Yeah, that about sums it up

by Luke Muehlhauser on February 28, 2011 in Funny,General Atheism

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }

David Rogers February 28, 2011 at 9:21 am

And now to invite all sorts of responses which I will not respond to since I have to leave home . . .

If atheists really think this “sums it up,” there’s hardly much point in attempting any discussion with them.

You may now proceed with your comments.

Release the hounds.

  (Quote)

Steven R. February 28, 2011 at 9:27 am

And now to invite all sorts of responses which I will not respond to since I have to leave home . . .
If atheists really think this “sums it up,” there’s hardly much point in attempting any discussion with them.You may now proceed with your comments.Release the hounds.  

How on earth can anyone respond to your post? It doesn’t say anything at all, other than you disagree with the point expressed here and then, via caustic humor, attempts to deter any actual objection to an unexpressed opinion.

  (Quote)

Kevin February 28, 2011 at 9:40 am

They are clearly not analogous, the second involves much more sophistication!

  (Quote)

Louis February 28, 2011 at 9:54 am

They are clearly not analogous, the second involves much more sophistication!  

I hope you’re joking?

  (Quote)

Garren February 28, 2011 at 9:57 am

The totem looks concerned about his Viagra not wearing off after four hours.

More seriously, though, the Old Testament is full of taunting other religions for believing in apparently powerless gods. It’s really too bad the Canaanites didn’t know about Reformed Epistemology defenses.

  (Quote)

Chuck February 28, 2011 at 10:35 am

Except Unitarians and liberal Christians like Chris Hedges would be kneeling at both idols.

  (Quote)

Hendy February 28, 2011 at 11:01 am

If atheists really think this “sums it up,” there’s hardly much point in attempting any discussion with them.

Whaaat? Can’t you just look at it and think it’s funny — because it is! Even as a believer, you should probably be able to look at something like that and think, “Yeah, it is pretty ridiculous that I/we/some ridicule the objects of others’ worship a priori.”

  (Quote)

Kevin February 28, 2011 at 11:46 am

I hope you’re joking?

Yes, I jest.

  (Quote)

Robert February 28, 2011 at 12:22 pm

The Old Testament is full of taunting other religions for believing in apparently powerless gods.

Judges 6:31 for those interested.

“Rare for the Bible, this passage makes a persuasive and well-reasoned argument. If Baal is a god, especially the kind of actively involved god who’s performing miracles and answering the prayers of his followers, he should be able to defend his own interests. He shouldn’t need humans to serve as his agents, enforcing what they believe to be his will and punishing people who go against his decrees. And if Baal never intervenes directly and it’s only his believers who are ever seen to act on his behalf, wouldn’t we be justified in concluding that Baal probably doesn’t exist?”

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2011/01/little-known-bible-verses-xv.html

  (Quote)

Felipe Ramos February 28, 2011 at 12:43 pm

Hey Luke,
I do think this picture is funny !

  (Quote)

Ralph February 28, 2011 at 12:44 pm

More seriously, though, the Old Testament is full of taunting other religions for believing in apparently powerless gods. It’s really too bad the Canaanites didn’t know about Reformed Epistemology defenses.  (Quote)

This just made my day.

  (Quote)

Michael February 28, 2011 at 12:49 pm

Yes funny, but I’m sure at least some people will think that it’s actually a great objection.
Oops, apart from the fact that worshipping something you literally just made with your own bare hands is much more stupid than worshipping an immaterial, eternal and omnipotent Creator, no matter how silly you might think the latter is.
Yes it’s a clever little joke and gave me a smile, but I know for a fact that some people will honestly think it constitutes a legitimate objection to Christianity.

  (Quote)

Márcio February 28, 2011 at 12:52 pm

I disagree, but it was funny.

  (Quote)

Justfinethanks February 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

Oops, apart from the fact that worshipping something you literally just made with your own bare hands is much more stupid than worshipping an immaterial, eternal and omnipotent Creator.

Actually, it’s less stupid.

Because when you make something with your own bare hands, that means it actually exists.

  (Quote)

Patrick February 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

Worshipping something you made with your own hands is a lot less stupid once you remember that its happening in an animistic context in which spirits literally reside inside the thing you made, and have powers that can help you. Its no less dumb than putting the creator of the universe in a magic box and then carrying him around.

This has been your weekly reminder that the origins of Christianity were no less stupid and superstitious than everyone in the area at the time.

  (Quote)

Dan Brown February 28, 2011 at 1:37 pm

Ah, the joy of holding the skeptical position.
We get to find all believers amusing and their objections to one another exquisitely ironic.

It’s easy really.
You just have to NOT MAKE SHIT UP and you get to be one of us.
This seems simple enough to me.

  (Quote)

Mo February 28, 2011 at 1:49 pm

It’s pictures like those that make my day. I love coming to this website.

  (Quote)

Hansen February 28, 2011 at 2:48 pm

If atheists really think this “sums it up,” there’s hardly much point in attempting any discussion with them.

I happen to agree with you – but in “reverse” so to speak. Some ideas are so ridiculous (e.g. the resurrection) that there is hardly any point in attempting to discuss them in a serious way. That’s the way this cartoon “sums it up” in my opinion.

  (Quote)

auntiegrav February 28, 2011 at 2:55 pm

The third (missing) picture should be of some Amish laughing at people wearing cheeseheads laughing at a poster of this cartoon.
Or, an alternative would be one with all four of the subjects bowing in front of a Cadillac dealer.
Atheist or Believer, the dominant species is now the automobile.
Nature doesn’t care one whit what you believe: only what actions you take that either take away or give to the future.
A friend who is very “spiritual” said that means I believe in karma. It does not. It’s pure logic based on observation of how species act to fit their environment or go extinct. There is no intention necessary, no “purpose”, no “meaning”: just Life vs. Entropy.

  (Quote)

Kyle Key February 28, 2011 at 3:18 pm

Haha, thanks Luke.
@Michael:
“worshipping something you literally just made with your own bare hands is much more stupid than worshipping an immaterial, eternal and omnipotent Creator”
At least you’re admitting that the latter is stupid too; the mere thought of worshiping authority is revolting.

  (Quote)

Michael February 28, 2011 at 3:32 pm

Actually, it’s less stupid.
Because when you make something with your own bare hands, that means it actually exists.  

Lol right, so let me get this straight.
You think that west african vodun is more intellectually credible than christian theism?
How far are you willing to go to win an argument?

  (Quote)

Michael February 28, 2011 at 3:40 pm

Haha, thanks Luke.
@Michael:
“worshipping something you literally just made with your own bare hands is much more stupid than worshipping an immaterial, eternal and omnipotent Creator”
At least you’re admitting that the latter is stupid too; the mere thought of worshiping authority is revolting.  

“A diamond ring is much more expensive than a bag of rice.”

// Heh well at least you’re admitting the bag of rice is expensive. //

And I don’t find the second half of your sentence remotely surprising; every biblically literate Christian admits that they’ve been at that stage in their life before.

  (Quote)

Kyle Key February 28, 2011 at 3:54 pm

@Michael:
“A diamond ring is much more expensive than a bag of rice.”
Terrible counterexample. Note that the word “expensive” works in the comparison because the bag of rice still has an expense attached to it, so Christianity must have a smaller, but still present, level of “stupidity” attached to it for your comparison to work. Otherwise, you’d just say that one is stupid and one isn’t. Welcome to the English language.

But yeah, they’re both stupid. Deal with it.

  (Quote)

bossmanham February 28, 2011 at 4:10 pm

I think this shows how seriously we should take this blog. Yeah I think it about sums it up.

  (Quote)

Michael February 28, 2011 at 4:23 pm

@Michael:
“A diamond ring is much more expensive than a bag of rice.”
Terrible counterexample. Note that the word “expensive” works in the comparison because the bag of rice still has an expense attached to it, so Christianity must have a smaller, but still present, level of “stupidity” attached to it for your comparison to work. Otherwise, you’d just say that one is stupid and one isn’t. Welcome to the English language.But yeah, they’re both stupid. Deal with it.  

We’re starting to get nick-picky in our argument here.

Ok, maybe a bad example. My bad.
But I still don’t think your point holds.
If someone said my cat looked kinda dead, then I could say, “My cat is much more alive than your dead dog Doug!”
Yet that wouldn’t mean that Doug has a certain amount of ‘life’ in him; he’s dead.
Maybe you think that’s an illegitimate use of language (I don’t at all), but either way, that’s the way that I meant it.
If it meant something else to you, sorry babes.

“But yeah, they’re stupid. Deal with it.”
Maybe it might turn out one day that they are, but this certainly doesn’t demonstrate that.
Yes it’s funny! It gave me a smile!
But don’t get carried away thinking you just ‘debunked christianity’ cos you ain’t! ;)

  (Quote)

Michael February 28, 2011 at 5:10 pm

I think this shows how seriously we should take this blog. Yeah I think it about sums it up.  

Wellll, not sure I’d go that far.
I found it funny, and this post is fine as long as people take that as all it is.
But of course it’s silly to think that think that this disproves anything.
I just don’t think that is what Luke’s attempting to do here.
There are still some good series going on, like the kalam one and the fine-tuning etc

  (Quote)

Jugglable February 28, 2011 at 5:21 pm

I’m a Christian but wouldn’t point and laugh at those guys. I think truth is not confined to the Christian religion and there can be varying degrees of participation in the divine life in different spiritual practices.

The Christians in the cartoon see themselves as part of the “in” group of God and other people as not “in” that group. It’s something you see a lot in fundamentalists. It’s the kind of Christianity that fosters an in-group/out-group mentality. Luckily, I wasn’t raised in that kind of home.

Luke, I think you were raised in an environment with a rigid faith. Not to stereotype, but I’d bet a lot of people in your religious community didn’t believe in evolution, for example. And when I’ve seen you mock Christian belief, it’s not what I believe. It’s either straw men or a stubborn refusal to consider Christian doctrine in anything but the most unflattering light. You ought to read, and consider as a viable option, more nuanced theology. You should read more Catholic and Anglican stuff. I think when you began to study religion your faith was rigid and so when it was challenged it fell apart like a house of cards. Then it was, “Well, I’m an atheist now.” It was either your community’s rigid faith, or atheist.

  (Quote)

Kyle Key February 28, 2011 at 5:29 pm

@Michael:
“But don’t get carried away thinking you just ‘debunked christianity’ cos you ain’t!”
I don’t even try to “debunk christianity”; since one of the “top” Christian philosophers has famously gone on record saying that he believes in a god based entirely on intuition rather than any of the arguments he espouses, and another “top” Christian philosopher developed an entire epistemology based around that sentiment, I just stick to ridicule now. It’s far more effective given that Christianity’s best weapon is “Well I just know!”. I find that people are more afraid of looking stupid than not appearing intelligent, so rigorous philosophy is usually fruitless when talking to the masses. And I’m happy as can be that the number of religious people continues to fall in the “West” every year, every decade. Superstition is slowly dying out! Hallelujah ;)! And no, that’s not an appeal to popularity–I don’t think that Christianity’s corpse means that atheism is “true,” but it is fun for the ol’ ego! Cheers.

  (Quote)

David Rogers February 28, 2011 at 5:45 pm

The operative word in my comment is “really.” If you find it funny, have a laugh or smile. If you think it is substantive, then, well, I hope your rationality moves beyond a junior high level analysis of analogies.

  (Quote)

DaVead February 28, 2011 at 6:26 pm

I don’t see how either situation, in real life, is funny. I think the reality of religion in human life and history is profound, meaningful, and often beautiful. Sure, interpretting religion literally and farcically is funny, but in that case, the subject’s activity of satirization and bourgeois interpretation is more laughable than the object’s religious activity.

  (Quote)

Byroniac February 28, 2011 at 7:06 pm

Luke,

LOL! I love this.

…apart from the fact that worshipping something you literally just made with your own bare hands is much more stupid than worshipping an immaterial, eternal and omnipotent Creator, no matter how silly you might think the latter is…

Michael,

But do you see what you are doing here? Strictly speaking, the missionaries are worshiping something they (or others) made with their bare hands, basically a stick-like structure in the form of a cross with a man figurine placed on it. You said they were worshiping an immaterial, eternal and omnipotent Creator instead of the native’s religious object, but that’s just projecting your religion onto what amounts to a guy-on-a-stick religious object. They would only be worshiping in the way you describe if a.) the religion you refer to is true, and b.) the deity of that religion accepted worship by proxy of bowing and groveling before man-on-a-stick religious objects. Sorry, I am NOT trying to tick you off, or belittle your religion. I am using the specific unflattering word pictures I used for a purpose: to get you to realize the power of your own religion behind your thoughts and how you use your religious understanding to powerfully interpret the world around you.

  (Quote)

Leon February 28, 2011 at 9:14 pm

The cartoon needs some educated, middle class secularists laughing at both situations.

  (Quote)

Justfinethanks February 28, 2011 at 9:41 pm

Lol right, so let me get this straight.
You think that west african vodun is more intellectually credible than christian theism?

Well, sure. The evidence for existence of Voodoo fetishes and idols is very strong. I don’t think it’s even a disputed question. The same can’t be said for the existence of God.

After that point, though, I guess they’re about on the same level.

  (Quote)

Garren February 28, 2011 at 10:05 pm

@Robert

That’s a good one. Here are some more examples of Biblical standards we should hold Christians to today:

“Where then are the gods you made for yourselves? Let them come if they can save you when you are in trouble!” Jer 2:28 (See also Isaiah 46:6-7)

…so failing to save adherents who cry out when they are in trouble indicates a false God.

“Of what value is an idol carved by a craftsman? Or an image that teaches lies? For the one who makes it trusts in his own creation; he makes idols that cannot speak. Woe to him who says to wood, ‘Come to life!’ Or to lifeless stone, ‘Wake up!’ Can it give guidance? It is covered with gold and silver; there is no breath in it.” Habakkuk 2:18-19 (See also Psalm 115)

…so failing to speak audibly and give guidance indicates a false God.

‘”Present your case,” says the LORD. “Set forth your arguments,” says Jacob’s King. “Tell us, you idols, what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear. But you are less than nothing and your works are utterly worthless; whoever chooses you is detestable.’ Isaiah 41:21-24

…so inability to give correct information about the past (see Genesis) or make amazing future predictions or do anything to dismay and fill skeptics with fear are all things which indicate a false, “less than nothing” God.

Not to mention Elijah’s showdown on Mount Carmel, the test of true prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:21-22, or the hilarious dueling holy objects story in 1 Samuel 5:1-5 (I’d like to see Mythbusters confirm that crucifixes have the power to do that on their own.)

Simply applying Biblical principles of religious skepticism is enough to rule out modern, Bible-based religions!

  (Quote)

Robert February 28, 2011 at 11:26 pm

Yea, but then it says “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” – Luke 4:12

How can we ever know what the standards are when they keep changing?

  (Quote)

Anton A. Hill March 1, 2011 at 12:17 am

Hey Luke,

Great ‘toon. Where’d you get it? I linked it to my site, but it only gave yours as the source.

Best,

Anton.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser March 1, 2011 at 1:03 am

Anton,

I saw it a long time ago, but I think recently I saw it on that Tumblr blog ‘it’s funny to me.’

  (Quote)

Citizen Ghost March 1, 2011 at 3:29 am

If atheists really think this “sums it up,” there’s hardly much point in attempting any discussion with them.

If you find yourself incapable of discussing this with atheists, that tells us a lot more about you than it does about atheism or atheists.

The cartoon does “sum up” one basic point.

As an intellectual matter, the claims of Christianity don’t deserve to be taken seriously any more than the claims of any other religion.

Now that’s a point you can discuss or not discuss. But there’s something fascinating in a certain type of reaction we see: “Well, if those shrill atheists are going to resort to cartoons, they are making a mockery of things! They don’t understand the sophisticated arguments with which we defend our faith.”

Such indignation is almost as amusing as the cartoon itself.

  (Quote)

Liebet March 1, 2011 at 7:13 am

People who gets angry about these things just don’t have a strong enough belief. This shakes their belief and that’s why they get angry. Sensible people who really believe will look @ this and say: ”wow this is hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”.

  (Quote)

David Rogers March 1, 2011 at 9:07 am

I would like to make a distinction among atheists.

There are those who may think this cartoon may or may not be funny but KNOW that its summation ability is simplistic and functions rationally only at a junior high level of understanding equivalence
and
there are those atheists who believe this cartoon is a wonderful way of debunking the religious beliefs of any people.

I find the latter class of atheists less worthy of using blog commenting time in engaging in actual discussion.

(Note: I may or may not have much time to discuss this on a blog comment, but if any atheist is in my Biscoe, Arkansas vicinity I will make time to sit down and have as long a discussion as possible.)

  (Quote)

Steven R. March 1, 2011 at 9:19 am

I would like to make a distinction among atheists.
There are those who may think this cartoon may or may not be funny but KNOW that its summation ability is simplistic and functions rationally only at a junior high level of understanding equivalence
and
there are those atheists who believe this cartoon is a wonderful way of debunking thereligious beliefs of any people.I find the latter class of atheists less worthy of using blog commenting time in engaging in actual discussion.
(Note: I may or may not have much time to discuss this on a blog comment, but if any atheist is in my Biscoe, Arkansas vicinity I will make time to sit down and have as long a discussion as possible.)  

Oh look, another condescending post that doesn’t actually deal with the point expressed here. Who would’ve guessed?

I am at a loss for words about what to say about the responses Theists have given here. The natives would just argue that their idol is symbolic of an immaterial being, that they were divinely inspired when carving it, thus it “transcends” it’s physical, human properties and is something deeper, etc. They may even say that human rationality tells us that a man would not reasonably build something and then worship it as superior to him unless he had good reason to think the object was divine. Thus, human behavior attests to the spiritual qualities of the idol.

Of course, that Theists who normally advance these rather dubious arguments now completely ignore them or, worse, recognize them and dismiss them as the crackpot junk they makes for some very ironic, if not really overly depressing reading. So many double standards…

  (Quote)

David Rogers March 1, 2011 at 9:39 am

Steven R.

Please don’t be overly depressed in your reading. You are certainly entitled to evaluate and read anything into my comments. You can assert “double standards” and charge me with whatever you think I may think. All you have is what I have written and what I have not.

David

  (Quote)

Peter Hurford March 1, 2011 at 9:45 am

All this cartoon does is point out the double standard between requiring people to carefully investigate Christianity but then dismiss all other religions (especially tribal religions) without investigating them, and point out how, from an outside perspective, Christianity can look just as ridiculous as a trial religion.

  (Quote)

PDH March 1, 2011 at 11:00 am

David Rogers wrote,

Steven R.Please don’t be overly depressed in your reading. You are certainly entitled to evaluate and read anything into my comments. You can assert “double standards” and charge me with whatever you think I may think. All you have is what I have written and what I have not.
David  

In what sense do we ‘have’ what you haven’t written? This is non-trivial because included amongst the things that you haven’t written is what your actual objection is. It’s difficult for us to respond to the things that you haven’t written and so I don’t really think it’s fair for you to criticise Steven for not responding to them.

  (Quote)

divoram March 1, 2011 at 11:48 am

Excellent!

  (Quote)

David Rogers March 1, 2011 at 12:11 pm

PDH,

I understand your point. I am debating whether to take the time to further explain or not. I think I will not take more time. I understand some will take that as cowardice and “typical” of theists. If one does, then have at it. If not, just see it as a decision in time management. However, I do thank you for taking the time to read and make comment. By the way, I will be using the cartoon as a means to generate discussion in a church setting. And so for that, I thank Luke for making me aware of the cartoon. My contention has primarily been with his title for the blog post, not with the cartoon per se.

David

David

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser March 1, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Wow, people really like this cartoon.

  (Quote)

David Rogers March 1, 2011 at 2:33 pm

Okay, here’s a quick list of some of the areas where differences can be detected among religions that stem from religious belief and practice with implications for living in the real world.
Cultural anthropology
Sociology
Historical events
Politics
Ethics
Science
Technology
Economics
Entertainment
Trans-cultural adaptation
Trans-ethnic adaptation
Trans-era adaptation
One does not have to have any belief in any religion in order to detect significant differences in how different religious beliefs and practices make significant different impacts in these areas. The impacts are testimonies of the viability of the religion. Testimony is evidence by legal definition. One can then make one’s own decision regarding the evidence whether it is strong or not.

  (Quote)

Robert March 1, 2011 at 2:54 pm

viable: Capable of working successfully.

So what’s the argument here? If a religion impacts other areas of a certain society, this is evidence for …… ?

  (Quote)

otin March 1, 2011 at 3:05 pm

Although I really have no beliefs either way, it amazes me to see people preach atheism. When you try to organize a movement based on some ideal, then you are basically creating a religion. You are starting the church of atheism. What makes yours any better than theirs? Let people have their beliefs without trying to strip them from them. Maybe a God, real or otherwise, is all the hope that some poor person has.

  (Quote)

Steven R. March 1, 2011 at 4:02 pm

Steven R.Please don’t be overly depressed in your reading. You are certainly entitled to evaluate and read anything into my comments. You can assert “double standards” and charge me with whatever you think I may think. All you have is what I have written and what I have not.
David  

The “–” indicated that I wasn’t addressing you anymore. I usually make it longer so it’s more noticeable. Sorry for the confusion. But, as PDH pointed out, I really can’t accuse you of holding a double standard since you haven’t actually said anything of substance or that can be objected to.

  (Quote)

David Rogers March 1, 2011 at 4:08 pm

Steven R.

So my post at 2:33 pm is nothing of “substance” or capable of “objection.”? Okay then. I did try another post but I don’t see it posting. I don’t really feel like re-typing it. It may show up, maybe not. Have a good day anyway.

David

  (Quote)

Moineau Noir March 1, 2011 at 4:26 pm

This is SPOT ON! Religions are interchangeable. Not being aware of this as a believer demonstrates a significant lack of self-reflexion, which is sad in any case.^^

  (Quote)

woog March 1, 2011 at 7:08 pm

“If atheists really think this “sums it up,” there’s hardly much point in attempting any discussion with them.”

What about this isn’t summing it up? christians are idol worshipers. They worship a little toy man on a little toy crucifix.

The symbol of the christian religion is a roman torture device. How bout them apples, you brainwashed delusional twat?

  (Quote)

The Nerd March 1, 2011 at 10:00 pm

Ah, blackface! Why let a little thing like racism get in the way of making a point?

  (Quote)

K. Mars March 1, 2011 at 10:13 pm

I don’t get how this quite justifies atheism. Sure it shows how religions can AT TIMES be judgmental. But atheists are too. So this justifies how there isn’t a God? Doesn’t quite add up. But nice try.

  (Quote)

Steven R. March 1, 2011 at 10:31 pm

I don’t get how this quite justifies atheism. Sure it shows how religions can AT TIMES be judgmental. But atheists are too. So this justifies how there isn’t a God? Doesn’t quite add up. But nice try.  

It doesn’t “justify” Atheism, it points out the double-standards in religion and how each believer quickly dismisses other religions as absurd without once analyzing what their own religion teaches. I have a memory of a preacher giving a sermon where she mocked Hinduism for worshiping cows and then went on to say how a story where God made a mule talk and give advice was “testament to the powers of the Lord.”

  (Quote)

Ben March 1, 2011 at 10:34 pm

Garren, Robert, Patrick, and Dan Brown made some really good points.

  (Quote)

Ajay March 1, 2011 at 11:00 pm

One time I was in India visiting a (Christian) relative who was complaining about how his neighbor had turned part of his house into a (Hindu) temple. He said, “If he wants to worship idols, I guess he can do that.” He didn’t give much thought to the numerous crucifixes (idols to a Hindu) in his own house though.

  (Quote)

Dan March 2, 2011 at 1:31 pm

Humans are an evolved animal, meat and bone, multi celled, intellegent organisms, there is no god anywhere in any religion, religion was invented by man to scare men. The bible, quaran etc. are all ficticious rubbish. When you die nothing happens, its the same as before you were born.

  (Quote)

Nick March 3, 2011 at 5:50 am

As long as religion doesn’t dictate how you live your life(example telling you when you should wake up, what you should eat) and rather guides you… i don’t care.

Any other religion can rot. I personally do not see any cults(and yes i view a ton of religions as cults) as a positive way to live your life.

  (Quote)

matt March 3, 2011 at 11:31 am

Maybe I’m being overly sensitive, but am I seeing some stereotypes portrayed here? I mean, jesus, the phallic totem and the tribesman with the big lips?

  (Quote)

Al March 3, 2011 at 12:02 pm

Jesus H. Christ, all of this bickering is distracting from the point of the comic.

Both sets of believers are worshiping a symbol to which they ascribe unprovable, mystical powers.

