Comments on: if you are an atheist

By: sami

sami — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:53:54 +0000

rotfl — yes, all atheists *do* look this — fundos in their own cute, rebelllious ways

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:05:35 +0000

Well I’m practically atheist but I wouldn’t say atheism is my god, the whole concept of religion is put out of my mind and I think about things relevant to my life (not to say I don’t ponder it occasionally). Having to rely on faith means you can always be incorrect, why not just wait for an answer rather than hope your belief is right?
With no evidence you can come to neither conclusion, therefore religion and indeed atheism are believing a mere assumption. However if society hadn’t of pushed the whole concept of belief in a greater entity on me I don’t think, with the education I have received explaining natures patterns and processes (which are founded on evidence), the concept of religion would have entered my head at all, and only as a matter of fiction if it had.
you cant prove or disprove that god is not a giant sausage with supreme intellect and magical laser beams of creative force. still no one seems to believe that. however obviously it must take faith to disbelieve it you say? To be honest why should it mater.
It’s just a method of authority that in some cases provides good morals and sometimes gives power to some unfairly, for instance it is my opinion that in the Muslim religion men are kept in superiority and women are subjugated. I believe the origin of religion was just to explain what was inexplicable at the time. some people argue that if so many people believe a religion it must be true, but religion is taught from parents to children and in schools from a young age and right through secondary education, if only a few set religions are taught as they crushed the smaller religions of course those few will be widely believed. if I were to teach the belief of my sausage god to my children from a young age they would believe it to if it were not challenged.
I think the need for religion is diminished in todays society, at least in more economically developed countries. However good morals still need to be taught and i can’t deny some religions achieve this, but i don’t think the literal belief in a god is necessary at all or sensible with the aforementioned lack of evidence. you can not steadily defend a belief that is intangible. and you cannot argue between religions without solid evidence. the whole concept of religion is unfounded so the concept shouldn’t be argued, the need for faith suggests you cant 100% believe your religion anyway. Once again I can’t see why religion is needed and why good morals can’t just be taught, without need for the threat of an eternity in hell to scare people from acting badly and the promise of heaven to motivate them. any one who needs those motivations cannot be a purely good person anyway.
Sorry for any offence, and my Sausage god was only used for those points, I know religions have more to offer than that. I just don’t see their relevance in life and how they can be belied with so many conflicting religions and no, or almost noto evidence for any of them. and yes i respect therefore there is little evidence there is not a god except perhaps the big bang in respect of the origin of the universe, but that too i find hard to believe. How can something come from nothing? But that can also be applied to gods, how can they just exist with no point of origin.
If your religion is purely a set of beliefs to follow life by with no literal belief in a greater entity and mystical/ magical events, a religion that requires no faith, then this is not aimed at you.
Of course I’m here arguing, so obviously religion does mean something to me, it intrigues me and I love to argue. But then again for everything I just said I’m only a 16 year old kid living a cosy, cushy life with little actual life experience, so what do I know?

By: Tim G.

Tim G. — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:48:55 +0000

Rar! Religion!
I have the One True Answer! All other opinions are inferior to mine! I certainly can’t wait to tell everyone how awesome I am and/or how stupid they are!
But wait! I have seen that someone has an opinion that is different than my own! They are ignorant and offensive! I have been offended by the ignorance and offensiveness of other ideas!
Rar!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:09:03 +0000

This conversation will soon rolloff this page and then become irrelevant in this “what’s on my screen now” blogging world. This is, of course, why blogging sucks to some degree. The conversation is many times too temporary.
I will say it has become more rational and less ridiculous.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 07:47:39 +0000

What this comic doesn’t bring up is the difference between strong and weak atheism.
Strong atheism is the definite belief that there is no god. Since this is not a proven statement, it is a belief system, by any reasonable definition of the term.
Weak atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god, rather than the conscious disbelief. It is not a definite belief that there is no god, but rather acceptance that belief either way without provable evidence is not justified.
Although the two share a name, they are in face entirely different things. The first is a belief system, requiring an element of faith. The second is simply evaluating the evidence and making a decision accordingly.
It is amusing, however, watching strong atheists get fired up when they first realise the difference between the two and begin to understand that what they believe really is that — a belief. They will fire off convoluted arguments (often involving ‘burden of proof’, which is a decision tool, not a logical argument) that their belief is actually the only completely rational way of thinking, when in fact it too requires a leap of faith.
Of course, strong atheism requires LESS assumptions than any major religion. However, it requires MORE assumptions than weak atheism. As such, weak atheism should be the default position of anyone who claims to be 100% rational.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 08:23:02 +0000

Wars are fought over and in the name of philosophies. theology-atheism-all men are created equal thinking.

