this post was submitted on
682 points (58% like it)
2,345 up votes 1,663 down votes

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 299

[–]biscuitball 99 points100 points ago

instead of dinosaur bones testing our faith, what if god put the bible here to test our reason.

[–]imsorrykun 37 points38 points ago

If I was god I would want to weed out the mentally ill. Makes sense.

[–]FacsimilousSarcasm 5 points6 points ago

Assuming god is a "just god," he would provision for the impaired to be exempt.

[–]imsorrykun 8 points9 points ago

I'll make room in my imagination if it makes you feel better. :P

[–]jim-_- 2 points3 points ago

well if we expand on what you just said (I have no idea if I'm using that right) if god wanted to weed out the mentally ill by giving the world the bible.. too choose the reasoning people to go to heaven then there is still a heaven and we then can presume there is still a hell for the other people...

If we accept Dante's layers of hell theory god would be sending the retarded to burn for all eternity... soooo who in history killed retarded people and had a method of killing that included burning people...

[–]imsorrykun 1 point2 points ago

well to be fair, from a neuro physc perspective, the "retarded" aren't considered mentally ill by default. They consider them mentally delayed. Mentally ill is some one being treated by psych for other issues like delusions and what not.

:P you still get up boats.

[–]papadop 0 points1 point ago

Mentally ill is not the same thing as stupid and gullible.

[–]JeanLucSkywalker 2 points3 points ago

Whoa.

[–]Blindheadshot95 1 point2 points ago

[–]RodrigoAlves 1 point2 points ago

I heard a similar argument for gay people:

"God made people gay to test if their faith could make them straight again. Because you find God when you have faith."

and

"God made people gay to test if their love was strong enough to survive people's faith against them. Because you find God when you have love."

[–]TheTragicReturn 2 points3 points ago

Seriously, thank you for making this comment. I wish I had thought of it.

[–]Elranzer[!] 10 points11 points ago

Why does God (Jehova) always look like Zeus in illustrations?

[–]matsyes 13 points14 points ago

Because Jupiter looked like Zeus and Jupiter was the king of the Gods according to Romans, the dominant power in Western Europe while Christianity spread.

[–]cureboi69 33 points34 points ago

looks like atheist god is just as misogynistic as the other one

[–]TypicalHaikuResponse -1 points0 points ago

At first I though he meant in the sense that women wouldn't get into heaven because lack of reasoning skills.

[–]cureboi69 5 points6 points ago

My understanding

Was "sluts" are free in heaven

Like a cheap gift bag

[–]larrylemur 0 points1 point ago

This isn't a haiku!

[–]Ulfhedin -2 points-1 points ago

I thought he was saying that even promiscuous people get into heaven and it was a direct contradiction of the 72 virgins of Islam. God also gave sluts reason (in this intellectual exercise) so I assume he isn't forcing the women, he is going to find women who freely choose to sleep with him and the other dude. Reclaim the word slut and redefine it as: a person who is very amorous and open with their sexuality.

I am proud to be a slut and I love sluts.

[–]DafyddCymraeg 19 points20 points ago

You had me until the last panel. Was unnecessary.

[–]Naedlus 2 points3 points ago

Pretty much... so many interesting people up there if that was the case... something along the lines of "I'll tell you more later... Lenny Bruce has a new set! Let's go check him out" or "... Janis Joplin's gonna be on stage in five minutes."

[–]DarthSatoris 5 points6 points ago

Reminds me so much of David Mitchell's comment on this episode of QI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ha18O1dAI

[–]Havoksixteen 4 points5 points ago

Ahh, someone else who thought this. Awesome. More people ought to watch QI :)

[–]wtfOP 14 points15 points ago

i hate this comic. not to mention this is posted for the 50th time this month.

[–]st_gulik 1 point2 points ago

Then let's down vote this shit to the bottom every time we see it.

[–]actingSmart 2 points3 points ago

"I do not feel obliged to believe the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

-Galileo

[–]andiW 2 points3 points ago

I guess heaven is only for athiest men.

[–]Fordiman 87 points88 points ago

For that last panel, cross-post to /r/TwoXChromosomes, then ask yourself why there are so few female atheists.

Just because you don't have a puritanical morality restricting your use of profanity doesn't mean degrading half the population is inconsequential. Not saying you can't - you can do whatever the fuck you want - just identifying a telling connection.

[–]st_gulik 79 points80 points ago

The entire comic is juvenile crap, not a single redeeming feature. The art is high school art class (look at the size of that guy's left hand in the first panel! Elephantiasis!), the damn thing is plastered in word balloons, and the two main things in the text are, A.) God is real and he only likes atheists, and B.) women are sluts. WTF!?

The first time I saw this comic was mild distaste, recently when HurrHurrthereisnogodpreteenapatheists posts this to this subreddit I've hidden it, but now I've decided that if I ever meet the artist I will insult him to his face and make him feel bad about himself and his "art."

ಠ_ಠ

[–]Fordiman 6 points7 points ago

Note to self: the boys of /r/atheism really do not give a shit about attracting women to the movement.

[–]peterpanini 19 points20 points ago

I wanted to say something about this, but I couldn't figure out how to without sounding like a feminazi. You said it really well, thanks.

[–]guitarist9108 35 points36 points ago

As someone who doesn't even identify as a feminist, I see the problem with the last panel clear as day.

I mean, it's no shocker that yahweh is a misogynist, but to espouse it as a good thing for atheists is pure immaturity on the author's part.

[–]Fordiman 8 points9 points ago

It's ok. I don't identify as a feminist either. I think the intellectual side of feminism has gone all wrong, in terms of trying to redefine language. You don't get to redefine language by fiat. It simply doesn't work like that. Stop trying to shoe-horn ideas in by coining new terms and fucking explain yourself.

Incidentally, I consider myself "equalist" - I don't think people should have special bending powers.

[–]fruchle 3 points4 points ago

Incidentally, I consider myself "equalist"

Try "humanist" as a label: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

(just lightly suggesting to someone who is against coining new terms ;-) )

[–]Jess_than_three 1 point2 points ago

Incidentally, I consider myself "equalist" - I don't think people should have special bending powers.

You're not very popular in /r/thelastairbender, are you?

[–]Lovebeard 0 points1 point ago

Amon your side.

[–]imsorrykun 1 point2 points ago

I don't know if I fully agree. I don't think it is fair to call the word "slut" profanity, nor do I think of it as a negative. If they said "whores" I would say that was offensive. But I consider myself some what of a slut, but we may have different definitions. Try to condense "Some one who willfully seeks sexual pleasure and relishes in the experiences" into one term. There are some porn stars that would find the term "whore" offensive but "slut" inoffensive. And I don't restrict the term to gender.

[–]whiskeyonsunday 25 points26 points ago

The problem is that 'slut' has a definite negative connotation in our society and you can't divorce it from its context just because you want to.

[–]peterpanini 19 points20 points ago

I think it was offensive in this particular instance. It made me uncomfortable, personally.

[–]imsorrykun 0 points1 point ago

Can we explore that for mutual understanding?

//edit// I'll give you upvotes if we can figure it out.

[–]peterpanini 16 points17 points ago

I also think that the term slut can be used for males or females, but I doubt that was the meaning in this comic. I typically assume that it's being used with a negative connotation because it usually is. It seemed to me that this was very male-oriented and while there was an actual conversation with the man, the sluts were basically just there for sexual enjoyment and were referred to with a term that illustrated that sentiment. It also reminded me of the 72 virgins thing which has always disgusted me. Maybe that isn't what the writer meant, but that's how I read it.

EDIT: fixed words.

[–]imsorrykun 3 points4 points ago

Ok, I can see that. I figured that's what you were meaning. I see sex as a mutual enjoyment and have been raised with a very loose "slutty" family. An aunt that is a swinger, a transgender Uncle FtoM, a porn collecting grandfather that made sure I knew the anatomy and skills of sexual pleasure from books since I was 6. A grandma that ran a sex toy store for older women. It was used as a way to get me to read, (8th grade reading level in 1st grade.) So I saw it as god and this guy having a good time with women mutually. No more offensive than saying "lets go get shit faced on cheap vodka."

[–]peterpanini 3 points4 points ago

Cool, I can see your point of view too. I grew up in a Christian/sexually-repressed environment, it's interesting how we can interpret this so differently.

[–]imsorrykun 1 point2 points ago

Exactly, I think there is a rooted idea that some how spun off "Christian" sexual repression in it's perception of loose couplings. It was considered negative in general, but since a male dominated society was more free to express their urges, repressed women became objects. Really I think we should separate the desire of the heart from sex a little, let it have an outlet that empowers both sexes. To me that is healthy. The modern porn industry is starting to see this when female actors start their own companies and take control of their bodies and what men should find sensual about them.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]imsorrykun 2 points3 points ago

I don't think it would be a better case replacing it with an expensive object. The point of that statement wasn't meant to draw a parallel between women and cheap alcohol. I was just saying it wasn't offensive since I consider myself a "slut" maybe god and that guy are going to "rustle" me up.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Fordiman 8 points9 points ago

It's a word that's commonly used as a weapon. That's profanity in my book.

Not that I have a problem with the judicious use of profanity - but this was not judicious; it was flippant and used in a way that can repel women, given its societal baggage.

It's nice that you've shed that baggage. You're already in the community, so you're not exactly the audience I'm worried about.

[–]imsorrykun -3 points-2 points ago

Meh, this is over blown for the word. The more you make it seem evil the more it reinforces it as profanity.

It's better to just be a slut.

[–]Fordiman 8 points9 points ago

It's not about the word; it's about the deprecation that it implies, and the negative consequences of that with relation to a particular goal of the atheist movement.

Sure, you may see nothing wrong with the word "slut"; neither do I. What I see wrong is a couple of guys going to "rustle up some sluts", as if you could go to the shop and grab a couple.

It's objectification, and it really doesn't even matter if the sluts are male or female - but I know exactly which group is historically more likely to have the word thrown at them.

[–]EvilStellar 17 points18 points ago

It's not about which word was used, the point is the same... it's about referring to women as objects to be used.

[–]imsorrykun 2 points3 points ago

What if both characters were women? Is it more a repetition of a of a negative social standard. I don't mean this as a hostile thing, just wanting to explore this some more because it has interested me for a while. If it was just "let's go enjoy the company of some women" would that be better or just as bad?

[–]EvilStellar 11 points12 points ago

If both characters were women it would still feel odd to me? But I think it would slide by as less offensive to most because we don't live in a culture where men are frequently objectified. (Yes it happens, but not with the same intensity and frequency as the other way around.) As for the word "sluts," you made a point that some women just enjoy sex, which is great! But usually the word "slut" refers to young women with serious emotional issues trying to find acceptance in the wrong way. Beyond just using a woman as an object, it's taking advantage of an injured person.

If they said something about enjoying the company of women I think it would be much better. While it still implies the possibility of fast sex, the audience imagines a party or something rather than an empty machine just waiting for some man steak. Actually I was trying to think of a similar example for my last post but gave up and decided to keep it short...

The other posters may disagree, just my two cents.

Edit: I realize I've just contradicted myself with the word thing, but I think it's helped to illustrate my point? shrug

[–]imsorrykun 1 point2 points ago

Then I need to find a quick catch all term for women who are independent and emotionally stable that enjoy frequent sex that isn't rooted in the foundation of relationships. I enjoy monogamous relationships that blossom into intense emotional attraction to each other. But if you let your sex drive lead your heart around and don't separate them, you're looking for trouble.

//edit// I'm actually trying to see if you have a negative perception on sex. That is something that I have had to put up with negatively for a long time. And I don't mean lack of sex. The general stigma that active sex lifestyle is nefarious has ruined a lot of lives.

[–]EvilStellar 1 point2 points ago

I do not have a negative view on sex, I think it's awesome. Whether it's monogamous or not doesn't matter so long as both parties agree on the terms. The issue with this comic is not sex though, it's about saying half the population are walking vaginas.

Edit: too many words

[–]imsorrykun 3 points4 points ago

I can't see the comic that way, I know many women I would not call pure, or sluts. But if you take it as sexism, then it is sexism. Perception is fickle.

But still help me find a good word that isn't offensive for a mentally stable, independent, amorous woman, who sees men as a source for their own sexual pleasure. Some one who could be said to "objectify" men. Because I don't think there is a term. All of the ones I can think of usually are negative or are a mental illness.

[–]Fordiman 1 point2 points ago

I would not call pure

What would you call pure?

[–]Fordiman -1 points0 points ago

I like "courtesan" - while it is used as "high-class whore" in some circles today, it basically means "powerful woman".

[–]Fordiman 0 points1 point ago

I don't see how changing the genders of the objectifiers, or the implied genders of the objectified, makes the act any less reprehensible.

There's a reason I couldn't stand "Sex and the City" when I was a teenager, incidentally.

[–]EdinMiami -1 points0 points ago

Have you ever fucked a mature woman? Trust me, when you do, you will come away with the undeniable feeling that it was she who used you.

[–]EvilStellar 4 points5 points ago

I am a mature woman...

[–]EdinMiami -3 points-2 points ago

Then you know exactly what I mean...

Your sheep's clothing would have fooled me had you not confessed.

[–]Filbert_Turtle -1 points0 points ago

Is it just the word "slut" that implies they are being used or the the statement in general. For example if the last panel said, "C'mon I will tell you more later but first lets go get laid". Would you still find it offensive?

[–]Fordiman 1 point2 points ago

Your assumption is that everyone would enjoy being used as "sluts", which carries a connotation of objectification that "let's get laid" does not.

[–]Not_Me_But_A_Friend 0 points1 point ago

On way Privilege manifests itself is when vast segments who are offended are dismissed and told it is their fault. You sir/madam are oozing privilege.

If it were true that the majority of women who fight for equality did not find this offensive then you would have a credible point. But when the very people who fight this type of portrayal tell you it is offensive, that should be good enough for you.

[–]Fordiman 3 points4 points ago

First: I agree with you - but I want to make the case that you're approching the problem of eliminating arguments from privilege less effectively than is reasonable.

