How to Make the World a Better Place

Obviously, several problems in the world would be solved if only atheists were less militant:

a_better_world3

(via Atheist Cartoons)

  • http://humanism.meetup.com/164/ Steve Schlicht

    Keeper!

  • Daniel

    I just find stuff like this too ambiguous and generic to be meaningful or funny.

    I mean, “religion” and “religious doctrine” is used for and inspires that stuff? Sure some does, but this is like saying “food makes you fat”.

  • http://asad123.wordpress.com Asad

    I think there is some truth to this cartoon. We can all try to be better critical thinkers, more just citizens, and less angry.

    Check out my site, asad123.wordpress.com. I just wrote a post analyzing one of the chapters of the Quran.

  • Bart the Pirate

    Let’s prefer the high road.

    Prostestants have good reason to be angry at Catholics who have good reason to be angry with Protestants.

    We can self-justify our rage at religion. The religious folk can do the same at us.

    It’s an endless cycle that SOMEONE has to be mature enough to stop.

  • Devil’s Advocate

    Point by point:

    1. Religion exploits women and children?

    Think Catholic. How many priests have exploited children for sexual self-gratification. Shall we also condemn the gay lifestyle? After all, an unusually high percentage of the offending priests are known homosexuals.

    While we’re hating religionists for exploiting children, why do we not rage agaist atheists who do the same? Or public school teachers? The public school system has been purging itself of religious influence, yet the instances of child abuse is as rampant in public schools as Catholic churchs — ofen moreso.

    And about exploiting women: Why is it that feminsts rail against the “fifty’s housewife” in the most misgynist of terms, demeaning those women who chose to raise families — and no one cares? Was Bill Cliton a religious zealot when he crossed the line of sexual harrassment? Or do we excuse Democrats and feminists?

    2. Religious teaching impedes AIDS research? Actually, some militant gay activists are on a holy jihad to purge the American psyche of any residual thought that would envision homosexuals as retaining a high risk of aquiring STDs. Don’t believe me? Post a coment on any gay board suggesting that MSM men have a higher mortality rate than straight men.

    3. Does religion inspire terrorism and justify wars? Was Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural Revoution motivated by the preaching of holy rollers, Catholics or Baptists? Or was that age of death, carnage and terror driven by the communist party that forbade any religion?

    4. Indeed, the world would be a better place had Mao, Pot Pot, Stalin, et al been a little less angry.

  • http://www.otmatheist.com hoverFrog

    Atheism wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for those religious people. We should be more grateful to them.

    /sarcasm

  • http://www.headdibs.blogspot.com/ James

    “Either take Christ into your lives or cast Him out of your lips. Either be what thou seemest, or be what thou art.” William Dyer (1611-1660)

  • postsimian

    <=== still unrepentantly militant.

  • Skeptimal

    It isn’t surprising that religious people would think of atheists as angry. They probably think of gay people and black people as angry also.

    The thing is that they probably only become aware of any of these groups when atheists, gays, or blacks raise their voice because of some problem.

    There’s also the self-fulfilling prophecy problem. Christinas perceive atheists as angry, so any time they *do* find out someone is an atheist, they begin subconsciously filtering information with a bias toward seeing any expression of temper. They don’t notice the 99 days that the atheist is cheerful and outgoing, but they make note of the day that the atheist got up on the wrong side of the bed.

    Atheists sometimes filter Christian behavior the same way, only seeing the hateful behavior and not paying attention to charitable giving and volunteerism.

  • Siamang

    It isn’t surprising that religious people would think of atheists as angry. They probably think of gay people and black people as angry also.

    I get what you’re trying to say here.

    But I think you just excluded religious black people. Of which there are many.

  • http://www.myspace.com/youreundoingmybeltwronghun Tim D.

    I likes me some cartoon.

    Think Catholic. How many priests have exploited children for sexual self-gratification. Shall we also condemn the gay lifestyle? After all, an unusually high percentage of the offending priests are known homosexuals.

    I don’t understand. First off, what is “the gay lifestyle?” Unless you mean specific acts like buttsex or oral sex. I was of the understanding that there wasn’t really a specific uniform “style” by which they lived; unless you mean to refer to the act of being sexually attracted to folks of the same gender as a “lifestyle.” In which case, as odd as I find that, I withdraw my comment.

    Second….why would we condemn gays because a gay man does something bad? We don’t condemn religion because particular religious people do bad things; we condem particular religious people because they do bad things. And when we do condemn religion, it’s not because of the actions of its followers, it’s because of the things written in its doctrine — the things that make up the religion itself. Not some kind of bastardization where we criticize the religion for the act of a priest.

    (Except maybe Catholics, because the church itself is supposed to be God’s avatar on earth; in which case, it really does represent the Catholic faith when the Pope and the Vatican pay to defend pedophiles instead of kicking them out of the church.)

    Pardon me, but I just don’t see how this follows from “gay priest molesting kid” to “condemn gay dudes.”

    Actually, some militant gay activists are on a holy jihad to purge the American psyche of any residual thought that would envision homosexuals as retaining a high risk of aquiring STDs.

    What little actual research I’ve seen does seem to indicate that particularly sexually-active homosexual males between the age of 18-25 seem more likely to acquire some form of VD than a not-as-sexually-active straight male of the same age group….I don’t really think it’s as big of a deal as people make it out to be. Even with those kinds of tests, it’s common sense that the act of being gay itself is not responsible for this result; the act of being promiscuous is. If you have a lot of sex, you run the risk of getting STDs. So including that disclaimer in the title (“sexually active”) kind of takes some of the punch out of the result. I mean, there’s not some magic aspect of being gay that somehow predisposes you at a genetic level to getting VD more often; VD is communicated by sexual contact or blood transfusion, not from being sexually attracted to someone.

    In any case….I don’t really blame gays for being overly sensitive to the subject. There are more lies and unreliable accusations being thrown around about gays than there are reputable truths; given that sort of environment, I don’t blame a gay dude for freaking out when someone says “gays are more likely to die of AIDS,” simply because of the wording; correlation does not indicate causation, see, and that statement makes it seem as though “being gay” and “having AIDS” are directly related. They’re not. They’re related by proxy through the act of sexual promiscuity. And that’s a very important link that most casual readers aren’t going to make when they read that.

  • Forkboy

    Regarding Devil’s Advocate’s statement:

    Indeed, the world would be a better place had Mao, Pot Pot, Stalin, et al been a little less angry.

    I do not think there is any evidence that it was their being atheist that made them angry. They were simply mad, if you get my meaning.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X