason and enlightenment. They were not, and are not, any less susceptible to finding justifications for dangerous ideologies than religious people are.
And yes, the fanatical atheists are exchanging one deity for another. But when you're willing to use "deity" metaphorically like that, you've forfeited the case that atheism is somehow superior to religion in this regard. If a person can completely deny the existence of any real deities and totally reject the supernatural, then there's no sense in which their ideology is not atheistic. A person who denies the existence of God doesn't cease to be an atheist just because he becomes a blind follower of some materialist ideology. Once again, "atheist" and "rational" are not synonyms.
@esantipapa
That's fine and dandy if you want to alienate all religious people from your cause. But really, what's the point? If there are millions of religious people out proving that they can be religious and be rational, intelligent supporters of science, progress, and human politics, and who are more than willing to work alongside atheists and agnostics to realize common goals, what could you possibly gain by willingly making them into your enemies?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tyhoAug 2, 2010
You are correct, luckily there are very few of these. As an ideological killer, no religion can compare to Atheism.
Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), Mao Zedong (1893-1976) and Pol Pot (1925-1998) were the most prolific killers of the 20th century, committing atrocities against their own people.
I think it is still difficult for many to disassociate the Atheist ideology from these terrible acts.
Then there is the vocal minority of Atheists on Digg that think they are smarter than ANY religious thinker, by default. I see them ridicule others and joke about the mythical spaghetti monster in the sky or some s**t.
Then they turn around and whine that they don't get elected in America.
Gee, I wonder why?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
outpastplutoAug 3, 2010
COMMUNISM is the ideology of Stalin and Mao. What Stalin believed about God as Georgian working class thug is neither here nor there. Stalin was all about Stalin (not even the part or world wide revolution). Whether or not he believed in God or tolerated the Russian church is another matter.
Stalin = Atheist is generally only trotted out by American religious conservatives.
Listening American Fundies describe what Communists believe is probably much like listening to them describe what Mormons believe. It's probably equally accurate (iow not at all).
pinkfish411Aug 3, 2010
@OuPastPluto
Actually, "Stalin = Atheist" was loudly and proudly "trotted out" by Stalin himself. While it's true that he relaxed the anti-religious efforts of the regime in the 1940s, mainly for reasons related to the war, there's absolutely no doubt at all that the man was an atheist and saw his atheism as an essential component of his political philosophy, just like Lenin and other revolutionaries before him. I don't say this as an "American Fundy" but as doctoral student in the midst of a dissertation on late 19th/early 20th century Russian political theory. I'm immersed in the primary and secondary literature, and I can assure you that the attempt to make Lenin's and Stalin's atheist irrelevant to their political ideologies is something done only by atheist apologists who don't know a damn thing about Russian history and have probably never read a single work of Lenin or any of the other Russian intelligentsia in their lives. It's about as stupid as Christians who try to argue that Catholics slaughtering Jews, Muslims, and Orthodox in the Crusades had nothing to do with their Christian beliefs.
Why can't more people simply accept the should-be uncontroversial truth that, for pretty much any belief the human mind can must the imagination to believe, there's going to be somebody out there who uses it to draw implications that decent moral people are going to find appalling? Christians have killed in the name of Christianity, atheists have killed in the name of atheism--both are historically indisputable facts, and only mindless apologists, idiots who can't realize that the bad behavior of others has no bearing on their own morality, try to deny such facts.
Attempts by people like tyho to paint atheism as such as an "ideological killer" are also stupid. But that doesn't mean that the proper response of atheists should be to rewrite history. The proper response is, "The Soviets believed in an atheism that implied communism, but I don't. What of it?"
tyhoAug 3, 2010
Well said pinkfish411. I agree with your statement completely, and you're right, I could have chosen a less inflammatory term.
It's clear that you've done a lot of objective thinking on the matter, and it's needed.
esantipapaAug 12, 2010
I don't want to alienate anyone, I want to see these people who supposedly are rational... intelligent supporters of science (LOL), progress and human politics (is there another kind?).. buying into total nonsense.
I love the phrasing too, willing to work alongside...... no, it's cooperation, not tolerance. There will always be an attitude of spiritual/tangible self-valuation above that of their peers due to their "faith".
If these would-be-enemies are so rational, intelligent supporters of science... they really aren't much of a Christian anymore, why not just give it up? Proper understanding of the implications of currently documented science is kind of clear on this issue dude... God didn't do it... he didn't do much of anything.
Let's state some goals: Exploring space (FTL drives), ending aging (bioengineering) and living as long as you choose to (SENS), extremely cheap manufacture of vaccines and medicines (nano-manufacturing)... inexpensive self-replicating machinery that makes a multitude of simple devices (RepRap)...
Not too many of those goals are held by those who think the world is inevitably going to end, or that JEEBUS is coming any second. People who plan for a bright future of humanity hold those goals...
ziffelAug 2, 2010
"I don't believe that anyone is qualified to determine that there is or isn't some magical being in the sky"
Are you serious? You don't think people are qualified to say there ISN'T a magical being in the sky?
What about dragons, unicorns, faeries, orcs, dwarves or elves? Am I qualified to say they don't exist? They are FANTASY. We all *know* that. Gods are, and always have been literary works of fiction. They are myth. Zeus, Ra, Pan, Osiris, and a list 10,000 long ... any doubt that Zeus was made up? Why do the current gods get a pass, when there's no more evidence for their existence than Zeus?
The reason atheists are speaking up, is because we're sick of seeing our society being dominated by Christian doctrine. If only the Christians are active, then you'll have a theocracy on your hands. Look at the middle east. No one can speak up against Islam, and so Islam runs the state, and women have to walk around in burkas.
I'm proud of my right to free speech, and I intend to use it. You whiners can sit on the fence and just be annoyed.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Exactly.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." -Dawkins
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
"The reason atheists are speaking up, is because we're sick of seeing our society being dominated by Christian doctrine. If only the Christians are active, then you'll have a theocracy on your hands. Look at the middle east. No one can speak up against Islam, and so Islam runs the state, and women have to walk around in burkas."
Please do, I'm glad that there are people like yourself out there keeping theocrats at bay
"I'm proud of my right to free speech, and I intend to use it. You apathetic whiners can sit on the fence and just be annoyed."
I'm not sitting on any fence. All I'm saying (and this is my paradox) is everyone is probably wrong about the origins of everything including myself. I will never claim to have all the answers nor will I ever follow anyone preaching that they have them either.
ziffelAug 2, 2010
@silentbutstudly: fair enough, but I think there's a gross misrepresentation about what the vast majority of atheists believe. As a general rule, we are not dogmatically claiming to *know* there is no god. What I've experience from almost all atheists is merely a lack of belief in God/gods. Most are perfectly open to evidence that would support a god, and generally we just want to know the truth, whatever that may be.
Christian preachers have been terribly misrepresenting atheism for hundreds of years, and hell many Christians think we're devil worshipers!
Even if an atheist says they are 100% convinced that the Christian God of the bible does not exist (he is logically impossible, btw), that doesn't mean we claim to know the origins of the universe.
For all I know, we could be a computer program.
cartman86Aug 2, 2010
It doesn't help to place God in the origins of the universe. The hypothesis we have now can suffice. They may be wrong, they may be right. But we are trying. Sitting back and saying "I don't know! And we will never know!" is silly. Science and technology progress by stepping out on a limb. Yes "I don't know" is a great answer, but let's keep trying and perhaps one day we will.
designerutahAug 2, 2010
@siilent: Most atheists that I have met don't claim to "know" a supreme being doesn't exist. Most atheists are atheists because they were brought up religious and have become atheist after having to closely look at their faith and religion and seen it's faults. Engaging in strong belief in the other way would be just a different type of religion. They do exist, but like with believers, they are the vocal, irritating minority who do not at all represent the majority.
For myself, I respect the rights of people to believe in any God they wish, worship in any way they wish. The only part I argue against and fight against is when they try to legislate their beliefs. I don't think that's right for any group. We have a long cultural history to judge what laws are necessary for co-existence. Use those, not belief to create and maintain the foundation of our society.
jshhmrAug 2, 2010
Thank you ziffel and others for proving that you guys are just as close minded as religious people. I don't think you converted anybody though. Perhaps you can leave some pamphlets?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ausjpAug 3, 2010
Saying that you're open to the idea that there is a god, but so no compelling case for the existence of god, therefore you bag it with fairies, dragons, Zeus & Odin is close-minded? As opposed to theists: "There is a god. End."
I don't think I'm following.
kaervektooAug 3, 2010
@jshhmr Pamphlets? f**k that. I'm passing a tithing plate.
cronicusxAug 3, 2010
There's a good way to convince people about Atheism and a bad way. Being a smug assh**e about it is a bad way; what are you trying to do? just prove you're right and feel better than the other person? Why not try and convince them with a kinder tone...
-An Atheist
dc7407Aug 3, 2010
dugg.
badbeatAug 3, 2010
@ziffel:
"Are you serious? You don't think people are qualified to say there ISN'T a magical being in the sky?"
Yes, exactly. No one is any more qualified to claim non-existence than existence. The evidence, one way or the other, just isn't there. Yes, most of the stories told by most current religions can be falsified, but, this does not mean that a god or creator absolutely does not exist. Did something create our universe? No one knows the answer to this question because there is no evidence one way or the other. Claiming that you know the answer to this question by claiming that you know that god does not exist is just as ridiculous as claiming that you know that god does exist. That is silentbutstudly's point.
toxicityjAug 2, 2010
I'm curious as to what I would be. I don't believe in God, but at the same time I acknowledge there's no way of knowing for sure. so I'm like athenostic or something.
dc7407Aug 3, 2010
I am agnostic too, but as Christop Hitchens puts it, It may be because I'm too much of a pussy to admit god isn't there or that there is not sufficient evidence for him existing. You can't know there isn't a god, but you can't know there isn't a flying spaghetti monster that controls the cosmos either, so unless there is real evidence to say otherwise other then the "I don't know how everything could exist without a divine creator therefore there must be one" or the god of the gaps fallacy, then we should just assume there isnt until evidence is presented. I remain agnostic because I too am afraid of death and want there to be a god, but I will not give in to wishful thinking and distort the reality of this world into what would make me feel more comfortable. I have not met or seen any of these fundamentalist atheists, and struggle to find out how they could be as bad as fundi Christians/muslim/anything. If an atheist is passionate about supporting reason, logic and humanism then I dont understand how their like a fundamentalist christian at all.
eddygoombahAug 2, 2010
No one is more annoying than Twilight fans... and we ALL feel superior to them.
cesclaveriaAug 2, 2010
actually I refuse to believe they exist... but sadly that is just me in denial.
corbinm1226Aug 2, 2010
wisdom
stuffradioAug 2, 2010
Every religion (or non religion) can get behind that statement.
strangehumorAug 2, 2010
Two Twilight fans buried you. lol
greg2kAug 2, 2010
Yet there is a strong clash between the Twilight fans and the Justin Bieber fans. Establishing a hierarchy here is daunting at best.
vicerexciserAug 3, 2010
Perhaps they will kill each other is mortal combat. Wishful thinking on my part, I know.
bigdoglj52Aug 3, 2010
...all *ARE* superior to them.
tylerharrisAug 2, 2010
It is 2010 and Christianity needs to die off. Dogma has no place in our modern world!
ziffelAug 2, 2010
I say let them have their churches, let them freely speak. What we really need is TRUE separation of church and state, where NO Christian doctrine, and no morality is legislated into law.
As science progresses, religion will die off eventually. It's a holdover from ignorant ancient times where all mysteries were answered with "God did it!". The gaps are closing, and the gods are shrinking.
firefox15Aug 2, 2010
You really want "no morality is legislated into law"? That seems a little extreme. By that logic, murder should be legal.
pixelmagicAug 2, 2010
@firefox15, I think he was referring to things like banning same sex marriages.
atroxodisseAug 2, 2010
@firefox15
The law is best used for keeping order and fairness, not legislating morality. Morality is very different from person to person and can change easily(on a personal level). Things that promote fairness and order in society benefit everyone. If we let people use their morality to make laws then we end up with some very bad laws which are often hard to get rid of(obviously it happens but it shouldn't). Even if a new "better" government is elected it can take years for a bad law to be removed. You end up with a majority of people voting in laws that can have serious negative consequences to a minority.
generalobviousAug 3, 2010
"By that logic, murder and rape should be legal."
Haha, everyone resorts to murder and rape as some hypothetical example.
No.
mariwanabe8Aug 2, 2010
atheism and christanity wil perish eventually. islam is growing. read the QUR'AN, learnt the truth
enantiodromiaAug 3, 2010
Islam is Atheism. You worship a book, not a deity. Have a nice day.
user500Aug 3, 2010
save me jebus!
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
I'm not normally very religious...but if you're up there...
save me superman!
willthewayAug 3, 2010
family guy hasn't been funny for a long time.
invictus125Aug 2, 2010
Both sides are annoying to me.
"There's a God in the sky who created everything and watches over us all, and I know this because so many people throughout history can't all be wrong!" - You can't prove that, and yes they could very well be wrong. They're all human.
And the other side...
"There is absolutely no evidence of a higher power, which means that there is no way one could possibly exist. There is only life and oblivion." - Maybe slightly more reasonable, but still not possible to know this for a fact. Nobody can prove or disprove anything about what lies beyond death, and nobody really knows what happened at the moment of creation, because we are finite beings and time and space are infinite (as far as we know).
Personally, I'd be perfectly OK with religion dying out just so I don't have to hear the pointless bickering anymore. Both sides are positive they're right, and neither will relent. It's annoying.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
carbonetcAug 2, 2010
"...which means that there is no way one could possibly exist."
Who claims that this follows from "there is no evidence"? That would be one hell of a non sequitur -- the atheists you know are idiots or you've built yourself a strawman.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
"There is absolutely no evidence of a higher power, which means that there is no way one could possibly exist. There is only life and oblivion."
I take issue with "there is no way one could possibly exist". I don't think most atheists would deny the logical possibility of such things. But because there is no evidence, it is foolish not to go with the null hypothesis. Otherwise, you can believe anything you want and call it truth.
esantipapaAug 2, 2010
99.7% chance of no god existing...
apokalypsenowAug 2, 2010
For myself, I've always taken the standpoint of "There is absolutely no objective evidence of the supernatural, much less any one person's particular flavor of it, and as such we have no reason to think that they exist." This is a position based on evidence, and which can be changed with the introduction of new evidence.
countess666Aug 2, 2010
"There is absolutely no evidence of a higher power, which means that there is no way one could possibly exist."
that's not what atheist say. its more along the lines of : until you can prove to me he exists I'm going to assume he does not.
invictus125Aug 2, 2010
My comment was more targeting the fringe on both sides of the debate. Those who are basically zealots, unwilling to bend on their beliefs even a little. I've talked to atheists who looked down on me for being an agnostic, simply on the grounds that they believe it's a weak stance, and that I am enabling religion to continue.
I've also talked to Christians who looked down on me, and even felt sorry for me because they believe agnostics go to hell. I don't much care for extremes in anything; temperature, actions or points of view. Passive atheists and passive Christians (the type who don't try to convert, don't judge others, and simply quietly hold their own beliefs) are fine with me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ziffelAug 2, 2010
I'm an atheist, and I am 100% open to the possibility of a god existing. I'm just waiting for proof or evidence.
Try hanging out on some atheist forums, and you'll soon find out that the atheist you inserted into your post is a strawman. Even Richard Dawkins says that he is not 100% sure no gods exist. He says that it's a matter of probability.
Almost every atheist I know is perfectly willing to hear valid evidence for a god. None has been given.
I have an open challenge to any theist claiming a personal god. I keep a 16 digit number taped to my desk. Any theist that prays and has their god reveal to them the number, I'll convert on the spot and serve that god the rest of my days.
rain12913Aug 2, 2010
Wow way to strawman, guy. The atheist claim, at least the one I subscribe to, is more like this: "There is absolutely no evidence of a higher power, which means that the null hypothesis is that a higher power does not exist." I simply choose to accept the null hypothesis until it is rejected.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Let me guess, you're one of those people who calls themselves "agnostic" because you don't understand what atheism is and think "agnostic" is its own worldview.
bxrwxrAug 2, 2010
Jesus was an extraterrestrial.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
citation needed
biggydiggsAug 2, 2010
Wow, atheists are so incredibly not funny. I guess that ties in with their hopeless, meaningless existence thing.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
You're thinking of nihilists, not atheists.
diceauAug 2, 2010
To evolve through physical and mental refinement, paying attention to each muscle and each emotion to the point of healthy and successful living. Survival guided by the laws of physics and nature.
Your book doesn't tell you what humor is, so how do you know about it? The answer is the same for how we know about everything else in life ... including how to give our lives hope and meaning.
mweatherAug 2, 2010
We can't all have a misguidedly hopeful, meaningless existence like you.
ziffelAug 2, 2010
Wow, Christians are so incredibly not funny. I guess that ties in with their hypocritical, judgmental, wishful thinking existence thing.
biggydiggsAug 2, 2010
I didn't mean to send you atheists into a deeper depression. Talk about sensitive, FFS!!
I probably over-analyzed the comic strip. I should have just said that it was devoid of humor, regardless of whether you're a depressed atheist, a healing televangelist, or an Islamic throwback cultist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ziffelAug 2, 2010
@biggy, where did you get the idea that atheists are hopeless and depressed? I've never felt better, or more free, since I dumped Christianity 14 years ago.
unitedatheismAug 2, 2010
Say that to Seth MacFarlane.... Or Matt Groening, if you ever saw that "Blame it on Lisa" episode.
biggydiggsAug 2, 2010
@ziffel, for an atheist to admit to deep depression is sort of like a homosexual coming out of the closet, or like an alcoholic admitting addiction in an AA meeting. In each instance, the secret is actually common knowledge to the audience. It saddens me to see that you're running from your truth. Embrace your secret, and the healing will begin soon afterward.
Peace be with you, friend.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gurugangstaAug 2, 2010
Why are all atheists depressed? Humour me.
diceauAug 3, 2010
Obvious troll has now become too obvious.
biggydiggsAug 3, 2010
@diceau, I spotted GuruGansta right from the start, too. Keep up the good work.
biggydiggsAug 3, 2010
@GuruGangsta,
You're a scared, hairless monkey. Without an absolute explanation to the meaning of your existence you digress to "There is no God", the "Big Bang" theory explains everything, and the notion of infinity (an infinite God) is nonexistent. No wonder atheists are depressed. If you can't commune with God, how do you find happiness in life? With people??? Pleeeaase!! Consider me; how would I ever find somebody of my caliber?? I mean, think about it for a second.........
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
At least atheists make sense.
pjsmikeAug 2, 2010
That they collectively dismiss the existence of a supreme being, without direct or observable proof? And that their main argument is based on a 2000 year old story book written by humans? There is a fine line between an atheist and agnostic, and most of the idiots don't know the difference and label themselves as a non believer because other famous people do it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jayskullsAug 2, 2010
Creed was a horrible band.
icadilAug 2, 2010
Digg has some disspointing music preferences. I love Creed, and while Nickleback hasn't put out anything worth downloading since their first album This is How you Remind Me is still one of my favorite songs by any rock artist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fungus53Aug 2, 2010
GTFO
damageincAug 2, 2010
I'm glad you can't even get the name right of one of your favorite songs.
speedsteamboatAug 2, 2010
You love Creed and "This Is How You Remind Me" is one of your favorite songs by ANY ROCK ARTIST?
No wonder you think digg has disappointing preferences. Your standards are retarded.
falconearAug 2, 2010
Creed and Nickleback...either you're a troll, or your taste in music is...wow....
lukas1051Aug 2, 2010
Jesus, give the guy a break. I hate how everyone on here is expected to conform to a certain standard. While I don't like Nickelback or Creed, I am quite fond of Lady Gaga. So now are you gonna bury me because I'm too mainstream for your noncornformist principles you all seem to conform to?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nextwiggin4Aug 2, 2010
@lukas1051
We don't bury you on principle. We bury you because the music you like makes our ears bleed. We bury you because the mention of those "artists" irritate us, because their music irritates us. Come off your high horse for a minute and realize that if you get you give your opinion in a comment about how much you like a band, we get to give our opinion about how much the suck by burying you into oblivion.
jh42Aug 2, 2010
One Last Breath by Creed is a great song.
auntiejamimaAug 2, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipy58SaIRhs
But they shred!
/s
wontstoptalkingAug 2, 2010
Weird Al Shreds!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmcuoaqdJ9w
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
So that's what happens when Creed tries to improv.
calliganAug 2, 2010
I'll give credit where it's due. My Own Prison was f**king awesome when it came out.
Nickelback has never put out anything that wasn't complete total s**t.
leezusAug 2, 2010
Even God hates Creed.
hersheyskwertzAug 2, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
charlesdkraussAug 2, 2010
I can't help but be smug when half of the population is happy on it's knees.
vargonianAug 2, 2010
So long as it's still profoundly negatively impacting the world to believe in superstitious nonsense, I won't shut up about it. Sorry.
hersheyskwertzAug 2, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
shinzenAug 2, 2010
So when someone says something you don't like, your response is to stuff your head in the sand and start singing?
And you call him a smug assh**e...
hersheyskwertzAug 2, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
paulcooperAug 3, 2010
Ironically, Hershey is coming off as awfully smug. It makes me appreciate the comic on a whole new level.
shutupflandersAug 2, 2010
That's Digg in a nutshell.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
"My logical presuppositions about the supernatural can beat up your logical presuppositions about the supernatural!"
kolop1Aug 2, 2010
Another funny comic on Digg.
kylereAug 2, 2010
Anyone who thinks atheists are as annoying as christians has never meet Fred Phelps.
issacharAug 2, 2010
Fred Phelps is as much a Christian as a man in a white sheet lynching a black man is a patriotic American who embodies the values of the US Constitution.
issacharAug 2, 2010
@Kylere,
You clearly know nothing of Christianity. That's sad.
kylereAug 2, 2010
I know enough of the evils of it, and am glad I outgrew them to become a human.
issacharAug 2, 2010
Wow. That's a lot of hate there man. Don't be a hater. It's not good for you.
kylereAug 2, 2010
No hate, just a recognition that religion is just pablum for the kiddies to make them behave, the rest of us do it without worrying about some guy in the clouds keeping score. You feel that me thinking religion is a joke comes from hate, and the truth is that it comes from love.
fungoAug 2, 2010
Haters gonna hate.
willthewayAug 2, 2010
mass murder in the name of Christianity is from a perverted lie. mass murder in the name of atheism is done out of logic
colinfoxAug 2, 2010
Everything Fred Phelps says comes straight out of the bible. He can support all of his wacko ideas with actual scripture.
