this post was submitted on
392 points (53% like it)
3,078 up votes 2,686 down votes
shortlink:

pics

subscribe2,317,178 readers

7,617 users here now

Looking for an image subreddit with minimal rules? Check out /r/images

A place to share interesting photographs and pictures. Feel free to post your own, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for general images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)

Spoiler code

Please mark spoilers like this:
[text here](/spoiler)

Hover over to read.

Rules

  1. No screenshots, or pictures with added or superimposed text. This includes image macros, comics, info-graphics and most diagrams. Text (e.g. a URL) serving to credit the original author is exempt.

  2. No gore or porn. NSFW content must be tagged.

  3. No personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder. Stalking & harassment will not be tolerated.

  4. No solicitation of votes (including "cake day" posts), posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor, or [FIXED] posts. DAE posts go in /r/DoesAnybodyElse. "Fixed" posts should be added as a comment to the original image.

  5. Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to an image hosting website with minimal ads. We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. URL shorteners are prohibited.

  • If your submission appears to be filtered but definitely meets the above rules, please send us a message with a link to the comments section of your post (not a direct link to the image). Don't delete it as that just makes the filter hate you!

  • If you come across any rule violations, please report the submission or message the mods and one of us will remove it!

Please also try to come up with original post titles. Submissions that use certain clichés/memes will be automatically tagged with a warning.

Links

If your post doesn't meet the above rules, consider submitting it on one of these other subreddits:

Comics  
/r/comics /r/webcomics
/r/vertical /r/f7u12
/r/ragenovels /r/AdviceAtheists
Image macros Screenshots/text
/r/lolcats /r/screenshots
/r/AdviceAnimals /r/desktops
/r/Demotivational /r/facepalm (Facebook)
/r/reactiongifs /r/DesktopDetective
Wallpaper Animals
/r/wallpaper /r/aww
/r/wallpapers /r/cats
The SFWPorn Network /r/TrollingAnimals
  /r/deadpets
  /r/birdpics
  /r/foxes
Photography Un-moderated pics
/r/photography /r/AnythingGoesPics
/r/photocritique /r/images
/r/HDR
/r/windowshots
/r/PictureChallenge
Misc New reddits
/r/misc /r/britpics
/r/gifs Imaginary Network
/r/dataisbeautiful /r/thennnow
/r/picrequests /r/SpecArt
  /r/LookWhoIMet
  /r/timelinecovers
  /r/MemesIRL
  /r/OldSchoolCool
  /r/photoshopbattles

Also check out http://irc.reddit.com

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

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 ›

391
392

Atheist Cat (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by [deleted]

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on
all 99 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]BuckeyeBentley 33 points34 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Be careful with that one, it's an antique.

[–]suckmyjesus 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Where have I heard this line before? Tip of the tongue damn you

[–]blackhawk5322 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Family guy. Brian said it to Stewie on the train during a singing montage.

[–]pandemic1444 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pretty sure all cats are atheist.

[–]virulentRant 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I saw one bite the head off of a silver Jesus ornament.

People started freaking out, but I LOL'D.

[–]alarumba 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No no, they believe in a god. Themselves.

[–]overnine000 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Christian Cat

[–]Conchobair -1 points0 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is incorrect according to the text book definition of atheism as well as Richard Dawkins who is a well known atheist. It is very possible to neither believe or disbelieve in deities.

Many people on reddit misunderstand atheism as simply a lack of belief, but atheism is defined in most every major repository of knowledge as the actual disbelief in deities, thus requiring the conscious action of rejecting the belief in deities.

[–]pandemic1444 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But if you had to give them a label based on their situation in regards to spirituality, what would you call them?

[–]Conchobair 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It would depend on what they actually believe spiritually and how they define themselves. If they do not define their beliefs in regards to deities, then you cannot include them in either group. Perhaps, if you need a label you could say "neither".

[–]cloake 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know not of these knowledge repositories, but atheism can be defined simply without belief in deities. The mechanism by which you arrive to that state is irrelevant. From what I've gathered over the many years of forum religious discussion, many people try to keep perpetuating the myth that atheism is the active belief in nongods, but we are all unwitting atheists to an infinite number of stupid pantheons. Dawkins classifies himself as a militant atheist, because he needs to clarify that not only is he a practicing atheist, but that he actively believes and does other things surrounding atheism. If atheism implied an active nature, then there would be no need for the clarification. I think what you're more getting at is the idea of skepticism. Skepticism is the conscious weighing of the validity of an idea, which may lead to disbelief.

[–]Conchobair 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know not of these knowledge repositories,

Oxford dictionary, Merriam-Webster dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannia, Wikipedia, just to name a few.

Dawkins argues that a child is neither a "theist" or an "atheist" until they make action of making a conscious decision, until then they are "neither". This is the prevailing view and how the word is technically defined.

[–]cloake 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A quick look at wikipedia shows that both interpretations are present. Standard dictionaries aren't going to care about the subtlety of the wording of their definitions. They're just quick and dirty denotative meanings. These are hardly compelling sources in this debate.

In every meaningful capacity, completely naive individuals are existing without the formalized belief in gods. You can call it swiss cheese for all I care.

[–]Conchobair 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would take Richard Dawkins's definition that coincides with the definition in every reputable book of knowledge I have been able to find over anything else that might be found on the internet. You cannot discount the fact that they are all agree on the wording. Yes, when you dig down into the wikipedia you will find that some people refer to as a lack of belief, but that is not the prevailing view of how "atheism" is defined.

What sources do you cite for you interpretation of the definition?

*Edit: I'm sorry I guess you answered this with "many years of forum religious discussion". I'll stick with academic and professional resources over internet discussion every day of the year.

[–]cloake 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And you can have your Merriam Webster dictate your entire philosophy on atheism. It's like the third sentence of the wiki article by the way, which leads me to believe that you're just bullshitting and can't really cite anything either. I've read Dawkins and you're just misconstruing what he says. It's a valid argument to state that we can't pigeon-hole a child or semiconcious being into atheism or theism, but for all intents and purposes, you can live your life either acknowledging the existence of a god, or not acknowledging. You can't have both, and you can't have neither. One or the other at any given time. It's not an "unask the question" scenario because the question imposes itself on every moment of your existence. If there's no acknowledgment, only the most pedantic would not call that a lack of theism, aka atheism. Etymology of "a-", means without. How's that for an academic source.

[–]Conchobair 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I listed several sources as well as a prominate member of the atheist community and they all agree and you have not provided any specific sources beyond internet forums and a single interpretation of a greek prefix. It's funny that you discount dictionaries but use the etymology of the prefix a-, which is flimsy at best.

In regards to Dawkin's position in The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press, 2006, p380), he is very clear that he opposes labeling a child as "atheist". Dawkins views atheism as a conscious position and thus leans towards the dictionary definition of atheism as necessarily an active disbelief. To argue against this is to argue from ignorance as he has been very clear about the subject.

[–]cloake 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, you vaguely referenced some generic reference material that may or may not've been in-line with your argument. This is your first real citation. I would still argue that Dawkins is just being overcautionary about the term atheist because of all the cultural baggage that comes along with the term, and well, I can see his reasons for arguing that. It still seems that he's arguing for description rather than prescription of a child's beliefs, but the actions and thoughts of the child speak for themselves. My problem with saying that atheism is the active rejection of belief somewhat implies that the default state is theism, which makes little sense because that's the positive case of the argument.

Furthermore, it's not very conceivable to have an atheistic but can't be called atheist argument. What would you define these beings as then? You can't really qualify something outside of the options of A or not-A when both options are mutually exclusive. The etymological argument is valid too, just because you balk at it. Atypical doesn't mean for or against typing, it means without type. Asocial doesn't mean for or against socializing, it means without it. Why is atheism special, because people have certain cultural sensitivities to certain topics?

[–]Conchobair 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The default state is "neither" is what Dawkins is saying, just like a child is neither a liberal or conservative until they begin to develop political leanings. Dawkins is specific in what he says, your speculation (which reallys sounds like cognitive dissonance becuase he has been so clear on the subject) is not valid as he has been very clear. Still you provide no citations when I have several acedemic definitions and a prominent, if not the most prominent member of the atheist community quoted down to the page number.

Etymology is the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. Etymology is not the study of what a current means now. You are playing a game of semantics in order to avoid conceding a point in the face of over-whelming evidence.

[–]Reaganometry 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Skepticism has never been so adorable.

[–]motyareddit 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Another skeptic cat

[–]withstanding 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If he was an atheist dyslexic cat, he would not believe in Dog.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]Faraday07 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's a difference between asking for equality and asking never to be ridiculed. Equality does not mean never being judged. It does not mean never being challenged. And you have to understand that some of us find religion to be a needless harm in society and it needs to die out as quickly as possible.

That doesn't mean taking it away forcefully but by doing what we do with any contentious issue, discuss it, debate about it, argue against it and when it calls for it, ridicule it. Religion isn't just a personal belief; it informs your actions one way or another. And it gets otherwise rational people to decide that reality doesn't matter and to say well-meaning but ultimately flawed platitudes like you're doing now.

[–]hostergaard -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And you have to understand that some of us find religion to be a needless harm in society and it needs to die out as quickly as possible.

The saying the same but with one word changed would get me heavily down voted despite not changing validity of the statement:

"And you have to understand that some of us find atheism to be a needless harm in society and it needs to die out as quickly as possible."

Lets keep doing that:

That doesn't mean taking it away forcefully but by doing what we do with any contentious issue, discuss it, debate about it, argue against it and when it calls for it, ridicule it. Atheism isn't just a personal belief; it informs your actions one way or another. And it gets otherwise rational people to decide that reality doesn't matter and to say well-meaning but ultimately flawed platitudes like you're doing now.

[–]DelMaximum 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think most learned and well read atheists would welcome debate and discussion. Your reversal of words reveals that you don't actually understand atheism or have otherwise been exposed to some rude and inconsiderate people. The statement you claimed was valid is terribly flawed.

Atheism is meant to inform your actions any further than insisting upon reliance of reason and logic. Religion tends to do otherwise in certain contexts. That being said, regardless of ones belief, as long as they are not impugning upon others, they can do whatever they please.

[–]hostergaard 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your reversal of words reveals that you don't actually understand atheism or have otherwise been exposed to some rude and inconsiderate people. The statement you claimed was valid is terribly flawed.

I will have to ask why you find it to be flawed and why you believe I do not understand atheism.

Do you disagree that a lot of atheist would call me bigot if I used that sentence in a different context?

"And you have to understand that some of us find atheism to be a needless harm in society and it needs to die out as quickly as possible."

Tell me, why then, are you not bigoted for using it in regards to religion?

[–]Faraday07 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you find atheism harmful then all you have to do is argue it. If you can then your statements are true. I just don't think they are and are invalid. The validity of my statements are predicated on me being correct on a few fundamental things; as are yours. If you disagree with the validity of my statement, then argue it. Changing a word didn't make your argument for you.

Atheism isn't just a personal belief; it informs your actions one way or another.

Atheism isn't a belief; nor does it have anything in it to inform actions. There are no tenets, no scripture, no dogma. It's one position on one subject.

And it gets otherwise rational people to decide that reality doesn't matter and to say well-meaning but ultimately flawed platitudes like you're doing now.

Of course I'm going to say that, that's my viewpoint. If someone says "I believe in leprechauns" You would say they aren't dealing with reality because I presume you don't believe in leprechauns. You can disagree and think that religious believers are correct. (although you don't as many beliefs are mutually exclusive and therefor you also believe at least the majority are incorrect.) If you do then you should argue it. I think you think what you just did there was a logical one, two punch but it wasn't; it just exposes your misunderstanding of my position and why I think it's the correct one.

[–]hostergaard -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you find atheism harmful then all you have to do is argue it. If you can then your statements are true. I just don't think they are and are invalid.

Communism, "religion is the opium of the people" and all that. Cost a lot of lives when they attempted to cleanse religion from their world.

The validity of my statements are predicated on me being correct on a few fundamental things; as are yours. If you disagree with the validity of my statement, then argue it. Changing a word didn't make your argument for you.

Bingo! You did not argue for your statement. As such when simply changed a word and presented a statement without arguments it was just as valid as yours.

Atheism isn't a belief; nor does it have anything in it to inform actions. There are no tenets, no scripture, no dogma. It's one position on one subject.

Atheism is a belief. It informs you that gods are not real entice people to ridicule and look down on those that believe otherwise, that is the action. The tenets, scripture and dogma of atheism is that there is a no god or gods.

I could just as easily describe theism as one position on one subject. Why? Because there is only one thing all variation of theism share. A belief in a higher power.

Of course I'm going to say that, that's my viewpoint. If someone says "I believe in leprechauns" You would say they aren't dealing with reality because I presume you don't believe in leprechauns.

No, I would say that I believe there are no leprechauns but I would not be as arrogant to presume that I have complete knowledge of what is real and what is not. And here is the truth of the matter, its not that I misunderstand your position, its that I expose your arrogance in the matter and lack coherent logic.

I believe that there is a god. You claim to know that there is no god without any proof. I know the limits of my knowledge, you don't.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I believe that there is a god. You claim to know that there is no god without any proof.

To jump in and correct your misconceptions, most atheists don't have a positive belief that a deity can't possibly exist. They simple lack belief in any proposed deity as there is a lack of objective evidence for one.

I know the limits of my knowledge, you don't.

Quite the contrary. Agnostic atheists, the most common kind of atheist, humbly admit they don't have all the answers. Theists, on the other hand, assert god as the answer to the unknown when they can't in reality prove said god's existence. What arrogance!

You're thinking of gnostic atheists, which are a minority of all atheists. Here's a simple youtube video of a cute girl explaining away your misconceptions. Youtube Video.

[–]haileytrap 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

lolreddit, where this kind of totally reasonable comment gets downvoted with no explanation. How dare you question my religion, heathen! xD

[–]Faraday07 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Communism

Communism is not atheism. Communism is a political ideology. You first have to believe in a whole mess of ideas that come with communism including (not to say communists believe this) the need to cleanse the world in order to get to genocide. You seem to misunderstand cause and effect. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. There is no way of going from that to 'kill believers' without adding some other beliefs first. Those other beliefs are what causes people to do things like Stalin, not atheism. As opposed to peoples beliefs in religion which is often the source to their bigotry against different religions or unbelief, different races, sexual orientations and their misinformed ideas about science, history and reality in general.

You did not argue for your statement.

I didn't argue it because that would be unnecessary. Someone would first need to point to what they disagree with first. Otherwise I would have to lay out my entire worldview anytime I disagree with someone. This is not reasonable and not practical. This is why I ask you to tell me what you disagree with.

Atheism is a belief. It informs you that gods are not real

Wrong again. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Not a belief they aren't real or a claim they aren't real (at least not usually and not in my case specifically). It's the default position. And before you say "Well then you're an agnostic" let me tell you, you're right. I'm an agnostic atheist. Look up my position if you don't understand (the link I provided).

entice people to ridicule and look down on those that believe otherwise, that is the action.

That action doesn't come from my atheism but my anti-theism. Actions like those come when someone disagrees with something to a large extent as I do. I can ridicule religion while believing in a god. Many believers do. This means that ridicule is not predicated on a lack of belief.

The tenets, scripture and dogma of atheism is that there is a no god or gods.

I don't think you know what the words 'tenent' 'scripture' or 'dogma' mean.

I could just as easily describe theism as one position on one subject.

You're correct. But as it is most people aren't just uncaring agnostics or deists. Most people believe in more than just a god but in rules, tenets, and moral absolutes and in things that conflict with science, history and rationality. The difference between an atheist and a religious person having ideas about right and wrong, about science and history is that (at least in the cases I argue) is that many ideas religious people have come from their religion while the atheist necessarily has to get it from somewhere else.

I believe there are no leprechauns

Then you say...

I would not be as arrogant to presume that I have complete knowledge of what is real and what is not.

I believe you did.

I don't presume I have complete knowledge and I don't know absolutely what is true and not. When did I ever say that? I'm simply arguing from my position. If you think that position is wrong then argue why you think so. I think I'm correct just as you think you're correct. I'm only doing exactly what you're doing right now.

its not that I misunderstand your position, its that I expose your arrogance in the matter and lack coherent logic.

I'm not arrogant, I never claimed to be better than believers nor did I say I look down on believers or anything close to that. I simply argued that they are wrong and I'm correct; just like you're doing right now. Except I never called you a name, I never judged your character, only the validity of your argument.

I believe that there is a god.

Good for you.

You claim to know that there is no god without any proof.

No I don't. I simply do not accept the claims that gods exist. Do you believe in Zeus? Thor? Vishnu? Or a thousands of other gods? No, you don't. I just happen to believe in one fewer god than you do. I know I could be wrong. I could be wrong about trolls and fairies too but I don't think it's likely. I use those as examples because I put gods in the same category as those things and I'm as about convinced about gods existence as those things. If you think you have reasons to believe that one of those gods is a reality then provide the evidence; don't get upset and start throwing around needless insults that do nothing to further the conversation. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. This is the nature of disagreement. Give me evidence and I'll change my mind otherwise we have no further business here.

[–]Philip_E_Noe -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm sure that many atheists would encourage their beliefs to be challenged, and be more than happy to debate about them. Faraday is criticizing our society's over-sensitivity with regards to the topic of religious beliefs, and its aversion to actually discussing them and looking at them critically. It would naturally be a double standard if secular belief systems were not also put under scrutiny. The important thing is opening up the topic in general for debate.

[–]hostergaard -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I have no problem discussion and scrutiny. What I have something against is as mentioned double standarts.

"And you have to understand that some of us find atheism to be a needless harm in society and it needs to die out as quickly as possible."

If I where to use this somewhere else then I would down-voted to oblivion and called a terrible close minded bigot. Yet when the exact same sentiment are uttered by atheist then they are hailed as paragons of reason. It irks me that a person can generalize to such an extend and ignore all the positives of religion and still get up voted.

Its nothing but ignorance and hate mongering.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the hope would be that as the base level of education increases and spreads worldwide as it has been doing, religion will die a natural death via the decline of ignorance. Anecdotally, I don't personally know any atheists that would want people to be persecuted for their religious beliefs, or have their religious beliefs forcibly removed (as if that were even possible.) No one should ever be afraid of criticism; if your belief system can't stand up to scrutiny and even ridicule, why the fuck would you persist in it?

[–]fuzzydunloblaw -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Beautifully said. I could learn a thing or two from you in getting your message across without being abrasive.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]Faraday07 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

it's a personal relationship with what helps you through the day and helps you strive to be a better person and better to people in general.

And yet I still have a problem with this. Maybe people should have a personal relationship with reality. It's still grown adults not dealing in reality, most likely because they don't have a firm understanding of proper epistemology. I don't think all religious people are the WBC; that's a bit of a strawman. I think that people who decide comfort trumps truth are more easily manipulated and tend not to make the best decisions based on the best evidence.

they act like they are speaking on behalf of every single christian or even baptist church and that isn't the case at all.

No they don't actually. They make it very clear they believe everyone else who call themselves Christians but don't adhere to exactly what they believe aren't really Christians but hypocrites, gay enablers etc.

They are misguided and delusional

As are many religious believers

and taking things way out of context.

Actually I think WBC follows the bible closer than todays secularized watered-down version most people practice. I think peoples morality is better than their god/holy text of choice and the WBC is exactly how one should act if they follow the bible in its exact instruction. But that's a whole other can of worms, is it not.

So on the opposite end, you have people that see this and lump every christian in with anyone who is "religious".

That's not what I'm doing. I have fundamental issues with religious belief that are beyond the specifics of practice.

a lack of respect

You're absolutely correct. I do not respect it. It's not respectable. Respect is earned and deserved; it's not something that's automatically given to every idea/worldview/person. Though, don't confuse lack of respect for a practice or belief with lack of respect with a person. I respect you enough to let you be and pray quietly to yourself but in my mind I'm thinking that's a dumb thing to do.

impowers them to live life one more day.

