May 5, 2009

Anti-Atheist Humor?

Posted in Atheism, humor tagged , at 9:59 am by Andrew

Since we’ve taken some (mostly good-natured) shots at Christians here at EC, one of my commenters challenged me to “equal time” for jokes about atheists, and suggested the following link. So, in the spirit of fairness:

Jokes About Atheists.

Maybe I’m a “fundamentalist atheist,” but… I didn’t find too many of these all that funny, except for the bit about atheist evangelists distributing blank sheets of paper.

EDITED to add: I guess it takes a fellow atheist (“Non-Stamp Collector,” who also authored this work of genius) to really make fun of atheists:

Advertisements

11 Comments »

  1. Yeah. Small bits of humor scattered among a pretty bland landscape.

  2. Davis said,

    I saw those too and also wasn’t particularly impressed — keep up your good works

  3. Andrew said,

    Rev. BDC,

    Here, I’m guessing you might find this one bit more to your liking. 🙂

  4. Heh. That’s pretty good

  5. Quinn said,

    The interview was pretty funny, but the only ones I kinda smirked at were

    “..you spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means “without a belief in God ” and not just ” belief that there is no god” as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life. ”

    “…when someone says ‘God bless you’ when you sneeze, you take it as an open invitation to express your non-belief.”

    because these things always feel like a waste of time to me.

    • John Huey said,

      With respect to the ‘meaningful distinction in real life’ comment, I think that the distinction becomes important in the debate environment (yeah, I know, debates are not part of ‘Real Life’ ™). Theists make the point that the statement ‘there is no god’ is a positive statement and, as such, has a burden of proof associated with it. The more general definition of ‘lack of a belief in a god (or gods) is supportable by just pointing out the absence of any good evidence for that belief. The distinction is analogous to the distinction between ‘not guilty’ and ‘innocent’. For most of ‘real life’ there is no meaningful distinction but in a court of law there is a profound difference.

  6. Madeleine said,

    I didn’t think Dawkins was very coherent until I saw that clip.

    • John Huey said,

      Now, that was funny.

  7. “…you believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.
    Huh? I could see this as making sense if “Ten Commandments” judges were putting up ”Hustler” plaques on courthouse steps.

    …you assert that “faith is believing things which you know aren’t true”.
    You know you’re not very good at quoting Twain when…

    …you just can’t see any difference between Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc, and Osama bin Laden.
    Shades of grey, really. One does God’s bidding, the other three have Him do theirs.


    That said, I did like the “17,000 atheists…” one.

  8. truthmerchant said,

    The ‘progressive Christian’ (sic):

    http://digg.com/d318rnj

  9. BWfangirl said,

    Have you seen the one of Dawkins trolling Sam Harris? That made me lol IRL.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: