all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 30 points 22 hours ago

Solipsist bad driver: all the other cars are just figments of my imagination.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 23 hours ago

    As a devout Pastafarian, I feel seen.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

    Muslim driver: You must wait exactly three seconds at stop signs.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

    What's this in a reference to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child)

    Number three keeps randomly coming up in Islam.

    When performing wudhu, each limb must be cleaned three times.
    When going to sajdah and ruku, a quick prayer is recited three times.
    When not being able to fulfill some pilgrimage requirements, people fast for three days.
    When drinking a glass of water, it is done in three gulps.
    ...

    Some of this is actually written rules but a good chunk is just adults being thaught that and passing along, and don't actually have to be three (in fact, very much country/culture specific, or even specific to different schools within the same branch of Islam)

    I myself used to be confused and stressed as a child on why we brush our teeth two times a day because "everything else is three!!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

    Amish bad driver isn't that far from a body cam video i saw where the driver was passed out drunk while the horse ran the carriage into the cop car

    https://youtu.be/oItA4HE0cT0

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 15 hours ago
    [–] 3 points 6 hours ago

    Taoist bad driver: I am constantly following the Tao, and for some reason the traffic was going against the flow of the Tao. it is the fault of society if they decides that they must follow artificial rules of driving instead of the Tao.

  • source
  • [+] -34 points 1 day ago (36 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 36 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 1 day 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
  • [+] -10 points 1 day 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
  • [–] 28 points 21 hours 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
  • [–] 8 points 20 hours 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 12 hours 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 17 hours 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
  • [–] 2 points 16 hours ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago (3 children)

    I wasn't trying to convince you of anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 15 hours 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 15 hours 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 15 hours 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
  • [+] -8 points 21 hours 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
  • [–] 20 points 22 hours 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
  • [–] -4 points 21 hours 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 8 hours 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 8 hours 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
  • [–] 15 points 23 hours ago (4 children)
  • [–] -5 points 21 hours 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 22 hours 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
  • [–] -5 points 21 hours 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
  • [–] 4 points 16 hours 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
  • [–] 3 points 20 hours ago (5 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 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago (4 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 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago (3 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 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (2 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 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (1 child)

    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 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 58 minutes ago*

    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