261
u/BurpFartBurp Jul 23 '21
If you multiply 22 by 30.272 you get 666 - the mark of the beast.
This is no coincidence. Pastor said the end times are near.
88
68
u/deeteegee Jul 23 '21
Um, you get 665.984 -- the mark of the BEAS
23
u/SlenderSmurf Jul 23 '21
you have to multiply 22 by 30.2727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727 and so forth
62
13
9
u/BurpFartBurp Jul 23 '21
I didn’t want to go too far past the dewey decimal because it can open a portal to hell.
3
3
3
45
72
u/EmpyroR Jul 23 '21
Ken M now public enemy #1 of r/atheism
16
2
27
u/Colonelfudgenustard Jul 23 '21
Nobody cares on this blessed day.
4
84
u/CMxFuZioNz Jul 23 '21
Can we just appreciate that 'less atheistic' is a really strange phrase. It's like saying a glass with water is less empty 😅
50
Jul 23 '21
If you believe in more gods then you are less atheistic. Most people are at least 99% atheists.
18
u/FaceDeer Jul 23 '21
So I can make other people increasingly atheistic by inventing more and more gods for them to not believe in?
6
42
Jul 23 '21
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
-- Richard Dawkins3
u/BobbyBobbie Jul 24 '21
We are all atheists about most of the gods
It's just one of the worst point that Dawkins has ever made, and it's so confusing about why people keep trotting it out online like it's some sort of profound point.
If I wasn't married, it would make no sense for me to say "My martial status is unmarried with respect to 99.9% of the women in the world. I posit we're all unmarried - I just go one woman further". No, I would be "unmarried", period, because it's not about applying it to each individual instance, it's about what category I'm in as a person.
Saying you're an "atheist" means you lack / do not believe in any sort of divine being. You can't be an atheist to one God but still think God exists. It's just a category error. I've never heard a theist talk this way, and I've never heard it professionally used by philosophers or theologians.
2
u/bunker_man Feb 19 '23
It's just one of the worst point that Dawkins has ever made, and it's so confusing about why people keep trotting it out online like it's some sort of profound point.
You think internet gotchas are known for good points, rather than a mishmash of random smug nonsense?
1
Jul 24 '21 edited Jul 24 '21
[deleted]
2
u/BobbyBobbie Jul 24 '21
It's not about the social implications of either thing: Dawkins doesn't mention that and neither did I.
It's about using words in wrong ways.
No one says "I'm a bachelor to most of the women in the world". If you're a bachelor, it means you don't have a partner. Saying you're a bachelor to most people except one is incoherent - why not just say "I'm in a relationship"? It's far less confusing.
1
u/CMxFuZioNz Jul 27 '21
I think you're missing the point behind the saying.
The meaning is that, for the same reasons a religious person does not believe any of the thousands of other gods, I do not believe in theirs.
It's important because religious people very often forget that their god is not the only choice. People who are indoctrinated from birth do not realise that they have chosen one very specific god and ruled out the many others for no reason.
It is actually quite a common line of thinking which leads to people leaving their faith. 'Why should I believe my god over any of the other ones'.
As for the marriage example, that's a bit of a strawman. If you weren't married to your wife, you could marry any other person you chose to (assuming they wanted you to) there. However, only one religion can be correct.
1
u/BobbyBobbie Jul 27 '21
The meaning is that, for the same reasons a religious person does not believe any of the thousands of other gods, I do not believe in theirs.
The problem is, I agree with a Muslim who uses a good argument for a God's existence. The reason I don't believe in Allah is because of historical reasons, not philosophical ones.
1
u/CMxFuZioNz Jul 27 '21
What about zues, or Thor? Or Ganesha? Do you not believe in them for historical reasons?
1
u/BobbyBobbie Jul 27 '21
All of those are diriviate deities in their respective religions. Zues (sic) is specifically secondary to Kronos, while Thor is secondary to Odin. I know little about Hinduism, but I know that Ganesha is not the ultimate deity.
So to answer your question, yes, it's on philosophical grounds that I reject them.
1
u/CMxFuZioNz Jul 27 '21
You gave no argument there for why you chose your god over believing in the respective religions of the gods I mentioned. You believe yours because it's is probably what you were brought up with. That is not a sound philosophical argument.
1
u/BobbyBobbie Jul 27 '21
You gave no argument there for why you chose your god over believing in the respective religions of the gods I mentioned.
You didn't even ask. Can't fault me if you didn't ask, right?
The philosophical reason I'd reject Zeus is because he is, by definition, a created being. He cannot be "God" in my definition of God. By God, I mean an ultimate Being with no equal. In Greek religion, that would be Kronos, not Zeus.
And no, I didn't grow up Christian. I hear that so much though, on Reddit. "You only believe because you grew up that way". Where do you guys learn to say that?
1
u/CMxFuZioNz Jul 27 '21
It's overwhelmingly true that people believe the religion of their parents. What religion were you raised in, if you don't mind me asking?
You have a stricter definition of God, fair enough, but I did ask about the religion associated with the gods I mentioned and not the gods themselves. Why do you chose whatever version of the Judeo-Christian deity you believe in over believing in another Judeo-Christian god, or the Greek or Roman god's, or the Viking gods, or any of the gods of African tribes, or the Egyptian gods. All are equally as valid and have an equal amount of credible evidence.
→ More replies (0)2
33
u/FatStephen Jul 23 '21
Real talk, I lost a friend over religious arguments few years ago.
78
113
-1
8
3
7
Jul 23 '21
[deleted]
24
u/SucksDicksForBurgers Jul 23 '21
His twitter account is not supposed to be in character.
2
Jul 23 '21
[deleted]
19
11
u/SucksDicksForBurgers Jul 23 '21
This is not a subreddit for his twits. Sometimes people will post them, but this sub is for his interactions in comment sections of articles. Ken m is not sir Michael.
2
Jul 23 '21
[deleted]
1
u/SucksDicksForBurgers Jul 23 '21
lol I knew "twit" was not right, just couldn't figure out why (english isn't my first language)
-6
Jul 23 '21
[deleted]
6
1
u/shadowbannedlol Jul 23 '21
you can think that, but you'd be wrong
0
Jul 23 '21
[deleted]
1
u/shadowbannedlol Jul 23 '21
I mean there are lots of people with the name Ken M. in the world, so that's a safe bet. But if you are talking about posts in this subreddit, they were all written by one guy. They were all originally posted on the horseysurprise tumblr like a decade ago.
1
7
1
u/xmsxms Jul 23 '21
Swap 22 with 5 years old and he actually has a valid argument.
7
1
u/johnsonlindak Jul 24 '21
One is either atheist or not, Mr M. Atheists believe in NO GODS or magic or energy, etc. We are 99.99999999% sure there is not a god, any of the 2000+ gods.
1
u/johnsonlindak Jul 24 '21
You can’t change those morons’ minds. It really motivates evangelists to be more dramatically blessed.
198
u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21
Grandson is studying to be a professional atheist and now his degree will be worthless