use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
3,228 users here now
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
Recommended reading and viewing
Thank you notes
Related Subreddits <--the big list
Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net
Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv
Read The FAQ
Submit Rage Comic
Submit Facebook Chat
Submit Meme
Submit Something Else
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›
I contend we are both atheists... (i.imgur.com)
submitted 2 years ago by Remdawg
[–][deleted] 89 points90 points91 points 2 years ago
I am so sick and tired of all the Nanook hate on reddit.
[–][deleted] 46 points47 points48 points 2 years ago
No one has proven Nanook doesn't exist.
[–]polymorph505 25 points26 points27 points 2 years ago
I pray to Nanook every night, but I haven't yet successfully killed a bear.
What am I doing wrong?
[–]ronconcoca 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago
you are not seeying that you kill bears all the time on your heart, you have to be more open minded and have faith
[–]LordBrandon 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
go for the eyes
[–]kengi2 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
baldur's gate reference?
[–]shibster 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
...Boo, the eyes!! YAWRGG!!
[–]natzo 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
You need a gun.
[–]heresybob 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Move away from Hawaii. :)
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Therefore he does exist. It's rock solid Christian, er "Nanookian" logic.
[–]jsantos17 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
You need to accept Nanook in your heart, you don't need proofs, you need only faith.
[–]rnelsonee 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago
Hah - Nanook is apparently the Inuit god of bears. Also, a Beanie Baby.
[–]Thelonious_Cube 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Also the star of a wonderful film - a 'pseudo-documentary'?
[–]sulopejur 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I didn't know fat hairy homosexuals had their own god.
You don't know very many fat hairy homos. Most worship Richard Karn
[–]bigbird101 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
upboat for total relevance :)
[–]Did_it_in_Flint 110 points111 points112 points 2 years ago
Unfortunately, the author and his intended audience are not dismissing all other possible gods for the same reason, which he clearly implies.
He is rejecting all those possible gods on presumably reasonable and logical grounds; whereas his counterpart will reject them because they believe they have found the one true god.
[–]hob196 87 points88 points89 points 2 years ago
I think the author's point is that by examining why they dismiss the others they are beginning to think about it logically.
Encouraging Theists to ask themselves 'why' is the best way an Atheist or Agnostic can get their point across without falling foul of all the same things we criticise in the more vehement theists.
[–]lungfish59 44 points45 points46 points 2 years ago
Unfortunately, the "why" question is answered by, "Because I found the one true God. All others are false."
On this matter, their reasoning is short-circuited.
[–]dalore 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago
Why is he true? Why are the others false?
[–]DoinTime 56 points57 points58 points 2 years ago
Sounds like you need a healthy dose of faith, my friend. Do you know Jesus?
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago
I have heard of such a guy. He's the Johnson's gardener, right?
[–]crazysonofabitch 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Yeah, he is a five bucks a throw.
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Nobody fucks with the Jesus!
[–]HungLikeJesus 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago
:(
[–]ElDiablo666 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago
Don't be sad, you're just hung like Jesus, but you're not him. You still stand a chance!
[–]Seachicken 17 points18 points19 points 2 years ago
"I looked into my heart and Christianity was true"
"because Christianity is the only religion that provides all the answers"
"because Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship"
These are all answers I have received to that question
[–]i_kant_spelz 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
i like how they're all based off fact and scientific evidence.
[–]Spamurai 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
But then you get into the entire issue (misunderstanding) or scientific evidence. "Some things just can't be proven." It's a hard battle to win.
[–]OriginalStomper 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Indeed, some things just CAN'T be proven -- like whether the cat in the box is dead, or String Theory, or the precise momentum AND location of a particle. Don't make the mistake of believing that reason and empiricism will ultimately hold the answer to every question.
[–]jaketheripper 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
To be fair I'm sure there was a time when people thought it was impossible to see what matter was made of, impossible to have an accurate measure of the speed of light, certainly that it was impossible to fly. Just because reason and empiricism says something is impossible now doesn't mean it will be impossible 5 or 10 or 20 years from now.
True. Just as it is hypothetically possible that some philosopher in the future will come up with a bullet-proof answer to the question, "Does God exist?"
Though at this time, with what we know now, we must recognize that (a) there's no reason to believe logic and empiricism will ever hold all the answers to every question, and (b) there's no reason to believe God's existence will ever be subject to determination via logic and/or empiricism.
[–]cmotdibbler 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
You know, talking to a hardcore religious type is like a discussion about quality football between a Detroit Lions fan and a New England Patriots fan.
[–]dalore 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
So do sports teams and donations to sporting teams get special tax status?
[–]cmotdibbler 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Most of the major sports teams in the US get some sort of tax break on the property taxes they pay for the arena/stadium.
As far as someone donating money to a sports team (?!), I guess maybe the super-rich might do it to gain access or special privileges, plus they might get a hefty tax deduction. Probably different rules depending on pro vs college vs local amateur teams.
[–]asd2025 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Nicely played.
[–]pobody 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago
Because he is true. Theists are perfectly capable of standing on a tautology.
[–]ElDiablo666 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
Are you saying that tautologies are tautological?
[–]alanbrunsdon 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
They are not open to this question. By asking it you prove yourself a tool of Satan who should be ignored or preached at but never listened to.
[–]Gravity13 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago
Yeah. This is one of those quotes that just won't die. Probably because it sounds catchy - if you're completely oblivious to how random it sounds.
