this post was submitted on
841 points (54% like it)
5,370 up votes 4,529 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,128,545 readers

2,782 users here now


Help Atheist Organizations!

The Secular Student Alliance, Camp Quest, and Foundation Beyond Belief were all nominated for the Chase Community Giving program, which awards grants based on the votes of the public. Everyone gets 2 votes on Facebook, plus an additional one if they share a CCG page. The links for them are:

SSA | CQ | FBB

Voting runs from September 6-19


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.

New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes


Related Subreddits <--the big list

GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists

Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

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

a community for

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 ›

top 200 commentsshow all 463

[–]shabatooo 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

At least your sample set is sufficiently large.

[–]metalmusicatheism 72 points73 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Huh. I was going to repost that today.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I mean, it's been, like, 2 days since it's been reposted...

[–]Dylnuge 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I love it when my schools ads keep getting reposted on reddit, cause its one of the few times I can say "saw it on a bus first."

[–]MacCampbell 127 points128 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Excellent idea. It's time atheism got a good catch-phrase. "There's probably no God, so why not just enjoy your life?" campaign was too wordy. 'Good Without God," = three words, alliterative, memorable... could catch on.

[–]johnnyquest88 45 points46 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The problem is still that you're grouping every christian with Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson is a close minded, incredibly bigoted idiot with a microphone and an equally extreme audience. There are plenty of Christians and Atheists alike who are assholes and should be thrown out of society. However, grouping people together based on faith or absence of faith and then intentionally picking a representative such as Pat Robertson to represent that group in a horrible light is... well something Pat Robertson would do if the roles were reversed. Congrats. See what I did there? Called you Pat Robertson. Makes your heart cry a little doesn't it. Not bashing atheism, I'm on the fence myself, but I feel like the argument between religion and atheism is getting to the point of futility only matched by politics. Grow the fuck up(everyone)... That is all. Have a pleasant day.

[–]KneeBeforeScience 51 points52 points ago

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

The point isn't that all Christians are evil or all Athiests are good. The point is that it is possible to be a good Athiest and it is possible to be an evil Christian. This sounds obvious, however where I live this is an alien concept. Just wanted to shed light on my perspective of this.

[–]1agitator 2 points3 points ago

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

Excellent explanation

[–]lpcustom 13 points14 points ago

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

I don't see that anyone was grouping Christians together at all. The image is of the two richest non-believers and the richest believer. The comment you are replying to doesn't try to group Christians together either.

[–]confuzious 8 points9 points ago

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

Grow the fuck up(everyone)

Nice generalization there. Not all here are immature.

[–]Strmtrper6 4 points5 points ago

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

I might have missed someone else pointing this out, but that third panel isn't actually part of the campaign. The first two are usually shown separate as well, as far as I know.

[–]prof_doxin 20 points21 points ago

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

Grow the fuck up(everyone)

Everyone?

The problem is still that you're grouping every...

Hypocrisy, thy name is johnnyquest88.

[–]WolfManZack 1 point2 points ago

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

This argument is retarded.

[–]ubergossen 11 points12 points ago

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

True dat, I'm not a fence sitter by any means, I've been a full blown atheist for five years, but it's a good point.

I can think of a good counter argument, however.

Atheists didn't choose Pat Robertson as the representative for Christianity, Christians did. He's the most watched Christian Evangelist in the world, is he not? At least for protestants in the States he is.

[–]Ohtanks 1 point2 points ago

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

Christians did not really, did they? Go down to LA and ask any Christian over there who he is, and most would have no clue. It's still a generalization to say that this awful semblance of a human being was "elected" as a representative for Christianity... Tons of people watch Jersey Shore and like their show - doesn't mean they were elected to represent everyone that watches them.

[–]ubergossen 1 point2 points ago

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

Yeah, maybe... I'd still say the majority of his audience and definitely the majority of people who donate money to him are Christian.

[–]seeasea 1 point2 points ago

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

I would venture to say that the majority of people who donate to anything in the US are Christian (obviously not reason.org or bani brith, but you understand what I mean)

[–]ubergossen 1 point2 points ago

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

Well yeah, 80% of the states is Christian, so I guess the fact that it's Christians who donate to Pat Robertson doesn't really mean anything.

[–]DigitalOsmosis 1 point2 points ago

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

I'd argue that 'most watched' isn't a very good metric for choosing a religious representative (since religion isn't something most people 'watch') and even if it was, clumping any group of people behind a single individual still suffers the inherent fallacy of any generalization.

[–]ollie77 1 point2 points ago

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

For a non-hierarchical, media-intensive movement like contemporary American evangelicalism, I would think 'most watched' is one of the best metrics we have.

And I don't see clumping or generalizing here at all--on either side.

[–]Hubso 3 points4 points ago

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

The original version of this didn't include Pat Robertson, you can see the fonts used don't match and the lack of logos on his version. Essentially the purpose of these billboards was to highlight those that were good without religion (or theism specifically) and later someone added Pat and circulated it on the internet to perhaps point out his hypocrisy, rather than necessarily applying it to Christians as a whole.

TL;DR: Only the top two billboards are legit

[–]MacCampbell 1 point2 points ago

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

The third billboard is legit in this particular picture. This is the internet, and everything is fluid.

[–]petitfromage 1 point2 points ago

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

well then maybe they should start an ad campaign called "people are assholes no matter what faith they have" or even better,
"be an asshole on your own terms" - brought to you by atheists of america

[–]Machinimatic 9 points10 points ago

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

Logged in just to reply. Thank you for calling everyone out on their immense hypocrisy.

[–]ApatheticElephant 14 points15 points ago

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

Atheism shouldn't have a "catchphrase". It's not a structured organization, it's a general concept people identify with.

[–]Squish60 8 points9 points ago

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

I agree, for the most part. But since we are a minority (at least in the United States) it doesn't hurt to have something that is marketable and catchy. It's a rhetorical tool, but anything that raises awareness of the truth helps. That beings said... I've heard this phrase for a while now. It's nothing new.

[–]spacemanspiff30 0 points1 point ago

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

upvote to you for articulating it better than i could

[–]ElephantTeeth 1 point2 points ago

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

A catchphrase is helpful for starting awareness campaigns; in the United States, awareness for atheism is as important as gay awareness. Gays have it worse in most respects, but both groups are persecuted in the same ways by the same religious groups of people -- and those religious groups of people are going to have outliers that identify more with gays or atheists. These people should know they're not alone, and that being gay or an atheist isn't a bad thing.

[–]MacCampbell 1 point2 points ago

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

A general concept can have a catchphrase. Example: "It's nice to be nice."

[–]NoMagic 4 points5 points ago

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

I believe this is the title of a book by Greg Epstein, a secular humanist chaplain from Harvard. The organization I work for is one featured in his book.

There is a place where secular humanists can give, and the money won't go to support missionary services: The Foundation Beyond Belief. (That's not where I work by the way.)

[–]dhboyd 4 points5 points ago

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

It was also the tagline for a campaign by the American Humanist Association for a long time. They had a few billboards, bus ads, things like that with it on it.

[–]ClownBaby90 1 point2 points ago

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

All throughout my campus last year I saw "There are probably no gods" written it chalk. I love it.

[–]Skepgnostic 2 points3 points ago

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

GWG

[–]BennyGB 1 point2 points ago

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

Game Winning Goal

[–]Borrid 68 points69 points ago

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

As much as I like the message, considering so many American's believe that you cannot be 'good' without god.

I dislike the last panel as it is attacking Christianity instead of promoting Atheism, which was not the purpose of the 'good without god' campaign.

[–]iemfi 35 points36 points ago

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

The last panel looks like it isn't part of the ad campaign but added on by some random person. Different font, no logos and link to website.

[–]userjack6880 1 point2 points ago

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

I remember this being posted a while back (and several times since) and the OP may have stated that the last one was photoshopped in.

A quick search yielded... 10 reposts. There seems to be one that just has Bill Gates, and none before that.

So yeah - the last panel was added and started to float around the Internets.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

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

This wouldn't be /r/atheism if there wasn't some hate in the message.

[–]dethbunny 17 points18 points ago

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

I don't think pointing out that someone doesn't donate and utilizes slave labor is "hate."

OH LOOK, A MILITANT ATHEIST! -sigh-

[–]PunkRockMakesMeSmile 6 points7 points ago

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

I hate that shit, and that's nothing to be ashamed of.

[–]hcirtsafonos 6 points7 points ago

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

Can I get an AMEN?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

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

PRAISE NO LORD!

[–]flanl 1 point2 points ago

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

Ramen, brother!

Praise His noodley goodness.

[–]raresilk8 26 points27 points ago

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

I dislike the last panel as it is attacking Christianity instead of promoting Atheism

No, it's not. It's attacking Pat Robertson, an extremely wealthy public figure who got filthy rich by blaming hurricanes and earthquakes on gay people and then using the donations of gullible Christians to enslave the poor heathens he claims to help.

[–]Bromleyisms 4 points5 points ago

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

To think that they were only thinking of Pat Robertson is a bit naive, especially considering the immense amount of christian-bashing this subreddit does already.

[–]raresilk8 9 points10 points ago

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

To think that they were only thinking of Pat Robertson is a bit naive

You have evidently missed the entire point of the graphic. "God" or "no God" doesn't make people "good" or "not good." It is their individual conduct.

[–]Bromleyisms 2 points3 points ago

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

I understand the point of the graphic, and I think it's wonderful without the Pat Robertson bit.

[–]ivosaurus 1 point2 points ago

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

It makes the illustration complete, since the 'status quo' is that you have to have god to be good; This message gives counter-examples on both sides of the issue, not just one.

This is important, since without that, Christians can reason:

"Oh well, maybe sometimes, in the exception, atheists can do some good too; but I'll always know that Christians are always good, because they always have god!"

The last panel is there to give a counter-example to that reasoning.

[–]raresilk8 10 points11 points ago

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

Atheists and non-believers in Christianity get attacked every single day by Christians. I see no reason to cushion the Christians in some kind of attack-free zone. They should be aware that their attempts to take over the American government and education system make some people very angry.

[–]PunkRockMakesMeSmile 3 points4 points ago

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

Uh, fuck this noise, attacking organized religion does promote atheism. The harm organized religion causes, and the evil pious people commit while justifying their acts to themselves and others by the fact that they are 'doing god's work' (as they see it) is the primary reason most of us are passionate about this subject. It's not merely about 'it's fun to be correct, so let's all talk about how atheism is correct.' Religion is a vestige that has become a cancer, and until it's last remnants are wiped from the earth's collective consciousness, except as a lesson of mankind's capacity for cruelty towards one another, it needs to be attacked, degraded and demolished relentlessly.

[–]InMyHead2Much 11 points12 points ago

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

Came to post the same thing. The first two panels are great. The last panel makes the ad sound snide and small.

[–]ivosaurus 1 point2 points ago

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

It makes the illustration complete, since the 'status quo' is that you have to have god to be good; This message gives counter-examples on both sides of the issue, not just one.

This is important, since without that, Christians can reason:

"Oh well, maybe sometimes, in the exception, atheists can do some good too; but I know that Christians are always good, because they always have god!"

The last panel is there to give a counter-example to that reasoning.

[–]ariesonthecusp 2 points3 points ago

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

Wow, I had no idea Pat Roberson was that rich.

He's estimated to be worth between $200 million to $1 billion ! Pays to run religion !!

[–]radicallymoderate 6 points7 points ago

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

Goodness without god is just empathy taken to its logical conclusion.

[–]TheIronLion 19 points20 points ago

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

TIL that Warren Buffett is an atheist

[–]PokemasterTT 21 points22 points ago

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

He and Gates are both agnostic.

[–]on_the_redpill 15 points16 points ago*

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

I thought we've moved on from using the term 'agnostic' in this way. You either believe in a god or lack belief in a god. (theism / atheism) From there you can say that you do not claim to know that one exists/ doesn't exist. (agnostic theism/ agnostic atheism)

[–]watershot 1 point2 points ago

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

who's moved on?

the rest of the agnostic community hasn't.

[–]Denny-Crane 1 point2 points ago

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

Ahhh... "No True Agnostic"

[–]heterologician 11 points12 points ago

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

Probably because it's not the smartest business move to be an out-and-out atheist in America.

[–]WolfManZack 6 points7 points ago

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

Or they're just agnostic.

[–]excommunicated 8 points9 points ago

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

I don't see agnostisism as a 'level' of athiesm... they are asking different questions.

"IS there a god?"

  • I dunno... there could be or there could not be, I have no evidence.

"DO YOU BELIEVE there is a god?"

  • Nope

I consider myself an agnostic athiest... scientifically I have no way of proving that there is nothing which could be considered a god is out there. I don't think there is personally, but that's my belief.

[–]nucking 0 points1 point ago

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

I'm sorry, but the Gnostic/Agnostic question is not correct.

Gnostic/Agnostic: "Is/Are god(s) knowable?" [ie. can we prove god(s)]

Theist/Atheist: "Do you believe in god(s)"

Examples:

Agnostic atheist: "Gods could exist, but I don't believe in any gods."

Gnostic atheist: "Gods cannot exist and (therefor) I don't believe in any."

[–][deleted] ago

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

[deleted]

[–]excommunicated 6 points7 points ago

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

It's not a ranking system, they are asking different questions.

"Do you believe there a god?" -- Yes is Theism, No is Atheism.

"Is there a god?" -- We don't know for certain, there is no evidence (agnosticism). You can say you have evidence for it, or against it, but... well you don't.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist myself. "I can't prove there is or isn't a god, and it's not something we can really know... but personally I don't think there is."

[–]bearhammer 7 points8 points ago

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

Yeah like those dirty Protestants who believe they can just read the book themselves and give sermons without the Vatican. Either you believe the Pope is the one true steward of God, or you're a fucking heathen, right?

[–]Henry_Killinger 19 points20 points ago

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

Globalist,
Globalist,
Religious Zealot.

[–]Anon_is_a_Meme 26 points27 points ago

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

It amazes me how people forget how Bill Gates made the money he's now being so generous with. Is someone who amassed a fortune due to unethical business practices really the sort of person we should be putting on a pedestal? Isn't buying a virtuous legacy similar to the Catholic practice of buying 'indulgences'? In both cases, 'sins' are forgiven not because one makes the effort to right the results of one's actions, but because of a money sacrifice (and one that doesn't actually have an effect on the person's lifestyle).

And Microsoft (the corporation Gates founded and is still the chairman of) supports both the PROTECT-IP Act and SOPA, which if passed, will destroy the internet as we know it.

[–]perrin 11 points12 points ago

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

I was thinking the same thing. Glad I'm not the only one with a memory longer than ten years. When Gates ran Microsoft, it was the very definition of evil, crushing innovation with its monopoly and laughing at government regulations. It was constantly in the headlines for "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics. The Christians are welcome to claim this nasty piece of work.

[–]Canuckle777 7 points8 points ago

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

He was a business man. He ran a business and he did it well. If every business today felt more compassion for their competition we wouldn't have any innovation and a lot of stagnation. All is fair in love and war, and business is war.

On this image, I think the original idea was to point out what the richest of these two groups is doing with their wealth. It's still pretty slanted but if that was the original intent then the creator of it didn't fall that far from the mark.

[–][deleted] ago

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

[deleted]

[–]Anon_is_a_Meme 6 points7 points ago

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

And is still doing. Microsoft have for years been running an extortion racket the Mafia would be proud of regarding patents they claim they have on Linux. They offer not to sue any company that uses Linux if they pay them some money. They wont say what the patents are. The companies have three options: pay Microsoft protection money, get tied up in a lawsuit with one of the richest corporations in the world, or switch to using all Microsoft software. Notably, Microsoft doesn't go after companies that they think will call their bluff, because if it does go to court, the patents would have to be declared, and they will either be shown to be false, or the Linux community will re-write offending software (thus freeing the companies Microsoft is extorting money from).

[–]perrin 1 point2 points ago

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

No, being in "business" does not excuse immoral and heartless behavior. A huge number of people in the world are "in business" in one way or another, including me. If we all acted with the same disregard for other people that Bill Gates showed, the world would be totally screwed.

[–]sausagefeet 1 point2 points ago

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

Was thinking the same as you three.

[–]marswithrings 2 points3 points ago

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

Thank you. You said what I came here to say better than I would've said it if I'd beat you to it. :)

[–]baka_toroi 1 point2 points ago

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

Those are the same retards that keep praising Steve Jobs

[–]FrogBoiling 1 point2 points ago

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

Thank you.

[–]DigThat 4 points5 points ago

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

I will take this glorious moment that God, or the aliens, or nothing, has given us... To say this

If atheism was represented in the world by some of the people on reddit... It would be my understanding that atheism is a bunch of assholes trying to win you over by insulting your faith... Like monkeys in a cage throwing their own shit at you. I'm sorry, how many of you atheist are similar to bill gates??

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

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

Christian here.... some of the best people I've known have been Agnostic / Atheist. Being a Christian doesn't make you a good person, and being Atheist doesn't make you a bad person. Vice versa as well...

[–]Pagrashtak 14 points15 points ago

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

the last panel is missing the "Are You?" line

[–]kramman1[S] 2 points3 points ago

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

Well, if this happens get attention I'm sure there will be a [fixed] post with that included :P

[–]schafer18 7 points8 points ago

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

The Wikipedia page for Pat Robertson shows a picture of him providing relief for Hurricane Katrina. Although he probably hasn't donated billions of dollars to charity, he's probably not as selfish as this is making him out to be. Kinda makes me wonder how much the guy who made this has donated to charity.

[–]hcirtsafonos 1 point2 points ago

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

Great question...kramman1, you wouldnt happen to have an answer for the guy, would you?

[–]BluFoot 3 points4 points ago

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

On the January 1, 2009 broadcast of The 700 Club, Robertson said, "If I'm hearing [God] right, gold will go to about $1900 an ounce and oil to $300 a barrel."

This guy makes the strangest predictions... Check out his Wikipedia article.

[–]raresilk8 5 points6 points ago

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

Yeah, because we all know that Jesus was really into financial transactions. Like when he threw the money changers out of the temple.

[–]correctsequence 3 points4 points ago

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

Coulda sworn Bill Gates employs the use of sweatshops.

[–]hcirtsafonos 1 point2 points ago

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

shhhh....

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

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

I am a Catholic and I think the catch phrase 'good without God' is a nice simple phrase that doesn't sound aggressive or preachy.

Forgive me if im wrong but the last slide seems a tad bit aggressive and almost a snide at Christians, Im sure there are plenty of rich atheists that dont donate to charity, just as there are plenty more rich and even poor Religious people that donate to charity.

Please dont turn this into a 'who ever donates more cares more' argument.

[–]NoShadowFist 3 points4 points ago

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

This is so unfair. Pat Robertson needs to rapaciously amass wealth so he can fund his camel miniaturization research.

[–]commontatoe 3 points4 points ago

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

Please, so naive. All three are bad and without God.

[–]totek1 4 points5 points ago

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

Stalin was an atheist and a lot of nazis were pagan. Well I think that they are worse than Robertson, and this picture is non objective...actually it is stupid.

[–]Ziaix 6 points7 points ago

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

Any Christian who actually followed their religion would never get to be as rich as Pat Robertson - I'd say that Gates and Buffet act closer to how someone of that religion should than Pat does.

[–]a_stray_bullet 2 points3 points ago

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

I believe this has already been posted. Still good

[–]eraserad 2 points3 points ago

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

It's EVANGELICAL with 1 L. Their argument is therefore invalid.

[–]mafibasheth 2 points3 points ago

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

Where did you find your sources on Pat Robertson? My mom has followed him for years, and I would like some ammo.

[–]gifforc 2 points3 points ago

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

i won't complain that this is a repost. i will complain that it's retarded.

i could put two exemplary Christians next to one bastard of an atheist and have the same effect. it's generalization. you're equating pat robertson to the Christian religion as a whole.

furthermore we've got Jesus Christ on our team, which kind of trumps every generous atheist out there as I'm fairly sure none of them were crucified willingly in an attempt to free humanity.

[–]okcoolbro 2 points3 points ago

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

That's like taking a child raping murderer who happens to be an atheist and making an ad saying "evil without God" and making it seem like all atheists are like him.

I find it funny that most Reddit atheists are now much like the religious nut jobs they often criticize.

[–]Hummy_Seed 2 points3 points ago

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

So what. There are good and bad people of all kinds.

[–]Irtrogdor 2 points3 points ago

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

The problem with this is that christians could just as easily post two pictures of "good guy christian" and one picture of "evil atheist".

It doesn't prove a damn thing.

[–]Madmordigan 2 points3 points ago

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

Nice, these are definitely equal comparisons, obviously you are going to choose a television evangelist, who are almost always corrupt, it's obviously going to look bad. Nice job comparing apples to bananas.

[–]dulceetdecorumnonest 14 points15 points ago

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

You'd think one of those times someone could fix it and spell 'evangelical' right.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

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

[–]excommunicated 6 points7 points ago

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

Nice collection!

[–]mirex0_0 113 points114 points ago*

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

Doesn't matter. From the reddiquette:

Please don't: Complain about reposts. Just because you have seen it before doesn't mean everyone has.

edit: You can downvote it, but considering how many have upvoted it, it's clear many haven't seen it.

[–]CowFu 21 points22 points ago

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

That's hardly complaining, if this post didn't get very high up someone who hasn't seen it before may want to read comments from the times that it has.

[–]mirex0_0 2 points3 points ago

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

I'm just saying don't downvote because it's a repost, and expect everyone else to downvote it.

[–]TheNr24 12 points13 points ago

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

I'm saying downvote if you've seen it before, upvote If you haven't (and if you like it obviously). This way, by the time most people have seen it, it won't reach the front page anymore, until everyone's forgot about it or there are enough new subscribers to /r/atheism that haven't seen this yet, like me.

[–]Bad_Sex_Advice 1 point2 points ago

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

Just solidifying the argument that r/atheism is a huge circle jerk every couple weeks this hits the front page.

[–]Incruentus 3 points4 points ago

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

Agreed. Plus it might not even be that. If I like something enough, regardless if I've seen it before, I upvote it in case someone else hasn't.

[–]drinknderive 6 points7 points ago

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

I've never seen this.

[–]BrokenLever 4 points5 points ago

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

Pretty horribly overposted :3

[–]kicktriple 2 points3 points ago

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

This is reddit. Reposts get you votes

[–]muopioid 6 points7 points ago*

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

Even though I'm an atheist this isn't all that impressive. You can cherry pick atheists who are "bad without god" and theists who are "good with god."

As some other guy said on here, we need a sample size > than 3 people.

If atheists are serious about winning this intellectual debate, then we need to avoid fallacious methods. Why are we stooping to the level of theists who make the tired arguments "but Stalin and Hitler were atheists!!1"?

(yes, I realize Hitler wasn't an atheist)

[–]calebegg 2 points3 points ago

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

The point isn't to make a sweeping statistical argument; it's to show that it's possible to be ethical ("good") without being religious.

As several others have pointed out, the Robinson billboard is obviously fake and added on.

[–]intensity14 4 points5 points ago

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

Saloth Sar - Directly responsible for policies that killed 1.7 to 2.5 million people > ATHEIST

Joseph Stalin - Responsible for the murder of approx 20 million people >> ATHEIST

Mao Zedong - Responsible for the murder for nearly 3 million people >> ATHEIST.

So now do I start a BAD WITHOUT GOD campaign???

You do realize that there is more than one religion in the world? You also do realize that not everyone is a fanatic?

You pose the argument of a 5-year old....

[–][deleted] ago

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

[deleted]

[–]Kafke 10 points11 points ago

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

Good without god, bad without god. Good with god, bad with god.

God makes no difference in this picture.

[–]ivosaurus 1 point2 points ago

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

The point is that it's possible to be either, not that being bad is predestined, because you've started out without god.

[–]TheWaterTemple 1 point2 points ago

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

I am good without god!

[–]hcirtsafonos 1 point2 points ago

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

Prove it!

[–]natophonic 1 point2 points ago

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

I talked to god about my agnostic apatheism, and we're good.

[–]wiggs88 1 point2 points ago

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

Buffett may have "pledged" to donate 99% but he certainly hasn't shown that through action. He only continues to grow his wealth.

[–]ApatheticElephant 1 point2 points ago

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

I don't know this campaign, but I hope its message is that a person's religion or lack thereof is of no relevance to what kind of person they are. Not atheist = good, religion = bad. Also, this kind of thing worries me because one of the biggest complaints you hear from atheists is about religious people who try to convert them. I hope this doesn't become an attempt to "deconvert" people.

[–]clubdepizza 1 point2 points ago

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

Donating to charity is great. But it doesn't mean that these people are suddenly the most righteous people on the earth.

That being said, I'm pretty sure Bill Gates has volunteered and actually put time forward for a cause. Which seems more meaningful than just cutting a check.

[–]ksunwoo6 1 point2 points ago

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

Guys. Just saying, but it's not as if this isn't biased. I'm an atheist, but there are good Christians too. They aren't all bad people. Some of them help people, and help children etc. You shouldn't look at them and represent them as horrible and heartless.

[–]Andrikas 1 point2 points ago

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

Since when does r/circlejerk allow posting pictures?

[–]RichieMcQ 1 point2 points ago

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

What do you mean by "good"?

[–]Khue 1 point2 points ago

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

I don't really think religious people like Pat Robertson. He's probably the last person that the actual reasonable religious would depend on to represent them.

[–]painkilller 1 point2 points ago

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

Pathetic poster, reminds me or typical American political campaign.

[–]Lucky_Bastard63 1 point2 points ago

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

Yea... and that Mother Teresa was a real cunt.... Come on man..

[–]SRowan 1 point2 points ago

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

C'mon, you can't throw everybody into two baskets. You know as well as I do that there are good and bad everybodies everywhere. No need to pigeonhole.

[–]krakow057 1 point2 points ago

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

this.is.stupid

what do I most here on reddit about everything?

that's just anecdotal evidence.

so, what does picking a handfull of people to ilustrate this makes? NOTHING

you can easily pick up Hitler, Mao etc and conterpose this shit.

and, mathematically speaking, there are way more evil people without god and way less good people who are good with/because of god.

who do you think is more likely to be a good person: somone who thinks he only has the police to fool x someone who thinks there's someone ALWAYS watching and judging.

dumb campaing is dumb

[–]Outofmany 1 point2 points ago

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

Um I am pretty sure this is a weak argument isn't it?

[–]motherofamouse 1 point2 points ago

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

I couldn't help noticing that turning around a little with Pat Robertson's name makes Robert Patison.

[–]Myrrun 1 point2 points ago

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

Surely your anecdotal evidence points to a larger trend.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

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

"Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

Gates was profiled by Walter Isaacson in a January 13, 1996 TIME MAGAZINE cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge Report:

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_bill_gate%27s_religion#ixzz1eRiRkvDW

[–]mildmuse 1 point2 points ago

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

ALL OF THE THESE PEOPLE SUCK!!!!

[–]cyclopath 1 point2 points ago

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

[–]joelstrummer 1 point2 points ago

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

I'm going to start off by saying that these ads should have sources for all these statements. I'm curious to know where I can learn about Robertson utilizing slave labor in Africa. Secondly, throwing around relatively lofty terms like "good" or "cruel" presents a problem. It assumes the reader of the ad thinks giving charity is inherently good, or more importantly presupposes an agreed upon definition on the word "good." One of the largest philosophical problems of Christianity is the problem of moral relativism. Once atheists start defining what "good" is we start playing their game. Personally, I don't think giving or pledging to give all your money to charity will do anything help alleviate world poverty and that the fact they're rich doesn't hold any accountability on HOW they become rich, and by what means they are wealthy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

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

I am a Catholic and believe that people can be good or bad, and religion has nothing to do with it. That being said, many people use their religion as a way to promote violence, hatred, bigotry, prejudice, racism, and more. What these other Catholics or Christians fail to remember is that the main message of Jesus Christ is to love your fellow man. That means ALL of them, and not just the ones you like today.

[–]greym84 1 point2 points ago

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

Thanks for the repost, just so I can say once again that who is richer and gives away more wealth is not proof of God existing. It's just a pissing contest and means nothing.

[–]jadarendir 1 point2 points ago

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

Once I get super rich, my plan is to solve the energy crisis, then get assassinated by oil companies.

[–]Tha_Mayor 1 point2 points ago

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

so what your saying is not all atheists are heartless and not all Christians follow what they preach... umm... ya thanks for the update...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

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

False. They are all actually evil for having siphoned away so much money from the grand workforce that filtered money upwards for them over decades in the first place.

[–]qua_omsa_lajeeone 1 point2 points ago

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

I swear I'm look at some cheesy political advertisement, something that you'd see in state governor elections right before you're supposed to vote.

[–]no_gain_no_pain 1 point2 points ago

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

Giving away money sure makes you a good person...not, just like not giving away money you made yourself doesn't make you a bad person. This is the same demagogue tactic that christians use against atheists, using it won't make you any better.

[–]AndWon 1 point2 points ago

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

Those men worship or worshipped wealth. What's clever about this? I'm a Christian, and I don't care about Pat Robertson in the slightest.

[–]Microfuzz 1 point2 points ago

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

It is worth noting that Pat Robertson founded Operation Blessing International, a non-profit that provides hunger and disaster relief worldwide.

[–]bedintruder 1 point2 points ago

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

To be fair. Wealthy Christians and Christian organizations donate plenty of money.

Ya know, 'charities' that send bibles instead of real aid to developing and famished countries. Groups that work against those trying to use realistic means to stop the spread of aids in Africa. Donate to efforts to convert people and spread their ignorant superstition. They also donate to organizations that use the money to lobby against the rights of American citizens based on their archaic and misguided personal beliefs.

[–]unbleevable39 1 point2 points ago

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

Why can't we all just realize that SOME people are good without religion, and SOME people are good because of religion?

Being selective in your thesis does not make you smarter.

[–]skripklubbin 1 point2 points ago

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

HOW MANY TIMES IS THIS GOING TO BE REPOSTED?

[–]Lowbacca1977 3 points4 points ago

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

I find something a tad weak about pledging to give the money, but having not done so, which I believe is Warren Buffett's 99% number.

[–]Ragnalypse 2 points3 points ago

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

Not to mention it flies in the face of science to claim three data points are significant, compared to seven billion.

[–]Lowbacca1977 6 points7 points ago

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

Valid note, although the first two highlight that one can be good without god. As the statement is frequently that being good requires god, you're not talking statistics, you're talking a simple disproof of an absolute claim.

[–]Ragnalypse 1 point2 points ago

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

This is entirely true. More instances would be convenient, but this would definitely be a very strong refute to their claim.

[–]kramman1[S] 3 points4 points ago

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

Would you rather get a pledge from a reputable figure or nothing at all from an evangelical Christian?

[–]Lowbacca1977 4 points5 points ago

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

I meant more that it would be more meaningful were he giving up his wealth while alive. Which I believe he is, making that seem like it's the more significant number to me, even though it's lower.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

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

Is this a campaign just so people can feel good about athiesm. You know you athiests give alot of shit to Cristians but really your no better you make it seem as though your beliefs are better, how is that good?

[–]userjack6880 1 point2 points ago

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

Considering that the last panel isn't part of the official campaign, we're going to ignore that one (I think it's just crude to attack a religion).

The campaign is to promote the idea that Atheists can, and are, good people. There's still an overwhelming opinion among a good portion of the American population that Atheists are immoral, bad, and worthless. This is trying to point out that Atheists are not.

This is not a campaign to show that Atheists are better. This is supposed to be a campaign that combats the negative opinion of Atheists so that we can stand on level ground with the rest of the believing world (at least, in the US).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

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

I 100% agree with you. See I did not know that the US population thought that about Atheists. If you take the last panel out this is a great campaign even though I am a theist i fully support it.

[–]PullOutBoy 2 points3 points ago

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

Warren buffet doesn't pay his taxes and is a cunt but whatever enjoy the circle jerk and down vote me.

[–]marcospolos 0 points1 point ago

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

Yay for overgeneralization.

Why does this shitty subreddit even exist? /r/circlejerk is more logical.

[–]gthcrvn 0 points1 point ago

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

Why do atheists need a campaign slogan?

If you come to my door and preach you are going to get the same treatment that the religious nuts get.

[–]rebelzfire 3 points4 points ago*

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

The thing you fail to realize is that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both donate to their own charities. You obviously don't understand how uber-rich use the 501(c)(3) tax exemptions to keep wealth going on for ever and ever.

They donate millions/billions to their charities and put their family and friends as board members, then those family and friends are put on the payroll of the charity to "oversee" operations and philanthropy. They in return grow the billions and continue to make massive amounts of money in the name of "charity" or "humanitarianism". The best part is they are known of and thought of as "great humanitarians" but it's just a bunch of bullshit.

The best part about donating to their own charities is they avoid all taxes, get a tax credit on future earnings and the 501(c)(3)s aren't required to be audited. It's a win - win situation under the current laws, and if I was a betting man I would say that these laws won't change any time soon.

Just look at the Rockefellers, he amassed billions and most of which went to charity to keep the family legacy going on and on and on and on and on.

You keep bitching about the 1%, this is a prime example of that.

Edit: Pornbama clarified what I was trying to point out. These uber-rich fuckers use charities as tax shelters and shield themselves from taxes, and the rest of the world thinks its because they are doing it in the name of "charity"

@zwangaman No it isn't, but what is is spending very small portions of money on worthy causes to apear legitimate.

@stufff Yes, It benefits them in the short term because they get massive tax breaks for donations. It also benefits them in the long term because they keep the money in their family without the massive taxes it would normally incur to pass it from generation to generation. Do you really think it's fair for the 1% to keep their wealth till the end of time? Estate taxes were created to prevent a small group of people from always controlling most of the wealth but, with the introduction of the 501(c)(3) tax provisions they have been allowed to it. I'm also not saying that they're not doing enough but they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

@bag1234 Exactly, Buffet donates billions to his charities and receives tax breaks on his billions each year. It's a win - win situation for these people and I'm the one being criticized for bringing it up. Unbelievable.

@stufff You are arguing against wars and big government but are bitching at us about our criticism of the government enabling the rich to get richer? I don't understand your convoluted logic.

To everyone else, they may spend a small portion of money too seem legitimate but we all know that in 10-20 years when it's all old news they will be operating for the explicit reason for which they were setup, to keep the families wealthy. Yes Gates may have said that his children will only receive $10m, why would he give them any more? They will be on the payroll of the charities to the tune of tens of millions by the time they are adults.

[–]Shampyon 4 points5 points ago

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

So really, it works just like religion.

[–]stufff[!] 0 points1 point ago

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

The thing you fail to realize is that making charitable contributions like that, even if it also benefits them or their heirs, doesn't benefit them nearly as much as just giving them the money outright.

You're seriously sitting there criticizing them for not giving more when they have given so much? You're an asshole. They didn't have to give anything. I don't even like Warren Buffet as a human being, and I think the Rockefeller family has done a lot to help put this country on the wrong track, but their charitable giving is probably the last thing I would ever think of criticizing.

