this post was submitted on
619 points (77% like it)
879 up votes 260 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,263,783 readers

1,204 users here now


Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

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
AtheistVids atheismbot secularstudents

Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
11/9-11 Skepticon - Springfield MO
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
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

Read The FAQ

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 ›

all 74 comments

[–]treasonistruth 15 points16 points ago

-Dr. House

[–]TooMuchTongueGuy 16 points17 points ago

Original comic in case you're interested.

[–]FreeDirt 0 points1 point ago

What's with the whole monkey in a suit thing? I'm so...conflicted...

[–]iheartbakon 15 points16 points ago

[–]-Hastis- 0 points1 point ago

I like how you just inverted the smile in the 2nd and 3rd pannel xD

[–]cwumed 7 points8 points ago

Scumbag OP uses title and comic without proper distribution of credit.

[–]nakahi70 2 points3 points ago

If only saying such a thing was enough to argue against a religious person.

[–]flyingfishy58 3 points4 points ago

this is how it actually happens: "gods real." "prove it" "the bible" how does that mean he's real" "fuck you thats why"

[–]aab720 1 point2 points ago

So what do you say when they say "the bible tells me that god exists." (i just got into a debate was lookin for a few pointers). Edit: he now says im possessed by satan because im trying to tell him satan doesn't exist....what?... Edit: closing statement "i win, god is with me logs off"

[–]Uranus_Hz 2 points3 points ago

"You can't have a rational discussion with irrational people."

[–]BradBallanger 0 points1 point ago

FTFY "Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there would BE no religious people." - House MD

[–]squonk666 0 points1 point ago

I found this much funnier than it's probably worth. Good show, OP.

[–]FortyPoundBaby 1 point2 points ago

Man, nuthin's funnier than a monkey in a suit!

[–]punkerror 0 points1 point ago

And if it wasn't for bad luck, I would have no luck at all

[–]VicariousWolf 1 point2 points ago

"THE BUYBULL! HURRR"

[–]sojalemmi -2 points-1 points ago

That guy should be saying, "prove it to me", because that is what he means.

God, being a thing that can not be proven with traditional science, cuz it is not an observable, material phenomenon, is only evident to the individual observer. It is felt, taken on faith, what have you.

Just because there is no evidence tho does not mean that holding the view is ridiculous or stupid, it depends on the perspective, it is a way to view and understand reality. It has just as much merit as the view of a world where god does not exist, for instance.

[–]sizzy 19 points20 points ago

Just because there is no evidence tho does not mean that holding the view is ridiculous

Yes...it does.

So your god can only be detected by feelings? Feelings are based in "material phenomena" my friend. They come from neurological activity.

Your god is indistinguishable from imagination.

[–]nana_nanananananana 2 points3 points ago

To be fair, all sensory input and all thought comes from "neurological activity." Your argument here isn't presented very well.

[–]alexxerth -1 points0 points ago

OUR sensory input and all thought comes from neurological activity sure, but the tools we use's sensory input is through photons, x-ray particles, electrons, etc.

[–]nana_nanananananana 0 points1 point ago

what.

[–]alexxerth -1 points0 points ago

I'm saying that any tool we use to observe the universe can't pick up god, and it isn't based on the neurological activity that can make our brains faulty at times.

[–]nana_nanananananana 0 points1 point ago

I'm pointing out that all perception (including the perception of tools) is "neurological activity." The act of reasoning is "neurological activity." Consciousness is "neurological activity."

If you discount something because it is "neurological activity" then you discount everything you have ever observed.

You have entirely missed the point I originally raised.

[–]sp0ck06 -1 points0 points ago

Are you really claiming the entire experience of being human can be explained as "neurological activity"? Brain in a vat?

[–]AlvinQ 1 point2 points ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "explained by", as that is a slightly loaded term - but I don't think that there are any replicated research results that point to consciousness NOT being a side-effect of our working brains...

[–]nana_nanananananana 0 points1 point ago

Are you suggesting there's something other than neurological activity involved in our brain's operation? Something supernatural?

Really?

[–]sp0ck06 0 points1 point ago

Feelings come from "neurological activity"? Prove it.

[–]sojalemmi 1 point2 points ago

Feelings are nothing more than chemical reactions in your brain...so yes, they come from neurological activity. It is quite interesting, really.

