Not objective meaning, though, it's all subjective. But nothing wrong with subjective meaning!

Dick move... But not a sin! Still perfect pete!

Faith doesn't have any objective meaning either.

Exactly. Use your own brain, not rely on a sky daddy who literally gave you instructions on how to own slaves.

I do. It's such a waste of time. I'm not going to start anything with people, I don't have the patience or energy for that. And honestly, i don't have any debate skills. But I really wish I could just take it all away. Isn't it better to be right than to be happy?

Thats a little unfair. Most religous people have been religious for most of their lives and it makes up a large part of it. Being convinced their whole philosophy is wrong would crush some people

Honestly, this is why I don't discuss Mormon history and the massive, gaping chasms in their claims of Truth with my parents. My parents are old--old enough that the family is talking about who is going to call the coroner, who's going to deal with tying up finances, etc.--and knowing that they've wasted an entire lifetime and hundreds of thousands of dollars in tithing on a con isn't going to do anything useful at this point. Fifty years ago? Sure, they would have had plenty of time to come to terms with it. Now? Meh.

Yeah, I warn those who are challenging their own faith that naturalism isn't for everyone. For me it was a stark process to come to terms that I'm thinking meat, and my species is looking at some imminent great filters even before we are able to create a dependent colony on our own moon, so mostly harmless is going to be more of a footnote than our society deserves.

As someone who had an early aspiration to add something significant to the collective community that it could take with it into the future, this proved to be a bit of a let-down.

What aspects of naturalism do you feel negate the reality of our collective community? I really don't see how the one led you to the other.

That's somewhat my bad for taking the adversarial tone of your original comment to being serious and about all comments looking into the comic's unsaid meanings.

At the same time, though, the comic is 100% meant to make fun of militant atheists, as in atheists who make their whole personality atheism. The folks who's sole goal seemingly is to make everyone stop being religious. And the punchline is that despite achieving his goal, he only managed to make his mother's life worse by forcing her through an epiphany she wasn't ready for and then abandoning her with her own thoughts. The comic is partially funny because of it making fun of militant atheists. The other portion of the humor is the absurd nature of the situation.

The first comment you show takes that joke personally and the second resonates with that message. Neither of these are really off the mark, as grating as their tones may be to some.

Basically.. my reaction to hearing the good word of Atheism was to cling to New Age as hard as possible and believe the Skeptics were just miserable and calling anything inconvenient to their beliefs "Psuedoscience"

That lasted... a while... thankfully I'm not on the Spirit Science train anymlre

Now I'm a Buddhist and am learning to be cool with the temporary nature of existence and am looking forward to rebirth in the Pure Land.

The Problem with New Atheism is that humans need hope and hope isn't something Dawkins offers.

That sounds like a wonderful journey of reflection.

My personal view is that hope as a foundation is complete bullshit. My foundation is, in the most positive version of nihilism, "ultimately, nothing matters." I look at it as a clean slate. You get to decide what is important to you and persue it! I study all of nature to find purpose or meaning. I take joy in human ingenuity. I take sorrow in callousness. I appreciate what I have and want better for everyone.

Hope is a fine outlook but not something to lean on. It can kill motivation when expecting some 'other' to fix things. That can reward the callous and hamper ingenuity. It does not drive people to be better but can drive them to follow depraved systems of belief when they are promised post mortem reward or punishment.

I agree completely that the comic is parodying a particular cliche of a militant atheist. I disagree that the intent was to provide serious social commentary.

And I did not find either of those comments grating; I was merely citing them as evidence that not all of the discussion here is "intellectual". Honestly, the real avenue of criticism that was left open to you that I was expecting you to take was to point out, correctly, that they were heavily cherry-picked for their unreasonableness; it actually surprises me a bit that instead you called them not "really off the mark" as if they were inherently reasonable responses.

Not every church sends their tithe to the Vatican. Not all christians are Catholic. And not every church has paedophiles.

But I condemn all that do. It's horrible. Disgusting and despicable. I have two kids, and it drives me insane to think someone would consider doing that to them.

I would go as far as to say that experiencing any of those things is the exception.

Sure, that's what satire is. A parody of something to criticise it. Often using clichés to ensure the subject is immediately identifiable.

This comic is a satire of militant atheists, because the author finds that militant atheists are insufferable and deserve to be made fun of, as the comic is doing. Why else would the author choose them specifically to satirize?

You chose those two comments to point at examples of unintellectual discussion. I am pointing out that they are not as unintellectual as you paint them to be. I don't strongly agree with what they are saying, but that does not immediately disqualify them from contributing from the conversation. Your comment was the only one calling for the termination of the pursuit of deeper meaning in the comic, which is an anti-intellectual stance.

knowing that they’ve wasted an entire lifetime and hundreds of thousands of dollars in tithing on a con isn’t going to do anything useful at this point.

It always gets me how people can be so comfortable with tithing while so prickly about paying taxes. I've straight up heard "every dollar I give to the government is one I can't give to the church" as an argument, when the town and state I'm living in is joined at the hip with the church they love.

Fifty years ago? Sure, they would have had plenty of time to come to terms with it.

Church is one of those third-spaces that the unemployed and retired flock to when they've got too much time and not a ton of money. A great deal of the appeal of these places, especially back in my parents' day, was as a social center with a feel-good energy. As a born-and-raised Houstonian I've seen it work on enormous numbers of otherwise-religiously-apathetic people. The whole Joel Osteen model is Good Vibes as a religious experience. One big Jesus Themed Pep Rally.

I think you can probably logic your way to a "God's Not Real" conclusion with a generic religiously-ambivalent lay person. But I don't think a simple logic chain is enough to convince folks who consider religion a form of community recreation to stop showing up. No more than you could talk someone out of blaring their favorite brand of Country Music or driving an oversized pickup truck or playing with their toy guns down at the gun range.

These just aren't logical decisions. They are social decisions.

Having your entire worldview shattered can be pretty emotional

I find when I explain my Buddhist leanings that Atheists get confused and think I am an atheist who just likes lighting "prayer candles" for the lulz and that my talk of being reborn into the Pureland is some wacky metaphor.

If there wasn't more to this than I should never have been born in the first place.

I got a Father in Law that tithes his retirement income from the military to his church and votes hard republican. But he abstained from Trump voting so he considers himself enlightened.

They are social decisions.

Exactly.