[–]pornbama 1 point2 points ago

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

I think his point is that Gates hasn't actually given away 90% of his money, he has put it in a foundation which is as much a tax shelter as it is a charity. It has to give away 5% a year but pays no taxes. If the foundation's investments return more than 5% it is a net financial gain for him and a loss in tax revenue for the government.

[–]omaha_shanks 3 points4 points ago

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

True, but Bill Gates is actually helping people. His charities provide vital medical treatment for several 3rd world countries.

[–]Leungal 2 points3 points ago

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

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is very transparent about where it's money goes. I'm also fairly certain (but could use a source) that Bill Gates stated his children would only get around 10 million each, or "enough to be secure and pursue their own dreams, but not get lazy and live extravagant lives."

Not saying other rich families do this, but I have a great deal of respect for both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, and think they are the cream of the crop among the 1%

[–]zwangaman 2 points3 points ago

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

Ah right, because working to eradicate malaria in developing nations is a prime example of "just a bunch of bullshit".

[–]MrFidel 1 point2 points ago

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

My question is who is the richest person in the world?

[–]filthysock 2 points3 points ago

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

Carlos Slim

[–]elelias 1 point2 points ago

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

Evangellical?

[–]pyxlated 1 point2 points ago

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

I'm getting really, really tired of this repost.

[–]aginn 1 point2 points ago

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

this post is about as logical as me pointing to Mother Teresa vs Dawkins and Hitchens. Who as donated more of their life?

[–]Patrick_Sutton_2012 1 point2 points ago

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

Well in Pat Robert's defense, god never said don't own slaves. You just can kill them. You can beat them over the head and if they don't die right away, that is acceptable.

[–]BluFoot 1 point2 points ago

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

You'd be a terrible lawyer.

[–]CharlesSherman 0 points1 point ago

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

This should just have Pat Robinson's part, and then his address and phone number for justice/theft reasons.

[–]capt_0bvious 0 points1 point ago

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

Can we please do a survey containing a sample size of larger than 3 people? We are pretty selective here aren't we.

[–]wx3 0 points1 point ago

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

TIL Bill Gates isn't the richest person in the world.

I'm too busy being poor to know facts like this :(

[–]titsffs 0 points1 point ago

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

gg no re, christians.

[–]doc_brietz 0 points1 point ago

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

Lot's o' money is all great, but how much of that goes with you when you die? I am glad you all post things like this who put off humble people. It does all the work for me.

[–]uleatit_probably 0 points1 point ago

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

Who would dare repost this anywhere with the misspelling and emotional language? Get rid of the last panel.

[–]Rutavius 0 points1 point ago

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

Anybody got a source for those numbers? I'm curious.

[–]spacemanspiff30 0 points1 point ago

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

well done op, well done

[–]Zariwoop[!] 0 points1 point ago

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

My group, the Illini Secular Student Alliance, organized this campaign and a friend of mine designed the ads! The first time they made the front page of r/atheism, someone else added the last panel. Thanks for making us internet famous again r/atheism! :D

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

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

How many fucking times is this going to hit front page?

[–]drderpy 0 points1 point ago

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

Fuck Pat Robertson.

[–]DukeGoogamuke 0 points1 point ago

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

In the same respect (and this is coming from a non-religious person here), Jesuit's own nothing and give away everything. That's some of the basis of being a Jesuit. Technically the church owns all of their clothing and/or materials (car to get to work, hair brush, etc.). It's not my personal goal to become a Jesuit or anything of that nature, but, having been taught by them in high school, they're not all bad.

[–]tribe84 0 points1 point ago

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

There is no god in good... oh... wait.

[–]hcirtsafonos 0 points1 point ago

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

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen, and it does nothing to help your cause.

[–]jeewee 0 points1 point ago

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

This is kind of silly. Atheists always get upset when religious groups start pointing out atheist historical figures who committed atrocities. It's anecdotal evidence that really has no significance to the questions hand. We need to avoid this kind of stuff and stick to well reasoned arguments.

[–]therockshow 0 points1 point ago

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

The website secularsamaritan.com is no longer working.... That's how old this thing is.

[–]arnedh 0 points1 point ago

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

Still needs to correct the spelling of Evangelical.

[–]Bobbyguerilla 0 points1 point ago

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

I'm getting pretty sick of these kinds of posts on all sides of this eternal debate. there are truly evil people that are 'of god' and just as many who are 'without.' It's silly to evoke names like Pat Robertson, who is only christian on his own name-touting, money-raising pulpit. We're better than this. I think rather than using /r/atheism as a bully pulpit for arguing a hot-button issue that divides people so fervently, maybe we can use it as a catalyst to point out hypocrisy and injustice stemming from both theistic and atheistic points-of-view. DOWNVOTE AWAY.

[–]truid 0 points1 point ago

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

I am not religious myself, but even I can clearly see that cherry-picking 2 good atheists and 1 bad Christian is no better than comparing 2 good Christians to 1 bad atheist.

[–]usingpond 0 points1 point ago

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

Wait so are these confirmed atheists?

[–]cn2092 0 points1 point ago

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

Oh. This again.

[–]JdoubleE5000 0 points1 point ago

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

Out of curiosity, is there anyone that can validate the acts attributed to Pat Robertson?