This is another issue I have with religion. It makes people dependent and believe it's something they need when they don't. Why not find something that empowers you that doesn't carry the baggage of religious belief?

Would you say someone prayer is futile if they were sitting there with a gun and deciding whether to blow their brains out?

I'd be more focused on getting the gun away from them and getting them real help. I mean, if we're really in this hypothetical situation my first reaction isn't to debate them rationally about their religious belief. A few issues with this though. First, I don't believe anywhere near the majority of people are of such horrible emotional fragility that they couldn't/shouldn't be argued with about their religion. Second, your argument creates a necessity for action beyond debate. The fact you had to go to such an extreme case to find an instance where prayer isn't futile doesn't bode well for your argument.

So to summarize; no, in this extreme and ridiculously rare instance where someone's life hangs in the balance, no it isn't futile. Now all you have to do is argue against it's futility in situations more akin the picture or everyday life.

But the major point that is the thread through this whole thing is clear. This is often the case with liberal believers. At no point will you defend what you're doing on the basis that it's true. All of the justification you provide is that it's makes you feel better and that those who ridicule it (like myself) are taking that good feeling away. This, right here, is what I can't stand about this type of thinking. To you it's not about what's true, it's about what feels good. I being a person who values what is true over anything else takes issue with this. This is the problem I have with liberal believers. Not that I lump them in with extremists, but I disagree with them specifically for this difference in process.

Why, you may ask? Because when people aren't dealing in reality they aren't going to change it. Real world problems get fixed with a real world understanding and real world solutions. One can and should find comfort in things that don't come with all the baggage and that are rooted in reality. Humans are perfectly capable of living without believing in fantasy.

[–]Aniraco 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you're referring to an Atheist being anti-religious, there are dicks of all beliefs and non-beliefs. However, I think the main point of vocal atheists is in agreement with you, the problem is religion injects itself into our laws and society. Simplest example is gay marriage, it is religion pushing its morals onto everyone. I couldn't care less what you believe in, but don't act like you are persecuted when it is your Christian faith that feels the need to tell me how to live my life.

Edit: grammar.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]fuzzydunloblaw 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Every christian doesn't get lumped into a pile of religious hate mongers. You aren't being persecuted. You simply have a belief system that isn't rational or based on objective evidence and so you correctly get lumped in with people who are irrational. I understand why you as an irrational person would want to irrationally censor criticism in the name of equality, but fortunately that won't happen anytime soon.

[–]Aniraco -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I definitely would do whatever it took to stop someone from killing themselves, but the actual prayer does nothing. Self-reflection or fear of god/death is what is going to actually cause this person not to kill themselves. Your just talking to yourself and sometimes that's what people need to do to comfort themselves, nothing wrong with it.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What are you babbling about exactly and how does it relate to the cute cat picture? Is the (probably correct) atheist kitty preventing the religious kitty from practicing its dopey beliefs?

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]ajleece 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Athiesm is about your belief, not the belief of others.

[–]supergai 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

well, idk, from my theology classes in high school (that's all i can go off of, i'm gettin' shit for this) an atheist is someone who actively seeks to disprove a God. All other who don't believe but don't care are just Agnostic.

[–]ajleece 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Then he's just as bad as the christians that can't accept other's beliefs.

[–]pifarm -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

most vocal "atheists" like to prove how smart they are in their belief, and only theirs has the possibility of being right.

of course thats not a true atheist

[–]EmperorXenu 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

facepalm

[–]ajleece -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly.

[–]Brimshae 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

... and yet important enough to complain about.

[–]1Ders 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

cute pic but im not really feline it

[–]coldfusion3264 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just an observation, but this seems to be the most reposted thing on reddit.

[–]sexually_amphibious 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not sure which one is the atheist - the one falling asleep or the one not giving a shit.

[–]Leelluu 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Whatever; Cats love Jesus.

[–]leiferic -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

AWESOME

[–]ConundrumSteve -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So what if it is or is not futile, it's not hurting anybody either way. An atheist trying to force others to believe in the same thing as them is just as futile in my opinion.