By: just saying

just saying — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:43:26 +0000

i am pretty sure that atheists don’t start wars in the name of atheism, don’t condemn people to hell in the name of atheism, and etc … therefore, it’s pretty clear that atheism is not a religion
i’m just saying

By: GlobocorpHometown

GlobocorpHometown — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 04:41:17 +0000

I tend to agree with those who interpret the cartoon as a man infuriated by the stupidity of the claim. Hard to tell, though, especially given Macleod's facile responses to brian t. Regardless of the cartoon's "real" POV, though, I just want to explain, as a non-xian and non-atheist, why the statement is gratingly stupid. 1) The statement is precisely as persuasive as a "clever" church sign. It sounds tricky/punny/paradoxical, so it must be true. Yawn. 2) It's illogical, as several other commenters' counter-examples show. E.g. "vegetarianism is your meat." and most significantly, 3) The statement is massively condescending. It's as if to say, "I know little or nothing about how an atheist thinks, or what atheism actually is, but I feel confident that I can sum up your entire system of thought in one short aphorism." I know I am correct about this because I am correct about everything else having anything to do with God. It also assumes the existence of God, and "reasons" from there, assuming that something must surely take the place of God in everyone's life in one way or another. That is precisely the proposition that atheism rejects, as far as I understand. Think about it for even a few seconds and you realize it makes no sense anyway. In what way *can* "atheism" be a "god?" Do you worship atheism? Pray to it? Believe it created the known world? Invoke it at ceremonies? South Park was more accurate last night, when they had the atheists in the future saying "Science help me!" and "Science damn it!"

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 05:30:33 +0000

god is an attention whore. …like paris hilton, but with a bigger PR department.

By: martin luther

martin luther — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:53:56 +0000

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

By: Rich...!

Rich...! — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:53:20 +0000

I just found my new desktop wallpaper, fucking awesome.
Rich the atheist…!

By: karlos

karlos — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:21:21 +0000

You’re absolutely right. I used to be an atheist until I realised the self same thing. Now my position is that, most likely, everyone is wrong, including me. And there’s probably some massive octopus with the head of a horse, sitting on a giant ukulele in the sky, laughing at the attempts of the poor humans trying to make sense of it all.

By: oliver Franks

oliver Franks — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:19:42 +0000

Ah, my children gather round and listen to the tale of yore of the cartoon that was spoken greatly about in depth and quite pointlessly, but which meandered in such a way that, like this sentance, it had some amusement to it. Perhaps. In fact there was very little evidence that either were amusing. You see, no-one laughed at either. But is the absence of laughter evidence as to the absence of a joke? I don’t know, but inside I’m wetting myself. If it’s at all possible.
The cartoon was of a man with a frustrated and angsty expression his eyes darkened with…with…with a pencil most probably. The words next to him stated thusly: “If you are an atheist, then atheism is your God”. What did it mean? Did it have two meanings? Was it pretending to have two meanings? Is that ironic? What the hell is irony? is it something that’s too clever to make you laugh? Is it definitely NOT a fly in your chardonnay? Who’s to say? You? Me? God? G-d? (Don’t let on, but I heard they’re the same person).
All of these questions remain today, but the important part is that nobody really cared, it was (like so many things) a bloody good excuse to have a fight. The weapons: words, the casualties: the virtues of communication (in this post, see brevity) and the spoils of war: 1st prize; tits, 2nd; wine, 3rd; 2 free tickets to a place of worship of your choice (atheists will receive a cheque to the equivalent amount, if they can prove banks exist in no more than 7 words).
And so the battle raged, there were winners, there were losers, there were people making jokes (sickos), there were stand offs, compromises, mutual annihilations, axis (ed: plural of?), allies, casual acquantices, sworn enemies, well-spoken enemies and tiny little south american people who worshipped venetian dressers.
In the end only one stood tall. Laughing gleefully as he supped his wine, his foot on the neck of all who MADE HIS BLOG RELEVANT. He was known only as Mcleod. From the highlands, but not Highlander ™…rather…Bloglander. He had been trained well by a spanish blogger with a curious scots like accent. He cared not for the trivialities of life, but only for his beloved drawings, which he nurtured with wine and indifference. He is a mystical figure who lures us into his realm of animation where our heads spin as we attempt to interpret supposed insight until we vomit the contents of our half baked notions onto the doorstep of his palace and he does smugly turn to his paymasters and declare: “See? Blogging is SOOOO hot right now!“
Beware the Bloglander, for his tangled web is well presented and may make you think. Do not think. After all, they say it’s the only thing you can prove exists. What were they thinking?
Go now children. Run and play, and be good. Or the Bloglander will pay you a visit in the night and make you read ALL the responses to his cartoon. And thus you will waste your time.
Especially
with
this
post
.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:53:32 +0000

see, there must be some kind of god in the void, though he lacks my ideal of creative sychronization. He could have been more creative to actually post this at something like 5:09 and hint at the profoundness of numbers.
instead 2:43. What kind of time is that?
This had all the makings to be something mysteerious
–WIN9OW5 95
–Martin Luther 95 theses
–9–5: time people pretend to work
–how fast i have to drive to get to Cincinnati in an hour
–the percentage of people who use that Other computer system
Now this god is just plain cryptic!
2 for 3 or 3 for 2 turned about.

By: nancy

nancy — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:43:46 +0000

you read anger?
God or none I just wanted to be comment #95 at 9:50. Numerology must mean something.
(my time not your time)
Under full awareness that some god may cut in line during moderation and alter my perfection.