What is your scriptural basis for arguing against him?
As much as fundies are annoying assh**es, they do have the bible on their side. So if you believe in the bible and in Jesus etc., you don't really have a leg to stand on in arguing with them.
Phelps is basically a reducto ad absurdum embodied in a shriveled old hateful man, but he is definitely preaching it as it's written.
shinzenAug 2, 2010
Or insanity. Which really doesn't discriminate between religion or non-religion.
outpastplutoAug 3, 2010
> Everything Fred Phelps says comes straight out of the bible. He can
> support all of his wacko ideas with actual scripture.
>
> What is your scriptural basis for arguing against him?
Taking the Bible piecemeal is a dangerous thing. The problem with it is that Xians have been doing it since the time of Paul. They pick and choose what parts of the old law to apply to the new cult. This leads to a very difficult problem of interpretation.
It ends up being all wishy-washy...
A great reason to distrust Pauline Xianity.
willthewayAug 3, 2010
@colinfix - Where does the Bible justify the saying that God wants soldiers dead because America is accepting of homosexuality?
lawyered
paulcooperAug 3, 2010
@Willtheway are you one of those morons who thinks that people like Hitler were doing atheistic work by carrying out the will of evolution?
Mass murder has never been carried out 'in the name of atheism'. It could be done by someone who is secular (and therefore not in the name of 'God') by there is nothing logical about killing people because you 'are pretty sure god doesn't exists because it is so improbable and has no empirical evidence'.
Of course, I think what you mean is 'Aetheists == cold, unemotional, purely logical, evolution extremists attempting to create master races'. Which is retarded.
tl;dr - Don't make strawman arguments.
willthewayAug 4, 2010
@paulcooper - No, I was thinking of abortion, but that is a good example too. I am fully aware that mass murder hasn't been done in the name of atheism - oh wait yes it has, the French Revolution. These are not strawman arguments. They are just simple observations of humanity's cruelty.
colinfoxAug 4, 2010
@Willtheway "Where does the Bible justify the saying that God wants soldiers dead because America is accepting of homosexuality?"
There are plenty of verses in the old testament where God said to slaughter people of differing beliefs. If someone from another town comes to you and tries to convert you, you're supposed to destroy the whole town. If you don't know this, you haven't read your bible.
"I find it funny that no one disputes my second statement."
My whole comment was a dispute of your second statement. There is no logical path from "I don't believe in fairy tales" to "I'm going to kill you", so your statement was crap.
colinfoxAug 4, 2010
@Willtheway "I am fully aware that mass murder hasn't been done in the name of atheism - oh wait yes it has, the French Revolution."
Learn something about history. The killings you're referring to in the french revolution were a reaction against the catholic church. In other words, the violence was directed against a specific group, because that specific group had been oppressing people for ages.
This is a reaction to abuse, not killing in the name of atheism.
I'll repeat it again - maybe repetitions will help it sink in: There is no logical step from "I don't believe in fairy tales" to "I'm going to kill you".
willthewayAug 5, 2010
@colinfox - You try learning a little history. The French went so far as to replace christian holidays with civic ones. There was a whole effort to de-christianize France. This was all done by the "cult of reason".
"I'll repeat it again - maybe repetitions will help it sink in: There is no logical step from "I don't believe in fairy tales" to "I'm going to kill you"."
- Why do you need to repeat it? You said it only once before I had a chance to respond.
"There are plenty of verses in the old testament where God said to slaughter people of differing beliefs."
- Care to offer a citation? I can guarantee it's either not true or taken out of context which always seems to be the case on Digg.
andyb747Aug 2, 2010
Anyone who thinks Fred Phelps is as annoying as atheists has never meet Pol Pot.
stuffradioAug 2, 2010
Fred Phelps is not a Christian. Going to funerals saying things like God hates you... that itself isn't even Christian.
kylereAug 2, 2010
He follows all of the bible, not just the parts he likes, technically that makes him a better xian.
stuffradioAug 2, 2010
Hating people isn't Christian... so he isn't following all of it.
shinzenAug 2, 2010
Crusades ring a bell?
How about Witch Burnings?
The word Heretic?
I can keep going...
stuffradioAug 2, 2010
I can bring up people Paul Pot too, quit it with the past.
paulcooperAug 3, 2010
wtf does Pol Pot have to do with anything? Totalitarian governments kill people - he didn't gather followers by preaching non-belief. f**k thats such a facetious argument.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrkev150Aug 3, 2010
@Shinzen. Contrary to popular belief nobody was burned at the stake at the Salem Witch Trials. Also, about 20 (maybe less) were executed from HANGING not burned.
The Crusades, yes, many Christians fought the Muslims and many were killed. Religion wasn't the only reason why the crusades took place. Study the Knight Templars and other political influences that were mainly behind this.
Non Religious Wars:
Ancient Egyptian conquests, Wars of Ancient Greece, Philip and Alexander from Macedon, Warring kingdoms and states of China, Mongol Wars, ancient Korean, Feudal Japanese, WW1, WW2, The Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq 1 & 2 and countless more I didn't mention.
The number of people killed because of religious wars pales in comparison.
ant:elephant
tac50Aug 3, 2010
And by that logic anyone who thinks American are not the most annoying people in the world has never met Fred Phelps.
A POINT IS NOT A LINE! Drawing from one point and making conclusions is something morons do.
xpinchxAug 2, 2010
I'm just contributing to the comment cemetery, feel free to bury me.
one1plus1oneAug 2, 2010
Ok, I buried you. But then I felt Christian guilt setting in, so I created a new account, to digg you back up, and thereby undo my burying sinful ways.
greg2kAug 2, 2010
Cemetery? You THEIST!!
jeffnessAug 2, 2010
this is one of the few xkcd's i really don't like. The problem with it is that it is equating "atheist" to "fundamentalist christian". Not all atheists are in-your-face about it or denouncing of god. There are many "live and let live" atheists who find the "advocating atheist" just as annoying as the "fundamentalist christian". Both are campaigners in that regard, which is what some people have a problem with.
Maybe xkcd does not intend to convey that message, but that is the message I took from it.
calliganAug 2, 2010
They are both equally irritating. Anyone who believes they're absolutely 100% right isn't rational.
jshhmrAug 2, 2010
Have you looked at the comments? Again it has become about how superior atheists are. Agnostics get buried for being the most open-minded. I DO know religion is fake, but I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god. A religious person says their is, and an atheist says their isn't, and there is nothing you can do to change their mind. Atheists are close-minded.
macintoshreaderAug 2, 2010
Agnostic does not equal open minded. Buried.
sageerrantAug 2, 2010
There is no such thing as an agnostic without describing what they are agnostic towards. There is no middle ground between believing that something exists or does not. You are not perfectly balanced between believing in unicorns or not. You may not have given it much thought, and you'd surely change your mind if someone showed you a unicorn, but unless that happens, you don't believe in them.
God is the same way for self-proclaimed agnostics, who would more properly be called agnostic atheists. They do not explicitly believe in god, but remain open to any evidence. This also describes the vast majority of atheists, so stop pretending you're occupying some special middle ground.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paulcooperAug 3, 2010
Atheists are as open minded about god as you are about Santa Clauss.
outpastplutoAug 3, 2010
Not all Fundies are obnoxious either.
