Lion IRC wrote:Did you hear the one about the atheist polytheist in the back of an ambulance...broken legs, punctured lungs, fractured skull, chipped front teeth, severed arm....
The paramedic says...which god did you annoy?
..."all of them." says the atheist polytheist.

UnderConstruction wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:Did you hear the one about the atheist in the back of an ambulance...broken legs, punctured lungs, fractured skull, chipped front teeth, severed arm....
The paramedic says...which god did you annoy?
..."all of them." says the atheist.

Why would an atheist give that answer?

rainbow wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:Did you hear the one about the atheist in the back of an ambulance...broken legs, punctured lungs, fractured skull, chipped front teeth, severed arm....
The paramedic says...which god did you annoy?
..."all of them." says the atheist.

Why would an atheist give that answer?

Because he has a sense of humour?

UnderConstruction wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:Did you hear the one about the atheist in the back of an ambulance...broken legs, punctured lungs, fractured skull, chipped front teeth, severed arm....
The paramedic says...which god did you annoy?
..."all of them." says the atheist.

Why would an atheist give that answer?

Paul wrote:yep, fallaciously linking atheism to science, and it's not really mocking atheism is it?

rainbow wrote:

Paul wrote:yep, fallaciously linking atheism to science, and it's not really mocking atheism is it?

UnderConstruction wrote:Still not showing atheism to be a ridiculous position though.

UnderConstruction wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Paul wrote:yep, fallaciously linking atheism to science, and it's not really mocking atheism is it?

Still not showing atheism to be a ridiculous position though.

Animavore wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Not that I don't find it slightly amusing but there's that strawman again.

Garm wrote:

Animavore wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Not that I don't find it slightly amusing but there's that strawman again.

And I strongly suspect the cartoon is actually mocking the people who strawman atheism.

Ian Tattum wrote:
That's because the original question was phrased in a way which made it un-answerable, utilising an almost ubiquitous assumption which is highly favoured here.That theism must always be judged by its manifestations, but atheism can never be! Marcus Brigstocke is a good example of an atheist comedian who has noted the unfairness in that approach and had some fun.

UnderConstruction wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
That's because the original question was phrased in a way which made it un-answerable, utilising an almost ubiquitous assumption which is highly favoured here.That theism must always be judged by its manifestations, but atheism can never be! Marcus Brigstocke is a good example of an atheist comedian who has noted the unfairness in that approach and had some fun.

I'm not sure I entirely agree though. Because surely the point is that theism does have manifestations, yet atheism itself does not. Thus it is very much possible to mock individual atheists and their conduct, but atheism itself is much trickier. I would think that the only legitimate way to mock a position based on a lack of evidence is to show that the evidence was staring the atheist in the face. This is an approach attempted by many theists, yet seemingly never with any success.

And it is perhaps also worth noting that rainbow's little cartoon does not accomplish either. It mocks neither atheism nor any individual or group of atheists, relying as it does on a silly, made up situation that presupposed some truth to Christian claims for the sake of the joke.

Ian Tattum wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
That's because the original question was phrased in a way which made it un-answerable, utilising an almost ubiquitous assumption which is highly favoured here.That theism must always be judged by its manifestations, but atheism can never be! Marcus Brigstocke is a good example of an atheist comedian who has noted the unfairness in that approach and had some fun.

I'm not sure I entirely agree though. Because surely the point is that theism does have manifestations, yet atheism itself does not. Thus it is very much possible to mock individual atheists and their conduct, but atheism itself is much trickier. I would think that the only legitimate way to mock a position based on a lack of evidence is to show that the evidence was staring the atheist in the face. This is an approach attempted by many theists, yet seemingly never with any success.

And it is perhaps also worth noting that rainbow's little cartoon does not accomplish either. It mocks neither atheism nor any individual or group of atheists, relying as it does on a silly, made up situation that presupposed some truth to Christian claims for the sake of the joke.

I almost agree with you about rainbow's joke, but anti religious jokes rely on the presupposition that atheism is true, so they too are surely merely another type of in humour for like thinking people. But I won't entirely concede my other point, for surely atheism and theism, or even religion and secularity per se are of little interest in themselves, particularly when held lightly. A Quaker peace campaigner and his atheist counterpart might be virtually indistinguishable, but the fun might start if the former sported a large black hat or the latter stridently asserted that there are no moral absolutes and that the sanctity of life is a completely empty concept!

Paul wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
That's because the original question was phrased in a way which made it un-answerable, utilising an almost ubiquitous assumption which is highly favoured here.That theism must always be judged by its manifestations, but atheism can never be! Marcus Brigstocke is a good example of an atheist comedian who has noted the unfairness in that approach and had some fun.

I'm not sure I entirely agree though. Because surely the point is that theism does have manifestations, yet atheism itself does not. Thus it is very much possible to mock individual atheists and their conduct, but atheism itself is much trickier. I would think that the only legitimate way to mock a position based on a lack of evidence is to show that the evidence was staring the atheist in the face. This is an approach attempted by many theists, yet seemingly never with any success.

And it is perhaps also worth noting that rainbow's little cartoon does not accomplish either. It mocks neither atheism nor any individual or group of atheists, relying as it does on a silly, made up situation that presupposed some truth to Christian claims for the sake of the joke.

I almost agree with you about rainbow's joke, but anti religious jokes rely on the presupposition that atheism is true, so they too are surely merely another type of in humour for like thinking people. But I won't entirely concede my other point, for surely atheism and theism, or even religion and secularity per se are of little interest in themselves, particularly when held lightly. A Quaker peace campaigner and his atheist counterpart might be virtually indistinguishable, but the fun might start if the former sported a large black hat or the latter stridently asserted that there are no moral absolutes and that the sanctity of life is a completely empty concept!

I strongly disagree that "anti religious jokes rely on the presupposition that atheism is true".

Anti-religious jokes can be (and are) made by theists mocking a religion other than theirs (or in some cases even their own), Anti-religious jokes can be made by deists. The jokes only rely on the ridiculous aspects of religion and religious authority.
There is no need to lack a belief in gods to see how risible some aspects of religion are.

Do only atheists find Father Ted funny?

Where is the presupposition that 'atheism is true' (not a phrase I care for either) in this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk[/youtube]

or this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0thRUS1wUw[/youtube]

Animavore wrote:Elevator joke?

Dane Cook, who talked about some atheist guy sneezing in an elevator. Dane says, "God bless you." The guy says, "I'm an atheist." Dane asks him what he thinks happens when he dies? The guy says (something like) he believes when he dies he'll go back into the ground and grow into a tree (?). Dane says something like he hopes that tree gets cut down and made into paper used for Bibles.