The truth is, all communities like to see things from their point of view. To an atheist, this quote makes perfect sense, because there is no god. To a theist, this quote is retarded, quite emphatically even - and I doubt it's been effective at all (and instead the effectiveness comes from the herds of people chanting it in unison). Atheists really like to believe the reason why, say Christians, don't believe in other gods is because "that's silly" when 95% of the time when you ask them that, they'll instead say, "Because there is only one true God."
If there ever was a single trendy quote I wish would just die, it's this stupid one.
But it shows up. Predictably. Every week.
[–]YesNoMaybe 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago
Many, many people, including myself, started their slide into atheism by simply realizing that there are other religions drastically different than their own. Discovering details about other religions was a big kick for me when I was about 13 or 14 (this was before the internet, kids, so the info wasn't exactly easy to come by in the southeast US).
No, you aren't going to convert any hardcore fundamental nut-jobs by making that statement to them - they are far too entrenched for that - but there are more religious types that haven't even given it any thought. Many times a simple statement like this can be that nudge of rationality that gets them going down the inquisitive road of research. Eventually they may end up realizing the importance of logic and reason.
[–]IncognitoOne 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Many, many people, including myself, started their slide into atheism by simply realizing that there are other religions drastically different than their own
Thank you! This is definitely true for me. When I realized that other people in our time and other times believed in other G=gods, I wanted to know why. It seemed to me, they were believing in their gods for the same reason I was believing in mine.
[–]OriginalStomper -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
Or it's just possible that you'll meet some theists who already realize the importance of logic and reason, but believe anyway. As to the core question of whether God exists, there's no empirical evidence or logical reason to say that agnostic theism is better than agnostic atheism.
[–]YesNoMaybe 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Or it's just possible that
Yeah, you can't convince everyone. That is true.
[–]tasticle 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago
This quote is not directed at those who are fine with living a tautology. No logical argument works on them. It is directed at those portion of Christians who think that Christianity is logical because they have never fully examined their beliefs. In my experience this is most of them.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
It is directed at those portion of Christians who think that Christianity is logical because they have never fully examined their beliefs.
Christians who believe Christianity is logical haven't delved deep enough into its ideas. From a humanistically rational perspective, Christians beliefs are illogical. However, the proper response to this is that if God is indeed who we think he is (omnipotent etc.), then our human intellect should fall far short of understanding God and various Christian ideas. Christianity is a leap of faith, where you put most logic aside, and go with your heart. I know that sounds awfully stupid to most people on here, so be it.
[–]jesuz 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago*
they'll instead say, "Because there is only one true God."
There can't be a true god unless there are untrue gods.
If there are untrue gods then there have to be reasons they are untrue.
If believers went down the list of those reasons they would have a hard time explaining why those reasons don't apply to their belief.
I think that's the point.
[–]Gravity13 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
Reason #1: Because there is only one and this one is true for insert arbitrary reason here.
You seem to think that they think like you do. Stop that.
And that's my point. This is an atheist's quote from an atheist's point of view sorely misconceiving their religious notions and reasons for believing what they do.
It's almost like we're white people wondering why native americans do the stupid shit they do.
[–]Tallon 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
You seem to think that they think like you do.
Many do, but simply have never had their beliefs challenged. Many of the people here were the same way once, myself included.
[–][deleted] 2 years ago
[deleted]
[–]Tallon 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
I think at this point in the conversation you may want to stop and reread what you're saying. Generalizing and claiming to know exactly what is in everyone else's head just makes you look ignorant.
[–]lungfish59 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Holy crap, I'm going to defend Gravity13!
Look, what he's saying is that monotheistic religions (Christianity, anyway) require a leap of faith. The knowledge of God is personal, direct, revelatory. As clever as it seems to us right now, the "just-one-more-god" argument to a theist who's made the leap of faith just sounds stupid.
He's not trying to make theists look like fools; he's trying to explain that their knowledge of God doesn't have its basis in rationality, but in faith.
[–]pstryder 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
You seem to think that they think. Stop that.
FTFY
[–]jesuz 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I think my issue is that you're using the word "true." Using true means you acknowledge that people believe in other gods. If you acknowledge there are other gods and you say you still believe in yours because it's the only true god, then you realize that others may believe in their god for the same reason/non-reason. If you realize that, then, logically, you understand that the rationale for your belief is no stronger than any other believer's rationale.
As far as projecting my thought process on believers, yes I and the person quoted are projecting LOGIC on an irrational thought process, and as evidenced by testimony on this board that does actually, occasionally change people's beliefs.
[–]GameteZero 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Also, "We are at war against the secular world."
[–]mikewoodld 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I find that the usual answer is simply "because I have faith."
It's at that point that I realize that the conversation can go nowhere and I give up.
[–]wookieface 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I agree with this. Asking "why is my religion right and all the others wrong?", is what made me atheist.
[–]gnomemage7 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
Yes, in theory this image should promote a sort of epiphany in the religious minded.
"Hmm why do I reject untold numbers of gods, creation paradigms, and religious orthodoxies...well because there is no fucking way that god buttfucks chickens. Those belief systems are stupid and primitive. That is why I reject them. Wait...but that must mean? Noooooooo!"
Unfortunately, this "idealized" line of reasoning is often interrupted by dozens of little cognitive biases and rationalizations that the evangelists brain makes when they see this picture. That is why you tend to see religious folks get irrate at this kind of stuff instead of the sudden wave of calm and logic that one would expect from the deconstruction of primitive origin myths. It's a shame so much good wet-ware processing power is being wasted. I hereby dub religious ideology the spam or mal-ware of the brain.
[–]bennjammin 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I kinda just made this wallpaper for fun. Didn't mean for it to be taken this seriously. Verify.
[–]Cyanara 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
You've missed the point. They only think they know why they are dismissing all other gods. The quote is saying that they are yet to understand the real reason, which is simply that they are the result of a combination of environmental, social and genetic factors which have resulted in their heavily flawed and insulated views, usually quite specific to their geographical and social circumstances (although globalisation is changing this).
[–]sulopejur 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
The point is that they should dismiss those gods for the same reasons.
[–]charlesdarwood 34 points35 points36 points 2 years ago
This is going to take a while, but I intend to make a mockery of each and every god in that list with a blasphemous cartoon.
[–]thepicto 39 points40 points41 points 2 years ago
Everybody draw Igaluk day.
[–]monkey_zen 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago
Carpe deus!
[–]JimSFV 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Sieze the Carp!
[–]ZaraStuStra 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
Fuck Xbalanque. The Xbalanquians are huge fucking asshats.
[–]mralex 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago
I hate it when they knock on my door, wearing those stupid Xbalanquets around their shoulders.
[–]i_kant_spelz 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
and you can't even see their shoulders when they wear that. what are they hiding?
[–]ZaraStuStra 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Luckily, they can't be hiding much as their Xbalanquets frequently don't Xbalance very well on their Xbalan..shoulders.
[–]zombiecombat 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
that sounds awesome, start with Pangu.
[–]charlesdarwood 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I will. Pangu...the god so powerful he only took 18,000 years to crawl out of his cosmic egg and a mere 18,000 more to make the sky. Even less cool: PANGU DID 9/11.
[–]Omelet 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago
Guan Yu is a god? Sorry guys, I don't know if I can be an atheist any more. It's been swell.
[–]nopaniers 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I love Romance of Three Kingdoms...
[–]blackstar9000 47 points48 points49 points 2 years ago
I contend that we are both anarchists. I just believe in one less government than you. I contend that we are both asexual. I just have one fewer sex than you. I contend that we are both abiogenetic. I just have one less parent than you. I contend that we are both amoral. I just believe in one less moral than you do. I contend that we are both amorphous. I just have one less shape than you do.
I contend that we are both anarchists. I just believe in one less government than you.
I contend that we are both asexual. I just have one fewer sex than you.
I contend that we are both abiogenetic. I just have one less parent than you.
I contend that we are both amoral. I just believe in one less moral than you do.
I contend that we are both amorphous. I just have one less shape than you do.
The a- prefix. You're doing it wrong.
[–]tasticle 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago*
I still love the quote but you may have ruined the first part for me. And "I contend that there are gods neither of us believe in" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Upvoted for logical consistency.
[–]JarenL 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Upvoted for making a fair point, but I don't think that's exactly right. The commentary here isn't really related to the prefix, and the "a-" prefix doesn't always carry the same meanings or implications - that is, "theist-atheist" doesn't map perfectly on to "*archist-anarchist" or "moral-amoral". "Atheist" has, for a long time, included people who don't subscribe to a given culture's "correct" religion.
Usage, not theoretical morphology, dictates meaning.
[–]Bludwine2309 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Hmm...very interesting. This took me a minute to figure out, but as you point out, it is simply foolish to call one who believes in god(s) an atheist. It is simply not true. However, I love the second sentence. When I was a kid it was the idea of, "Why are we right and everyone else in the world is wrong?" that turned me away (well, part of what turned me away) from Christianity.
[–]nopaniers 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Here's a poster of that for you.
I cannot deny that your logic is sound.
[–]atheist_creationist 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Thank you! People seem to universally have trouble with prefixes. Its why we have debates over when one should use emigrate or immigrate when its so fucking simple.
[–]rualpha 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago
on behalf of Hindus, I would like to apologize for making this list so long.
About 330 million gods or something. (Actual value from one of the scriptures)
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 2 years ago
I never got this argument. Atheism is the lack of belief in the concept of god as a whole, accepting even one of them is being theistic.
Of course, it can help believers understand how it is possible not to believe, but it doesn't make atheists out of them.
[–]ai69 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago
Irony, it was said with.
[–]virusporn -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
No,t strictly speaking, true. Strong atheism is defined as an active belief that there are no gods, not simply the lack of belief in one.
[–]bennjammin 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago
Thanks guys, I'm actually the one who created this desktop wallpaper. Verification on my deviantart page... There's also a wallpaper like it on the FSM website as well.
[–]deathdonut 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
Who is Stephen F. Roberts? I like the cut of his jib.
[–]geft 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Where Chthulu and Hypnotoad?
[–]vjmurphy 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago
They are real.
[–]FrankReynolds 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
His logic is sou...ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
[–]baconcatman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I have come to my senses and hereby declare all glory to the hy...ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
[–]karnoculars 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into. That's why arguments like this are usually ineffective.
[–]baconcatman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I have tried to change these people's minds at least bleem times, they just cannot be reasoned with.
[–]fani 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago
All good, except don't unnecessarily highlight the last few gods and give them the higher importance that these religious zealots claim.
Put those names in same font/color throughout
[–]enderpanda 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
I think that's intended as a design choice, it's a bit easier on the eyes and gives a sense of depth and scope to an otherwise flat wall of text.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
I don't think the point was to highlight them as more important, but to highlight them as the god(s) (trinity roflwat) in question.
[–]fani 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Um.. okay, but I will politely disagree with you. I think if as an atheist we claim that these highlighted gods were highlighted because they're more significant or to make them stand out, then you're saying your wall of text gods ( which included the Hindu gods belonging to 1.2 billion people ) are of lesser relevance. In effect, you just said these gods are more significant.
As an atheist, when you think no gods exist at all, why give higher significance to any god ? Let them search for their gods rather than spoon-feed them. In their search, they will then realize that their one and only super powerful god is just another entry on a wall of text.
To me, it just shows the predisposition western atheists seem to have to be "abrahamic atheists." In other words, a large portion of their rationale seems to only attack the inconsistencies of the biblical religion rather than the pure logical questions of an intelligent creative force behind the universe. This is of course, due to the large number of atheists that turned away from a religion that used the Bible as its text and used that as their reference point.
[–]Agile_Cyborg 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
Take out all the commas and it's just a single long-ass name for magic man.
[–]Cohiba 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Wish I could put this up in my house. It's really striking.
[–]thavi 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
kokopelli is on there twice
[–]FatManRising 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I fucking believe in Abraxas!
[–]EaglesOnPogoSticks 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
All that's left now is for a Mexican guitar player to make an album in his honor.
[–]FrankManic 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Soto Abraxas?
[–]a_cryl 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
D-d-d-desktop'd
[–]Cyanara 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I can't believe it has taken so long for me to see this quote on Reddit (or anywhere). Sure, there are countless perfectly logical reasons to dismiss religious beliefs posted every day, but if perfectly logical reasoning was something that interested such people then it's quite unlikely they would be religious in the first place in most cases.
This is the first I've seen that introduces logic on a level that religious people are likely to actually relate to, and it does so impeccably in my view. In a sense, it may just be a stepping stone, but sometimes that's all that is needed.
Your view is retarded.
I dismiss all other possible gods because my belief is the Christian God excludes them. That is why you dismiss God? That doesn't even make sense.
If perfectly logical reasoning was something that interested people such as you then it's quite unlikely you would be atheists in the first place.
[–]Cyanara 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Your view is naive. The quote said: "when you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods" not "when you think you understand why you dismiss all other gods". Your lack of thorough understanding is exactly what the quote was highlighting.
People dismiss all other gods because of what I affectionately refer to as "neo-determinism" i.e. The past determines the present (but not necessarily the future as believed prior to modern quantum mechanics). If you want to argue against that, you'll just have to disprove essentially every scientific experiment ever performed (ie disprove cause and effect, which in itself will totally undermine any benefit in being religious)
Religious people dismiss all other gods and embrace the one/many they do because of the combination of social, environmental and genetic factors that have made up their life so far. In some cases some people may be atheists for little reason more than many people are religious. Predominant social pressures may dictate it as necessary or at least ideal. But for those who do so against the social grain it's simply because they have enough experience and logic skills to put 2 and 2 together.
And as amusing side note: "If perfectly logical reasoning was something that interested people such as you then it's quite unlikely you would be atheists in the first place."
Haha, wow. Just wow. That is one impressively unsubstantiated argument. I'm not sure you even know what you're trying to say there. But don't let that distract you from the main thrust of this post.
[–]kengou 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
All the people who believed in all those other gods believed the SAME thing (for the most part, excluding polytheism, etc.). What evidence do you have that you're right, while they are/were all wrong? Everyone's on equal footing, they're all equally zealous in their belief, and they all have the same amount of proof (none). I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god and excludes every other god. Why are you so sure YOU'RE right instead of me?
[–]Facehammer 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Yo, LouF. If you were born 2500 years ago in ancient Greece, which religion would you follow?
[–]C_IsForCookie 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
While I love the argument, it's almost like saying that in an atheists perspective, the only way one can be a true theist is to believe in all gods. This goes against the idea of religion to begin with, and while religion makes no sense (to me), neither does the argument.
Yeah...
[–]photozel 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Not really. When I get asked, 'Why don't you believe in god?', I answer with a question, 'Which one?' They have a hard time understanding, then, I say, something along the lines of this OP. Makes them think a little....something they do not usually do.
[–]discord 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Haha there is a god named Yum Kaax. Can o' pus is a good one, too.
[–]M3wThr33 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
This is one of my many Facebook quotes. It's nice. But there's a suspicious lack of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
[–]FrankReynolds 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
This list contains fictional characters. FSM does not belong on that list.
[–]AgentME 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Well, he's the one true god, so of course it makes sense that he's not on this list.
Oh god. You're one of those people on facebook. Does it also bother you that nobody compliments you on your quote choices?
I never comment on anyone else's. Why should they on mine?
I, on the other hand, contend we are both agnostics. In the absence of evidence, we just stake out different default positions in response to the question, "Does God exist?"
[–]FrankManic 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
Out of duty and obligation I feel the need to remind you that being agnostic about deities has the same weight as being agnostic about the giant purple tigers that live under my city. One just sounds more dignified because there are more crazy people who believe in deities than there are who believe in purple mole-tigers.