An argument from privilege is always the result of an assumption - that others have the same access, or think through things the same way, or react the same way as you do.

An accusation of privilege without identification of the assumption is privilege in itself; you're assuming the person has the rights psychology background to even know what you mean, and to peel back their own assumptions. If they could do that, they'd not have made the error in the first place.

So the solution is not to accuse privilege, but to identify the assumptions of privilege being used in the arguer's reasoning.

[–]imsorrykun 1 point2 points ago

good point, god and that guy could both be gay... no one has gone down that angle. and "sluts" still apply.

[–]FredDorfman -4 points-3 points ago

If they said "whores" I would say that was offensive.

I don't think being a whore is a bad thing at all. It's a job, you have sex for money. No shame in being a sex-pro who charges for services. Hell, in some ways that's better than being a slut.

Sex is always a transaction. I don't care what anyone says. With whores it just happens to be a transaction of paper with digits printed on it. You aren't paying a whore for sex, you're paying to skip the pretense and the absurdity of the "chase."

[–]imsorrykun -1 points0 points ago

I would find it offensive, since I don't take money. There are some people though that wont find it offensive at all, and if they want to use it I don't care.

[–]Klowned 18 points19 points ago

That dude might be gay. Don't just assume girls are the only slut available, what are you, sexist?

[–]st_gulik 9 points10 points ago

The average percentage of homosexual men in the world population is somewhere between 5-15%, so roughly 10% average. This is a small minority of the population.

Chekov's Gun states that if you show a gun at the beginning you need to use it at the end. This means that IF our dead atheist male was gay then the author should've had some clue, some Chekov's Gun at the beginning to show that he was gay. There is no such clue. SINCE the three most popular English Language dictionaries in the world (Websters, Oxford's, Dictionary.com) all say that the term sluts refers to women and since roughly 90% of all men are straight we can assume that without a Chekov's Gun of Gayness for the dead atheist that God, also typically depicted as a hetero style omnipotent male is referring to women and not gay male sluts, a far far less common usage of the term.

So Insane Klown Posse, Do YOU think that the God is referring to men or women in this shitacular comic?

[–]Jess_than_three 6 points7 points ago

(Also, you're using Chekov's gun backwards. The logic goes "if P, then Q" - where "P" might be "There is a gun (or some similar prop or clue) in the beginning" and "Q" might be "There is a gun (or similar prop or clue) is used later on"; P entails Q, but Q does not entail P. Q without P in this case would be deus ex machina, I guess, which is also a thing.)

(Other than that you're right and this comic is terrible.)

[–]st_gulik -1 points0 points ago

I know, and a lack of Chekhov's gun can be indicative of a lack of intent by an author because an author is only including material that adds to the story. That or they can't write with a crap and leave a lame DEM as you pointed out. :)

[–]Klowned -2 points-1 points ago

I hadn't ever heard of Chekov's Gun, though there are no universal "rules" that are catered to by all.

I guess my name could be confused for ICP, which I had listened to for a while, though I had come up with this name before I had heard of them. So my name isn't actually based on ICP.

Also, based on your use of the word shitacular I'm thinking you're an SRSer. Who let you out of your cage? Back to SRS with you, go on now!

[–]IAmASocketMan 2 points3 points ago

As a male atheist (who unsubbed from this shitacular subreddit a while ago and only registered to do so) the use of shitacular is correct. This comic is shitacular and you don't have to be a loony SRS to figure that out. Michael Bay could have made this in to a Transformers movie with a few explosions.

[–]st_gulik -1 points0 points ago

Hardly, I'm an almost six year /atheism member and proud of it. I was not aware that SRS uses the phrase shitacular, probably the only positive thing they've added to Reddit.

And you're foolish if you think storytelling rules are not universal. Go read tvtropes on it, also check out Deus Ex Machina and why this comic isn't that either.

You're admission that you listened to ICP confirms all the bad things people suspect about you, and I have to ask, how do magnets work Klowned, do you know?

[–]Klowned 1 point2 points ago

Universal storytelling isn't a rule that is followed by everything. Using your thought process we might as well skip to the last page of a book or skip to the last 5 minutes of a movie we are enjoying. Considering your assumed knowledge of storytelling, I think you'd realize how hypocritical your thinking is.

If you're going to assume character traits about someone based on the music they listen to, by your very assumption of my name is an admission in itself that you have heard ICP before, you may have to do some self evaluation, st_gulik.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+do+magnets+work

[–]st_gulik -1 points0 points ago

The only assuming being done here is you. Storytelling in English has very clear rules about what works and what doesn't. Did you learn about contextual clues in third grade? Why don't you read up on the definitions of the word rustle, specifically the ones not about leaves. @_@

[–]Klowned 1 point2 points ago

Storytellers are not required by anything to give any such hints. They can just "come out" at any time. It might be helpful in some cases, but there is no enforcable requirement.

[–]st_gulik -1 points0 points ago

Except the quality of their story. If they just come out it's called a Deus Ex Machina and is considered a sign of a bad storyteller.

[–]Klowned 2 points3 points ago

Hmmm.

After googling that I can see your point on the storytelling matter on a plot point. In terms of character personality, I don't think it has to be so scripted.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]JaronK 20 points21 points ago

But, if heaven is full of sluts, isn't that saying slut is a good thing? Isn't it sex positive? Aren't you the one deciding that sluts are bad, despite the fact that in this comic it's already turning preconceived notions of what's good and bad on its head and saying that sluts go to heaven?

[–]squigs 7 points8 points ago

No it's not. He's going to to find some women for consensual sex. This is something that God approves of since he let them into heaven. This is surely the point of the comic.

What word would you use for women who enjoy sex that might be looked down upon by devout christians? Bearing in mind that this is a comic, so long winded terminology such as I just used ruins the flow.

[–]Klowned 8 points9 points ago

sexist assumptions

key wording here.

sex-negative

NO! They're actively seeking sexually active individuals for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity!

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Klowned 2 points3 points ago

Would you say more than less men think like this? I think that might be a negative stereotype. I think any self respecting self-shamer would deny any such hurtful allegations :/

[–]FredDorfman 0 points1 point ago

You strike me as someone who has a large pinecone up their ass.

[–]s0crates82[!] -2 points-1 points ago

Shaming? Where'd you read that? Can't two dudes go have a slutty time with another slutty pair of dudes?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Gentleman_Thief 10 points11 points ago

Not if you're someone who condones Slut-Walks.

[–]Fordiman 14 points15 points ago

Slut walks are to combat the negative connotation that exists societally, as well as to empower rape victims and others on whom "slut" has been used as a weapon.

[–]TroubleEntendre 1 point2 points ago

You really miss the point of those events, don't you?

[–]imsorrykun -5 points-4 points ago

THANK YOU!

[–]Fordiman 3 points4 points ago

Oh, goody. Then they're denigrating everyone instead. So much better.

[–]downtown_vancouver 2 points3 points ago

Well if there's a slur involved in the "joke" it's better that it be non-specific as to gender, skin color, age etc, isnt it?

And I don't think that it's necessarily a slur, and using "rustle" in the comic could easily be an indication that it's MEANT to ignite such a controversy.

[–]Klowned -1 points0 points ago

Hey! Quit looking at slut like it's a shameful thing!

[–]eTrevor 1 point2 points ago

then ask yourself why there are so few female atheists

This makes no sense at all. You are referencing an individual comic strips use of a word as the reason for a lack of female presence in atheism. Which first of all is not true. Second, it does not even compare to the scriptures of all of the major religions offences in this area, that are chauvinistic, homophobic, and just plain ignorant.

Jokes are meant to not be taken seriously. Religious Scripture is the foundation for these so called morals.

The use of the word Slut here, is in the context to suggest that God is not really this uptight guy portrayed in the bible and could give a flying fuck about morals in the traditional sense, and actually uses the bible to keep the 'flock' out of heaven because they didn't think for themselves. Jokes by their very nature must slight someone or something or they wouldn't be much of a joke.

I grew out of knock knock jokes and the kind they print on Popsicle sticks years ago. Higher comedy needs to sink low to properly expose the reality that we live in. I am not going to say that words don't mean things, because they most certainly do but sometimes the use of a word can be in light of itself. It is not for you to lease out or tell people who can and can't use it in what context. The use of the word slut is fine because it is a concept that exists within our society, also it suggests that only 'Sexually Free' Women get into heaven. Don't turn to comedy to break grounds for standards and practice, because I can guarantee that You are going to have a bad time. the bluest comedy is most often the truest if you don't flip your shit before the punchline. Comedy is the fun house mirror of reality, it can only reflect what is there already but sometimes it blows things a little out of proportion.

[–]strangersdk 0 points1 point ago

so few female atheists

Care to back that up with a citation, please?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points ago

Again, you are just perpetuating the problem of not making females feel comfortable in the Atheist community. It also goes to show how well this subreddit takes criticism. I don't want to take your freedom of speech away, I simply feel that this joke is in bad taste and your response makes you sound like an asshole. Again, not trying to ban jokes or certain words, just letting you know you how you sound and trying to make you aware of the consequences of your attitude.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Fordiman 1 point2 points ago

No one said you couldn't speak, nor did anyone say their offense was a reason for you to shut up.

What I did say was that if our goal is to get women to deconvert at a rate closer to that of men, we might want to stop scaring them into the agnostic / liberal christian camp.

It's identification of consequences - but no one is going to enforce anything. You just have to live with the knowledge - deny it all you want - that you are part of the problem, and if you want the problem solved, you might want to do something about that.

[–]imsorrykun -3 points-2 points ago

I wouldn't feed the trolls.

I admit I laughed at both, but I am just a bad person. If you could, I am on a quest to find a word for a sexually amorous woman who enjoys separating emotions from sex drive, while seeking to fill her desires. All the ones I could think of were negative or implied mental illness or personality defects.

[–]DafyddCymraeg -1 points0 points ago

Well, would you consider yourself a whore?

I honestly don't mean this nastily; only, by sounds of it, you're looking for partner(s) who share your insouciant attitude towards sex. You, and who're looking for, are ideologically identical. Therewith, this is only my opinion, I'm fine with you using words such as whore; but only if you're happy for same words to be applied to yourself.

My main problem guys who like cruising for sluts; not that I'm saying you do, I'm speaking from a broader experience; is that they balk at the accusation that they're also sluts. For me, that's what these words problematic - that they are use descriptively, pejoratively, towards woman, but not to equally casual men.

edit: typos. I accidentally words.

[–]imsorrykun 2 points3 points ago

I do like the word casual, It is getting closer to what I would say.

But in all honesty, a whore takes money or something with a monetary value.

The word "slut" in some sexual subcultures is like a badge for sexually talented and "casual." I am in a closed relationship with some one who does share my ideological base for sex. Imagine removing sex from the equation of finding love. No one "falls in love" while having to deal with sex attached to it. I did gain affection for my current partner, and we moved to where we are at now.

Even still, I would call myself a "slut" in a heart beat, even though I am currently monogamous.... by choice..... I am a man, and many gay men I know call themselves sluts as well. It can be a nasty word but it would only be so to me if some one threw it at me in malice.

Now think of the way you see sex, many of these comments seem to say being a slut is a bad thing. Which to me is fucked up.

[–]DafyddCymraeg 0 points1 point ago

Fair enough. Perhaps whore wasn't the best term to lead with. I don't instinctively link 'whore' with some form of valued transaction, but I appreciate many people do; whore, I suppose, has often been used for in place of 'sell out' - i.e when someone gives away supposed principles for money - so your definition makes sense.

In regards to

Now think of the way you see sex, many of these comments seem to say being a slut is a bad thing. Which to me is fucked up.

My concern; targeted not at yourself, rather male-dominated social-circles I've been party to...was that many guys use terms alike slut not to mean - 'someone who's just like you, who's after no-strings attached sex, mr slut' - rather, 'let's find you some vacuous, air-headed, bimbo, you stallion and stud'. Therewith, to me, there's nothing wrong with being 'casual' - (it's not for me I'm asexual), but there's something wrong the lexicon of casual sex being one-sided; being seemingly owned by guys, whose women are called names, but who themselves aren't called anything. Do you know what I mean?

Perhaps I'm being naive though.

[–]imsorrykun 0 points1 point ago

Well, for the future it would be better to instead of critiquing an implied masochistic connotation of the word slut, maybe talk about it in a positive light. Possibly, god and that other guy, are about to have an orgy with 3 different genders of sluts. Otherwise your reinforcing it as a taboo word. And I do say "slut" a lot, so lets try to just roll with it.

[–]DafyddCymraeg 0 points1 point ago

Masochistic? Do you mean misogynistic?

While I'm all for interested parties 're-claiming' words, that doesn't alleviate the problem of other parties using said words in, arguably, problematic ways. Two of my close friends are from Dubia, they're Bangladeshi. They consistently refer to themselves, each-other, and friends, as 'paki'. For them, us, and our social-circles, it makes the word positive. However, in and of itself, it does nothing to address the far-right, racist, xenophobes, who use the term as a pejorative. If we don't critique them for their attitudes, and the way in which they chose to use specific words to enunciate said attitudes, nothing changes. In such cases, words need to be 'reclaimed' from bigots, who themselves need addressing, and challenged, for anything become positive.

Therewith, I don't believe I am re-enforcing it as a taboo word. As said, I'm fine with your definition of it. I'm detailing my problem that certain people use it in an unfair, and in my opinion gross, manner. I'm detailing the fact that others, this comic included, re-reinforce a taboo definition - moreover, that pretending that 'our' re-claimed definition is the de-facto definition, so that when comics like this use it...they're meaning it 'our' way, not the 'old' way - is near-sighted and unproductive. With that, and I'm not saying they're terrible for it, a comic from someone who made these isn't going to have characters engaging in orgies with 3 different genders of sluts.

[–]Fordiman 1 point2 points ago

Riiiight. The naughty language was my problem, and not the implied objectification of women. And the tampon? Totally helps.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]imsorrykun 7 points8 points ago

In general atheism isn't a set of standards. There could be racist atheist, sexist atheist, feminist atheist. The term atheist doesn't exclude people from a negative ideology, an individual can be an Atheist and have some of that baggage to sort through. Please don't take this as an attack Fordiman, but I think your taking offense to half the population doesn't make sense. Your saying that all women would be offended by this, I know many atheist women that would want "sluts" many male and female sluts.

[–]Fordiman 2 points3 points ago

Right. And societal context is irrelevant, of course, so the comic isn't implying that the objectified and sexualized people in question are female. That being the case, no women could reasonably be offended or take it as a signal that atheism isn't a safe space for them. And, seeing how the last panel is essential to the comic and not a throwaway gag used as a stand-in for a punchline, the author couldn't have used something more innocuous, like, "let's go get a beer", or "let's go rustle up some action", rather than a word generally considered derogatory.

But like I said, you can say whatever you want - but you're fooling yourself if you don't think the words we use in public aren't read by people with a different - yet still reasonable - view on it than you.

[–]imsorrykun 1 point2 points ago

so you're saying /r/TwoXChromosomes doesn't participate in this humor at all? Like here you're inviting more power to the negative aspect of the word than just letting people wear it that want to. Any one can go any where and over read something and bring their own negative context to it. But the fact you demand "sluts" is only going to ever reference women and an evolving language is interesting.

[–]Fordiman 0 points1 point ago

But the fact you demand "sluts" is only going to ever reference women

I never actually said that. But it's nice of you to speak for me.

so you're saying /r/TwoXChromosomes doesn't participate in this humor at all? Like here

Read the title. They're criticizing the activity in the comic.

I'm sure they do engage in sexist humor - but I don't see how what /r/TwoXChromosomes does is at all relevant to this conversation. I mentioned them initially because I know that subreddit to be the best chance of getting a proper retort, and to demonstrate why a significant number of women would find the last panel of the comic offensive, not because I think they have some kind of moral authority.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]imsorrykun 2 points3 points ago

Commentary, your sourced point is true. It was more directed at the poster above you but ridding on your article. Atheism isn't excluding women. Women have statistically looked for alternative spirituality for a very long time.

[–]Fordiman 1 point2 points ago

Well, atheism isn't actively excluding women at all. We're trying desperately to get them in. But when you get a balkanization of a single gender, like our movement has been on the edge of since the start, you run the risk of chauvinistic walls going up. So our efforts have been falling flat, even as our position becomes more sound.

In the end it may not matter - it's becoming harder and harder to defend religious belief, and it may be that in my lifetime, atheism becomes the non-issue it should be. But i'd like the best minds working on the problem, not just the ones that can tolerate our thumb-headed comments.

[–]imsorrykun 0 points1 point ago

That is probably the best argument yet. If you just said "let's try not to be chauvinistic" I think that would also be a non issue.

[–]Fordiman 0 points1 point ago

I did. In far more words. Except I gave a reason why one would need to be less chauvinistic, used common language rather than something some people might have to look up, and added in some of my own disapproval.

[–]Fordiman 1 point2 points ago

I was going to illustrate how that poll is insufficient to explain the atheist gender gap, but then I remembered that 12 year olds are not worth my time. Think about that next time you think a recommendation of suicide is an appropriate response to a percieved error.

[–]Commando_Metro 5 points6 points ago

This is such a repost. The original also wasn't as profane.

[–]Inukii 8 points9 points ago

apparently you don't need morals to enter heaven either....According to the comic.

[–]ManiacDan 8 points9 points ago

The judeo-christian god is pretty misogynistic, to be fair. Given the shit in the bible, it wouldn't surprise me if their god did use the phrase "rustle up some sluts."

This comis pretty stupid and disgusting though.

[–]WellThatWasPointless 3 points4 points ago

Must have seen this at least 10 times already on Reddit.

[–]TrueGlich 3 points4 points ago

ah damit i was planing on reposting this again next week..

[–]ameliamirerye 5 points6 points ago

i saw this like two years ago i cant believe you got 489 Karma for this!

[–]JakeBlanchy 8 points9 points ago

This comic makes so little sense it literally gave me a headache.

[–]skullbeats 1 point2 points ago

I love how after he sees God he still says he's an atheist.

[–]OccamsAxe 1 point2 points ago

Atheist just means doesn't believe in a god or gods. What about atheist conspiracy theorists, or atheist cryptozoologists, or atheists who believe in ghosts?

[–]iAmericA45 1 point2 points ago

This comic is older than the bible.

[–]davidsimba 1 point2 points ago

Brometheus, the one true god of reasoning and whore rustling.

[–]Kiziaru 1 point2 points ago

The circle-jerk is strong in this thread.

Yes, guys. Somehow, even if heaven exists, you all get to go to it because you're so much better than all those religious folk.

