I wonder what Mo is really doing under that Burka…and why he’s been wearing it so often lately. Is he trying to get in touch with his feminine side, maybe? If so, he’ll be beheaded for homosexual tendencies, in accordance with Sharia Law.
Uppity woman. Ever since we let ’em have shoes, nothing but trouble. As Poor Richard says, “‘Tis best just to get out of their way.”
Why are women “agressive” while men who behave likewise “take the initiative”?
The burka? Hmm. Does it qualify as a blasphemous image if we can’t see him? And what’s worse, the burka or his shirt off in the sauna? Maybe this is all a metaphor for the mutability of religious identity. Maybe this is his way of being democratic.
Read the strip again roodbooy. The barmaid doesn’t say she does KNOW otherwise.
If you state that something exists you need reliable evidence for it. Further, if you claim that something totally outside the realm of possibility exists, ie eternal torture by an all-loving god in an eternal lake of fire, you need extremely good evidence for it. There isn’t an iota of evidence for Xian or Islamic hell, yet some/many religionists accept as a starting point that their particular one does.
As these hells are, in the light of all knowledge and experience we have, impossible, let alone completely lacking in any evidence (not to mention infintely unjust punishment for any mortal crime, by any sane reasoning), it is extremely unreasonable to assume that they do in fact exist.
@daniel, does that mean you identify with other fundamentalist atheists? stalin? mao? the people currently trying to overthrow a democratic government in turkey? the chinese government?
or are only atheist allowed to throw their opponents on one big pile?
Actually, there is no such thing as a ‘fundamentalist’ athiest. The term ‘Fundamentalist’ when applied to religion was first used in early 20th Century America of a group of Christians wishing to return to what they viewed as the fundamental values of Christianity. It has been hijacked to mean, in general language, ‘Extreme.’ Even then, there are no extremes of atheism. Either one believes in a god, or one does not. Active disapproval of those who DO believe in a god is not a necessary part of atheism (as disapproval of those who believe in a DIFFERENT god is certainly a necessary part of most religions. The Budhists are a bit more relaxed, otherwise it’s lake of fire territory). If you really want to press it, ‘vocal’ atheists not only disbelieve one god more than the devoted theist, but also disapprove of one god more than devoted theists. Now for the history lesson. Stalin and Mao were not fundamentalist atheists. They were the creators of leader cults. The mechanism is the same as for the creation of saviour cults such as Christianity. Anyone with the gumption to be an atheists would be as quick to reject Mao or Stalin as they would the Big J.C. You think Mao or Stalin would have been better if they had been religious? No. They would have simply relied upon the authority of god to justify their actions (as so many despots had before them) instead of elevating themselves to the position of absolute authority. Shit always falls from on high, whatever asshole is in charge.
Atheists might LOVE to throw theists into one pile and let them sort themselves out. But we are generally a peaceful people. Besides, history has already thrown theists into one pile of supernaturalists quibblin’ and spittin’ amongst themselves about stuff nary one of them has ever seen.
As PR, and Stevie Wonder, say “There are superstitions . . . .”
Meanwhile, I’m off to go fishing. What hath God wrought that’s prettier than
a fine big bluegill? (Or do you call it a bream?) I shall spit on my bait . . . .
Atheism is a religion similar to ‘not collecting stamps’ is a hobby. One can be a passionate stamp collector, but it’s really really impossible to become a passionate ‘not stamp collector’!
Agree with JoJo, it’s difficult to be a fundamentalist atheist. I had a tough time reconciling with Mao and Stalin. But one can ask the question:
Was it too much rational inquiry the basis of all the heinous crimes by Mao and Stalin? The answer obviously is no. The basis for their crimes was a dogma as flawed as for example the religious dogma. And so were the crimes
I, as as atheist, emphatically do not have to answer for all other atheist’s crimes, just as I do not argue against religion from a standpoint of “this-and-this heinous criminal believed in a god, so do you, therefore you must sympathise”.
I argue against religion simply because I find it improbably. And because I find that whatever benefits it brings society or individuals, the cost outweigh those benefits.
Theism/Atheism really isn’t the issue when it comes to the great criminals of history-Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Dubya, whoever else is coming on these days. Even lesser political leaders use other dogmas to support their own. This is part of the technique of leadership, I suppose. A student of mine once asked, “Why don’t those people rise up and throw off their oppressors?” Well,duh, it’s because most of those people do not think of those leaders as their oppressors, but as their representative idols. Usually “war criminals” are the generals and staffers who lost their war. I think you all could name a few working today in Washington DC. Look up Curtis LeMay and Edward Teller if you want some interesting history to chew on.
I would love to have an atheist president (me, me). She/he might do us a lot of good. But in this country….never.
I caught a few really nice bluegills. A perfect day. As Poor Dickie says, “F***
the war; let’s go fishin’.”
Off topic from the comic but to those who continue to go political:
I know I’m a minority in the group of posters to this comic since I support Bush in several of the things he’s done for the U.S. (though I don’t support a lot of the things he’s done for the U.S.). But is it right bash Bush, and not call out people like Congressman Murtha or some of the large newspapers who publicly persecuted the Marines involved in the “Haditha Massacre” when so far 7 out of 8 of them have gone to trial with one case thrown out and the other six being acquited. I have yet to see this as headline news when it was headline news that they were “cold-blooded murders in the dead of night” and acting like “Nazi storm-troopers”. Shouldn’t those people be considred anti-American for wrongfully stating that these Marines were guilty without a trial?
Tho I agree with PR’s idea of “F*** the war; let’s go fishin'”; without the war being fought by those who wear the uniform, fishing for certain fish may become illegal in 30 plus years according to the new Sharia Law’s that will be forced upon us. Already there are mosques in some city’s blaring out their prayers for all (muslim or not) to hear while police pull over cars who’s radio’s are too loud. Inch by inch, mile by mile, they are taking over if we don’t stop them from forcing the rest of us to “accept” them. I can accept them as long as they don’t intrude in my basic rights to live without their religion being forced into my life (like the prayer towers).
Poor Richard, while looking up war criminals in Washington, look up Dick Cheney and GW Bush. They both, allong with C. Rove and S. Libby should be tried for high treason and murder. BTW, Vincent Bugliosi has a new book out, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
by Vincent Bugliosi. You can check out his prosecutory history online.