[–]OriginalStomper 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
But belief in purple mole tigers does not have a record of success in 12-step programs, in dealing with grief and depression, or with inspiring millions of followers to greater courage, hope, love, joy, and compassion. I'll grant you these common benefits of faith could all be placebo effects and mass self-delusion rather than divine intervention, but nobody has actually demonstrated that yet. It isn't empirical evidence, but it is still evidence -- arguably, enough evidence to shift the burden of proof.
Besides,your analogy only applies if we extend it to say these are purple mole tigers which have never been verified because they don't want to have their existence verified, as they want the people who believe in them to rely on faith. Moreover, the analogy only works if the purple mole tigers are extremely wise and powerful -- to the point of seeming omniscient and omnipotent from our perspective, so that they are actually capable of avoiding verification.
Once you have added these attributes, whether to purple mole tigers or an orbiting teapot, then you have simply identified a deity by any other name. I don't care what you call it -- if you believe in it, then you are a theist, too! Welcome to the club!
[–]wadetype 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
But belief in purple mole tigers does not have a record of success in 12-step programs, in dealing with grief and depression, or with inspiring millions of followers to greater courage, hope, love, joy, and compassion.
So says you. I'm agnostic about it.
More accurately, I've never heard any reports of those phenomena. I therefore infer there are none, but I would examine any reports with an open mind.
[–]cc81 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
This is a very late answer but you just heard about a report right now. Therefore you should be agnostic about that idea too.
[–]OriginalStomper 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Thanks for your update.
[–]Mazgazine1 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Upvoting this A LOT.
[–]senjutsuka 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
What happens if that just convinces them to believe all the other gods exists they just arent the 'right' one. Or even the right one for them?
[–]coyote1284 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
"Thou shall have no other gods before me."
Even Moses' YHVH recognized the existence of other gods and ordered his people to worship him first and most, with the option to honor others.
"No wai!" Yehweh!
[–]KazamaSmokers 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Zibelthiurdos? I could get behind a god with such a kick-ass name.
[–]rmeddy 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I love H. L. Mencken's writingsw on this approach of dead gods
[–]grammarfugitive 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
the second half of this quote is fantastic
[–]groovinhigh 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Brilliant!
[–]raptorraptor 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Upper voted.
[–]gruntyboy 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
amazing...
[–]gthermonuclearw 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Who is Stephen F. Roberts? WP doesn't know him.
[–]haroldp 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Just some dude on USENET who said it first.
[–]edjca 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
What about Xenu?
[–]MyPantsAreWet 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Does anyone have an idea where I could purchase a poster or print of this?
[–]JustinPA 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
It drives me crazy that they're not in alphabetical order.
[–]RockyRococo 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I looked but couldn't find Thor, God of Thunder!!! Or Eddie Van Halen, Rock God for that matter
There are some who believe that Van Halen was an earthly manifestation of Thor, or possibly on of his demi-god children.
[–]rockeh 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Upvoted for mentioning the One True God Zamolxis.
(Zamolxis is the god of the underworld. When you got something to tell him, you tell it to a warrior, then you throw the warrior off a cliff. This is how all religions should work.)
Shit yes. That's fucking awesome.
[–]alanbrunsdon 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Thing is, they just say that the reason they dismiss all other gods is because their infallible holy book tells them to. And no, they are not open to discussion of why they chose that particular holy book and if you mention circular reasoning or any other facet of logic which disagrees with their chosen holy book you are just a tool of Satan or whatever their equivalent is.
[–]questionnaire 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
What is the common thread, to which he speaks of, that ties all these God-people together?
[–]sarcastic_jerk 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
bobbi-bobbi is real dammit.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Right click > Set as Wallpaper
[–]whynotlive 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
This argument totally fails against hindus. Fuckers believe in more than 10000 gods already... :(
Few people have ever accused Hindus of atheism for very good reason.
[–]aijoe 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Let atheist = person who doesn't believe in any gods.
Replace atheist in the quote and it reads: I contend that we are both people who don't believe in any gods, I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
That seems silly.
[–]AnswerInHaiku 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
It seems odd to me
that the giver of reason,
Would give us blind faith.
[–]Athianity 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Athianity - Can't have one without the other...
[–]lwrun 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Heh, that picture said anus.
[–]hellothereyou 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.php
[–]gsxrjason 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Sanity still bewilders be, no Cthulhu?
[–]ddrt 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
By job I think he's got it.
That is much cooler than my shirt.
[–]case_insensitive 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
bling bears are something i want no part of bro.
[–]Low023 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Absolutly great, thank you.
[–]Carpeabnocto 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I don't understand how so many people can be so absolutely certain of something they can't prove.
[–]HrtSmrt 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Boom! Wallpapered!
i think that it is worse to push atheism than theism. a person who has faith is trying to create a safety net for difficult times. it seems wrong to take that away from them. the rare religious person genuinely wants to help you mentally insure against bad times, while some argue due to insecurity. if atheism is a statement of personal security without faith, why do they need to discuss it at all?
I contend this is an illogical argument for atheism. Here's why.
[–]GAMEchief 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
And in a convenient wallpaper format!
Or maybe these are different names for the same entity...and people are only under the delusion that they're worshiping different gods...
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
Then why can't they agree on what entity is, is capable of, wants from us, has done, etc.?
But if you prefer to do mind yoga and believe that Zeus, Thor, Ganesha and Jesus are actually the same thing, good for you as long as you don't use this belief to limit the life of others.
eh. in islam, there is a list of 99 names of god, which are manifestations of properties/ideas/ideals. the hindu concept is that there is an underlying non-personal god, and anything personal is a manifestation of certain properties of the divine.
so, ironically, your "mind yoga" comment is close to the mark. i don't think a worldview where you see properties in the physical world as manifestations of the properties of the underlying 'spirit' of the universe is negative in the slightest.
since religion is at its source a symbolic explanation of the universe, i don't see how the statement "the universe has underlying laws, and everything we observe is the result of these laws" is not perfectly analogous to "reality is god's will, and everything we see is a manifestation of god's will"
this level of abstraction is what allows people to see the similarities between gods. i don't think you'd disagree that when someone has an out of body experience and sees Jesus, they are having essentially the same experience as someone who has an out of body experience and sees Mohammed.
i don't think a worldview where you see properties in the physical world as manifestations of the properties of the underlying 'spirit' of the universe is negative in the slightest.
I agree with you here. However, not being negative doesn't make it true either.
the statement "the universe has underlying laws, and everything we observe is the result of these laws"
That would be scientific realism. Not all scientists or atheists attach to that viewpoint.
...is not perfectly analogous to "reality is god's will, and everything we see is a manifestation of god's will"
The difference is that now magically we justify everything based upon the will of some unknown, unobserved and unnecessary entity. Occam's razor has something to say about this hypothesis.
i don't think you'd disagree that when someone has an out of body experience and sees Jesus, they are having essentially the same experience as someone who has an out of body experience and sees Mohammed.
Agreed. That doesn't mean that either experience is ultimately true. If I hit my head with a blunt object I see glowing stars. If somebody hits your head with a blunt object you will see the same glowing stars. Do they ultimately exist? I would say no; even if we both have had experienced them they are ultimately delusions.
the statement "the universe has underlying laws, and everything we observe is the result of these laws" That would be scientific realism. Not all scientists or atheists attach to that viewpoint.
right, but it's a reasonable thing to believe, right? maybe 'laws' is an inaccurate word to use, but what are the other common belief structures that don't propose that there is some manner of consistency that arises out of the nature of things? constant chaos is consistency, in my opinion, but i guess that's a matter of definition.
...is not perfectly analogous to "reality is god's will, and everything we see is a manifestation of god's will" The difference is that now magically we justify everything based upon the will of some unknown, unobserved and unnecessary entity. Occam's razor has something to say about this hypothesis.
perhaps replacing "god's will" with "god" or perhaps "zhvhhfh" would be more direct. i was struggling for words. i kind of like zhvhhfh, actually. i guess i'm talking about daoism, though, which in my opinion is pretty damn reasonable (and actually is sort of an exercise in occam's razor, the way i understand it).
Agreed. That doesn't mean that either experience is ultimately true. [...] even if we both have had experienced them they are ultimately delusions.
i agree with the first point, but what i'm pointing to is the fact that people are indeed, regardless of where you stand on the factuality of what they are worshipping, worshipping the same thing. also, i would go so far as to say that ideals are inherently false in the same way that god is false.
love is something that people experience. unless you really struggle to define love as something concrete, i don't think you can argue that it actually exists. however, it is a significant positive experience for a vast majority of people.
i think the value of both 'love' and 'zhvhhfh' is derived from symbolic association, and the value cannot be demeaned by refutations of their logic. that being said, arguing for or against the existence of love is pointless. just go ahead and experience it.
[–]aedile 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
The thing that so many militant atheists just don't get is that Zeus, Thor, Ganesha, Jesus, etc etc etc are just personifications. They are anthropomorphisms of the underlying order of the universe. The problem of course, is that by anthropomorphizing, they attach other things such as desire, capability, etc and thus comes the complication. But really, we all believe in the same thing. This is just a little allegory people tell each other to make it easier for less-developed minds to really "grok" the whole concept of natural order. More effort should be spent on detaching these other things from the concept of god than of stamping out the concept altogether.
[–]gthermonuclearw 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
That's a good point. It's important to remember that Christians, Muslims and (to an extent) Jews believe not only in one true God, but also that they know exactly when God has chosen (i.e. Jesus) and will choose (i.e. second coming) to explicitly reveal himself and/or his will to humanity.
For example, Muslims believe that God revealed himself to both Jesus and Mohammed, but that Mohammed was the last and greatest prophet. Mormons believe that God revealed his will once more in the 19th Century.
It's not a big leap to say that the Christian God wasn't totally out of the picture from the time of creation to the start of Judaism. Many of those gods listed are far older than the idea of the Judeo-Christian God.
[–]aedile 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same god. Christians take it a little further (saying that Christ was also a god). So the "to an extent" should have been applied to Christians, not Jews.
I think you'd find it interesting to know that Christianity and Judaism, as they are practiced today, began forming at around the same time (0 C.E. to about 200 C.E.). The influences of Zoroastrianism on both are crazy interesting.
[–]lucasvb 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
This is the argument I get back when I mention other religions and gods to someone who is already religious. Sorry, but it doesn't work for me.
It is an incredibly naive position to assume that they're all the same gods because you're effectively denying the vast cultural, moral and ritual diferences associated with each religion, and you're ignoring that there are several conflicting religions based around the same gods. Christianity alone has its own huge share of conflicting sects.
So no, they can't be the same one, and if you dare to say it you are just proving you are oblivious of the world we live in.
[–]Dhghomon 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
So no, they can't be the same one
Yeah, but we're talking about the human perception of GODS. Remember, the concept of a god is a pretty far-out one, referring to something essentially beyond human comprehension. To my cat I'm a provider of food, to the bugs that have invaded the back room (and annoyed the cat too) I'm an executioner, to rats I'm just a big scary presence to scurry away from, and so on. You also wouldn't get much of an insight into who I really am by asking any of them, or even all of them. My cat doesn't even know where I get all the dry food from, and we live together.
The fact that people have different names and different stories about a god doesn't mean they are referring to different entities. Even if they believe they are referring to different entities, they could still be wrong.
What we believe is not requisite to the truth.
[–]iorgfeflkd 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Well I don't feel any of the other gods in my heart!
[–]liturgical_libertine 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Just wondering I guess, how do atheists combat universalist religions?
[–]coyote1284 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
No need to combat unconfrontational parties solely on principal that you disagree. I can agree to disagree with practicioners of religions that hold a 'live and let live' policy toward non-believers.
[–]onezerozeroone 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Combat? What does a Universalist religion say? That there is a great being out there? So? Where is the proof?
I look at it in terms of probability of likelihood based on evidence and experience. Based on the evidence presented, I have yet to come across a religious belief or claim credible enough to merit arranging my life around it. Does that make sense?
Religion is given far too much credit, but by the usual suspects. The same kind of people that are amazed by "cold readers" communicating with the dead are the same types that will give credence to a "religious" belief just because it's religious.
I can make up thousands of dire claims: "If you don't buy my product, wild tigers will come and eat you alive!" but would you take it seriously? At least there's some real, physical evidence or experiment available to test my claim. Religious claims aren't even testable, so why bother entertaining them?
[–]codebolt 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago
From a purely statistical perspective, it's clear that the more attributes you assign to your god, the less plausible he becomes. If you believe that 'there is some form of God consciousness that created the universe' then that is more likely than if you add 'and this God hates people who eat shrimp' (as in the bible).
Personally, as an agnostic, I could accept the former statement as at least vaguely plausible, but I would reject the latter statement for its shear banality.
[–]onezerozeroone 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago*
You're exactly right. There's also always going to be two sides to the question: the practical and theoretical.
There might also be a tea pot orbiting the sun, right? Who knows? If there is, what does it matter?
How does that affect your life? Moreover, how or why should it affect the lives of others?
Perhaps you learn something in the process of trying to verify if that tea pot exists. Maybe you grow and learn in trying to discover "Hey, why is there a tea pot there? How'd it get there?" but you might also spend your whole life and never find that tea pot, whether or not it's there.
But you're right...why can't we eat shrimp? Why do we hate gays? What does that have to do with a tea pot orbiting the sun?
Religious claims aren't even testable, so why bother entertaining them?
well, i think the psychological benefits of many spiritual practices are enough. i think the prescriptive claims of religion are what need to be ignored.
i find even self-proclaimed hyper-rational people to be pretty freaking superstitious. it's human nature.
[–]onezerozeroone 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Right. It's practical vs theoretical.
I have no problem with people having a religion. My problem is when they can't keep it to themselves. When they want it in government, in schools, at work, in public...that's what I have a problem with.
When people knock on my door to tell me about their imaginary friend, it's a waste of my time and annoying. When people treat me differently or act as if I'm a bad person because I don't believe their deity exists, that is just stupid.
I understand their heart is in the right place, and they really think they've got something amazing to share with me, but if I honestly entertained every crackpot religious/pseudo-science/scam claim I wouldn't have time to actually live my life.
So, it's nothing personal, but I just have a policy of dismissing these kinds of things wholesale, just like infomercials, because they're all part of the same class of bullshit.
My problem is when they can't keep it to themselves. When they want it in government, in schools, at work, in public...that's what I have a problem with.
i heartily concur.
i find buddhism, daoism, and zen to be particularly worthwhile. buddhism--in its simple form before the tacked on deities for people who need pictures of things to worship--basically says that there's no point contemplating the nature of god, because we'll never know, so you should focus on the present. daoism basically says, try not to overdo things, rather, observe the way things are and try to be in accordance with it.
and i appreciate the symbolism in other religions, though i detest the impulse to use one's religion as a way to avoid personal responsibility for one's decisions.
that being said, it's always nice to find another person who's happy to just have their opinion and let me have mine. good day to you, sir. :)
...welcome to reddit?
I am an atheist and a Unitarian Universalist. There is no conflict. Over 20% of my church is atheist. Wiccan to catholic. All are very happy together. So, I do not understand the question.
[–]liturgical_libertine 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
well, a common arguement against religion in general that usually comes up is, why is your God the only real God, my answer is always some kind of universalist answer. No one ever really has a very good answer to that. But, from your perspective there isn't much of a problem then. I guess I get confused that there is a difference between being an atheist and anti-theist.
[–]heelspider -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago
What if I don't dismiss any of those gods? What if I'm intelligent enough to realize that mythology is a powerful means of understanding the world and humanity's role in it?
[–]heelspider 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I'm not advocating the substitution of any facts. Stories of a Great Flood permeate across a large number of different cultures. Does this mean there really was a Great Flood? No, of course not. But it does imply there is something to that story that particularly appeals our minds and the human condition....
Do you advocate completely ignoring literature? Fools who say we should ignore stories of Zeus or Jesus because they are factually inaccurate are no smarter than fools who say we should ignore Mark Twain and Shakespeare because Huckleberry Finn and Hamlet weren't real.
[–]mostlyferal -6 points-5 points-4 points 2 years ago
Sasquatch, Effluvia Theory, CIA Radio Mind Control, ... Climate Change.
I contend that we are both skeptics. I just believe in one fewer theory than you do.
[–]lhbtubajon 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago
Why on earth would you be skeptical of climate change? There is ample evidence that the climate constantly changes, and has for billions of years. That's like saying, "I'm skeptical that the stock market changes."
Oh, but you're probably referring to anthropomorphic climate change. Well, I'm closer with you on that. But the analogy between CIA radio mind control and ACC is not a very valid one, since the first is a product of a paranoic mental disorder, and the second is based on an accumulation of scientific evidence (whether valid or not).
[–]gthermonuclearw 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
"anthropogenic climate change" FTFY
[–]XoYo 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
Or the GP could have meant climate change caused by furries.
[–]coyote1284 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Why on earth would you take an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment so seriously? Lack of "/s" doesn't imply the commenter was being candid.
Oh, but you're probably referring to anthropomorphic climate change. Well, I'm closer with you on that.
But I'm glad that you agree that 'furries' are the root of all evil. :P
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–][deleted] 89 points90 points91 points ago
[–][deleted] 46 points47 points48 points ago
[–]polymorph505 25 points26 points27 points ago
[–]ronconcoca 14 points15 points16 points ago
[–]LordBrandon 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]kengi2 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]shibster 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]natzo 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]heresybob 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]jsantos17 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]rnelsonee 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]Thelonious_Cube 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]sulopejur 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]heresybob 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]bigbird101 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Did_it_in_Flint 110 points111 points112 points ago
[–]hob196 87 points88 points89 points ago
[–]lungfish59 44 points45 points46 points ago
[–]dalore 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]DoinTime 56 points57 points58 points ago
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–]crazysonofabitch 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]HungLikeJesus 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]ElDiablo666 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Seachicken 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]i_kant_spelz 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Spamurai 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]OriginalStomper 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]jaketheripper 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]OriginalStomper 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]cmotdibbler 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]dalore 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]cmotdibbler 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]cmotdibbler 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]asd2025 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]pobody 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–]ElDiablo666 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]alanbrunsdon 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Gravity13 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]YesNoMaybe 13 points14 points15 points ago
[–]IncognitoOne 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]OriginalStomper -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]YesNoMaybe 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]tasticle 14 points15 points16 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]jesuz 5 points6 points7 points ago*
[–]Gravity13 -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Tallon 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]Tallon 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]lungfish59 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]pstryder 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]jesuz 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]GameteZero 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mikewoodld 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wookieface 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]gnomemage7 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]bennjammin 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Cyanara 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]sulopejur 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]charlesdarwood 34 points35 points36 points ago
[–]thepicto 39 points40 points41 points ago
[–]monkey_zen 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]JimSFV 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ZaraStuStra 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]mralex 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]i_kant_spelz 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ZaraStuStra 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]zombiecombat 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]charlesdarwood 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Omelet 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]nopaniers 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]blackstar9000 47 points48 points49 points ago
[–]tasticle 8 points9 points10 points ago*
[–]JarenL 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Bludwine2309 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]nopaniers 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]zombiecombat 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]atheist_creationist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]rualpha 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points ago
[–]ai69 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]virusporn -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]bennjammin 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]deathdonut 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]geft 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]vjmurphy 13 points14 points15 points ago
[–]FrankReynolds 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]baconcatman 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]karnoculars 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]baconcatman 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]fani 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]enderpanda 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]fani 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]atheist_creationist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Agile_Cyborg 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Cohiba 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]thavi 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]FatManRising 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]EaglesOnPogoSticks 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]FrankManic 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]a_cryl 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Cyanara 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Cyanara 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]kengou 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Facehammer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]C_IsForCookie 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]photozel 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]discord 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]M3wThr33 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]FrankReynolds 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]AgentME 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]atheist_creationist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]M3wThr33 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]OriginalStomper 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]FrankManic 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]OriginalStomper 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wadetype 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]OriginalStomper 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]cc81 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]OriginalStomper 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Mazgazine1 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]senjutsuka 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]coyote1284 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]KazamaSmokers 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]rmeddy 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]grammarfugitive 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]groovinhigh 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]raptorraptor 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]gruntyboy 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]gthermonuclearw 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]haroldp 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]edjca 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MyPantsAreWet 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JustinPA 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]RockyRococo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]FrankManic 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]rockeh 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]FrankManic 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]alanbrunsdon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]questionnaire 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]sarcastic_jerk 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]whynotlive 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]FrankManic 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aijoe 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]AnswerInHaiku 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Athianity 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lwrun 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]hellothereyou 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]gsxrjason 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ddrt 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]FrankManic 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]case_insensitive 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Low023 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Carpeabnocto 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]HrtSmrt 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]nopaniers 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]GAMEchief 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aedile 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]gthermonuclearw 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]aedile 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]lucasvb 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Dhghomon 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]iorgfeflkd 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]liturgical_libertine 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]coyote1284 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]onezerozeroone 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]codebolt 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]onezerozeroone 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]onezerozeroone 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]atheist_creationist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]photozel 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]liturgical_libertine 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]heelspider -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]heelspider 1 point2 points3 points ago