The Jesus and Mo artist shows that we’re no wilting lilies.
artist shows
Why atheism isn’t a religion
January 15, 2011 • 10:41 am
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
So much for “militant” atheism.
Actually, South Park *already* did a “make fun of atheism” episode back 2006 (episode*s* really – it was a two parter) called “Go, God, Go.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go)
Worth watching just for the rip on the old “Buck Rogers” opening montage alone.
Pwned
Atheism doesn’t have to be professed to be believed.
Atheism doesn’t have to be the “Truth to be true.
Atheism doesn’t have to be killed for to survive, or be worthy of worship to be worth considering.
Atheism isn’t losing the battle against reality and common sense.
Here’s the rabbid atheist reaction I had when I saw the “Go God Go” episode way back.
“… hmm… That’s not really an acurate representation of how individual atheists came to those positions. It’s not even a parody of anything accurate… Oh well, there were funny parts.”
Not once did I even think that any level of suffering, post or peri-mortem, was an appropriate response.
I had the same (I almost typed “sane”) reaction. Once again, the “militant atheist” response is to chuckle some and then write a point-by-point rebuttal, while the militant religious response is violence, threats of violence, or insisting that the speech rights of others be restricted. But we’re just as bad as they are.
Right. And the dem’s rhetoric is just as bad as the republican’s.
9_9
they just love trying to drag everyone down into the muck they live in, bunch of authoritarian pricks.
There does seem to be something about false equivalency that soothes lazy minds.
False equivalency is exactly it. The root of so many annoyingly ridiculous religious claims against atheists and atheism.
Atheists don’t have a god that gets offended by anything. They don’t even have a god that gets offended by devotees who don’t get offended about their god getting offended if they don’t get offended. They don’t even have any kind of god at all.
Nor do they have a book that tells them must imprison, torture, or execute those who treat their lack of a god with anything less than the utmost respect.
I must admit that whenever I come across someone making fun of atheism, I tend to find them stupid, rather than offensive.
While I find stupid offensive…
I find stupid repulsive, but not offensive.
How do you make fun of that something does not exist? LØL!
Seriously, you can make fun of atheists. Atheism, not so much.
Religion now, that is a barrel of laughs. (¬_¬)
May Dawkins bless you, brothers.
RAmen
Great comic.
Religions are like mobile operators, they can’t afford losing members. It’s more money gone! That’s why every non explicitly favorable account of it represents a threat.
Atheists enjoy disagreeing with each other and challenging supposed leaders, so they won’t threaten the show; instead, they will see the show, and then they’ll blog about it. In that sense they’re not as entertaining as the religious.
Here’s a picture of an atheist demonstration.
Wow, is that militant or what?!
The service contract that you enter into once you accept some faiths would be disturbing. For example:
Seriously, would you sign up with a clause like that in the contract?
I’m not convinced that simply “not believing in the supernatural” would eliminate all of the problems we associate with religion.
I’ll go along with the general consensus that supernatural belief seems to play a role in dangerous extremism. But we do also sometimes see dangerous extremism from non-believers. Supernatural belief seems to be part of the problem with religion but there are others that affect secular groups as well.
The simple fact that atheism isn’t a religion doesn’t seem to me to neccessarily take us to the point of automatically making it superior as a way of eliminating dangerous extremism. I think we need to look beyond just supernatural belief alone to the larger interdependent web of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors that drive us.
No, but people often use religion as a way to justify otherwise indefensible positions (such as homophobia or xenophobia) and then go on to restrict the rights of people who don’t share the same beliefs they do. Take religion out of the picture and you’ve taken away one of the refuges for intolerance and oppression.
@MicroRaptor: Thanks for adding those points, well said.
Thanks. I originally had the idea when I got into a discussion about whether or not religion caused people to be intolerant. I had the epiphany that it didn’t matter whether it was caused by the religion or not, as long as people were able to justify such positions by claiming that it was part of their religion.
This comic is a re-draw of a 2007/2008 piece, when the two-part Dawkins arc was poised to air.
My mistake: It is indeed the 2006 episode… making the original JM comic …fairly old.
“The two-part Dawkins arc”? Don’t say he built one big enough to hold every species?!
OH MY SCIENCE!