You only hear about the obnoxious ones because they make sure they're in everyone's faces. OTOH, you don't really have any non-fundies in anyone's face either. The noisy ones tend to cast the rest in a bad light.
Although that said, the most annoying atheists are far less annoying or dangerous than the most annoying fundies.
sonofabeAug 3, 2010
Yeah, I agree that the comic isn't entirely fair to atheists in general. I think he meant to refer "non-theist" instead. In my experience, those who identify as a non-theist tend to be very aggressive about their beliefs (or lack thereof as they would prefer to put it).
juangatoAug 2, 2010
i'm an atheist.
i'm an atheist because i refuse to believe in dogma. Whether or not there's some sort of a spiritual entity that guides the universe, we'll never really know.
but the dogma attached to many religions is destructive and creates a warped perception of reality.
i suppose you could argue i'm agnostic, because a higher power is a possibility, i just think its one of the least likely ones.
but i certainly will never subscribe blindly to the views of christianity, islam, hinduism, etc. these were stories made up by people 1000s of years ago so they could feel like they had a better understanding of the world around them
certainly texts from most, if not all, religions offer some valuable insight into how to lead our lives in a positive way, i don't deny that, i just want nothing to do with the dogma.
so i don't believe in any of it and i just treat people well.
if i had to pick a religion it'd probably be buddhism... that being said i am nowhere near a practicing buddhist and i do not believe in the dogmatic nature of the story of buddha Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
There are Buddhist atheists. They treat it as a philosophy rather than a religion, but they definately exist.
hipmanAug 2, 2010
They still believe in re-incarnation and all that s**t.
juangatoAug 2, 2010
exactly... i'm not sure i by that.
call me skeptical to say the least.
although the idea of simply starting over with another lifetime of experience is certainly comforting.
harabeckAug 2, 2010
Just to nit-pick, you can be both an atheist and an agnostic.
juangatoAug 2, 2010
but i think all the books are crap.
basically the only way i'd start believing in anything close to the judeo-christian god is if god literally came down from the heavens and said "hey dude, i'm here"
and to be fair, my first assumption would probably be that i was hallucinating and i'd probably seek the help of a medical professional.
if god persisted i suppose i might believe in him
but then again i'd also be regularly hearing voices, which sounds pretty crazy
wkrausmannAug 3, 2010
How? Atheists are absolutely sure there is no god, but agnostics are doubtful as to whether god exists but don't deny it. Those are two separate schools of thought.
juangatoAug 3, 2010
well i look at it this way
if you look at it objectively
the atheists make the best argument based on empirical data.
most atheists admit that they would believe whatever the evidence supported... see dawkins and harris for prime examples.
if that makes them agnostic then it would make me one too.
the way i look at is atheists do not believe in god (i don't believe in it even a little... basically nothing spiritual ever enters my mind)
i feel agnostics are people who are more prone to believing in god but don't buy any of the religions offered to them. i can relate more to these people because i can understand the thought of spirituality.
but i don't really buy it.
harabeckAug 3, 2010
Agnostic= I admit the possibility of god.
Atheist= I do not believe there is a god.
You can admit a possibility without holding that belief.
Technically, I think agnosticism is supposed to address the possibility of knowing god (as opposed to the possibility of god). But I don't think that's how we use it anymore.
juangatoAug 3, 2010
Agnostic= I admit the possibility of god.
-------------------------------
by that definition even some of your most well known atheist scholars would be considered agnostic.
we can't possibly know so it is possible, its just the idea of god flies in the face of a great deal of logic
see Dawkins' god delusion.
most atheists will concede its a possibility, however unlikely.... i don't think it makes them agnostic it just makes them open minded.
i like you're idea that agnosticism is the possibility of knowing god
even atheists that believe in the possibility of a deity would not believe in the ability to "know" that god in any tangible way.
if you're speaking with god, you're probably having a schizophrenic episode.
andyb747Aug 2, 2010
atheists can be very dogmatic.
juangatoAug 2, 2010
i don't know of any atheists who are dogmatic.
i suppose it seems dogmatic if you believe in god and think its silly not to.
but to borrow from sam harris i feel the same way religious people do about every religion but their own. i just don't believe in it and i apply that belief to only one more religion than believers.
i think anyone who maintains to have an answer is an idiot... the only honest answer is we don't know and currently have no way of knowing.
but its certainly an interesting question to think about
juangatoAug 2, 2010
i think anyone who maintains to have an answer is an idiot... the only honest answer is we don't know and currently have no way of knowing.
ok.... so that was a little strong, as i'm friends with some religious people who i do not think to be idiots.
but almost everyone i associate with is atheist or agnostic... either that or they're not from this country
andyb747Aug 2, 2010
Atheists Joseph Stalin and Enver Hoxha were very dogmatic.
"i feel the same way religious people do about every religion but their own. i just don't believe in it and i apply that belief to only one more religion than believers"
Sam Harris's statement is incorrect.
While the believers (specifically of the Abrahamic religions) may reject each other's religious messages, prophets and traditions, they do not reject the the concept of God. It's not about whether or not God exists it's about whether my religion's perspective is the correct one where in atheism the fundamental concept of a deity is rejected along with any and all accompanying perspectives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
outpastplutoAug 3, 2010
> Atheists Joseph Stalin and Enver Hoxha were very dogmatic.
In truth, Stalin like was not at all dogmatic about anything.
You're confusing the Pope with Catholicism.
Plus, Stalin was the "Pope" of communism and not atheism. If anything, atheism was simply a means to allow the party to displace the church. So it's not really atheism. The party is the church.
Stalin was the muscle. Lenin was the true believer (if anyone was).
offrdbanditAug 3, 2010
Do you somehow feel dogma from a scientist is less dangerous, more valid, or somehow more reliable than other forms of dogma?
Case in point: "these were stories made up by people 1000s of years ago so they could feel like they had a better understanding of the world around them"
Don't prescribe to dogma, you say? Right...
juangatoAug 3, 2010
isn't that what greek mythology and other early religions are?
aren't later religions simply an extension of that?
what is dogmatic about saying these stories did not exist until 1000s of years ago when people started telling them and they were eventually written down.
dogma is belief in something without reason.
any good scientist would be completely willing to change their views if presented with enough evidence to change their view.
the burden of proof should be on the believers and not the skeptics.
if i start telling people i know the the answers of the universe and expect them to believe me on blind faith i would have to give them some reason to believe me.
i just need some evidence, and i find the evidence in favor of their not being a deity in the biblical or generally religious sense far more plausible.
you don't because you let a book tell you what to believe instead of embracing the overwhelming empirical evidence
offrdbanditAug 3, 2010
"what is dogmatic about saying these stories did not exist until 1000s of years ago when people started telling them and they were eventually written down."
Because you have absolutely no idea logical basis for the conclusion you are drawing. You have no idea when, how, where, and/or why the stories originated. Any unevidenced assertion regarding the origin or history of those stories, particularly one intended to undermine the believed origin of said stories is dogmatism in its purest form.
"dogma is belief in something without reason"
Not exactly. Dogma is believing in something without understanding the reason.
"the burden of proof should be on the believers and not the skeptics"
The burden of proof is on anyone making an assertion. Your assertions that religious documents are just "stories made up by people 1000s of years ago" and that religion is universally "destructive and creates a warped perception of reality" both place a burden of proof you YOU. Unless you can evidence, explain, and logically justify those assertions they are as dogmatic as any religious belief someone could have.