Even when you're wrong, somehow we atheists are still right.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

[–]Flashback02 7 points8 points ago

Need to stop reading! About to have faith!!! Must look away!!!!!!!! Nooooooo... I'm no longer atheist!!!!!!!!!!!! Noooooo!!!!!!

[–]AmmoBradley 3 points4 points ago

This is contradictory.

[–]themcp 1 point2 points ago

This is one of the most frequently reposted things on /r/atheism.

[–]Ozymandiazzz 0 points1 point ago

As an atheist, I always said I could probably reason with god (if he existed) and convince him to let me into heaven.

Me: C;mon god, you didnt really expect me to believe that crap right?

God: I guess not.

Me: I mean, I only used the brain you gave me to learn about your creation...

God: ....you're in

[–]unglad 3 points4 points ago

That's assuming God is a reasonable being.

[–]angry-atheist 0 points1 point ago

who the hell wants to go to heaven anyway? God (if a skyman actually exists) is just an another asshole screwing with people like they are sims. Seriously who want's to hang out with such a douche.

[–]Filbert_Turtle 4 points5 points ago

Hey, I was very good to my Sim Family!

[–]Burns_Cacti 0 points1 point ago

Me, he seems like my kind of guy. Creates a giant fucking universe but sets the physics in such a way that it's impossible to explore most of it in a reasonable amount of time and on top of that he makes 99.999999999999999999999999999% of it lethal to humans. Funny stuff.

[–]Frywad32 0 points1 point ago

If a god does truly exist, why do you assume he/she controlles anything? Why is it assumed if he exists he's an asshole? Are you an atheist because you truley don't belive in god? Or do you belive what religion teaches and you just decided to not follow it?

[–]Hurgledurf 2 points3 points ago

that is a really stupid and unfunny comic and you should feel bad if you upvote it

[–]mrducky78 0 points1 point ago

Pascal's wager: Believe and you get some group and community benefits from a church, some minor stability from religion but there is a slim chance of infinite punishment. Dont believe and you get some freedoms, better access to critical thinking, etc. and the slim chance of being granted infinite happiness.

Pascal's wager has spoken. Lose your belief today!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

This particular picture needs to stop. There is no god to congratulate atheist.

[–]lordofprimeval 0 points1 point ago

Reminds me of this video

[–]nomagneticmonopoles 0 points1 point ago

A hearty chuckle was had.

[–]Guest057 0 points1 point ago

This was hilarious. UPBOATS ABOUND!

[–]TERPINGTON 0 points1 point ago

Turns out only reports make it to the front page.

[–]GregLoire 0 points1 point ago

What now, Pascal's Wager?

[–]foxybingooo 0 points1 point ago

as I always say to my Christian friend when she asks me how would I react if god was real:

'it's better to be wrong for the right reasons than be right for the wrong reasons.'

[–]CAKELIE 0 points1 point ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ha18O1dAI Surprised no one has done this yet.

[–]RoboAly 0 points1 point ago

I'm totally an atheist because I want to go to Heaven and be rustled up by God.

[–]Teiresias666 0 points1 point ago

Infinite repost! Also, at least link to the original source instead of imgur, you twat.

[–]fridgeridoo 0 points1 point ago

Not all religious people are idiots, you know

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I would rather be in purgatory the reason being if there is a god and the bible is his word then he is a royal asshole for having the power to stop wars, hate, bigotry, and ignorance.....hold on a minute there isn't a purgatory anymore because some old fart says so I almost forgot.

[–]reidhasguitar 0 points1 point ago

This proposes an interesting scenario. So God only allows atheists into heaven because they don't believe in God based on evidence (I assume you really mean freethinkers). But then, we were wrong. God is real, and Christians were right when they pointed to the bible as evidence, and they were believing the truth based on evidence (the bible). So then wouldn't we not be allowed in, because we denied evidence that was right in front of us?

EDIT: I think that I should point out that I'm an atheist.

[–]GringoAngMoFarangBo 0 points1 point ago

You're right, but it's a very stupid comic, and I don't think we should look too deeply at it. It's like trying to find existential meaning in your 4 year old's scribblings.

[–]Xident 0 points1 point ago

As an atheist not a day goes by when I DON'T wish for god's existence, because that would make our lives easy.

[–]amoludare 0 points1 point ago

Damn. God has a nice tan.

[–]GrizzlySquid 0 points1 point ago

Reposters don't.

[–]LordBaggington -1 points0 points ago

This is amazing on so many levels

[–]RhettS -1 points0 points ago

Do reposters get into heaven?

[–]Padawanbater -1 points0 points ago

So much fucking this. The breaking point in my own belief. Nobody can defeat the logic of this simple comic.

I always thought it would make for a fucking great movie too!

[–]esolyt -1 points0 points ago

Yaaay! I will get sluts too.