neither of those definitions are correct...

Example intellectual comments being posted here:

I didn’t realize neckbeard atheists oppressed so many people compared to religion, thanks to the author for opening my eyes

So many militant atheists. Saying so much, all just to prove the comic right.

Having said that, my specific objection is not to all of the discussion taking place here, but to the fact that a lot of the comments seem to be projecting their own personal viewpoints onto the comic.

Also, I was not shouting people down; I was speaking in all caps to be funny. It's fine if you personally did not think I funny, but that was the intent (which in retrospect could probably have been conveyed more clearly if I had also dropped the comma so that it was purely a stream of words), just like it was the intent of the comic author to make a dumb joke rather than to state a strong opinion about atheists. I think that it is useful to separate the intent of what an author was trying to accomplish from your own thoughts on the subject.

The world has plenty of meaning that doesn't involve any kind of faith or religion.

They are sufficient for the topic at hand.

So many people in this thread completely missing the satire. The author is clearly also an atheist poking fun at the highschool reddit atheist stereotype. Taking this way too seriously.

I try not to be too judgemental of people who are religious. We are not evolved enough as a species to be able to comprehend the unknown or unknowable, and everyone to some degree has to cope with this somehow, even if we aren't consciously aware of it. Faith is an easy, convenient and catch-all solution to all of life's unexplained phenomena, so it makes sense that people tend to gravitate towards it naturally, all it takes is a little push during childhood.

I take issue with it when religious folk try to force their views onto other people. Proselytizing is one thing, but converting people by duress or force, or by weaponizing the government apparatus to conform to their views and their views only, is where I stop caring about the feelings of those religious cults and do everything in my power to stop them or undermine their efforts.

Yeah, going from finding fulfillment through religion to finding it through other means isn't something you can do instantly.

Dad's reaction is exactly what I'd do.

Throwing a stone is a dick move. Now he's imperfect Pete!

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.