“An eternity of unimaginable torment in a lake of fire!” Wow! that must be very satisfying for believers. Christianity should go back to its Zoroastrian roots, short of throwing off the mental chains, of course. At least in Zoroastrianism, hell was not everlasting. Everyone gets to go to paradise, or Valhalla, or wherever there is dancing, singing, drinking, and fornication. What? No drinking and fornicating? And, they call that, paradise?
Clytamnestra – can you quote me the verse in the holy book of atheism which led Stalin and Mao to cause the deaths of millions?
I’ll give you a clue: you can’t.
There isn’t one, because these leaders’ atheism did not lead them to cause these deaths. They had people killed who they believed were a threat to them, or in many cases as a show of strength to intimidate anyone else who may otherwise have become a threat to them, or inadvertently in grand – failed – projects to demonstrate the might of their regime.
I’m glad you’re one of the smarter religious apologists who didn’t try to include Hitler in with these two. It would of course undermine the assumption in your question if you had, as religion was the core justification for his policies, and the source of a great deal of people’s support for the Nazi regime. He regularly cited atheist bolshevism as the greatest threat to society, and asserted that societies need a belief in god to succeed. His alliances with the catholic church, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Persia/Iran (Persian for ‘Aryan’) and many protestant leaders are well documented.
To return to your first question, given that the definition of an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in god, can you explain what you mean by the difference between a ‘fundamentalist atheist’ and an ordinary ‘atheist’, and why that difference would cause someone to become a mass-murderer?
Purushottam, so, for true intellectual honesty, one should necessarily be an agnostic?
What would be the definition of a fundamentalist agnostic? Following your logic, she/he would adhere strictly and literally to the belief that no one really knows, strictly and literally, or otherwise, that there is a god.
Purushottam – indeed. Though is there a difference between believing there is no god, and not believing there is a god?
Personally, most of the time, I don’t actively not-believe in god. I see the world, and that’s what there is. If the subject of god comes up, I can consider it abstractly, but I don’t see its presence or absence in the world. The world is the same. If somewhere there is a god, I see no evidence of its existence – it hasn’t chosen to make its presence known to me. I don’t have to spend any energy believing in it in the absence of evidence, nor disbelieving in it for the lack of it. It’s just not there.
I think this is the reason I stopped thinking of myself as an agnostic (Hobbes); when I realised that religious people actually believe in a god despite the absence of evidence (even because of that absence). It began to seem that agnosticism was a kind of category error: an attempt to position myself at a kind of midpoint between belief and lack of belief, specifically holding open the possibility of belief if proof were to appear. But religious belief is not based on proof, so this position doesn’t fit the question (‘do you have faith?’).
I could say that if evidence of god’s existence were provided I would have to believe in him, but none of the religionists in the world today has experienced such evidence. More to the point, any evidence of an infinitely powerful being could more reasonably be explained by any other (finite) phenomenon than that it is the work of god. So in all probability, while I can say hypothetically that god might exist, in practical terms I might have to add that nothing he could do if he does could reasonably convince me of it.
Which is a bit of an ontological double-bind for the big G.
The strongest claim an Atheist can logically make is that the existence of a god is extremely unlikely. This only because it would require proving a negative.
Toast is exactly right about agnosticism vs atheism. In my view, there is no middle ground between theist and atheist. It’s binary. You can say you don’t have enough information to decide which position is true, but really it all comes down to how you live your life.
Pray every day and try to keep a god foremost in your mind in all situations? Theist.
Lost your religion, but atheism label still connotes evil? Agnostic.
Never consider a supernatural agent to be acting in your life? Atheist.
Cynical manipulator taking money from the credulous? Parasite.
Actively counteracting negative actions of theists? Anti-theist?
Awesome comic. Author (PBUH) is throwing sharp darts as usual.
I bet the barmaid saying she disagrees also counts as denying J his right to freedom of belief (athough J & M saying they disagree with her is just fine)
Toast in the machine: “It began to seem that agnosticism was a kind of category error: an attempt to position myself at a kind of midpoint between belief and lack of belief, specifically holding open the possibility of belief if proof were to appear.”
Agnosticism is, at least for me, the only logical position for intellectual honesty. After a few years of studying world religions and science, I came to the conclusion that, certainly, Yahweh didn’t exist (one cannot make both sides of a contradiction exist). However, I could no more say with certainty that a god does not exist, than that a god does exist. After all, the most perplexing question of all, I think, is: Why is there not nothing?
Thus, I became an agnostic with latent atheistic tendencies. That is to say, since I find no evidence of the existence of a god (in fact, I see contrary evidence–at lest of a benevolent god.), I tend to believe there is no god. However, I cannot, logically, say that with certainty, and I don’t believe anyone else can. Nor do I believe any evidence will ever appear.
As for the lake of fire, created by a “loving” god, it is my belief that the only place in the universe both sides of a contradiction can exist, is in the mind of fundamentalists.
The question for a theist is ‘Do you believe in god?’, not ‘Do you believe there is convincing evidence for the existence of god?’. Answering ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t seem to answer the question on its own terms. To the question ‘Do you believe?’, my answer has to be ‘no’, but that’s not the same as saying ‘I know there isn’t one’. It sounds, from what you’ve written, as though you would call that an agnostic position, but I don’t think that it is. There is no god in my world, therefore I’m an atheist. (On a side tangent, I don’t really see why I should define myself as such, as it only has meaning from the POV of a believer). If a god ever decided to make himself known then I would need to reconsider my position, but in the meantime there is no evidence for one, therefore I don’t believe in one. I choose not to say ‘I believe’, in the absence of evidence (the theist’s position), because I don’t see any good reason to, and I don’t see any good evidence to accept the existence of such a being so I don’t say I believe in it on the terms in which I believe in, say, Canada (which I’ve never actually been to, but which I’ve seen convincing evidence of).
I don’t see how the question of why there is something rather than nothing has any connection necessarily with the question of god’s existence.
Surely there are an infinite number of things you would need to be agnostic about, the way you have defined it. Bertrand Russell’s teapot for example.
Completely agree that the strongest statement a rational atheist will make is that: God is highly unlikely
But, do we make these statements about other highly unlikely things? Unicorns and fairies? We safely assume that they don’t exist and live accordingly. It is in that sense God doesn’t exist.
But, if one is to define god as an entity with property A, I can claim that there is no evidence in support of such entity at all as long as A is a supernatural property.
Yes, I am well aware of how the theist states the question. Even some atheists state it the same as the theist, “do you believe in God,†or make the statement, “I don’t believe in God.†I am not a theist, so I answer the question from logic, not belief. I don’t see the question as one requiring from me an answer of “yes,” or “no.” One must state what god one is talking about. If Yahweh, no. Any god? I can’t say “no” just because I have no evidence of any god. I never answer by saying , “I don’t know.†I often answer by saying, “I don’t believe in the existence of Yahweh, and I tend not to believe in the existence of any god.”
I’m sure you know what is meant by Argumentum ad ignorantiam, (argument from ignorance). Just because we see no proof for the existence of a god cannot be proof that there is no god (and visa versa). Personally, I don’t believe there is one, but from the point of logic, I can’t say that I know there isn’t one. Therefore, I am agnostic.
And, don’t think I believe this to be a comfortable position. I get attacked from both sides.
Certainly I acknowledge Russell’s Teapot. But what is one to say if the question is asked, “What evidence do you have to support your assertion that there is this teapot in space? You make the claim. Demonstrate that it is so.â€Â
Even if one points ancient texts, there still is no evidence to support the claim. I fully understand that the mere absurdity of the claim, and the absence of evidence, is good reason to disbelieve, but a teapot isn’t anything like a our notion of a god any more than a watch is anything like the universe. Thus, I can’t say for certain there is, and I can’t say for certain there isn’t.
I asked the question, “why is there not nothing,†as a means of relating the fact that our existence is a most strange thing. We are a part of the universe that is aware of its existence and contemplates itself. Exactly how this came about is, at least for now, unknowable. Hence, I’m agnostic about the origin of the universe (other than what science can discern), which would include, or not, gods.
Thanks for expanding your previous points; I do see the point you are trying to make, and I share your instinctive aversion to an apparently dogmatic binary division, but as JohnnieCanuck said above, on the question of whether or not one has belief in god the answer really is ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Saying that you want to answer the question from logic not belief doesn’t alter the question itself. It is explicitly a question of belief: Do you believe in god? The theist answers ‘yes’. If you can’t answer ‘yes’ then you are an atheist. The question is not asking how one weighs the evidence – the subject of the question is not any evidence or lack of it. It is not asking whether one can prove or say with certainty that there isn’t a god – again, as JohnnieCanuck said above and Purushottam reiterated, ‘the strongest claim an Atheist can logically make is that the existence of a god is extremely unlikely’.
The point I was trying to make above – discussing the strength or otherwise of evidence is fine, but it is a different question than whether or not one believes.
Saying that you do not have faith that there is a god is not the same as saying that you know there isn’t one. They are different categories of statement. It sounds as though you are assuming that an atheist states that he knows there isn’t a god, but that is not the atheist position. It is in fact the way theists often prefer to characterise the atheist position, as it is easy for them to attack – as you say, ‘I can’t say that i know there isn’t one’ – but an atheist does not say that in the first place.
If you have belief in the existence of god you are a theist. If not, you’re an atheist. Evidence for or against is a different question. Questions of belief are different from questions about evidence.
Yes, the basis of my argument was from the common definition of “Atheist,” i.e., a person who denies, with certainty, the existence of any god. Your definition is enlightening.
My Webster comes closer to your definition rather than the definition of common usage. It states, “One who believes there is no God. It does not state “one who knows there is no god.” Still, the dictionary (poor reference as it is), cannot use the word “knows” simply because that would imply there is no god whether one believes it or not, and the lexicographer cannot make that assumption.
However, in the common lexicon, I think “agnostic” must necessarily exist to distinguish from the common usages of “theist” and “atheist.”
As a Christian, reading about how everyone is trying to define “agnostic” or “atheist” seems silly, just as many of you believe believing in a God I have never seen is. If you don’t believe that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, you’re going to hell. Simple as that. God loves all of you, whether you believe in Him or not. Unfortunately for many of you, once you see the “evidence”, it will be too late. Everywhere I see talk on religion, it’s always about “Well, what about all the BAD stuff in the world? A good God would not allow that.” He has given us freedom of choice. Bad things will happen, because we are imperfect people. Why does bad stuff happen to the innocent? Unfortunately, none of us are innocent. Just like many of us pay for the sins of our parents, many beautiful innocent people pay for the sins of the people before them. Although the time many of these innocent seem to suffer can seem to be unending, eventually we’ll see how short a time it really was.
I’d also like to remind you that I am not saying I’m better than anyone else because I believe in God and many of you don’t. I still sin which puts me in the same boat as everyone else. I’m not talking down to anyone here. I’m just saying there is a God that loves you and his “evidence” is all around you. YOU are the evidence. If you want to believe (or just not think about) that you came out of a big bang, eventually grew hands so you could swim your way out of the water, eventually became a monkey, which in turn evolved into to something as intelligent as all of you, then I suppose you will believe it. If I want to believe something as “crazy” as someone who has always been here and always will and created us all, then I will. Fortunately for me, I was born in raised in the Unites States of America which allows me to state these beliefs where I see fit. God bless you all and good luck in everything you do.
As far as I can see, your reasoning seems to be along these lines:
You believe that anyone who does not believe in god will go to hell for ever when they die.
The reason you believe this is because you believe the christian god exists and this is what he wants.
The reason you believe in the christian god particularly (instead of any other flavour) is that you are american and christians there are the majority, so the chances are an american is likely to be a christian.
The reason you believe in god generally is, as far as I can see, because you are a christian.
Your reasoning appears to be entirely circular – ie, there is no reason for any of your positions except that *that is your position*; I think you would have to admit it is not very persuasive to anyone approaching the question with an open mind.
Moreover, there are numerous other problems with your position.
You say that god has given us free-will, and that if through that free-will we choose not to believe in him, he will torture us for ever (though by comparison, if I burnt down a school tomorrow killing a thousand children I would be forgiven as long as I said sorry to him afterwards).
Every action we commit is the product of our thoughts, conscious or un/subconscious. Every thought in our minds is ultimately described by the movement of atoms in our brains. God is infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing and created everything there is. There isn’t any part of the universe he can’t reach, and nothing in existence was created by anyone else. He created every particle and atom in the universe and the forces which govern their motion and behaviour; he set them moving, and he knows exactly where each one is at any point. He knows the whole history of everything from the beginning to the end. So he knows every thought in our heads, and every thought we will ever have, and that everyone who will ever be born will ever have. He is also perfect, so nothing can be in any way other than how he wants it to be.
Something which is perfect cannot be better than it is. It cannot be altered in any way that would improve it. You cannot add something to something which is perfect and improve it. If god is perfect he cannot want anything. He knows how everything is, and how it is going to be, and that is exactly how he wants it to be. Therefore if a person lives their whole life never believing in god, he knew that was how that person was going to be, he created all the matter which constitutes them which made them that way, and that is exactly how he wanted them to be. I can’t see how it would then be fair to punish that person.
Thanks, Toast, for the reply. I like the comic. It’s very thought provoking, as was your reply. I am a fairly new Christian, so I am not trying to be persuasive. As far as what I believe, it doesn’t matter if you are agnostic, atheist, or anyone else who does not believe that Jesus is your Savior, then you’re doomed to eternal damnation. From a Christian’s point of view, arguing what either exactly was seemed silly. I know “eternal damnation” seems over the top and a joke to many people, but I didn’t make the rules.
The reason I believe in God is not because I’m a Christian or vice versa. Although I didn’t go to church when I was younger, I’ve just always believed. I don’t have all the answers for either side of the arguement, but I suppose I was “comfortable” with the concept of God rather than the idea that there is no God. I was probably still going to hell, though.
I had an experience within the last few months that led me to accept Jesus as my Savior. The story is that I signed up to be part of prayer vigil after going to church just a couple weeks on a regular basis. Anyone who signed up for a certain time was to be at the church at that time, and pray for an hour for all people with prayer requests and anyone else we wanted to pray for. Only 3 people were at the church each hour, and we went to one of the three rooms that are empty.
I had never prayed for more than a couple minutes and I didn’t see how I was going to pray for an hour. The time I chose was 11pm and I got there early after watching a playoff basketball game. I watched as one of the 10:00 guys had his hands in the air and was praying fairly loudly, but not loud enough for me to hear him. He walked up to the podium where our preacher usually preaches, prayed with his hands up in the air some more and then got down on his face and stomach to pray. Hmm. I’d never seen that before. None of that stuff was me. I had no idea what I was going to do but pray for a bit. At 11, I entered a room that had a table, a lamp, a radio with some cds and a booklet with a recommedation on how to start to pray. I read through it and started to pray with a “Well, here goes!” type of approach.
I then prayed for and hour and a half.
What happened that night was amazing. I know I’m not persuading anyone by writing any of this, but 15 minutes into the prayer, I KNEW there was a God, and he was there with me. I just KNEW. I’d believed before, but not to the extent I do now. I hadn’t gone into it thinking “This is going to be GREAT! I can’t wait!” I thought I was going there to pray for a few people. I just KNEW he was doing miracles as I prayed. I also knew He was not answering other prayers of mine, for reasons only He knows. I suppose many non-Christians would like a better explanation, but that’s the best I can do. The closest I can come to a better explanation is comparing it to one of the Author’s other comic between Jesus and Mo. I am now “pretending really, really hard.” 🙂 Only now I know I’m not pretending.
I see your points and don’t yet have a good answer for the last one. God bless and thanks again for the reply.
I asked a pastor friend of mine about your question and he can’t give me a good answer. There are “apologists” out there like Ravi Zachariah that may be able to answer your question, but most likely not to your liking. Some questions we won’t know the answer to until our time comes.
I realized another question may arise from my previous reply, such as “Don’t other religions KNOW that their god is real as well?” I suppose they feel they do, and quite possibly God has a plan for them as well. I believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ, but I recently watched an episode of “30 days” where a practicing Christian goes to live with Muslims for 30 days. It was eye-opening. It’s on Hulu.com, if you’re interested at all.
Anyway, sorry for hijacking your discussion here, people. I’m done now. Carry on. God Bless.
Sorry Mark but using us humans as “evidence” of God is plain daft. I have a cup of tea next to me – does that prove the existence of some great tea god who creates hot beverages in His own image? Or that I just put the kettle on?
@ Mark: “If you don’t believe that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, you’re going to hell. Simple as that. God loves all of you, whether you believe in Him or not.”
That kind of love makes me feel all warm and fluffy inside. Where do I sign?
One can’t really say down here on Earth who’s going to hell and who’s not. I am a Protestant Christian, so I believe that everyone can be saved by Christ alone, but I am very reluctant to say that someone’s going to hell just because he/she believes otherwise. What about Romans 11:32, Mark?
@JoJo: Being a fundamentalist atheist can be valid; maybe we can define it as “sticking to the fundamental question”, ie. do you believe gods exist.
This would be better than conflating being an atheist with irrelevant paraphernalia, ie. a/gnosticism, origins of the universe, whether we are led by science or astrology, believe in equal {marriage] rights, etc. etc.
I saw this awesome Atheist Test on HelloQuizzy:
A single question, “Do you believe in a god”?
With only one button to click on to answer “NO”.
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
May 20, 2008
love the burka.
I wonder what Mo is really doing under that Burka…and why he’s been wearing it so often lately. Is he trying to get in touch with his feminine side, maybe? If so, he’ll be beheaded for homosexual tendencies, in accordance with Sharia Law.
He honor-killed Ayesha and is wearing her niqab to escape prosecution.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2512361,00.html
Uppity woman. Ever since we let ’em have shoes, nothing but trouble. As Poor Richard says, “‘Tis best just to get out of their way.”
Why are women “agressive” while men who behave likewise “take the initiative”?
The burka? Hmm. Does it qualify as a blasphemous image if we can’t see him? And what’s worse, the burka or his shirt off in the sauna? Maybe this is all a metaphor for the mutability of religious identity. Maybe this is his way of being democratic.
How does the barmaid know otherwise?
Read the strip again roodbooy. The barmaid doesn’t say she does KNOW otherwise.
If you state that something exists you need reliable evidence for it. Further, if you claim that something totally outside the realm of possibility exists, ie eternal torture by an all-loving god in an eternal lake of fire, you need extremely good evidence for it. There isn’t an iota of evidence for Xian or Islamic hell, yet some/many religionists accept as a starting point that their particular one does.
As these hells are, in the light of all knowledge and experience we have, impossible, let alone completely lacking in any evidence (not to mention infintely unjust punishment for any mortal crime, by any sane reasoning), it is extremely unreasonable to assume that they do in fact exist.
These days, when someone calls me a militant fundamentalist atheist, I thank them for the compliment.
[…] Jesus and Mo) Technorati Tags: atheist, […]
Militant Fundamentalist Atheist
The only reasonable thing to be.
@daniel, does that mean you identify with other fundamentalist atheists? stalin? mao? the people currently trying to overthrow a democratic government in turkey? the chinese government?
or are only atheist allowed to throw their opponents on one big pile?
Actually, there is no such thing as a ‘fundamentalist’ athiest. The term ‘Fundamentalist’ when applied to religion was first used in early 20th Century America of a group of Christians wishing to return to what they viewed as the fundamental values of Christianity. It has been hijacked to mean, in general language, ‘Extreme.’ Even then, there are no extremes of atheism. Either one believes in a god, or one does not. Active disapproval of those who DO believe in a god is not a necessary part of atheism (as disapproval of those who believe in a DIFFERENT god is certainly a necessary part of most religions. The Budhists are a bit more relaxed, otherwise it’s lake of fire territory). If you really want to press it, ‘vocal’ atheists not only disbelieve one god more than the devoted theist, but also disapprove of one god more than devoted theists. Now for the history lesson. Stalin and Mao were not fundamentalist atheists. They were the creators of leader cults. The mechanism is the same as for the creation of saviour cults such as Christianity. Anyone with the gumption to be an atheists would be as quick to reject Mao or Stalin as they would the Big J.C. You think Mao or Stalin would have been better if they had been religious? No. They would have simply relied upon the authority of god to justify their actions (as so many despots had before them) instead of elevating themselves to the position of absolute authority. Shit always falls from on high, whatever asshole is in charge.
Atheists might LOVE to throw theists into one pile and let them sort themselves out. But we are generally a peaceful people. Besides, history has already thrown theists into one pile of supernaturalists quibblin’ and spittin’ amongst themselves about stuff nary one of them has ever seen.
As PR, and Stevie Wonder, say “There are superstitions . . . .”
Meanwhile, I’m off to go fishing. What hath God wrought that’s prettier than
a fine big bluegill? (Or do you call it a bream?) I shall spit on my bait . . . .
Atheism is a religion similar to ‘not collecting stamps’ is a hobby. One can be a passionate stamp collector, but it’s really really impossible to become a passionate ‘not stamp collector’!
Agree with JoJo, it’s difficult to be a fundamentalist atheist. I had a tough time reconciling with Mao and Stalin. But one can ask the question:
Was it too much rational inquiry the basis of all the heinous crimes by Mao and Stalin? The answer obviously is no. The basis for their crimes was a dogma as flawed as for example the religious dogma. And so were the crimes
I, as as atheist, emphatically do not have to answer for all other atheist’s crimes, just as I do not argue against religion from a standpoint of “this-and-this heinous criminal believed in a god, so do you, therefore you must sympathise”.
I argue against religion simply because I find it improbably. And because I find that whatever benefits it brings society or individuals, the cost outweigh those benefits.
Theism/Atheism really isn’t the issue when it comes to the great criminals of history-Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Dubya, whoever else is coming on these days. Even lesser political leaders use other dogmas to support their own. This is part of the technique of leadership, I suppose. A student of mine once asked, “Why don’t those people rise up and throw off their oppressors?” Well,duh, it’s because most of those people do not think of those leaders as their oppressors, but as their representative idols. Usually “war criminals” are the generals and staffers who lost their war. I think you all could name a few working today in Washington DC. Look up Curtis LeMay and Edward Teller if you want some interesting history to chew on.
I would love to have an atheist president (me, me). She/he might do us a lot of good. But in this country….never.
I caught a few really nice bluegills. A perfect day. As Poor Dickie says, “F***
the war; let’s go fishin’.”
“You ask me, how do I know that?”
“Because I’m Jesus F’n Christ, that’s how you silly f’n git!”
http://boskolives.wordpress.com/
Off topic from the comic but to those who continue to go political:
I know I’m a minority in the group of posters to this comic since I support Bush in several of the things he’s done for the U.S. (though I don’t support a lot of the things he’s done for the U.S.). But is it right bash Bush, and not call out people like Congressman Murtha or some of the large newspapers who publicly persecuted the Marines involved in the “Haditha Massacre” when so far 7 out of 8 of them have gone to trial with one case thrown out and the other six being acquited. I have yet to see this as headline news when it was headline news that they were “cold-blooded murders in the dead of night” and acting like “Nazi storm-troopers”. Shouldn’t those people be considred anti-American for wrongfully stating that these Marines were guilty without a trial?
Tho I agree with PR’s idea of “F*** the war; let’s go fishin'”; without the war being fought by those who wear the uniform, fishing for certain fish may become illegal in 30 plus years according to the new Sharia Law’s that will be forced upon us. Already there are mosques in some city’s blaring out their prayers for all (muslim or not) to hear while police pull over cars who’s radio’s are too loud. Inch by inch, mile by mile, they are taking over if we don’t stop them from forcing the rest of us to “accept” them. I can accept them as long as they don’t intrude in my basic rights to live without their religion being forced into my life (like the prayer towers).
Poor Richard, while looking up war criminals in Washington, look up Dick Cheney and GW Bush. They both, allong with C. Rove and S. Libby should be tried for high treason and murder. BTW, Vincent Bugliosi has a new book out, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
by Vincent Bugliosi. You can check out his prosecutory history online.
“An eternity of unimaginable torment in a lake of fire!” Wow! that must be very satisfying for believers. Christianity should go back to its Zoroastrian roots, short of throwing off the mental chains, of course. At least in Zoroastrianism, hell was not everlasting. Everyone gets to go to paradise, or Valhalla, or wherever there is dancing, singing, drinking, and fornication. What? No drinking and fornicating? And, they call that, paradise?
Oops, by Vincent Bugliosi in the title line was in error and should have been deleted. Sorry bout that.
Clytamnestra – can you quote me the verse in the holy book of atheism which led Stalin and Mao to cause the deaths of millions?
I’ll give you a clue: you can’t.
There isn’t one, because these leaders’ atheism did not lead them to cause these deaths. They had people killed who they believed were a threat to them, or in many cases as a show of strength to intimidate anyone else who may otherwise have become a threat to them, or inadvertently in grand – failed – projects to demonstrate the might of their regime.
I’m glad you’re one of the smarter religious apologists who didn’t try to include Hitler in with these two. It would of course undermine the assumption in your question if you had, as religion was the core justification for his policies, and the source of a great deal of people’s support for the Nazi regime. He regularly cited atheist bolshevism as the greatest threat to society, and asserted that societies need a belief in god to succeed. His alliances with the catholic church, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Persia/Iran (Persian for ‘Aryan’) and many protestant leaders are well documented.
To return to your first question, given that the definition of an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in god, can you explain what you mean by the difference between a ‘fundamentalist atheist’ and an ordinary ‘atheist’, and why that difference would cause someone to become a mass-murderer?
Fundamentalism: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
The fundamentalist atheist would be someone who strictly and literally believes that there is no god.
While the atheist would be simply the one who believes that there is no god.
Spot the difference!
Purushottam, so, for true intellectual honesty, one should necessarily be an agnostic?
What would be the definition of a fundamentalist agnostic? Following your logic, she/he would adhere strictly and literally to the belief that no one really knows, strictly and literally, or otherwise, that there is a god.
I think I fit this definition.
Purushottam – indeed. Though is there a difference between believing there is no god, and not believing there is a god?
Personally, most of the time, I don’t actively not-believe in god. I see the world, and that’s what there is. If the subject of god comes up, I can consider it abstractly, but I don’t see its presence or absence in the world. The world is the same. If somewhere there is a god, I see no evidence of its existence – it hasn’t chosen to make its presence known to me. I don’t have to spend any energy believing in it in the absence of evidence, nor disbelieving in it for the lack of it. It’s just not there.
I think this is the reason I stopped thinking of myself as an agnostic (Hobbes); when I realised that religious people actually believe in a god despite the absence of evidence (even because of that absence). It began to seem that agnosticism was a kind of category error: an attempt to position myself at a kind of midpoint between belief and lack of belief, specifically holding open the possibility of belief if proof were to appear. But religious belief is not based on proof, so this position doesn’t fit the question (‘do you have faith?’).
I could say that if evidence of god’s existence were provided I would have to believe in him, but none of the religionists in the world today has experienced such evidence. More to the point, any evidence of an infinitely powerful being could more reasonably be explained by any other (finite) phenomenon than that it is the work of god. So in all probability, while I can say hypothetically that god might exist, in practical terms I might have to add that nothing he could do if he does could reasonably convince me of it.
Which is a bit of an ontological double-bind for the big G.
Great comments, Purushottam and Toast.
The strongest claim an Atheist can logically make is that the existence of a god is extremely unlikely. This only because it would require proving a negative.
Toast is exactly right about agnosticism vs atheism. In my view, there is no middle ground between theist and atheist. It’s binary. You can say you don’t have enough information to decide which position is true, but really it all comes down to how you live your life.
Pray every day and try to keep a god foremost in your mind in all situations? Theist.
Lost your religion, but atheism label still connotes evil? Agnostic.
Never consider a supernatural agent to be acting in your life? Atheist.
Cynical manipulator taking money from the credulous? Parasite.
Actively counteracting negative actions of theists? Anti-theist?
Awesome comic. Author (PBUH) is throwing sharp darts as usual.
I bet the barmaid saying she disagrees also counts as denying J his right to freedom of belief (athough J & M saying they disagree with her is just fine)
Toast in the machine: “It began to seem that agnosticism was a kind of category error: an attempt to position myself at a kind of midpoint between belief and lack of belief, specifically holding open the possibility of belief if proof were to appear.”
Agnosticism is, at least for me, the only logical position for intellectual honesty. After a few years of studying world religions and science, I came to the conclusion that, certainly, Yahweh didn’t exist (one cannot make both sides of a contradiction exist). However, I could no more say with certainty that a god does not exist, than that a god does exist. After all, the most perplexing question of all, I think, is: Why is there not nothing?
Thus, I became an agnostic with latent atheistic tendencies. That is to say, since I find no evidence of the existence of a god (in fact, I see contrary evidence–at lest of a benevolent god.), I tend to believe there is no god. However, I cannot, logically, say that with certainty, and I don’t believe anyone else can. Nor do I believe any evidence will ever appear.
As for the lake of fire, created by a “loving” god, it is my belief that the only place in the universe both sides of a contradiction can exist, is in the mind of fundamentalists.
JohnnieCanuck — you forgot one:
Athiest, but kinda hope (just a wee bit) that God does exist so you can beat the living crap out of him someday? Antagotheist.
(That would be me.)
Hi Hobbes
The question for a theist is ‘Do you believe in god?’, not ‘Do you believe there is convincing evidence for the existence of god?’. Answering ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t seem to answer the question on its own terms. To the question ‘Do you believe?’, my answer has to be ‘no’, but that’s not the same as saying ‘I know there isn’t one’. It sounds, from what you’ve written, as though you would call that an agnostic position, but I don’t think that it is. There is no god in my world, therefore I’m an atheist. (On a side tangent, I don’t really see why I should define myself as such, as it only has meaning from the POV of a believer). If a god ever decided to make himself known then I would need to reconsider my position, but in the meantime there is no evidence for one, therefore I don’t believe in one. I choose not to say ‘I believe’, in the absence of evidence (the theist’s position), because I don’t see any good reason to, and I don’t see any good evidence to accept the existence of such a being so I don’t say I believe in it on the terms in which I believe in, say, Canada (which I’ve never actually been to, but which I’ve seen convincing evidence of).
I don’t see how the question of why there is something rather than nothing has any connection necessarily with the question of god’s existence.
Surely there are an infinite number of things you would need to be agnostic about, the way you have defined it. Bertrand Russell’s teapot for example.
Completely agree that the strongest statement a rational atheist will make is that: God is highly unlikely
But, do we make these statements about other highly unlikely things? Unicorns and fairies? We safely assume that they don’t exist and live accordingly. It is in that sense God doesn’t exist.
But, if one is to define god as an entity with property A, I can claim that there is no evidence in support of such entity at all as long as A is a supernatural property.
Purushottam
Hey Toast in the machine,
Yes, I am well aware of how the theist states the question. Even some atheists state it the same as the theist, “do you believe in God,†or make the statement, “I don’t believe in God.†I am not a theist, so I answer the question from logic, not belief. I don’t see the question as one requiring from me an answer of “yes,” or “no.” One must state what god one is talking about. If Yahweh, no. Any god? I can’t say “no” just because I have no evidence of any god. I never answer by saying , “I don’t know.†I often answer by saying, “I don’t believe in the existence of Yahweh, and I tend not to believe in the existence of any god.”
I’m sure you know what is meant by Argumentum ad ignorantiam, (argument from ignorance). Just because we see no proof for the existence of a god cannot be proof that there is no god (and visa versa). Personally, I don’t believe there is one, but from the point of logic, I can’t say that I know there isn’t one. Therefore, I am agnostic.
And, don’t think I believe this to be a comfortable position. I get attacked from both sides.
Certainly I acknowledge Russell’s Teapot. But what is one to say if the question is asked, “What evidence do you have to support your assertion that there is this teapot in space? You make the claim. Demonstrate that it is so.â€Â
Even if one points ancient texts, there still is no evidence to support the claim. I fully understand that the mere absurdity of the claim, and the absence of evidence, is good reason to disbelieve, but a teapot isn’t anything like a our notion of a god any more than a watch is anything like the universe. Thus, I can’t say for certain there is, and I can’t say for certain there isn’t.
I asked the question, “why is there not nothing,†as a means of relating the fact that our existence is a most strange thing. We are a part of the universe that is aware of its existence and contemplates itself. Exactly how this came about is, at least for now, unknowable. Hence, I’m agnostic about the origin of the universe (other than what science can discern), which would include, or not, gods.
Perhaps, sumus Di?
Hi Hobbes
Thanks for expanding your previous points; I do see the point you are trying to make, and I share your instinctive aversion to an apparently dogmatic binary division, but as JohnnieCanuck said above, on the question of whether or not one has belief in god the answer really is ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Saying that you want to answer the question from logic not belief doesn’t alter the question itself. It is explicitly a question of belief: Do you believe in god? The theist answers ‘yes’. If you can’t answer ‘yes’ then you are an atheist. The question is not asking how one weighs the evidence – the subject of the question is not any evidence or lack of it. It is not asking whether one can prove or say with certainty that there isn’t a god – again, as JohnnieCanuck said above and Purushottam reiterated, ‘the strongest claim an Atheist can logically make is that the existence of a god is extremely unlikely’.
The point I was trying to make above – discussing the strength or otherwise of evidence is fine, but it is a different question than whether or not one believes.
Saying that you do not have faith that there is a god is not the same as saying that you know there isn’t one. They are different categories of statement. It sounds as though you are assuming that an atheist states that he knows there isn’t a god, but that is not the atheist position. It is in fact the way theists often prefer to characterise the atheist position, as it is easy for them to attack – as you say, ‘I can’t say that i know there isn’t one’ – but an atheist does not say that in the first place.
If you have belief in the existence of god you are a theist. If not, you’re an atheist. Evidence for or against is a different question. Questions of belief are different from questions about evidence.
Oh, how I love such debates. Me learn, me refine.
Yes, the basis of my argument was from the common definition of “Atheist,” i.e., a person who denies, with certainty, the existence of any god. Your definition is enlightening.
My Webster comes closer to your definition rather than the definition of common usage. It states, “One who believes there is no God. It does not state “one who knows there is no god.” Still, the dictionary (poor reference as it is), cannot use the word “knows” simply because that would imply there is no god whether one believes it or not, and the lexicographer cannot make that assumption.
However, in the common lexicon, I think “agnostic” must necessarily exist to distinguish from the common usages of “theist” and “atheist.”
Thanks to both of you.
Toast said:
“Purushottam – indeed. Though is there a difference between believing there is no god, and not believing there is a god?”
Jesus H.
“Here’s nobody coming to see me.”(c) Lewis Carroll.
Does that mean somebody is coming?
As a Christian, reading about how everyone is trying to define “agnostic” or “atheist” seems silly, just as many of you believe believing in a God I have never seen is. If you don’t believe that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, you’re going to hell. Simple as that. God loves all of you, whether you believe in Him or not. Unfortunately for many of you, once you see the “evidence”, it will be too late. Everywhere I see talk on religion, it’s always about “Well, what about all the BAD stuff in the world? A good God would not allow that.” He has given us freedom of choice. Bad things will happen, because we are imperfect people. Why does bad stuff happen to the innocent? Unfortunately, none of us are innocent. Just like many of us pay for the sins of our parents, many beautiful innocent people pay for the sins of the people before them. Although the time many of these innocent seem to suffer can seem to be unending, eventually we’ll see how short a time it really was.
I’d also like to remind you that I am not saying I’m better than anyone else because I believe in God and many of you don’t. I still sin which puts me in the same boat as everyone else. I’m not talking down to anyone here. I’m just saying there is a God that loves you and his “evidence” is all around you. YOU are the evidence. If you want to believe (or just not think about) that you came out of a big bang, eventually grew hands so you could swim your way out of the water, eventually became a monkey, which in turn evolved into to something as intelligent as all of you, then I suppose you will believe it. If I want to believe something as “crazy” as someone who has always been here and always will and created us all, then I will. Fortunately for me, I was born in raised in the Unites States of America which allows me to state these beliefs where I see fit. God bless you all and good luck in everything you do.
Hi Mark
As far as I can see, your reasoning seems to be along these lines:
You believe that anyone who does not believe in god will go to hell for ever when they die.