The only thing you have ever enjoyed in your life has been dopamine and serotonin.

As far as proof, just do a google search if you want to learn more.

[–]Lots42 1 point2 points ago

"Just because there is no evidence tho does not mean that holding the view is ridiculous or stupid, "

Hallucinations should not be coddled simply because they are nice hallucinations.

[–]sp0ck06 0 points1 point ago

Kierkegaard's Leap of Faith argument would like a word with you.

[–]AlvinQ 3 points4 points ago

And just as much merit as believing in Santa, Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russels Teapot.

So your point is...?

[–]alexxerth -1 points0 points ago

How many of these things are there now?

Clarification: I mean how many things are there to counter arguments like sojalemmi's? I realize there can be near infinite, but how many are popularly used ones?

[–]Oxygg 0 points1 point ago

As many as there are actual gods.

[–]alexxerth 0 points1 point ago

I was saying how many purposefully fake things are there to counter stuff like sojalemmi's post. I suppose there could be infinite, but how many roughly are popular ones?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

It has just as much merit as the view of a world where god does not exist, for instance.

I don't know about that. Would you say belief in god has as much merit as the belief in Thor? Buddha? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The fact that they're all equally impossible to prove means, in my head, that they all must be wrong.

edit: they all have equal un-merit

[–]DrPeacemaker 0 points1 point ago

Those things haven't been dis proven, either.

[–]Deathalicious 0 points1 point ago

Setting aside whether faith is a stupid thing to have or not, I would argue that all faiths are equal in merit. Which is to say, if you "believe" in Buddha (although evidence exists that he did exist as a person, so I suppose you mean whether you believe in his teachings) that is just as valid in believing in any god.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Yes, belief in any one god/religion has just as much validity as any other one........ making all of them equally invalid.

[–]Deathalicious 0 points1 point ago

The problem is assigning merit to either world view or trying to assess which one is worse/better. It is foolish to try to evaluate the worth of the conviction that there is no higher being when that position is held by someone who does not believe in a higher being. Similarly, it is ridiculous to try to quantify the logic of believing in something which cannot be proven to exist when looking at someone who believes that something can exist without proof of its existence.

To put it bluntly: those who are atheists are atheists because they are unwilling/unable to believe in something unless it can be proven to exist, which is an admirable perspective to have. Those who are not atheists believe it is possible for something to exist which cannot be proven to exist, and they call that kind of belief faith. This is also an admirable position to have.

I've made the argument elsewhere that the faith/no-faith debate is like people's attitude towards cilantro. Now it happens that for some people, cilantro tastes awful, like soap or something. For those who don't have this experience, they don't mind if cilantro is in their food. For those who hate it, it is a real problem and they can taste even the tiniest amount of it in a dish and it can be totally ruined. But in the end, it isn't about the cilantro, per se. It's about some gene somewhere that makes some people taste something terrible in cilantro. It would be ridiculous for someone who loves cilantro to ridicule someone for not eating it when it tastes like soap to that other person.

Faith and atheism is exactly the same as cilantro with the difference, of course, that it has been made to be this big deal politically. If only everyone would treat it like cilantro -- something that is a personal preference, perhaps even due to a genetic variation between humans -- then everything would be peachy. I'm not expecting atheists to be happy that there are many religious people who are actively trying to push their agenda in government and politics -- I'm one of the religious people who's deeply invested in supporting the separation of church and state. But it would be nice if atheists realized that religious belief is not necessarily a moral or intellectual failing, but rather simply a difference of perspective and inclination. Some people just can't stand the taste of cilantro.

[–]sp0ck06 -1 points0 points ago

This is probably the best post I've seen in this subreddit.

[–]Deathalicious 0 points1 point ago

Apparently, 2-3 people disagree.

[–]drneanderthal 0 points1 point ago

"Just because there is no evidence tho does not mean that holding the view is ridiculous or stupid"

Voices in my head tells me I should stalk you. Is that dumb or should I obey

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]cjcromer912 5 points6 points ago

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/merit merit can also mean deserving. One world view has the same right to exist as the other. One cannot prove or disprove the other.

[–]monkey_gamer -1 points0 points ago

One worldview has the right to exist as another, but that doesn't make it real. Some can be proven wrong. Fortune tellers or mediums, for example. One has the right to believe in a God/s, I agree, but I don't want someone who does to use their view that others don't share to influence law and policy making.

[–]cagg333 -1 points0 points ago

Really? You can't reason with us? That's an awfully arrogant stance.

[–]meepy12345 3 points4 points ago

If you believe in god on here just kinda take almost everything like a joke.

[–]zymurgic 2 points3 points ago

Haha, nice one! I almost thought you were serious, subtle sarcasm is subtle.

[–]Rizuken 1 point2 points ago

Try coming up with a good reason to believe in God other than "it makes me happy to believe it!" anything you do is garbage because its been gone over, time and time again, all the reasons to believe are absolute rubbish

[–]DrPeacemaker -1 points0 points ago

Prove that he doesn't exist.

[–]Kirk__Cameron 2 points3 points ago

Ugh... this is an awful argument, and you know that, or at least should know that.

[–]DrPeacemaker -2 points-1 points ago

My main point was to keep an open mind. There may be something out there that would qualify as a god, that we just haven't found yet. Isn't curiosity and openness to the unknown part of the core of the scientific discovery?

[–]Kirk__Cameron 0 points1 point ago

Should I keep an open mind about dragons, unicorns, and Big Foot? Until there's any evidence to suggest the contrary, keeping an open mind about God is equivalent to keeping an open mind about any imaginary thing that can be conceived by the human mind.

Maybe "God" is a group of fuzzy, pink martians with dildos on their foreheads. There's just as much evidence for that claim, as there is for a god. Also, please note that you are arguing deism. The steps from deism to theism are huge. For theists to say that they know the mind of God and they've had revealed truth from him, is utterly ridiculous. Deism does not make these unsupported claims, other than the fact they believe there's a god.

The burden of proof should always fall on the person making the affirmative statement. You're advocating for an unoverthrowable hypothesis. It's the exact opposite of science. It's shitty philosophy. I can already see the day when we find out what happened before the Big Bang, and the faith based community will most likely say... "Oh wow. I can't believe God caused all this. He's even more ingenious than we thought him in the first place."

[–]DrPeacemaker -2 points-1 points ago

Should I keep an open mind about dragons, unicorns, and Big Foot?

Yes.

keeping an open mind about God is equivalent to keeping an open mind about any imaginary thing that can be conceived by the human mind.

You should keep an open mind about things formed in the human mind. The internet was born in someone's imagination. So were cars, planes, cities and countries. Imagination is the most powerful force on the planet. Don't underestimate the impact it has on the world, or the wonders it has created or has yet to create.

[–]Kirk__Cameron 1 point2 points ago

Please tell me you can see how stupid that statement you just made is.

[–]SgtBakerIsMyName 1 point2 points ago

Is.... Kirk Cameron saying something that makes sense?

[–]DrPeacemaker -2 points-1 points ago

Nope. :)

[–]muffinmaster 2 points3 points ago

Prove to me that Santa Clause and His Holy Noodlyness don't exist.

[–]DrPeacemaker 0 points1 point ago

That's the thing, I can't. I can't disprove the existence of Allah, Shiva, or Thor either.

[–]muffinmaster 0 points1 point ago

That's why there's no logic whatsoever in believing in god just because you can't disprove his existence. Might as well start believing in chupacabras.

[–]DrPeacemaker -1 points0 points ago

Why not believe in chupacabras? They're awesome! There could be any number of undiscovered supernatural wonders out there, so keep an open mind.

After all...

[–]muffinmaster 0 points1 point ago

I'll believe when there's evidence.

[–]MrKequc 0 points1 point ago

Define some characteristics and I'll take a shot at it.

[–]sp0ck06 -3 points-2 points ago

Very well...science has shown us the causation behind the world and universe as it exists today. We know "how" things wound up the way they are....but why? What is the driving force behind evolution, natural selection, the expansion of the universe, etc...Why did single celled organism's fight their environment and struggle over millions of years to become something more?

I find it hard to believe the universe is a result of mere chance. We know to a certain extent how the Big Bang occurred...but WHY? The laws of physics tell us nothing can move without a causing force...so what was the force or energy that caused the formation of the universe?

Why do we as humans even debate this? It doesn't factor into our survival...why do we care so much?

I'm not a particularly religious person, but neither am I an atheist in the sense many of you in this subreddit are. I studied religion in college because I find it fascinating. I don't know if there's a God or gods or life force or whatever, and I won't know in this life. But I do find it hard to accept that our world, my experience, is just a byproduct of randomness. The intelligence (or lack thereof, in teh case of teh internetz) I witness every day in people, animals, plants, the entire ecological system, to me says there is some inherent intelligence in the universe that physical science cannot currently explain.

[–]MrKequc 2 points3 points ago

Very well...science has shown us the causation behind the world and universe as it exists today. We know "how" things wound up the way they are....but why? What is the driving force behind evolution, natural selection, the expansion of the universe, etc...Why did single celled organism's fight their environment and struggle over millions of years to become something more?

We know "how" things wound up the way they are to an extent, there are a number of things we still definitely do not know. But the driving forces behind evolution are something we have a very good understanding of. I'm not a biologist but in what sense do you use the word fighting?

Modern organisms fighting is a complex phenomenon. It comes from an intelligence coupled with a desire not to be killed. The reason that the intelligence developed coupled with a desire not to be killed, is that the successful ancestors of this modern organism shared those traits. Organisms which were not "randomly" selected for, died out and did not pass on their genes. You can see why, then that we all generally want to fight to stay alive as individuals. This is also a large part of the reason why we want to have sex as opposed to not wanting to have sex.

It isn't got to do with the assertion that modern organisms are evolving toward some kind of end goal. An end goal doesn't factor into it.

This can be pared down all the way to the first "lifeforms". Molecules behaving naturally together to battle against other natural influences will eventually succeed in becoming sentient self replicating complex beings 100% more often than ones that started out with molecules that don't naturally work together.

I find it hard to believe the universe is a result of mere chance. We know to a certain extent how the Big Bang occurred...but WHY? The laws of physics tell us nothing can move without a causing force...so what was the force or energy that caused the formation of the universe?

But you're looking at it in reverse. You're taking what is already here and then trying to figure out what kind of an intelligence would put it together. Instead you should follow it up the tree. Start at the big bang and notice that the way the universe has come together is just the way it has come together based on the way molecules interact with each other. What makes you believe that there is more to it?

This may be from the area of "stuff we don't know" but regardless: Laurence Krauss just recently released a new book called "A universe from nothing" wherein he details new insights about what "nothing" is, "nothing" is apparently quite a lot. We also have the Higgs Boson now, which was hypothesized to exist based on a model of the big bang that doesn't require any outside influence. The Higgs boson is in fact like the ignition switch or the fuse that could have began the occurrence of the big bang.

Why do we as humans even debate this? It doesn't factor into our survival...why do we care so much?

I'm not sure there's a lot of speculation on this stuff. Several biologists have been saying that it is an evolutionary advantage to see intelligence in things. But I haven't read any of the papers on it at all. To me religion is an unfortunate human trait.

I'm not a particularly religious person, but neither am I an atheist in the sense many of you in this subreddit are. I studied religion in college because I find it fascinating. I don't know if there's a God or gods or life force or whatever, and I won't know in this life. But I do find it hard to accept that our world, my experience, is just a byproduct of randomness. The intelligence (or lack thereof, in teh case of teh internetz) I witness every day in people, animals, plants, the entire ecological system, to me says there is some inherent intelligence in the universe that physical science cannot currently explain.

What do you mean you see intelligence in the universe?

[–]Lots42 0 points1 point ago

Oh, that's easy, for them.

"There's a lot of really, really complicated stuff we can prove, therefore God."

Yes, I know this makes no sense logically but this is what many fundies believe.

[–]Eyshld21sn 0 points1 point ago

" Prove it." " THE BIBLE"

[–]ussr577 -4 points-3 points ago

4th grade science teacher told me proof can only be taken in by our 5 sences: 1. I dont see God (he is invisible) 2. I dont touch God (he is not made of matter) 3. I dont hear God (neither do you) 4. I dont taste God (dont get me started) 5. I dont smell God (i dont know if he smells)

[–]monkey_gamer 0 points1 point ago

There are actually 22 senses.

[–]ussr577 0 points1 point ago

My spidy senses tell me you're lying.

[–]monkey_gamer 1 point2 points ago

Yes, despite 22 senses, we can't use any of them to prove the existence of God.

[–]ussr577 1 point2 points ago

And THAT was my point, thank you.