"i find the evidence in favor of their not being a deity in the biblical or generally religious sense far more plausible"
I'm curious what evidence to which you'd be referring. Unless, of course, you've made another dogmatic assertion. In which case...
"you don't because you let a book tell you what to believe instead of embracing the overwhelming empirical evidence"
of... what... exactly?
You think you know what you are talking about. But, alas, you are ignorant of your own ignorance.
juangatoAug 3, 2010
Because you have absolutely no idea logical basis for the conclusion you are drawing. You have no idea when, how, where, and/or why the stories originated. Any unevidenced assertion regarding the origin or history of those stories, particularly one intended to undermine the believed origin of said stories is dogmatism in its purest form.
-----------------------------------------------------
there's a great deal of research that has been done on the authors of the bible and we do know a great deal about the people who wrote them and the time and place that these stories start to first be told and written down.
the bible most americans read was written by king james, who was certainly fallible.
these aren't just random assertions by me, clearly you've done almost no research into the topic.
you can't simply assert that anyone who disagrees with your religion is being dogmatic.
read richard dawkins the god delusion, he offers a great many logical and scientific arguments against the belief in a deity, and i think they are much more compelling then the arguments in favor of it.
and if you don't understand the reason you believe something... you don't have a reason, other than you're just believing what someone told you.
i don't mind being called ignorant by you.
because you're clearly ignorant to the origins of your own religious texts
go read some books.
juangatoAug 3, 2010
"you don't because you let a book tell you what to believe instead of embracing the overwhelming empirical evidence"
of... what... exactly?
thats kinda the point
of what.
of nothing, we don't know and you don't know.
but you maintain to know the answer, that god created the universe and has rules x y and z
while i continue to look for it.
the empirical evidence is that we clearly don't know much about the start of the universe. but we can certainly disprove many of the assertions made in the bible
offrdbanditAug 4, 2010
"but you maintain to know the answer, that god created the universe and has rules x y and z"
I haven't made any assertions about anything, so I don't know where you think you are coming from with that one...
"of nothing, we don't know and you don't know."
So it's impossible for you, Dawkins, or anyone else to reasonably argue one way or the other.
and yet you contend:
"he offers a great many logical and scientific arguments against the belief in a deity"
How is it possible to offer "logical and scientific arguments" for which there is no evidence? You can argue THAT you don't know, but that's it. As far as you can logically and scientifically go is argue there is no evidence of a deity.
If that is enough evidence for you to BELIEVE there is no deity, that's your prerogative, but it's not scientific nor is it logical to believe such.
"because you're clearly ignorant to the origins of your own religious texts"
Do you have some crystal ball that tells you what religious beliefs I hold, or are you using "logic" and "science" to come to this conclusion?
juangatoAug 4, 2010
"because you're clearly ignorant to the origins of your own religious texts"
Do you have some crystal ball that tells you what religious beliefs I hold, or are you using "logic" and "science" to come to this conclusion?
----------------------------
are you a christian? was i wrong?
your belief in god is neither scientific or logical.
it is in fact willfully believing in something for which there is no evidence
i refuse to believe in something until given a reason to do so.
show me your "scientific evidence" if it is unscientific to be skeptical of god
offrdbanditAug 4, 2010
"your belief in god is an assertion"
Show me where I've made such an assertion... I'll wait. Oh that's right. I haven't done so.
"if it is unscientific to be skeptical of god"
You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. Being skeptical about the existence of a deity is not the same thing as pretending their is scientific evidence supporting the idea there is no deity.
juangatoAug 4, 2010
You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. Being skeptical about the existence of a deity is not the same thing as pretending their is scientific evidence supporting the idea there is no deity.
this i never asserted either.
i merely stated that their evidence was far superior to the side that was trying to suggest a diety.
you're the one who seems overwhelmingly skeptical of science.
for example, you think there is no debate as to when the beginning of human life is.
this is a hot button issue in the scientific community.
now you've devolved to not even trying to defend your own positions but merely attack mine
i never said there was specific scientific evidence to crush the existence of a deity, but science can certainly refute much of the bible and other religious texts
making their credibility limited to be grossly generous.
offrdbanditAug 4, 2010
"You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. Being skeptical about the existence of a deity is not the same thing as pretending their is scientific evidence supporting the idea there is no deity.
this i never asserted either.
i merely stated that their evidence was far superior to the side that was trying to suggest a diety"
Either you genuinely don't understand the logical contradiction to these statements, or you are just lying. In either case, I pity you.
"you're the one who seems overwhelmingly skeptical of science"
You don't even have a clue what science is. You are incapable of constructing of logical argument, you are absolutely ignorant of epistemology, and you are bullheadedly certain in your (ignorant) opinions that you can't (or wont) analyze the quality your own arguments.
"now you've devolved to not even trying to defend your own positions but merely attack mine"
FINALLY a glimpse of intelligence! I've made NO attempt to assert any positions. You ASSUME I'm religious. You ASSUME I'm pro-life. You've based every single one of your counter arguments upon ASSUMPTIONS about ME. Not on data. Not on logic. Not on science. No BLIND ASSUMPTIONS.
And yet you claim your opinion is logical. And yet you claim your opinion is scientific?
Don't pretend to lecture me on science. You're in way over your head.
wilc3685Aug 2, 2010
xkcd sucks.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
xkcd usually sucks.
dlan4327Aug 2, 2010
This is one of the few XKCD's that I can genuinely relate to. I hate smug atheists.
I mean, I don't mind if you don't believe in god. It's your personal choice. What I do mind is the Richard Dawkin's type who struts around telling religious people "By the way you're a f**king idiot. Now it down & listen to me explain why." I swear that guy is as bad as any religious fundamentalist or extremist.
falconearAug 2, 2010
Is he? Who has he killed in the name of his beliefs?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Just as bad? Are you serious? Is he discriminating against homosexuals because of his atheism? Does he advocate teaching nonsense in schools to our children? Or is he trying to cover all the woman with veils? Trying to legislate morals from "his holy book"?
Just as bad.... get the f**k out.
frankoceanAug 3, 2010
Listen you problem is with Christianity, also Dawkin's if he instantly thinks someone who believe in a God retarded.
Then yes, his hate is the same of fundamentalist christians.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
x9002Aug 2, 2010
I had to stop reading his book because he was just far too smug
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Sorry it was over your head.
goobadyAug 2, 2010
Why are sensor and falconear getting buried? Why is being a prick as bad as murder?
ciryonAug 2, 2010
Yes, because responding to religion getting shoved down your throat by using words is exactly like flying into buildings.
mikemx7fAug 2, 2010
You do realize that this xkcd is making fun of you, and not militant atheists or fundie Christians, right?
falconearAug 2, 2010
So here's my larger feelings on Dawkins...he IS smug, and kind of an a-hole, but yknow what? We atheists are getting sick of having to be polite while our beliefs (or lack thereof) are stomped all over. Dawkins is just saying what most of us think - religion causes more harm than good, is not neccessary for a moral life, and is especially harmful to children, akin to child abuse.
Yeah, guys like Carl Sagan were more diplomatic, but we need the carrot and the stick. And don't tell me Sagan wasn't an atheist. By the standards Christians employ...he was.
am6278Aug 2, 2010
Yeah, that never happened. You have never actually read anything by Dawkins.
000dnjAug 2, 2010
You've completely missed the point. You're the guy on the left.
eatasandwichAug 3, 2010
Exactly. It's funny how many people in this thread took the side of the person being made fun of and claimed the comic as something they agree with.
jarysmAug 2, 2010
Agreed,dlan4327. I don't find your sentiments to be one of feeling superior to Richard Dawkins, you are just judging him.
If I may explain to those who think Dawkin's is being accused of suicide bombing and the like....it's about how you treat other people in a discussion. Righteousness is righteousness is righteousness. And anyone has the ability to judge righteousness as what it is, whether it comes from religion, atheism, or the reactions that dlan4327and I share.
That's what the comic is about. I don't find dlan4327to be righteous in this comment, so the comic isn't about him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shinzenAug 2, 2010
We as atheists have the Good Cop/Bad Cop routine for the religion debate.
The Bad Cop is Richard Dawkins. Kind of a dick, but tells it like it is.
The Good Cop is Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Cool guy, respects people, talked down Dawkins a few times, and believes it's important to convince people but is still adamant on certain issues such as religion in the classroom.
bombosAug 2, 2010
You have missionaries, so why can't we ;)
tk0680Aug 2, 2010
Smug is all too often used to label someone as "irritatingly, yet undeniably correct".
dlan4327Aug 3, 2010
Fair enough to those who say I missed the point. Honestly though, I don't feel smug or consider myself better than Dawkins.
I just find him extremely abrasive. Surely there's a nicer way to say that you disagree with a persons point of view?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paulcooperAug 3, 2010
Why be nice, this s**t is important.
nemomarlinAug 15, 2010
"Just as bad? Are you serious? Is he discriminating against homosexuals because of his atheism? Does he advocate teaching nonsense in schools to our children? Or is he trying to cover all the woman with veils? Trying to legislate morals from "his holy book"?
Just as bad.... get the f**k out"
I'm quoting sensor's coment just in case you missed it.
sndreamAug 2, 2010
Yeah, Atheist and region are the same, when someone draw a cartoon of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Atheist will chop your head off......... or hail you as our overlord for overcoming paradox.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
alphachirawbAug 2, 2010
Your mastery of the english language is astounding.
jarysmAug 2, 2010
Oh atheism as a organized group hasn't been around long...give them time, they'll become violent in the face of denial. Most groups eventually do.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tylerharrisAug 2, 2010
"Worship me or I will torture you forever. Have a nice day." - God
darkshadow791Aug 2, 2010
PS I love all of you
scarletsdaddyAug 2, 2010
P.S.S. And I need money
sageerrantAug 2, 2010
*P.P.S.
(Post Post Script)
esantipapaAug 2, 2010
Yeah... and why would anyone sign up for this??
willthewayAug 2, 2010
God has never said that.
bluesun420Aug 2, 2010
That's because he doesn't exist.
tk0680Aug 2, 2010
Will; okay, flesh it out. "Follow my rules - some of which involve worshipping me - or I'll torture you forever."
Not word for word, I grant you.
willthewayAug 3, 2010
@BlueSun420 - First mover?
@tk0680 - Yet He offers you a simple way to be forgiven for your sins, yet you deny Him and choose to mock Him instead. I find it fascinating that you mock someone for creating morality and enforcing it. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tk0680Aug 3, 2010
@Will: Where's the mockery? You might accuse me of over-simplifying, fair enough, but I haven't mocked anyone. Is it standard procedure to suggest people are mocking god when they disagree with you?
willthewayAug 4, 2010
@tk0680 - Are you moronic? How did you come to the conclusion that I was suggesting mockery = disagreement? You were adding on to what TylerHarris said which was mockery.
tk0680Aug 4, 2010
Adding on in terms of continuing the discussion, yes. It'd be a shame if you considered your beliefs above consideration or discourse, as you'd be confirming a stereotype that many people already wonder about.
Call not others a moron lest ye be moronic yourself.
greg2kAug 2, 2010
Yay!
dc7407Aug 3, 2010
"P.S. love me and everyone you hate, and do everything I say even if I tell you to kill your own son." - God
la7dfaAug 3, 2010
He says, while recharging his Tsunami device.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
First of all, you are correct when you say that there are certain events that are outside of what we can currently explain. However, this doesn’t mean that we should immediately label those events as spiritual or supernatural. It simply means, we cannot CURRENTLY explain them.
Also, if you closely examine those ‘documented events’ I’ll bet that the evidence rely mostly on just human experience, which we know is not the most reliable or trusted of evidence. Look at all the nonsense that ancient people across history believed in; heck look at what some people these days believe. There are tribes in Papua New Guinea that truly believe in flying witches for fuk sakes! Human experience is a bitch for sure.
In my personal opinion, if there’s any truth in the supernatural, it’ll remarkable easy to find testable empirical evidence for it, period.
falconearAug 2, 2010
Wow, a Digg thread...in comic form!
tylerharrisAug 2, 2010
If we were made in his image, then why aren't humans invisible too?
chuckdeesAug 2, 2010
"New Atheists" sound a lot like fundamentalists from religions. I wouldn't even be surprised if this doesn't become a religion of sorts on its own.
It is a very interesting and ironic trait of humans to take on the persona and mimic the attitudes of the the people we claim to abhor.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
At least with Christians I can demand that they help me cause it written in their book. Atheists are just pricks. Ill take an agnostic over either anyday, At least an agnostic hasn't come to any conclusions about life. I favor nihilism.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
esantipapaAug 2, 2010
You'd be surprised how many humanists happen to be atheists... and (like me) most of them are always willing to help a fellow human in need.
calliganAug 2, 2010
You're totally right. Without that book to guide our morals, we are nothing but blood thirsty animals. There is no way someone can have morals unless they follow the bible. The bible teaches all sorts of good morals, stone adulterers, f**k your daughters if they get you drunk, genocide and i'm pretty sure having sex with alter boys is in there too.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Where the f**k did u come from
dylbrwn2Aug 2, 2010
Pro tip: An agnostic is either a theist and an atheist while also being an agnostic. (A)Theism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.
thetehAug 3, 2010
freedomizntfree: are you saying that the ONLY reason christian people act morally is because the Bible told them to? I'm agnostic, but I act morally because it's the right thing to do. Also, an argument like "atheists are just pricks" is silly and substanceless.
dylbrwn2Aug 4, 2010
I'm an agnostic too, but are you a theist or an atheist?
YaTiddleAug 2, 2010
Feeling superior isn't the motivation for atheism, but it is a nice bonus. :D
vargonianAug 2, 2010
Most people have the mistaken idea that atheism implies a denial of the existence of deities, when it just means "a lack of belief in a deity", i.e. what most people would categorize as "agnostic".
It's also easy to lump people like Dawkins into the "fundamentalist" category based on nothing more than superficial similarities (passion for their cause, offending the other side, etc.) while completely ignoring the substance of his arguments. I care much more about the substance of the message than the style.
hipmanAug 2, 2010
That's probably because you already agree with it.
vargonianAug 2, 2010
This is common fallacious reasoning; you assume that I deem the substance is reasonable and rational because I agree with it, rather than agreeing with it because it is reasonable and rational. A person will often project their own dogmatic worldview on another; assuming that their opponent must be as deeply and blindly entrenched in their beliefs as they themselves are.
jarysmAug 2, 2010
That sounds the same as saying that all Christians should agree with the arguments and tactics of Fundamentalist Christians because the content of their message is more important than how they deliver it.
"You are either with us or agianst us"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vargonianAug 2, 2010
Thankfully for the likes of Dawkins, the message that fundamentalist Christians are pushing lacks any substance, and thus can't justify their tactics. Mind you, I'm not saying that Dawkins should grab people off the street and yell in their faces about the complete lack of evidence for any deity, but what he does is extremely far from that. I'm always surprised at the degree to which people demonize him. Besides not shying away from calling a spade a spade, what exactly does he do that's so abhorrent? Give speeches? Write books? Do interviews? Sure, he can sound arrogant, but so would you if you were placed in a society that believed in a Flat Earth and regularly taught this in science classrooms, based morality and laws around this, etc.
jarysmAug 2, 2010
Is it unfair to condense your point to "Dwakins's beliefs justify his tactics"?
If so, I'd respond to say that my original point is that his beliefs do not, nor do the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians justify their tactics. I recognize my tastes aren't everyone, but I find the following things abhorrent:
-evangelism without invitation
-treating those who hold a belief as irrelevant to a conversation about that belief, because they hold it
-speaking to people as inferior because of their beliefs
-arrogance
- the idea that the content of some (almost always the one's held by the acting party) beliefs make the above actions ok.
Dawkins, as far as I can tell, does these actions, as do Fundamentalist Christians. I can't say why others demonize him, but that's my reaction. For me strength in convictions never excuses behavior one wouldn't accept from anyone else.
shinzenAug 2, 2010
You keep misunderstanding. It's not his beliefs that justify his tactics, it's his arguments and evidence.
jarysmAug 2, 2010
I understand you just fine. It's just that I find his arguments and evidence to be a part of his beliefs. As I explained to someone else on this page:
"You touch on, perhaps, one of the greatest reasons I cannot relate to people who hold their beliefs as correct above all others, or who evangelize. I find all arguments to be based on beliefs, and I rarely trust the arguments of those who cannot discern how their mind, and the beliefs contained within, affect the evidence and logic they employ in their arguments. "
There you have it, I'm a Subjectavist (or perhaps a post modernist ), and that informs how I view arguments and how they are employed *shrug*
Thank you for being polite, hope that clears things up.
unitedatheismAug 2, 2010
Out of this superiorism thingie, most of that time people do feel dumb when you confront reason against faith, that is natural.
I know, there are people who join atheism just to be stubborn, but it's undeniable that fighting reason versus faith, reasons will always be more ahm... reasonable?
What should we do, then? Fake like we don't know math or grammar, just so they can feel not inferior?
jarysmAug 2, 2010
1. yes it is the nature of reason to be logical and organized, as it is the nature of faith to be confident. *shrug*
2. don't ask me, it's your behavior. I'm confused why you think I'm concerned about faithful feeling inferior. You injected that into this thread, I didn't bring it up, and I'm not concerned.
3. be polite? In any intellectual discussion, I'd like to think that's a basis of behavior.
jarysmAug 2, 2010
EDITED BECAUSE I'M TOO HUNGRY TO GET CONTEXTS
1. yes it is the nature of reason to be logical and organized, as it is the nature of faith to be confident. *shrug*
2. don't ask me, it's your behavior. I'm confused why you think I'm concerned about faithful feeling inferior. You injected that into this thread, I didn't bring it up, and I'm not concerned. EDIT: Sorry, let me respond after I've been fed.
- I find there is a difference between someone feeling inferior in a conversation, and someone being treated as inferior. If you find, when "confronting" reason against faith, that you are talking to people like they are a child, asking them to defend their beliefs before/without telling them to you first, making their intelligence or mental capabilities the subject of the conversation then I would argue that you aren't having a reasonable conversation. Such a person is just being a dick, which often makes people feel inferior.
- I understand that most faithful, when "confronted" (the word can mean a variety of intensities in verbal conflict) with math, grammar, and logic, don't feel inferior. You might be assuming they do because you find their arguments inferior to yours. Perhaps you are talking to people who are quite unlike any I have debated with.
3. be polite? In any intellectual discussion, I'd like to think that's a basis of behavior.
SORRY FOR THE INCONVIENCE
issacharAug 2, 2010
You seem convinced that the substance of Dawkins' message is convincing.
Well, it is VERY convincing to people who *already* believe it, but that's a meaningless measure. Random church X is also VERY convincing to people who are already a part of random church X.
Calling Dawkins a fundamentalist is little more than a perjorative as the statement is intended primarily to draw attention to many of the traits people find obnoxious about the stereotypical loud and in your face Christian fundamentalist.
I'm not sure what designation I'd use for it, but Dawkins is an intelligent man with a strangely simplistic understanding of Christianity. I don't say that because he's critical. I say it because when he describes Christianity he describes it as if his knowledge of the subject was gleaned from a Sunday school class for six year olds. It's not actually false per se, but it's unbelievably simplistic and lacking in any of the nuance an educated man should have on the subject.
It's odd to say the least.
sageerrantAug 2, 2010
There's one thing that everyone seems to miss: suppose atheism is right, that there are no gods of any sort. There's no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, so it's highly likely that the position is correct. When the opposition has no evidence to present, it's impossible to have a balanced conversation. One side is objectively stronger in regards to that specific matter.
People don't like being told they're wrong, but that doesn't make them right, and that doesn't make them an equal in the discussion. They can't meet the requirements to construct an argument, so there's little you can do but show them why that is.
Of course it's not polite to walk up to strangers and criticize some of their dearest beliefs, but when the invitation has been made, what else is there to do?
r0g3rAug 3, 2010
I spent the early part of my life in church with my grandmother who was a pastor and also an aunt and uncle who were pastors, and I think Dawkins understands Christianity perfectly well, in fact, better than the vast majority of Christians. Honestly, I think most people who believe in Christianity lack a deep understanding of the subject, because if they really read and comprehended the bible, they wouldn't believe it.
issacharAug 3, 2010
@sageerrant
"There's no evidence whatsoever to the contrary"
That's the kind of absolutist statement that makes someone look foolish. I'm assuming you meant something along the lines of "there's no credible evidence" or something like that. There most certainly is evidence for God. The fact that you don't find it convincing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It's like saying "No intelligent person would ever vote Republican" or "No educated people would support government funded health care".
It just makes you look ignorant to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
sageerrantAug 3, 2010
Evidence which is not credible is not evidence. To use a more familiar example, let's say I claim to have found a bigfoot footprint. You could consider that evidence for bigfoot, but it would be better described as potential evidence until it is tested in some manner. So we have it tested, and it's shown to be a fake. Someone made wooden bigfoot soles and stomped around. It's not evidence and never was, even if some people aren't aware of the test and its results, or doubt the testing method because they really want bigfoot to exist.
Now, if you can present to me a single piece of evidence that has been tested for alternative explanations and still seems to support the existence of the supernatural, I'll eat my words.
solmakouAug 2, 2010
HTML image attribute should be "...If I wanted my own come back, I would have wiped it off your moms chin."
mtxrawkusAug 2, 2010
Did you just make that up? High five to you! /s
tk0680Aug 2, 2010
Hey guis I just found a site full of funny cat pictures!
gandhi7Aug 2, 2010
Its funny because the comic is making fun of the large majority of people posting here
(myself included)
issacharAug 2, 2010
Humility will not stop the digg machine from burying you.
Why do we even have a bury option? John Gabriel's Greater Internet **wad Theory tells us that people will be complete jackasses on the internet.
"I dislike that statement because I don't agree with it, so I will try to hide that statement so others don't see it!"
This site should have a digg option and eliminate the bury option.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I know, it's great. Everyone sympathizes with the mistaken "fundamentalist atheists are assh**es" message and fails to realize what the real point of the comic is.
I guess it's great proof that despite what xkcd fans may want to believe, reading it doesn't make you any smarter.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thekohAug 3, 2010
So you'd only like to experience things in life that agree with you?
opticwindAug 16, 2010
In turn...so you'd like that too, KoH?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I can't wait to use that comeback on someone one day.
ubitendoAug 2, 2010
ROFL, Atheists are going to take this comic seriously.