[–]MangoScango 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't know, it seems to me when your governor and possible future president thinks it's the only way to solve a problem, it's hurting people.

[–]ConundrumSteve 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well I'm not an American so that has nothing to do with me. And obviously if someone is trying to force something on to others it is going to be harmful, but I meant if you pray privately and on your own time it's not hurting anyone. Same with an atheist, if you wanna not believe in anything on your own time then I don't have a problem with that.

There are however a number of people who call themselves atheists and they like to purposely go out of their way to force their beliefs on others, the same can be said for Christians. This is not an accurate representation of most Christians or atheists. Just my opinion, not trying to cause a big commotion or anything.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw -2 points-1 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Rational debate and criticism or even ridicule of any given topic isn't nearly the same thing as forcing someone to not believe in the topic. (How would you force someone to believe something anyway?) It seems like you're trying to shut down or censor opposing viewpoints.

[–]ConundrumSteve 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No I'm not trying to censor or shut down anyones viewpoint. If you believe in a higher power then that's cool, if not then that's cool too... I just don't see why so many people feel the need to fight about and prove that they are the ones who are right when in the end it doesn't matter.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think debate on any topic is helpful. It either strengthens or weakens the case for whatever is being debated, with the end result of stronger and better supported ideas prevailing.

You say that it doesn't matter in this particular case who's right, but there are a great many people that would disagree with you. I, for example, think that taking a mental shortcut and answering the unknown with "god did it" is a destructive intellectual dead-end that prevents the believer from investigating the matter any further. Or, at the minimum, it forces the believer to force whatever evidence he or she finds to fit whatever dogmatic beliefs they already had. Not a very productive way to find objective knowledge. Who knows how much further along humankind would be if all the billions of hours squandered worshiping myriad supernatural deities had instead been devoted to rationally and objectively expanding our collective knowledge?

[–]ConundrumSteve 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not everybody who believes in God thinks that the only possible explanation for the universe is "God did it". You seem to be putting an entire group of people into one category without considering each person as an individual.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I suppose I was addressing the vast majority of theists. I'm curious, what are a theists other explanations for the unknown?

[–]ConundrumSteve 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well personally I believe in God, but I don't think that the universe exists only because of him. I have a very strong belief in science as well. I have always felt we should be open and respectful to the views and opinions of everyone, only then can we truly learn. Focusing only on one thing seems ignorant. I believe in God, but I guess I am very open, and I understand the power of science and how easy it would be for someone to say that there is no God, but I guess that is why they call it faith. I hope I haven't come across as a rude or opinionated person.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Interesting thoughts. I can't speak for everyone but I would imagine you'd be in the minority of theists when it comes to your dualistic view of the origins of the universe being deistic and materialistic at the same time. You say focusing on one thing is ignorant, where I would say focusing on the evidence at hand and struggling to find answers that way is a humble and honest way to look at our reality. No worries as far as coming off as rude or opinionated, I'm enjoying the discussion.

[–]ConundrumSteve 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Also, you seem to look at religion as something that has crippled humanity, and I can definitely agree on certain aspects of that. At the same time however, if people did not have an underlying fear that they would be severely punished for committing immoral acts like murder, then perhaps the world would not be as far along as you think. And I'm not trying to say that people without religion are immoral, I'm just saying that things would be different and perhaps in a world like that, killing someone for personal gain would be much more common.

[–]ConundrumSteve 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My initial post wasn't really a comment about the picture, it was a comment about the Christian/atheist war that appears to be all over Reddit. You have to admit though, if this pictured the opposite (a Christian mocking an atheist) this would be downvoted to the end of Reddit. I think that says a lot. Cute cats though

[–]Seref15 -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, I'm sure judging and belittling someone's beliefs will undoubtedly get them to see reason and join your side.

[–]hyperdub5 -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Atheist cat finds your prayer cute but ultimately furtile.

FTFY

[–]smilenowgirl -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

lol so cute.

[–]the_goat_boy -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why not Lenin Cat?

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 30549 on app-05 running 152ff4e.