The reason you believe this is because you believe the christian god exists and this is what he wants.
The reason you believe in the christian god particularly (instead of any other flavour) is that you are american and christians there are the majority, so the chances are an american is likely to be a christian.
The reason you believe in god generally is, as far as I can see, because you are a christian.
Your reasoning appears to be entirely circular – ie, there is no reason for any of your positions except that *that is your position*; I think you would have to admit it is not very persuasive to anyone approaching the question with an open mind.
Moreover, there are numerous other problems with your position.
You say that god has given us free-will, and that if through that free-will we choose not to believe in him, he will torture us for ever (though by comparison, if I burnt down a school tomorrow killing a thousand children I would be forgiven as long as I said sorry to him afterwards).
Every action we commit is the product of our thoughts, conscious or un/subconscious. Every thought in our minds is ultimately described by the movement of atoms in our brains. God is infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing and created everything there is. There isn’t any part of the universe he can’t reach, and nothing in existence was created by anyone else. He created every particle and atom in the universe and the forces which govern their motion and behaviour; he set them moving, and he knows exactly where each one is at any point. He knows the whole history of everything from the beginning to the end. So he knows every thought in our heads, and every thought we will ever have, and that everyone who will ever be born will ever have. He is also perfect, so nothing can be in any way other than how he wants it to be.
Something which is perfect cannot be better than it is. It cannot be altered in any way that would improve it. You cannot add something to something which is perfect and improve it. If god is perfect he cannot want anything. He knows how everything is, and how it is going to be, and that is exactly how he wants it to be. Therefore if a person lives their whole life never believing in god, he knew that was how that person was going to be, he created all the matter which constitutes them which made them that way, and that is exactly how he wanted them to be. I can’t see how it would then be fair to punish that person.
Thanks, Toast, for the reply. I like the comic. It’s very thought provoking, as was your reply. I am a fairly new Christian, so I am not trying to be persuasive. As far as what I believe, it doesn’t matter if you are agnostic, atheist, or anyone else who does not believe that Jesus is your Savior, then you’re doomed to eternal damnation. From a Christian’s point of view, arguing what either exactly was seemed silly. I know “eternal damnation” seems over the top and a joke to many people, but I didn’t make the rules.
The reason I believe in God is not because I’m a Christian or vice versa. Although I didn’t go to church when I was younger, I’ve just always believed. I don’t have all the answers for either side of the arguement, but I suppose I was “comfortable” with the concept of God rather than the idea that there is no God. I was probably still going to hell, though.
I had an experience within the last few months that led me to accept Jesus as my Savior. The story is that I signed up to be part of prayer vigil after going to church just a couple weeks on a regular basis. Anyone who signed up for a certain time was to be at the church at that time, and pray for an hour for all people with prayer requests and anyone else we wanted to pray for. Only 3 people were at the church each hour, and we went to one of the three rooms that are empty.
I had never prayed for more than a couple minutes and I didn’t see how I was going to pray for an hour. The time I chose was 11pm and I got there early after watching a playoff basketball game. I watched as one of the 10:00 guys had his hands in the air and was praying fairly loudly, but not loud enough for me to hear him. He walked up to the podium where our preacher usually preaches, prayed with his hands up in the air some more and then got down on his face and stomach to pray. Hmm. I’d never seen that before. None of that stuff was me. I had no idea what I was going to do but pray for a bit. At 11, I entered a room that had a table, a lamp, a radio with some cds and a booklet with a recommedation on how to start to pray. I read through it and started to pray with a “Well, here goes!” type of approach.
I then prayed for and hour and a half.
What happened that night was amazing. I know I’m not persuading anyone by writing any of this, but 15 minutes into the prayer, I KNEW there was a God, and he was there with me. I just KNEW. I’d believed before, but not to the extent I do now. I hadn’t gone into it thinking “This is going to be GREAT! I can’t wait!” I thought I was going there to pray for a few people. I just KNEW he was doing miracles as I prayed. I also knew He was not answering other prayers of mine, for reasons only He knows. I suppose many non-Christians would like a better explanation, but that’s the best I can do. The closest I can come to a better explanation is comparing it to one of the Author’s other comic between Jesus and Mo. I am now “pretending really, really hard.” 🙂 Only now I know I’m not pretending.
I see your points and don’t yet have a good answer for the last one. God bless and thanks again for the reply.
I asked a pastor friend of mine about your question and he can’t give me a good answer. There are “apologists” out there like Ravi Zachariah that may be able to answer your question, but most likely not to your liking. Some questions we won’t know the answer to until our time comes.
I realized another question may arise from my previous reply, such as “Don’t other religions KNOW that their god is real as well?” I suppose they feel they do, and quite possibly God has a plan for them as well. I believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ, but I recently watched an episode of “30 days” where a practicing Christian goes to live with Muslims for 30 days. It was eye-opening. It’s on Hulu.com, if you’re interested at all.
Anyway, sorry for hijacking your discussion here, people. I’m done now. Carry on. God Bless.
Sorry Mark but using us humans as “evidence” of God is plain daft. I have a cup of tea next to me – does that prove the existence of some great tea god who creates hot beverages in His own image? Or that I just put the kettle on?
@ Mark: “If you don’t believe that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, you’re going to hell. Simple as that. God loves all of you, whether you believe in Him or not.”
That kind of love makes me feel all warm and fluffy inside. Where do I sign?
…and just remind us all how you KNOW these “facts”, Mark?
One can’t really say down here on Earth who’s going to hell and who’s not. I am a Protestant Christian, so I believe that everyone can be saved by Christ alone, but I am very reluctant to say that someone’s going to hell just because he/she believes otherwise. What about Romans 11:32, Mark?
@JoJo: Being a fundamentalist atheist can be valid; maybe we can define it as “sticking to the fundamental question”, ie. do you believe gods exist.
This would be better than conflating being an atheist with irrelevant paraphernalia, ie. a/gnosticism, origins of the universe, whether we are led by science or astrology, believe in equal {marriage] rights, etc. etc.
I saw this awesome Atheist Test on HelloQuizzy:
A single question, “Do you believe in a god”?
With only one button to click on to answer “NO”.
It really is that simple!