To believe that Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) is somehow more intellectually honest or sophisticated than paganism or Greek mythology or Hinduism is utter nonsense. They are all absurd creations of humanity to give meaning to existence. That’s the joke, people.

  (Quote)

matt March 3, 2011 at 12:46 pm

But. . . . am I right? How’s perpetuating stereotypes advancing the cause of atheism? And while we’re talking stereotypes, I’ve never met an atheist with a sense of humor.

  (Quote)

matt March 3, 2011 at 12:50 pm

I should also point out that atheism is also a faith system – you’ve probably already covered that point elsewhere. Atheists in the same league as the caricatures above in that they have faith in something unknowable. (That is, that there is no god. We don’t know one way or another.)

Oh well. I should stop stirring shit. I’d side with the atheists on 90% of the issues in this world anyways. I can’t ascribe too many of the world’s ills to atheism.

  (Quote)

dan March 3, 2011 at 2:23 pm

Athiesm is not a faith ,it is non belief of all religions and gods. If you are athiest it makes you the ultimate ‘infadel’ a dirty word nowadays. I am a non believer, there are no gods, there is no relevant religion, that is what the cartoon means that all religions are absolute garbage. And if you believe even 10% that makes you religious. You are religious (usually affiliated to the uneducated I might add), or you are not.

  (Quote)

Furcas March 5, 2011 at 8:13 pm

Nowadays, most ‘sophisticated’ religious believers have given up on convincing non-believers that their beliefs are true. However, they still insist that non-believers should pretend that religious beliefs are not obviously false. The comic Luke posted is attacking religion’s last line of defense, so a certain amount of outrage is to be expected from theists.

  (Quote)

Dan March 5, 2011 at 10:58 pm

What exactly is a ‘sophisticated believer’? Would that be an intelligent worshipper of non proven Gods, the statement is a first class oximoron. If religious beliefs were not ‘obviously false’ then that would mean the beliefs are obviously true, meaning factual and believers would have substantial proof of their gods. This is not the case of religions and is why there are so many of them from the ridiculous to the sublime which is why the intelligent man will always be athiest.

  (Quote)

Lepton March 6, 2011 at 1:13 am

Most religious people believe that their faith is the only correct view on god(s), which makes religions mutually exclusive. This does not outright prove that there isn’t one who got it right but… don’t get your hopes up, you got as much evidence as the rest. That’s what this comic sums up.

But, there are people that believe that there is a god and the various religions are different paths up the same mountain. Now, that’s an improvement the comic does not sum up for and there are different discussions to be had, according to what you define as the mountain top.

But atheism is not a religion. It’s not a ‘belief’, equally unprovable as a theist’s. You see, religion does not stop at the existence of god, as a creator. It also assigns god properties such as responding to prayer and bending physics laws at will. That’s a serious assumption, not equivalent to the simpler, absence of it. It’s safer to believe that there isn’t a llama living in your building if you can’t find any of its hair or shit. Atheism is the ‘default’ position, unless concrete evidence comes in.

  (Quote)

Dan March 6, 2011 at 5:30 am

Lepton,
don’t really see your point, it makes no sense, this is what religion does to confuse the deluded, if you are saying that all religions have as little evidence as the athiest view then why would you believe in any religion at all. Children are brainwashed at a very early age to believe in religion. The athiest view has concrete scientific fact to back up its’views.
As for the llama theory, well I have a dog and a cat that I can see with my own eyes, evidence enough that they are the only animals in my house.
The religious books were all created by man and are made up with the odd historical fact thrown in. Basically designed to control the actions of mankind. However if you are a non believer it doesn’t mean you don’t know the difference between right and wrong.

  (Quote)

Lepton March 6, 2011 at 9:36 am

Dan,
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. My point is that, since there is no concrete evidence, atheism, being simpler, should be the preferred view. Just like you don’t believe there is a llama in your house, unless you start finding llama hair and shit everywhere. So I guess we agree on that.

I also agree that we have real good hunches about how religion came about as a cultural construct. But this is not a scientific fact. It’s the theory with the least assumptions (no god needed) and we of scientific minds prefer it because Occam says so. Before theists scream “gotcha”, I point out that, unlike other belief sets, Occam’s razor has been proved by far the most reliable predictor.

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }