you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -40 points 4 days ago (38 children)

This had a chance to be funny, but they had to throw something in something about atheist that isn't even remotely based in reality and not even remotely funny. It's just a cheap shot for the sake of being a cheap shot. Pathetic...

  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    I'm sorry to tell you the entire post is composed of cheap shots. (Not counting the ones the atheist had in their system.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -13 points 4 days ago

    The others play off things already generally associated with the religion in question. If they couldn't come up with something remotely relevant and funny for atheist then they should have left it out. The reason the probably struggled with this is because all of the others are religions and atheism is not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 4 days ago (14 children)

    Funny is subjective but damn, to be this offended when someone pokes fun at your belief system in a post where they poke fun at basically every belief system shows how fragile your belief is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago (10 children)

    As a card-carrying, baby-eating atheist, I'm obliged to point out that atheism is a belief system in the same way as not playing golf is a sport.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    I’m obliged to point out that atheism is a belief system in the same way as not playing golf is a sport.

    It's more like a golf handicap or endorsed brand of club.

    What's your golf handicap?

    I don't play golf.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    It’s more a belief system the same way a person dislikes sports when asked what their favorite sport is. Still an opinion on which sports ate good, just “none of the above”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (4 children)

    Oh shit, you’ve convinced me. You’re right!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (3 children)

    I wasn't trying to convince you of anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Huh. I believe you, but it has literally never entered my mind to go out of my way to tell someone they’re wrong without any attempt to correct their wrongness. What a weird thing to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    It's a public forum. When I post comments, I keep in mind that there's an audience of more than just the one person I'm replying to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    Sure, but when I’m replying to someone in any context I’m responding to that person and what they said. It being a public forum just means new lines of discussion with other individuals can offshoot from a single comment, with an added layer of public opinion in the form of upvotes and downvotes. Unless explicitly stated, the only posts that I perceive as speaking to the forum as a whole are original posts and oftentimes top level comments on those posts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    What on earth makes you think that I'm offended? I just find the 'joke' stupid because it mixes in things that simply don't belong. Wouldn't it be hilarious to see a similar joke that talks about perch, bass, salmon, catfish, and logs? Would that make perfect sense? Especially if the logs were somehow treated like another fish?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    None of them are realistic. All of them are making fun. None of them are serious. The original authors aren't singling you or anyone else out. You're being overly sensitive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    You must have failed Sesame Street... one of these things is not like the others. That thing is atheism since all of the others are religions and atheism is not. (I will actually correct myself... agnosticism also doesn't stand alone as a religion, so two of these things are not like the others.)

    The problem is that they are mixing things that may be adjacent such as apples and oranges are both fruits, but an orange is not an apple. It would make no sense if it was talking about different types of apples and they threw in clementines. Same problem...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

    You ok?

    That thing is atheism since all of the others are religions and atheism is not.

    I'm not saying atheism is a religion, but I think probably most of the bigger religions you might think of have some adherents who claim it not to be a religion. I've heard Christians say it's "not a religion, it's a relationship" (with God). I've heard Buddhists say "it's not a religion, it's a philosophy". I doubt there's broad consensus among satanists whether satanism is a religion or not. Plus, surely nobody would call pastafarianism a religion with a straight face. And Cthulhu cultism isn't a religion in the real world at least. (Unless you count some of the satanists with a Lovecraftian slant... but I doubt that's what the poster in the screenshot was referring to.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    I’ve heard Christians say it’s “not a religion, it’s a relationship”

    I've heard Christians say a lot of stupid shit... that's not an argument for or against anything.

    Even in the context of made-up religions, pastafarianism and Cthulu cultism are sill religions. Atheism is not, in any way whatever, a religion. It's like calling a lilly-pad a fish.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 4 days ago (4 children)
  • [+] -7 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    Were you looking? Do you get to mark your bingo card or some kind of list? Do you often find things funny when they mix in something that isn't actually the same type of thing as the rest? Like, would you find it funny if there were neurologists, cardiologists, nephrologists , and ventriloquists in a similar 'joke'?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    remotely based in reality

    You must understand the comedy of this in relation to atheism, as in “I have judged that what I know to be empirically true is enough to say my judgement is correct” which is both the joke and what you are saying so you just accelerated the joke

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 4 days ago

    My 'judgement' is that there is no evidence of any gods, do I don't believe in any. It is absolutely correct for me to say that I don't believe in any. Even if you personally do believe in any particular god or gods, there are dozens or hundreds that you don't believe exist. The atheist just believes in fewer gods than you do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    I find the joke offensive because it's not particularly clever and warps each belief system in a way that doesn't capture the essence of the belief system. It's neither an honest nor a satirical representation of each belief system, it's just a bunch of people being bad drivers with some lazy rationales. It's just not a good joke

    The atheist portion is consistent with all the others though. Atheism is definitionally a belief system, agnosticism can sometimes be a lack of a belief system, but atheism is a positive assertion on unknowable aspects of existence

    How can your assert a grad student named Kyle didn't spark the big bang when playing with a physics sim in a higher information density layer of reality? It's a matter of belief

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (6 children)

    it’s just a bunch of people being bad drivers with some lazy rationales. It’s just not a good joke

    At least we agree on that much.

    atheism is a positive assertion on unknowable aspects of existence

    No, not at all. Atheism just means that a person doesn't believe in any gods. I'm positive that I don't believe in any of the current possible gods. I remain open to evidence of an undiscovered god. I'm not positive that there are no gods.

    How can your assert a grad student named Kyle didn’t spark the big bang

    I'm not the one making the assertion, so I have no obligation to prove or disprove it any way. If someone wants me to believe that is true, then they need to provide evidence. Otherwise, it's just a fanciful claim indistinguishable from any child's imaginary friend.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    I remain open to evidence of an undiscovered god. I'm not positive that there are no gods.

    That's agnosticism.

    I'm positive that I don't believe in any of the current possible gods.

    But you also positively assert all known God's don't exist? That's an interesting belief system, but you're making an incredible amount of assertions there. There's no way you know every belief system out there, that's just not humanly possible

    So you believe that any potential deity is fundamentally unknowable by humans?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    That’s agnosticism.

    There is an element of agnosticism involved, but they are separate. Atheist simply means that one does not believe in any gods. Agnosticism/Gnosticism would be a statement about certainty any god(s) existing or not existing. One could be a theist and agnostic.

    Without actual evidence, I don't believe anyone go claims to be gnostic regardless of whether they are theist or atheist.

    But you also positively assert all known God’s don’t exist?

    I positively assert that I do not believe in any of the thousands of possible gods that have been proposed as none of them have compelling evidence.

    I further assert that I'm not that different from the vast majority of theists (those who believe in one or more gods). The theist has some set of gods that they believe exist and that all of the other possibilities do not exist. I just take a step further and don't believe their god(s) exist, either.

    So you believe that any potential deity is fundamentally unknowable by humans?

    No. I don't try to make any kind of super-natural claims. I only state that I have seen no compelling evidence that any gods exist and therefore I do not believe in them. Could a god exist, including with unknown evidence, that hasn't been discovered? Sure... science makes new discoveries all of the time. My expectation, even then, is that it will simply be something sufficiently advanced and/or obscure that we just don't recognize it. I would remain very skeptical of any attempts to describe it as super-natural.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Agnosticism/Gnosticism would be a statement about certainty any god(s) existing or not existing. One could be a theist and agnostic.

    Gnosticism is a collection of belief systems that asset the God known to mankind is not the true creator diety, but something else, whether an imposter, a deluded higher being, etc. But that's a whole other thing

    In my mind love and hate aren't opposites, the opposite of both is disinterest. The opposite of belief isn't rejection of belief, it's indifference

    From my perspective, you've just described a system of beliefs to me. You said you do not accept the belief systems you've learned of, but you do have beliefs about the nature of any potential deity

    So do you understand why I would group your set of beliefs on divinity in the same category as other sets of beliefs on the subject?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago* (2 children)

    So do you understand why I would group your set of beliefs on divinity in the same category as other sets of beliefs on the subject?

    I understand what you are saying and I'm telling you that you are patently wrong. Atheist has a very simple meaning. The only thing it tells you is that the person does not believe in any gods. Are you aware that there are Buddhist atheists? The Buddhist part is essential to knowing what their belief system might be. In my case, if you were to ask of my belief system, I would tell you that it most closely aligns with secular humanism. Without that piece of information, the only thing you know about me is that I don't believe in any gods. You might also find it interesting to know that I was the president of a church - as an 'out' atheist. Saying that atheism is a religion is like saying that bald is a hair color. They may often be proximal, but they are very distinct things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Wait hold on...I was careful to not put any labels on you (I don't like to be labeled, but people can label themselves however they want), I haven't said anything about religion (which is a totally separate conversation) or anything about you outside this one specific topic, all I did was repeat back what you said to illustrate my point

    My whole point is that atheism fits in the (bad) joke just as much as the other entries

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    Wait, didn't I just see you in another comment section complaining about a (very tame) dadjoke not being funny? The one with the Yoda meme.

    Is this like your thing? Telling everyone that you don't think OPs joke was funny?

    (That said, I kind of actually agree with you in this case)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment