An anti-religious (and specifically, anti-Catholic) webcomic is making the rounds on the Internet right now. It’s part of a webcomic called The Oatmeal, and is called “How to suck at your religion.” I have to warn anyone clicking that link that it’s really offensive: profane, lewd, and blasphemous, all at once. Honestly, if you don’t have some reason to read it, just go ahead and skip it (and this whole post). Whatever your religious views, this webcomic simply doesn’t enrich the discourse, or advance the debate in any positive or meaningful way.
You would think that something this over-the-top would cause even non-religious people to balk at posting it on their Facebook feeds as indicative of their own views. Apparently not. I’ve already gotten two e-mails from people who had friends share it, and who wanted to know how to respond.
There is a temptation to say, “It’s a webcomic, don’t take it so seriously!” But the truth is, while it’s supposed to be funny, it’s also supposed to make a serious point. In my view, it fails on both counts, but I’m really only concerned about the latter. Nearly every panel raises a different argument against certain types of religion, with most of the vitriol saved for Catholicism. Each of these arguments collapse on closer inspection, and it’s clear that the sheer quantity of arguments cannot overcome the dearth of quality of any given argument.
So here are my thoughts, by panel:
- The first panel depicts a Catholic priest (with a Roman collar) confidently damning all those who don’t belong to the Church. This is just a lazy straw man. While She’s canonized thousands of Saints, the Church has never declared anyone in Hell. On a related note, one of the obnoxious things about atheist attacks on Christianity is that they act as if Catholicism and Evangelicalism / Fundamentalism are basically the same thing. On of the things that Dr. Mark Gray said, in the article I linked to last week, was that: “It’s interesting that so much of the rhetoric of New Atheism seems to really be directed at Evangelical Christians—those specifically who take the Bible literally word for word. Many New Atheists seem to think anyone who is religious holds similar beliefs. Yet, this cannot be equated with the mainstream Catholic point of view.” If you’re going to argue against something, it helps to at least understand the thing you’re arguing against.
- This gets the Galileo affair completely wrong. A much-needed corrective here, or a thousand other places, for those who actually care enough about the facts to check them.
-
Jewish twins kept alive at Auschwitz
for the sake of human experimentation.
Were those who opposed this barbarism “anti-science”?This also grossly misrepresents why Christians oppose embryonic stem cell research (and falsely accuses us of being against all stem cell research). But I suppose the author has to misrepresent the Christian view, because otherwise, it makes a lot of sense. If human life begins at conception (which, scientifically, it does…. and is the only reason embryonic stem cell research is even possible), we’re talking about doing medical research that profits off of mass killing. This has been done before, and those who opposed it on moral grounds weren’t “anti-science,” and aren’t today. The term you’re looking for is pro-life.
- So… religion is fine, unless you actually believe in it? Should parents not pass their political, ethical or moral views on to their children as well? What parts of parenting would be left if parents were to avoid passing their views on to their kids? The irony here is that silence is itself a statement. Avoiding any mention of God to your kids sends as clear a message as talking about God: specifically, it tells your kids that God’s existence is either untrue, unknown, or unimportant. Because if you knew Him to exist, surely you’d share that knowledge, right?
- This next section is probably the worst, because it’s just an incoherent argument. A kid asks, “Dad, what happens to us after we die?” The author compares providing the Christian answer to this question with correcting your kid for having green as a favorite color. What?? That just isn’t a coherent argument. In what world are those two ideas parallel, or even comparable?
According to the webcomic, good parenting is to pretend to be agnostic, and say that “no one really knows for sure.” Of course, if the Resurrection is true, that claim is false. So to be a good parent, you apparently have to deny the Resurrection and embrace agnosticism, treating beliefs about the afterlife as mere matters of personal preference like having a favorite color. This is just… stupid. There’s just no other way of describing it. Imagine if we treated everything that way. “Dad, what’s 3 x 3?” “No one really knows for sure. What do YOU think 3 x 3 is?”
- The idea that a religion is bad if it gives you “weird anxieties about your sexuality” is naïve. What I mean is that sexuality is much more powerful and truly awesome than the author lets on. If sex is just no big deal, recreational fun, then adultery’s no problem, right?
Of course not. Agnostics and atheists have “weird anxieties” about sexuality, too, precisely because sexuality is powerful, and can cause a heck of a lot of damage when treated carelessly and casually. Everything from broken hearts and broken homes to rampant STDs and AIDS to millions of unplanned pregnancies and abortions would seem to have made all of that really clear by now.
- Religion is bad if you believe enough to try to tell other people that it’s true. Why, exactly? As a society, we freely try to convince each other of specific worldviews all the time, including really speculative ones, like political worldviews. Why is all of that positive, healthy democracy, while treating religion the same way is evil?
The author specifically advocates that good religions are ones that make it hard to join. Again, why? If having the right relationship with God is the best thing, not only for me, but for anyone, then trying to prevent others from that right relationship would literally be about the worst thing that I could do.
- This just grossly misrepresents Christianity. As I said before, if you’re going to argue against something, it helps to at least understand the thing you’re arguing against. In Monday’s post, I mentioned that one goal we should have in inter-religious dialogues and debates is to be able to describe the other person’s position in a way that they would recognize, and acknowledge as their own.
Needless to say, that’s not what happens here. Instead, there’s mockery and sneering of a ridiculous distortion of Christianity: mocking beliefs, in other words, that no Christian actually holds. Edward Feser has a great response to this sort of cheap shot, showing that this same asinine approach could be used to make science look stupid (provided that no one bothered to listen to scientists about what they actually believed).
-
Do you need to read the Bible to know
that killing him is immoral and unethical?I don’t think anyone votes based solely on religious beliefs. I also don’t think that being against abortion is a “religious belief.” The belief consists of three propositions: (a) human life begins at conception, (b) the intentional ending of innocent human life is murder, and (c) murder is bad. Which of these beliefs requires being a Christian?
- Invoking the Muhammad drawing controversy is just a reminder that the reason Christians are targeted for this mockery instead of Muslims is that smug atheists are afraid of Muslims. They bully us precisely because we’re not the violent, intolerant psychos that they pretend we are. If there really were a “Christian Taliban,” folks like this would be too afraid to mock us, as they are with Muslims. So in this sense, all of this is a beautiful reminder that, for all our faults, there really is something to Christianity.
- In condemning killing for religion, the author conflates it with “hurt[ing], hinder[ing], or condemn[ing] in the name of your God,” right after a lengthy tirade condemning Christians. Not even a hint of irony.
- Good religion is apparently placebo religion, and it’s okay only as long as we keep it to ourselves. The author then indulges the mandatory use of profanity to show us how calm and reasonable he is.
 |
| Raphael, Adam and Eve (1511) |
In Scalia’s dissent from Lee v. Weisman, he accused the majority of treating religion as “some purely personal avocation that can be indulged entirely in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one’s room. For most believers it is not that, and has never been.” This really does capture two competing views of religion.
 |
| Lucas Cranach the Elder, Head of Christ Crowned with Thorns (1510) |
One view, the view taken in the webcomic, is that religion consists of a set of ideas that we latch on to, not because they’re true, but because we happen to like them. Because our religious views aren’t objectively true, but just subjectively nice, they’re as personal (and insignificant) as our favorite color. It’s just a way of coping “with the fact that you are a bag of meat sitting on a rock in outer space and that someday you will die,” and that all existence is utterly meaningless. But someone who takes this view of religion can’t even be reasonably described as religious. After all, they’re essentially saying, “I know religion isn’t true, but I wish it was.”
But the other view is that religion describes something, and Someone, utterly real… the very ground and sustenance of reality, in fact. What’s more, knowledge of this Truth is the most important knowledge we could possess – the only knowledge that makes an eternal difference, while all other knowledge fleets or fades. But beyond even this, a relationship with this God, our God, enriches our life here on earth, filling it meaning, not as some delusional placebo, but in the way that a story takes on new profundity when you can hear the author explain why he wrote it that way. This is the only view of religion worth taking, since this is the only view of religion that treats it as true, rather than just a nice idea: that is, it’s the only one of the two views worthy to be called “religious.”
Beneath all the smugness, profanity, blasphemy, and sneering hipster irony, the webcomic falters in the face of this: true, substantial, real religion. The comic can mischaracterize and distort, but in the face of actual Catholicism, it’s silent. It has no coherent or compelling answer in response to the Catholic claim. Snark simply has no retort to truth.
Update: Marc Barnes (Bad Catholic) responds to the same webcomic, quite wittily.
Update: Thanks to all who have commented so far. I obviously can’t respond to every one of you, but I’ve written a follow-up post responding to some of the general trends that I’ve seen.
Beati estis cum maledixerint vobis (Matt 5:11)
Are you guys seriously reading this idiots blog post? It’s freaking HUGE, huge like JUPITER HUGE. It’s gigantic for ‘Christs sake’ (lol). Who has the time to read all that boring stuff? It’s not funny, it’s not even true, it’s not insightful. It’s just BORING. Who has time for BORING?? Take one look at this, laugh your pants off and go back to reading The Oatmeal. Nuff said.
Wait a second, so you’re saying ‘The Oatmeal’ is blessed? He’s the one being reviled right here isn’t he?
Fallacies are absurd, so they’re funny.
I lol’d at the Jews on bicycles.
They were Mormons, not Jews. Apparently you’ve never been harrassed by the LDS missionaries.
Have you actually read the comic??
Take another look at the comic, Jen. Look closely at the panel that follows “IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE…” There are totally Jewish guys on bikes. It’s funny because they’re poking fun at the LDS missionaries that we’re all fairly familiar with.
I believe that they were Jews, since it says in the panel above that Jews don’t do that, and in the one below, it’s a parallel universe, meaning that things that don’t happen here do happen there. Not to mention that they’re dressed as rabbis.
there was a panel ”in a parallel universe” with jews on bicycles, throwing a book at someone’s head. just for kicks.
And apparently you haven’t read the comic, because there WAS a panel with Jews on bikes.
And apparently, you didn’t read the comic because there WERE Jews on bikes.
No, Jen, the two characters on bicycles were most definitely Jewish.
Jen Johnson, if you read the comic again, there are actually Jews on bikes too. They are meant to spoof LDS missionaries in an alternate universe.
I’m not sure the author of this blog, or any of the responders, know what a fallacy is or how it works in rhetoric. I’m a doctoral student in English and have been teaching rhetoric for six years at the college level. Let me help explain a bit here:
The Oatmeal comic’s argument is that people sometimes act poorly on behalf of their religions. The author sets about showing this by using funny/ludicrous examples of people acting badly, either judging others for their beliefs or spreading beliefs to those who may not want them. None of these are fallacies. There is never a break in the logic of the central argument (“people act poorly on behalf of their religions sometimes”). A fallacy is when someone uses improper rhetorical strategies to prove a point toward an argument. A straw man fallacy is when someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make a counterargument against it. So when the comic has a priest telling people they are going to hell, this is a representation of the truth, as it is part of a priest’s job to inform his congregation of the dangers they need to avoid to keep from going to hell. This is, in fact, a form of judgment. Not from the church’s point of view, but from a personal point of view. The comic is saying that some people judge others on whether or not they will go to hell. This is true. Some people do this.
Conversely, when the author of this blog discusses the priest and judgment, he engages in what is called “logic chopping” or nitpicking. Most of this blog’s points are, ironically, logical fallacies. The popular perception of Christianity/Catholicism is that a) priests will warn people to keep from actions that will send them to hell, b) that this is a form of judgment that is propagated by parishioners, c) that people who aren’t Christians are going to hell, and d) that the church has tried, throughout history, to convert people to its religion. Whether or not YOU believe this is inconsequential. This is the popular perception which the comic discusses and which this blog attempts to ignore.
Furthermore, we should just get this out in the open: using rhetorical proofs and logic to make any argument FOR religion is preposterous. And I mean “preposterous” in the original definition of the word. It is contrary to reason. Because religion is a leap of blind faith. There is, by nature of the definition of religion, no actual proof that can be used in an argument for its defense. It is FAITH, not logic. So, again, this blog makes many references to “logical” points, which it really can’t. Because it’s not talking about logic. You can’t prove hell exists. Or heaven. Or God or Satan or Adam or any of them. But I can prove stem cells help people…
Don’t use logic to defend religion. Believe fully and believe honestly and believe for yourself.
If you are a doctorate student of English, then why are you wasting your time on this train wreck of a post?
I’m not sure the author of this blog, or any of the responders, know what a fallacy is or how it works in rhetoric. I’m a doctoral student in English and have been teaching rhetoric for six years at the college level. Let me help explain a bit here:
The Oatmeal comic’s argument is that people sometimes act poorly on behalf of their religions. The author sets about showing this by using funny/ludicrous examples of people acting badly, either judging others for their beliefs or spreading beliefs to those who may not want them. None of these are fallacies. There is never a break in the logic of the central argument (“people act poorly on behalf of their religions sometimes”). A fallacy is when someone uses improper rhetorical strategies to prove a point toward an argument. A straw man fallacy is when someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make a counterargument against it. So when the comic has a priest telling people they are going to hell, this is a representation of the truth, as it is part of a priest’s job to inform his congregation of the dangers they need to avoid to keep from going to hell. This is, in fact, a form of judgment. Not from the church’s point of view, but from a personal point of view. The comic is saying that some people judge others on whether or not they will go to hell. This is true. Some people do this.
Conversely, when the author of this blog discusses the priest and judgment, he engages in what is called “logic chopping” or nitpicking. Most of this blog’s points are, ironically, logical fallacies. The popular perception of Christianity/Catholicism is that a) priests will warn people to keep from actions that will send them to hell, b) that this is a form of judgment that is propagated by parishioners, c) that people who aren’t Christians are going to hell, and d) that the church has tried, throughout history, to convert people to its religion. Whether or not YOU believe this is inconsequential. This is the popular perception which the comic discusses and which this blog attempts to ignore.
Furthermore, we should just get this out in the open: using rhetorical proofs and logic to make any argument FOR religion is preposterous. And I mean “preposterous” in the original definition of the word. It is contrary to reason. Because religion is a leap of blind faith. There is, by nature of the definition of religion, no actual proof that can be used in an argument for its defense. It is FAITH, not logic. So, again, this blog makes many references to “logical” points, which it really can’t. Because it’s not talking about logic. You can’t prove hell exists. Or heaven. Or God or Satan or Adam or any of them. But I can prove stem cells help people…
Don’t use logic to defend religion. Believe fully and believe honestly and believe for yourself.
me too and Im a jew
THANK YOU, Joe. This is terrific. I saw that cartoon yesterday and wanted to bash my head into a brick wall at all the strawmen arguments contained therein!
It’s a shame you didn’t. One less religious person in this world.
That’s pretty pathetic. Maybe you need to get a life?
You two are the perfect specimens of why any of this is such a big deal. On one side we have the ultra religious person who is willing to bash her head against a wall for someone having a radical opinion. And the other, someone who thinks all religious people are insane, narrow minded minions who have no free will or can’t think for themselves.
Crawford, don’t be an ass. I am on The Oatmeal’s side too, but you’re being ignorant and rude.
I was raised Catholic. I attended years of Sunday School and Confirmation Class. I’m sure my name is in the annals of Vatican somewhere as part of the flock. I wrote my history thesis on the Gnostic Gospels and the early codification of Christianity. While possibly focusing unfairly on Christianity (though it is the dominant religion in the US, and thus the obvious choice) the comic is mostly correct. Christians do believe all none believers are going to hell. The Church may not have come out and said that some specific person is hell-bound, but one of the core tenants of the religion is that only those who accept Jesus as their savior can go to heaven. So by default, all none believers are going to hell.
Also, if you want to compare the body counts of various religions, Christianity wins by a long-shot. The crusades, the 30-years war, the inquisition, etc etc… just because western civic laws have thankfully become secular, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen again. Just look at Christians and Muslims killing each other in Africa today.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the gist…
Maybe you can tell me what a straw man arguement is without googling it before commenting, and maybe you’ll see that you and this arguement makes no sense
Religion isn’t meant to be logical.
Yes, and that is probably why there is so much backwards thinking in this world.
hahaha YES!
One less jackwad on the planet. Please continue.
Larry Stolba: Do you think it’s NOT insane and narrow minded to bash your head against the wall over someone simply having an opinion that’s the direct opposite of yours?
Of course it isn’t…wouldn’t be religion otherwise
Of course it isn’t mean to be logical…it religion, nothing logical about that
Wheaton’s Law, everyone…
Shocker, Charles!
Shocker, Charles!
bluething… hilarious! Made my night.
bluething, you made my night. Hilarious!
I know that this is a Catholic response but the reason for the gap in argument between religious institutions and agnostic/atheists is that they argue from different bases. This response states with great certainty that God exists. You cannot know that. Not in the literal sense. You may have your own proof that helps you sleep at night but you cannot quantify it. That is the gap. I am born and raised Catholic but I do not know if a God truly exists and I never will.
The reason for confusion is arguing from different bases. I was born and raised catholic but I cannot literally know that God exists. No one can. Most Christian responses argue off of a platform that they are certain of God’s existence. I think that in order for the responses to be taken seriously they need to accept the fact that no matter which way it is looked at, God cannot be literally proven. This would make the responses much more paletable, at least for me. Long live the Oatmeal.
The Oatmeal cartoon was lampooning religion, and especially Catholicism, because it deserves it. That you’re offended should make you think more deeply, not trot out the usual ripostes.
Uhm … metaphor much, guys?
“Christians do believe non-believers are going to hell”
Nope. Just nope.
Hee hee don’t you people have anything better to do? The Oatmeal is only guilty of having a sense of humor, and THIS author totally missed the point because no matter how smart you are, religion makes you alogical.
There is a spectrum of fundamentalism, but almost every religious person is on it because they believe LITERALLY. This is ignorant. The Resurrection? It’s clearly a symbolic concept. All of religion is. Bingo, you suck at your religion.
This is just based off of the ignorant people of the religious people not the true believers.
Catholicism is actually incredibly logical but that is hardly the point is it? It professes faith not blind faith , for faith without reason is stupidity (as taught in my Catholic Philosophy class). The problem is no one really cares what the real reasons are behind the faith or is willing to invest any time or effort in actually learning the truth about the faith because it isn’t easily summed up. Most people don’t know any where near enough about the Catholic Church or Christianity to truly hate it. They only hate what they think it is.
The few people who actually sought truth enough to adequately pursue finding out what Catholics really believe have ended up agreeing with a lot of it. But no lets not give any one else’s belief system a chance because we have our own personal superficial and often unrelated hangups about why the Church stinks. Since Atheism is completely logical, and requires nothing else but a functioning mind I would really love someone to point me to an atheist who is well versed in the teachings of the Church and has been able to condemn them from a purely logical point of view.
Even if you don’t believe in God there really is no reason to claim that other people are stupid because they do. It’s childish, immature and is about as logical as the little kids response to some one who insulted them by saying “I know you are but what am I?”
Let’s try to carry out conversations and debates like adults.
Based on your comment, I think you’re probably someone who does not “suck” at their religion (just because you think there are strawmen arguments portrayed). And I thank you for that. But there really are religious people in this world who are as hateful and ignorant as portrayed in the comic, and that is not okay. The point of the comic is not to ridicule all religious people, only those people who have committed egregious moral transgressions and hypocrisies in the name of religion.
Based on your comment, I think you’re probably someone who does not “suck” at their religion (just because you think there are strawmen arguments portrayed). And I thank you for that. But there really are religious people in this world who are as hateful and ignorant as portrayed in the comic, and that is not okay. The point of the comic is not to ridicule all religious people, only those people who have committed egregious moral transgressions and hypocrisies in the name of religion.
Based on your comment, I think you’re probably someone who does not “suck” at their religion (just because you think there are strawmen arguments portrayed). And I thank you for that. But there really are religious people in this world who are as hateful and ignorant as portrayed in the comic, and that is not okay. The point of the comic is not to ridicule all religious people, only those people who have committed egregious moral transgressions and hypocrisies in the name of religion.
Having read the comic, and heeded it’s message – I will refrain from posting my opinion here 🙂
Excellent choice dude!
The failure to realize that conformed religion is one of the evils in this world is astounding. I do believe that there are good lessons to be learned from the bible, but are no more than a list of Asop’s fables. I’m not just aiming at christians (which, yes, include chatholics in my book), but all sci fi and fantasy religions. Coran. Most violent book ever written. Scientology. Star Wars spoof. All have one thing in common. Completely riddiculous. But I really don’t care what you believe as long as you are happy with your decision and it makes you a better person. I just cannot stand the prostalatizing of religion. I don’t care. Don’t force your violent (muslim), judgemental (judism), condemning (christianity), propaganda on people. Let them choose themselves. Then again if that happened you all wouldn’t have many followers right? In discussions like these I truely am emmbarased to be part of the self destructive force known as the humman race. We sit and argue over religion instead of trying to solve the real problems we face. Economics, education, political corruption, and many other more prominant problems we face in the world. I am just saying you all are equally ignorant and need to get your heads out of your asses and help fix the stuff that actually needs fixing. But it will never happen so keep on keepin on. Call me blasphemous. Shun me. I couldn’t care less of you or your gods oppinions.
The failure to realize that conformed religion is one of the evils in this world is astounding. I do believe that there are good lessons to be learned from the bible, but are no more than a list of Asop’s fables. I’m not just aiming at christians (which, yes, include chatholics in my book), but all sci fi and fantasy religions. Coran. Most violent book ever written. Scientology. Star Wars spoof. All have one thing in common. Completely riddiculous. But I really don’t care what you believe as long as you are happy with your decision and it makes you a better person. I just cannot stand the prostalatizing of religion. I don’t care. Don’t force your violent (muslim), judgemental (judism), condemning (christianity), propaganda on people. Let them choose themselves. Then again if that happened you all wouldn’t have many followers right? In discussions like these I truely am emmbarased to be part of the self destructive force known as the humman race. We sit and argue over religion instead of trying to solve the real problems we face. Economics, education, political corruption, and many other more prominant problems we face in the world. I am just saying you all are equally ignorant and need to get your heads out of your asses and help fix the stuff that actually needs fixing. But it will never happen so keep on keepin on. Call me blasphemous. Shun me. I couldn’t care less of you or your gods oppinions.
Why even argue this out. No one will listen. Its god this allah that. You are all equally retarded. Magic fruit and talking snakes. Homicidal tendencies covered by jihad and crusades. You are what makes me ashamed of the human race. You are one of the masks of evil. You argue and spend all your resources trying to proove you are right. I do not care. You are evil. All conformed religion. But who really give a flying fu… Well i will respect you by not finishing that. Anywho… thanks for trying to indoctrinate us. We appreciate it. Love you… Assholes
Calling on the Strawman fallacy to defend a response that is riddle with them is kind of ironic…is ‘smashing your head on a brick’ metaphorical or literal, because I think you’ve confused the two in the original comic. That’s why the church relies on a hierarchy, because few Christians realise how multivalent and heavily influenced by political power the King James bible actually is, and cannot seem to separate its role from the socio-cultural and historical forces that created it and thus need those in power to tell them which bits are to be taken is literally and which bits metaphorically. All religion is a man made system for explaining the unexplainable…the more prevalent the belief system, the more soaked in the blood of conquest and lust for power. Most all intelligent children ponder the existential and meta-physiical making the point to encourage the questioning of dominant assumptions thereby teaching children ‘how’ to think NOT ‘what’ to think …
religion breeds pedophiles plain and simple defend that
religion breeds pedophiles, supports hate, inability to accepy chages in the word, they lie, steal from the poor, greedy pope doesnt need a gold throne and gold staffs when there are children that g0o to bed hungry
This thread actually makes the comic funnier.
None of you understand what it is to use a strawman argument. If you did, you would stop using a strawman argument to refute the original argument by misrepresenting strawman as the fallacy. Ya’ll need to get off the Internet and out of Church and take a course in basic logic before you you make bigger fools of yourself.
Religion isnt meant to be logical because its based on fairytales – Poorly written ones at that, but at least we know they had drugs back then too
This blog is the proof that, that oatmeal comic was a perfect success
and hit the bulls eye everywhere
Go oatmeal, favorite cartoon of all-time! so succinct and TRUE!
The use of ‘strawmen argument’ is perfectly valid here. The oatmeal thing ridicules views that aren’t held. Okay? As for “religion isn’t meant to be logical”… how do you draw that conclusion? If you take your education from things like the oatmeal then maybe you’ll have that impression. I love him by the way, I just don’t buy his moral highground and ridicule as an atheist while telling people with a religious belief to back off and keep their mouths shut.
Very well said. I read the comic yesterday and wasn’t surprised, it’s getting pretty common, but it’s still annoying.
At least they could argue actual points if they want to argue. I don’t get all the lies.
He’s made several posts with actual facts in them. His readers know this and have not taken this single post out of context. What’s the point i making good points based on fact, anyway? You wouldn’t listen. Just like most atheists wouldn’t listen to a Christian presenting ‘facts’. And yes. I put quotes. Because Christianity is a readaptation of religions that existed long before it that are now clouded by Christianity and ‘The son of God’.
Amen, Rob… Amen 😉
“I don’t get all the lies.” Really? Most of the points in this webcomic were based on feelings that are subjective and shared by many people – by definition they aren’t lies. Saying the Earth was made in seven days – that’s a lie.
That said, here’s an actual point recently made by someone far more eloquent than I:
“If you were born in Israel you’d probably be Jewish.
If you were born in Saudi Arabia you’d probably be Muslim.
If you were born in India you’d probably be Hindu.
But because you were born in North America you’re Christian…
Your faith is not inspired by some divine, constant truth; it’s simply geography.”
I’m sorry that you don’t understand, but Christianity is in no way a readaptation of religions beforehand. It is a complete revamping of Judaism….When Christ came, Christianity was born. It is a completely different thing. We still live by the same morals as Judaism was founded under, but we now know that it has more to do with where your heart is….how your faith is….than the actions themselves. I’m not sure I understand who you are saying made good points based on facts. If it is theoatmeal, then you are sorely mistaken. They are gross misrepresentations of Christianity.
I’m sorry that you so deeply misunderstand Christianity. I do believe that you must have had it explained to you so incorrectly that you think theoatmeal actually has some valid points.
“it’s getting pretty common”
Get used to it. Your religion is on the verge of becoming just another myth. Just sayin’.
Get used to it. Your religion is on the verge of becoming just another mythology. But hey, always look on the bright side of things. According to your myth there will be only a few believers when Jesus returns:
(Revelation 3)
4 Yet you have _a few people_ in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.
PROTIP: buy white clothes
Stereotypes are truth these days… people see what is presented and act upon it as if it was the real thing.
Stereotypes are truth these days… people see what is presented and act upon it as if it was the real thing.
There is NO GOD!!!! What part of NO don’t you get?
^look at this guy lmao
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAH
“Clever” academics are finally wising up to the notion that secular neo-liberalism is actually, shocker of all shockers, an ideology as well, and so the belief that all religious belief should be kept to oneself is actually, for all intents and purposes, the same as any other religious belief.
The comic is clever, and hits the roots of many peoples objections to religion. While it might be true that the Church has never said anyone is definitively in Hell, it has surely speculated that it is a popular place at many places and times. And I’m sure that it still teaches that one willful, fully consented, act of masturbation makes me worthy of eternal damnation. I can see how our theology might rub (pun half intended) the wrong way.
Pamphleteering has been a problem since its inception (Luther and his boys had some real scatological gems – nearly the same substance as the comic in question!). We can sigh, ignore, or make our own! Nobody loves wit and snark more than Catholics, so I’m sure we can up the ante a little bit.
words have meanings. learn them. secularism is the absence of ideological beliefs. It’s like saying your favorite TV channel is ‘not owning a TV’. To say that a person’s belief that there is no god is a guiding force, is like saying that a person’s belief that there are no werewolves is a guiding force. Is it possible they exist? Sure, but what crazy person, or child, would allow such a remotely absurd possibility guide their life?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology?s=t
“And I’m sure that it still teaches that one willful, fully consented, act of masturbation makes me worthy of eternal damnation.”
I’m sorry, I’ve never once heard this, and if I did, it was taught from an asshole, because no one soul is worthy of eternal damnation. In fact, I’d argue that eternal damnation is yet another misconception. The God the church teaches is forgiving, he does not discriminate. The only discrimination occurs on the planet, with other people.
“And I’m sure that it still teaches that one willful, fully consented, act of masturbation makes me worthy of eternal damnation.”
I’m sorry, I’ve never once heard this, and if I did, it was taught from an asshole, because no one soul is worthy of eternal damnation. In fact, I’d argue that eternal damnation is yet another misconception. The God the church teaches is forgiving, he does not discriminate. The only discrimination occurs on the planet, with other people.
And dare I say that it’s more likely, logically speaking, that werewolves would exist?
And to “hurrrrrrrdurrrr”, perhaps it is or isn’t an ideology, but I strongly disagree that thinking someone should keep religion to oneself is the same as believing in a celestial being who creates beings, worlds, galaxies, and universes. Yes, it’s an opinion and a “belief”, but ideology and theism are vastly different.
And the TV being ‘off’ is a channel. Secular neo-liberalism has nothing to do with atheism, where are you drawing this correlation? Glenn Beck’s chalkboard?
The accusation that a rejection of a belief is a belief is silly, religion and atheism aren’t on similar grounds. The burden of proof is always on the faction making the extravagant claim. I cant very well claim there is a magic pony that takes me to and from the moon and demand that you prove it, and upon you lacking any evidence claim that your rejection of my magic pony religion is a religion.
Secular neo-liberalism has nothing to do with atheism, where are you drawing this correlation? Glenn Beck’s chalkboard?
The accusation that a rejection of a belief is a belief is silly, religion and atheism aren’t on similar grounds. The burden of proof is always on the faction making the extravagant claim. I cant very well claim there is a magic pony that takes me to and from the moon and demand that you disprove it, and upon you lacking any evidence, claim that your rejection of my magic pony religion is a religion itself.
Dafuq? So….. you’re assuming he’s a 13 year old (not yr, grammar police) and making fun of the assumption instead of countering his argument… Good job!
To quote from the master himself: “…it is generally the man who is not ready to argue, who is ready to sneer. That is why, in recent literature, there has been so little argument and so much sneering.” -GK Chesterton
Funny, that quote sounds an awful lot like sneering.
oh man. lol. this is some of the best reading I’ve done in a while.
Chesterton was kind of the master of “sneergument.”
@Falconwarrior, you made me laugh so hard bahahaha
@FalconWarrior bahahaha that made me laugh 🙂
HAHAHAA falconwarrior, what a champ
In fact, ALOT like sneering.
Depends on how you read it, I guess.
On Patheos, an excellent–and laugh out loud funny–rebuttal to the original webcomic from The Oatmeal has been posted here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/07/how-to-suck-at-your-religion.html
That is a great response. I actually wrote this post yesterday. Before writing it, I checked Marc’s blog to see if he’d written it, since it seemed like the kind of thing he handles well.
I’m sure he doesn’t care what anyone’s religion is… Also, I think we’re all reading a little to far into a web comic that was meant only to make money/laughs.
Atheists are far from afraid of Islam. You hear more criticism and mockery of Christians because we live in a country populated mostly by Christians with few Muslims, but Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and other prominent and less prominent atheist writers, bloggers, columnists, etc. certainly criticize Islam. Atheists (and others) participate in an “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” every year in protest against the Danish cartoon backlash. If you don’t see it, you simply aren’t looking.
Here’s what I was responding to: “Are you so dangerously extremist that even a silly web cartoonist can’t draw a picture of your prophet without fearing for his life?” That’s obviously autobiographical: the webcomic’s author (Matthew Inman) saying that he can’t draw a picture of Mohammed without fearing for his life. That message is reinforced by the “picture” it captions: a rectangle containing only the words “There’s no drawing here.” He’s making it abundantly clear that he’s afraid to make jokes that Muslims will find blasphemous… so he makes blasphemous jokes against Catholicism instead. Someone who makes jokes only at those that they think won’t fight back just comes off as a bully.
Of course, you’re right that some atheists feel comfortable mocking Islam – particularly when they do so in big groups, like “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day.” I’m not suggesting that atheists should blaspheme or harass more religions. I think it’s childish and cruel. There’s a reason I didn’t include a picture of Muhammad in this post; but it was out of respect, rather than fear.
I don’t think the solution to atheists bullying turn-the-other-cheek Catholics is to encourage them to bully Muslims. I think it’s to encourage them to act like adults.
I.X.,
Joe
“He’s making it abundantly clear that he’s afraid to make jokes that Muslims will find blasphemous” – It’s called sarcasm. Talented comedians use a plethora of witticisms in order to get their point across. Clearly you’ve never had a good laugh in your lifetime, seeing as how incredibly stuck-up you are.
“saying that he can’t draw a picture of Mohammed without fearing for his life”
“He’s making it abundantly clear that he’s afraid to make jokes that Muslims will find blasphemous”
HAHAHAHAHA Not at all. That’s exactly the joke. It’s in reference to that magazine that posted an drawing of Mohammed passionately kissing another man, and the author and the magazine received death threats. Why don’t you try to educate yourself before spreading false claims? ooh right, your catholic…
Obviously you’ll defend your religion, but to anyone that is not attached to a religion, that comic is spot on.
It’s actually a comedic technique called “betraying expectation.” the tone of the comic had us expecting a drawing but it wasn’t there. funny to most of us.
Joe, I notice you are continually making jabs at atheists for mocking religions. I was brought up Lutheran, but I am now an atheist, living in such a conservative rural area, I am sometimes ridiculed for my beliefs. My brother is also atheist and his response to their ridicule was to backlash with his own insults. Sure at the time he was not acting like a level headed adult, but neither were his tormentors. Perhaps you should think about why atheists are the way they are. I know I’m bitter towards religious people. I’ve had to make a conscious effort to not say hurtful things. It is simply human to treat others the way you’ve been treated, and as an atheist I’ve been treated like a shit (there really is no way to say it without profanity). You complain about our childishness, but you made us this way, perhaps we wouldn’t be so quick to mock if you weren’t so quick to judge.
the fact that so many of these atheists and agnostics have to sink to this vitriol is really a witness against them. if you’re so confident that you’re right, why not rise to the level of actually engaging Joe’s arguments? why resort to the tactic of a three year old? come on, i dare you to actually be reasonable: what do you have to lose?
Joe, you’re missing the point he’s trying to make. Let me try to explain…. He’s trying to show why some muslims suck at their religion, and by doing so he uses that illustration of nothing as a joke, sarcasm, illustrating how some people are afraid of doing that.
Uh… No, Islamic folks have always taken satire towards Muhammad way out of context. Even South Park did a similar take on the joke. Didn’t they also pulled off some sort of terrorist attack in response to that offensive drawing? And I believe there was some controversy in the US. Yet, he’s making a joke out of that fact itself. People and their religious views are so high and mighty, that due to their self righteous urges they feel they have to go out of their way and threaten them in some sort of way in hopes they will “change their wicked ways.”
This article is seriously a desperate rebuttal. True religion is based on faith, if you are so sure that he’s wrong that be happy with the fact that you know. Religion is supposed to be a relationship with you and your deity, a private one. By making this rebuttal you are just proving him right. And in fact, proving a lot of his obviously exaggerated panels to be true. Funny thing is? I’m not atheist.
“I don’t think the solution to atheists bullying turn-the-other-cheek Catholics is to encourage them to bully Muslims. I think it’s to encourage them to act like adults.”
Hang on, if you’re a fan of turning the other cheek, why’d you post a such a defamatory article that specifically targets Mr. Inman?
The Oatmeal was merely pointing out how people can react when someone makes a joke about their religion. He was not afraid, he was just referring to the “Muhammad drawing incident”, as you called it.
@JP yeah, there was definitely no vitriol in this article, or in your comment.
an athiest has nothing to lose: He lives, he dies and he accepts this. A devout religionist has everything to lose: eternal salvation in the afterlife. I would suggest that the fear of accepting an end much closer than your peer group has been promising to be quite the motivational factor in denouncing other arguments.
Joe, since youre far more courageous than the rest of us cowards, show us how it’s done and draw a picture of Mohammed and post it. We’re far too scared..or maybe you just missed the author’s sarcasm when you were blinded by your own self righteousness. Please post the picture soon so we can see your strength. Thanks for your vision and leadership!
jp:
There is no way to argue reasonably with logical fallacies. Representing 3×3=9 as a truth equivalent to the existence of Jesus Christ as the savoir of mankind is exactly this. you take for granted that these are both fact. 3×3=9 withstands the most intensive rigor and has been proven many millions of times not only with sound logic but with experimentation. The very fact that you are able to read this message is proof that mathematical principles are true. Jesus Christ as the savor of mankind is entirely not possible to be proven by mankind without other logical fallacies. Therefore I challenge you, Why should I argue reasonably against unreasonable arguments?
The point of the Islam single panel is that the majority of what is wrong with Islam can be summed up with that single non-panel. The rest is merely a side-effect of taking a midieval code of law too seriously for far too long. It just looks kind of lonely amongst the Catholic/Christian/General mockery because there’s so much that’s applicable to all faiths.
you hear more atheists criticising Christianism because you have more atheists in Christian countries, and you criticise what you experience the most. I was raised in a Catholic country and I know more about the teaching of the Catholic Church than of Islam, but as an atheist I refuse both claims to know the Truth, as the Truth cannot be known and therefor cannot be teached, which is pretty much the point of the Oatmel. Now, atheists are much more tolerant of religions than the other way around, although atheism does not attempt to your individual freedoms. Atheism does not attempt to anything really, and secularism just ask for a word free of dogmas.
To be quite honest, that guy from “the oatmeal” seems like the kind of attention whore simplistic, irrelevant atheists usually are. I wouldn’t bother replying to him in any shape or form whatsoever. Let it be. I don’t think he is really that relevant anyway. As a matter of fact I didn’t know that comic even existed, and I even read some obscure webcomics like Red Meat and even Sexy Losers.
I initially had the same reaction, after the first e-mail I got about it. I made these same points privately, via e-mail. But when, less than an hour later, another person had e-mailed me the same link, I decided that it had gotten sufficiently big enough that it was worth responding to, rather than ignoring. You’re right, though, that there’s always a tension there — oppose? Or quietly let it die on its own?
Hello, Joe. Wonderful site.
Marc Barnes rebuttal has seen a flood of “new visitors” (good for its google search, bad for the discourse) – most are atheists or agnostics – due to the article being linked from Redditt. I have little experience on the overlapping of Christian and secular sites, and if members of each belief system tend to visit the other site often, but I have noticed that new atheism have produced a bitter group of people.
I regularly visit conservative sites, some rather obscure, and probably only known to those who are like minded and WOM, so I wonder why do such people “hunt down” these types of sites? I post on tumblr and the amount of “tumblrs” dedicated to mocking Catholicism is plentiful. I have no doubt that Matthew Inman’s webcomic will find a wide following on tumblr with much added commentary in favor of it.
Reddit*. You accidentally a letter.
Matthew Inman (aka The Oatmeal) just raised over $200,000 for charity, specifically the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation. Sounds like a really terrible guy.
Funny how Joe makes a point out he fact that The Oatmeal is stereotyping christians and other religious people, when you do the same thing towards atheits. Because surely, saying “To be quite honest, that guy from “the oatmeal” seems like the kind of attention whore simplistic, irrelevant atheists usually are.” is kind of mean right? Because id suppose that you don’t hear much from the atheists that AREN’T attention whores…..
Yeah, he likes attention. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have made a website genius. You know who else likes attention? The guy who created this website! He must be one of those “simplistic, irrelevant atheists” you were talking about. And just because something hasn’t made its way into your small world doesn’t mean he isn’t relevant. I never heard of this website either. But I am certain that there are more people know who The Oatmeal is than there are who know who Shameless Popery is.
P.S. Congrats on your knowledge of obscure webcomics. That gives you mad street cred!
This comment has been removed by the author.
JennyB, let’s see you actually try to thoughtfully, reasonably address the points Joe’s made in this article, and some of these posts, rather than this drive-by ad-hominem attack? what are you afraid of?
Yeah, he’s a nobody. Let’s check the Alexa ranking…. let’s see, his website is #2,060 in the world. As opposed to YOUR Alexa ranking, which is… #1,933,349. Ouch. Damn, man, I run a crappy little Photoshop tutorial blog and even *I* have you beat by well over a million places. That’s gotta suck to get caught calling someone “irrelevant” that’s exponentially more relevant than you.
Yeah, he’s a nobody. Let’s check the Alexa ranking…. let’s see, his website is #2,060 in the world. As opposed to YOUR Alexa ranking, which is… #1,933,349. Ouch. Damn, man, I run a crappy little Photoshop tutorial blog and even *I* have you beat by well over a million places. That’s gotta suck to get caught calling someone “irrelevant” that’s exponentially more relevant than you.
Oh yeah, he’s a nobody. We need a standard metric. Let’s take a quick peek at the Alexa ranking. Let’s see… the Oatmeal is the #2,060 site in the world. And your ranking today is… oh dear, #1,945,471. That’s certainly interesting. One might say that he’s several orders of magnitude more relevant than you are.
Pretty poor showing. I run a dumb little Photoshop tutorial blog, and even *I* have you beat by well over a million points.
Such a terrible, terrible man. I heard that he’s responsible for global warming, cancer, and Justin Bieber! I even heard that he cares so little about the enviornment that he welded two H2 Hummers together for twice the pollution and half the gas. The audacity of such a man. And forget about raising over $200K for the National Wildlife Federation or American Cancer Society. Not Christian at all. Surely, we cannot take into consideration that it was his adoring fans of said offensive comic that raised that money. Let’s boycott him because he shared a subjective opinion you don’t share. Because religion is a scientific fact and your ideals should be imposed on everyone; not offered to anyone of their own free god-fearing will. Matt Inman is NO Saint of mine. (Are ya gettin the point, sunshine of the Allmighty-righteousness? Thanks for playing.)
hate to say it, but if you’ve never heard of the Oatmeal, your head is in your ass.
“To be quite honest, that guy from “the oatmeal” seems like the kind of attention whore simplistic, irrelevant atheists usually are.”
Aaaaand we’re back to that whole “judging” thing
can we at least be informed about the people we are calling “simplistic, irrelevant”, please? Oh, wait, no. See article.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/30/why_are_believers_ignorant_about_atheists/
Attention whore? He’s a website designer and a comedian. He doesn’t want people’s attention, he just wants people to laugh. If you religious people are going to go nuts about it then don’t read The Oatmeal. You don’t need to make a big deal out of it, if all of his views on that comic are wrong, then so are all of your views about what’s going on in that comic, because the person that wrote this article is just counteracting what The Oatmeal has said with more of the same, fighting fire with fire won’t help.
@Signal Soldier: Thank you for the correction. I had a feeling I spelled it wrong.
@Jess: No one said Inman was a terrible being, at least not in this sub-discussion.
@Bob: Oh please. (eye roll)
@JennyB: I wouldn’t say Joe “wants” attention since this site is very niche. It is not a “general” site or is it an entertainment site. As to the poster’s “small world” you are referring to – hogwash. Just because he hasn’t heard of The Oatmeal does not mean he is sheltered. I mean, would he knowing obscure webcomics make him sophisticated and unique by your reasoning?
@Joe: I should’ve knocked on wood due to my previous post! Haha! But then again, I bet it was bound to happen sooner or later. If it’s alright with you, I would like to exchange emails (I do not like the google+ setup that is similiar to Facebook) since I have a few questions and comments that I would like to share privately.
@Signal Soldier: thank you for the correction. I had a feeling I spelled it wrong.
@Jess: no one said Inman was a terrible person, at least not in this sub-discussion. And he donated after a potential lawsuit.
@Bob: Oh please. (eye roll)
@JennyB: I don’t think Joe “wants” attention since this site is quite niche and lacks advertisements. It’s marketing, it seems, is through WOM or through self-discovery. (But thanks to Inman’s FB post Shameless Popery’s popularity has sky rocketed.) And “small world”? (shakes head) By your reasoning wouldn’t the poster’s knowledge of obscure webcomics make him somewhat sophisticated? Kinda like knowing different types of wine and what cheeses goes with each? I myself never heard of the The Oatmeal before, but that’s because I don’t spend my time on the interwebs seeking “internet culture” as much as some people.
@Joe: I should’ve knocked on wood because of my previous post! Then again, Inman would’ve posted your rebuttal anyways on his webcomic FB page.
@7d: You’re right, based on Inmans past actions it’s hard to say he isn’t a person seeking attention AND approval. I hate to say it, but this is what Inman’s wants. He wanted to create this type of “swarming” discourse. I think someone pointed out his “if you personally email me be ready to be ripped apart” warning: that says it all. Inman, I hope you’re reading these reply’s and grinning to yourself.
Congratulations, you win the most judgmental, cruel, and inaccurate thing posted in this comment section! Way to contribute nothing at all to this dialogue but instead adding more vitriol to the fire.
Ironically, you’ve already replied to him through this article, thus making your statement foolish and hypocritical. Sounds familiar.
“…when, less than an hour later, another person had e-mailed me the same link, I decided that it had gotten sufficiently big enough that it was worth responding to…”
Yep, 2 people… SUFFICIENCY RIGHT THERE FOLKS
But seriously. Joe makes some good points in this article, but some of it just proves what The Oatmeal is trying to explain. I am a practicing catholic, but it’s embarrassing when people like Joe make such rude, anti-atheist comments. Joe says in point 8 that christianity is in support of others beliefs…. but not atheists, apparently.
I love how you defend rtional argument all over your post but then remove a comment. Not going to make any assumptions as to why but I can’t think of any reson that would be any way pro-argument.
FYI Matthew Inman has over 300,000 Twitter followers and is widely known. He’s not just some obscure artist.
That guy at oatmeal is disgusting
How quaint. What a wicked burn, any other astounding pieces of rhetoric you wish to rock my world with?
a disgusting person who donated $211,223.04 to charity this month. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/charity_money
have you ever seen him eat? he doesn’t even use a napkin! at least he signs his name to the posts…
He just raised a lot of money for cancer research, what did you raise money for, another steeple on your church?
Such a terrible, terrible man. I heard that he’s responsible for global warming, cancer, and Justin Bieber! I even heard that he cares so little about the enviornment that he welded two H2 Hummers together for twice the pollution and half the gas. The audacity of such a man. And forget about raising over $200K for the National Wildlife Federation or American Cancer Society. Not Christian at all. Surely, we cannot take into consideration that it was his adoring fans of said offensive comic that raised that money. Let’s boycott him because he shared a subjective opinion you don’t share. Because religion is a scientific fact and your ideals should be imposed on everyone; not offered to anyone of their own free god-fearing will. Matt Inman is NO Saint of mine. (Are ya gettin the point, sunshine of the Allmighty-righteousness? Thanks for playing.)
Ha hey, that rhymed!
yes, he just raised over 200K to cancer research and some nature/outdoors thing. WHAT A HORRIBLE HORRIBLE PERSON. LOL. You are all just giving him momentum, funny how you just don’t get it.
Matt’s disgusting? I can think of dozens of examples of how the Catholic church makes the Oatmeal look like a saint.
Very well said mrbusche, a disgusting man who mostly do the right thing…. and he just open our eyes what kind of a society we’ve become…. the people who have a negative reactions to the comic are the ones in it:)) what can I say, the truth hurts?:)
Mrbusche, very well said…. yes he donated that amount of money… the guys who gave negative reactions on the comics are the ones in it… It just open our eyes to what kind of society we’ve become… all I could say is that, the truth hurts:)
Just because he doesn’t praise your precious ‘God’, doesn’t make him disgusting. He alone raised quite a lot of money just his month for charity.
Actually ALL religion is placebo religion. And I don’t even personally like The Oatmeal but I’d disagree that he misrepresents Christianity. He might exaggerate it: it’s a comic. But the principles are pretty accurate.
Anyway, I didn’t even read most of your babbling, but here’s a thought on the child’s question about the afterlife: you can PROVE that 3×3 is 9. It’s easily observable. It is 9 no matter if you or your priest say it’s 10, or 20, or yellow. Meanwhile, it’s laughable that you think your ridiculous idea of an afterlife should be taught to children when all of you crazy cults can’t even reach a consensus on what happens after death.
Felipe,
In the legal field, when someone makes assertions without even attempting to back them up with evidence or reasoning, we call those allegations “conclusory.” What you have here is a series of conclusory allegations, coupled with visceral and hyperbolic language (“babbling,” “crazy cults”), and an admission that you couldn’t be troubled to actually read the post before criticizing it.
My point is, in any context (religious debates or any other), that sort of approach is ridiculous. Imagine if I trolled random atheist articles, leaving comments like, “Christianity is true! I didn’t bother reading this article, but it is dumb, and you atheists are cultists.” How seriously would you take me?
It’s a shame, because as badly as you sabotage your own credibility in the first paragraph, you raise a point worth discussing in the second. Specifically, you note that “3 x 3 = 9” is observable in a way that the afterlife is not. That’s probably fair (although math people will tell you that it’s much harder to show that “3 x 3 = 9” than you think). But even granting that the afterlife isn’t observable in the way that basic arithmetic is, there are all sorts of facts that we tell kids that are no more or less verifiable than the Resurrection: for example, almost all of history that occurred before our lifetime. Should we tell kids that maybe Julius Caesar was head of the Roman Empire? Or do we trust a bunch of first century eyewitnesses?
One of the problems that the New Atheists frequently run into is that they expect everything to work the way that math or the natural sciences do. The rest of life just doesn’t work that way, as those who practice other disciplines will tell you. Christianity makes lots of philosophical, metaphysical, and historical claims. Yet philosophy, metaphysics, and history aren’t things that a physicist or a mathematician is ordinarily trained to analyze. So to expect that they’re going to work the same is naïve – regardless of whether or not we’re talking about religion.
I.X.,
Joe
Felipe,
There’s one more thing that’s been sort of nagging at me. You claim that all religion is placebo. Mind you, that’s demonstrably untrue: there are plenty of people for whom religion involves a life of self-sacrifice and struggle that atheism wouldn’t (honestly, is it merely coincidental that the turn towards atheism so frequently coincides with a turn towards the sexual sins?),
But let’s ignore that, and let’s also ignore that Catholicism is true. The fact is, you think that religion is a placebo, and yet apparently go around comboxs trying to debunk religion… and thus ruin whatever placebo effect it has. That seems sort of … sick, doesn’t it?
If tomorrow, you found out that the pain pills your grandma was taking in response to chemotherapy were actually placebos, and shouldn’t be working in the way that they are, would you tell her? Or do you go around playgrounds, telling kids that Santa isn’t real, so that they can’t derive pleasure from something that’s untrue? What sort of person purposely mitigates the placebo effect, unless there’s a really good reason?
I guess I’m just genuinely baffled about your motives. Is it really so paramount to you that you feel vindicated in your belief (and that you make total strangers know that you’re right) that you’re willing to intentionally inflict damage on those innocently deriving a placebo effect from their faith in God?
I.X.,
Joe
First of all trying to validate religion’s effect by saying that it requires a life of self-sacrifice and struggle proves nothing. If that is all it takes to prove a religion’s validity then there are several activities in today’s world that can provide that effect and more. With those meager requirements you could say that a belief in Santa Claus has the same demostrable effects because the self-sacrifice and struggle required in being nice instead of naughty all year long.
Then you claim that atheism requires no struggle and no sacrifice and is just a bail-out for sexually perverted people that couldn’t hack living by your “high” standards (let’s not even touch the hypocracy of the sexual abuse scandals). Let me remind you that this country is still predominantly theist (especially Christian). Do you honestly think that being openly atheist/agnostic and attempting to voice secular concerns is welcomed, tolerated and without sacrifice? Many atheists I know of have had to give up more than a few hours on Sunday. They have lost friends, family, significant others, and the respect of their former peers simply for having the balls to demonstrate a belief that is unpopular to this supposedly free nation. You on the other hand will experience overwhelming support from the government, your peers, family, friends, and especially congregation. What sacrifice does it take to blend in with the masses, go with the flow, and receive approval from 80% of those around you?
You are right however, religion is not a placebo, sadly it is more often a detriment to those who are forced to embrace it. If it were a placebo there would be no cause for concern among those who are without it. It would be better for religion to have no affect (like santa claus) then to be what it is, making slaves out of men and sinners out of the innocent, but it does. It is for that reason that it is important to question and protect ourselves against the wishes of the faithful zealots who want to cover the land in atheist blood and purge our country of any free thought and critical thinking.
The truth is when you ask someone to have faith in God you must ask of them to forget all other knowledge, to suppress any and all thoughts that may question their belief, and cast them out as evil spirits and workings of the devil. You ask them to subscribe to your political agenda believing that it is also part of the unquestionable will of God. You ask them to forgo human compassion, reason, and true love at the command of a God who is not there, and permit them to do heinous acts if it can be justified by “God’s will”.
The worst part is that no one is ever asked. What a pity that this indoctrination begins before a child has had a chance to think for themselves. They are forced to subscribe to this bullshit and become a prisoner in their own mind before the light of knowledge and thought has reached them.
You want to know why it is important to stand our ground? Grandma is not taking an empty pill. A child is being force fed a mind suppressing agent that will rob her of her life here on earth and force her to join the band of zealots. She will be told to submit her body to her husband and her mind to the Priest, told to give 10% or more to the pigs behind the pulpit, live a life of submission and then die still believing that she is not worthy of the grace of the God she served.
From the lucky few who have questioned and broken away from this, I ask you sir how can we stand by and watch the lives and mind’s of others being snuffed out and do nothing? Most of us were in that same situation. Would it more sick to act or to stand by and watch as you would have us do?
rock,
Not sure which country you live in, but here in the United States the government gives anything but support to Christians. Christian social service providers are being forced to shut down or go against their religious convictions or be taxed for not doing so.
Pax,
Phil
> “Anyway, I didn’t even read most of your babbling…”
I would have thought that the rational course of action would be to read someone’s argumentation before trying to debunk their arguments.
Rock,
Do you really believe your own comment? Do you really believe, for example, that believers “want to cover the land in atheist blood and purge our country of any free thought and critical thinking”? And that you must therefore act to stop us, since you can’t just stand back and what “watch the lives and mind’s [sic] of others being snuffed out and do nothing”? If you really do believe this, pray tell, what’s stopping us? If you’re right that “80% of those around [us]” are on the same page, why haven’t we started the atheist genocide yet? There’s a line between “overwrought” and “outright paranoid,” and you’ve just sort of sprinted over it.
Or what about your claim that religion requires us to take “all other knowledge” apart from faith in God, and “cast them [sic] out as evil spirits and workings of the devil.” Can you show me even one Christian who preaches this? This is just incoherent: how could knowledge (good or bad) be an evil spirit? Do you have any clue what Christianity actually teaches? Or do you just not care to get the facts straight before telling us what we believe?
But it’s not just the paranoid portions. Even when you characterize my arguments, you do so in a way that’s so dishonest it’s laughable. Rather than argue against the arguments I make, you just make up stupid arguments, and answer those. For example, you actually wrote this: “you claim that atheism requires no struggle and no sacrifice and is just a bail-out for sexually perverted people that couldn’t hack living by your ‘high’ standards.” You even put quotation marks around “high,” as if you were referring to something specific that I’d said.
Re-read what you wrote, and then try to find where I said anything close. Hint: you won’t find it. Nor will you find any examples of me trying to “prove a religion’s validity” by saying “that it requires a life of self-sacrifice and struggle.”
Those are all stupid arguments, which is why I didn’t make them. On the contrary, Felipe had made the absurd claim (which even you reject) that “ALL religion is placebo religion.” I pointed out that this was demonstrably untrue, since (particularly for those struggling with sexual sins), “there are plenty of people for whom religion involves a life of self-sacrifice and struggle that atheism wouldn’t.” That doesn’t necessarily prove Christianity true. It just proves it’s not a placebo.
And what’s more, this statement is obviously correct. For plenty of people, like those who struggle with same-sex attraction, or are dealing with lust while they’re still years away from marrying age, Christianity calls them to self-sacrifice in a way that atheism doesn’t. Do you actually disagree with this? If so, on what basis? You can’t just ignore my arguments, and say stupid things like that I’m claiming that “atheism requires no struggle and no sacrifice and is just a bail-out for sexually perverted people.” In addition to being dishonest, you’re wasting both of our time.
And for what it’s worth, if your examples of the “sacrifices” that atheists are called to are that they might have to go to church with their families on Sunday, and alienate people when they denounce Christianity, you might try to think of something a little more compelling. Those are some pretty first world problems, Rock.
I.X.,
Joe
@ Felipe:
>> Anyway, I didn’t even read most of your babbling,
The irony. For some reason I sense I know your reading list of “non-babbling” articles and books just by that one statement.
Joe: “In the legal field, when someone makes assertions without even attempting to back them up with evidence or reasoning, we call those allegations ‘conclusory.'”
The entire underlying principle behind the legal process is: “The burden of proof rests upon he who makes the claim.” That’s why the entire “beyond a shadow of a doubt” idea is so powerful. The prosecution must CONCLUSIVELY prove their claims that the suspect is guilty, or they are to be found not guilty. This is also the reason why the court system doesn’t operate on the principle of “Prove the defendant DIDN’T commit the crime.” That would be ridiculous.
Therefore, if you’re going to evoke legal examples, why not go all the way, an look at the big picture? The burden of proof rests upon he who makes the claim. You claim your gods are real, skeptics doubt this.
Prove your case. Prove it using testable, repeatable, independently-verifiable means. Do it in such a way that you remove all possibility of doubt.
Until you do this, your assertions have no validity, and no place in a thinking, progressive world.
Joe, to your second reply regarding the “placebo effect”.
Don’t you think what you say goes both ways?
So you should tell others if you are religious, because “it’s part of parenting”, but you should not if you are not, since then you are sick for destroying other peoples healing effect?
Why can’t everyone just be happy with what he/she believes in, and keep it happily to himself? (which was the last statement in The Oatmeals post).
Do we really have to point out people’s spelling and grammar mistakes? Usually when I use [sic] and brackets in general, I’m using them to point out to the OP that s/he has made some boneheaded mistake. Not a productive course of action in a debate about such an inflammatory topic. This isn’t an election campaign. Just saying.
Did you really equate knowing whether Julius Caesar was Emperor to knowing whether or not The Resurrection/Heaven took place/exists?
That’s quite a stretch. While I get the point you are making, you invalidate your whole argument with flawed logic.
Excellent reply Jim, no doubt you will not receive a response from the writer of this dribble because he is not able to refute that. He relies on “faith” much like a child relies on Santa Claus coming every year as long as the kid is good.
@Jim Schweitzer: Thank you, My thoughts exactly..
“The burden of proof rests upon he who makes the claim. You claim your gods are real, skeptics doubt this.
Prove your case. Prove it using testable, repeatable, independently-verifiable means. Do it in such a way that you remove all possibility of doubt.
Until you do this, your assertions have no validity, and no place in a thinking, progressive world.”
(honestly, is it merely coincidental that the turn towards atheism so frequently coincides with a turn towards the sexual sins?)
Oh my god. This is one of the most ignorant things posted here. When Catholic priests molesting boys stops being a punch line, then maybe you can use this argument. As an atheist, this honestly makes me mad and reminds me while I stopped believing. Congratulations on driving someone even further from the Lord, dick.
Joe, with regard to the following:
“there are plenty of people for whom religion involves a life of self-sacrifice and struggle that atheism wouldn’t (honestly, is it merely coincidental that the turn towards atheism so frequently coincides with a turn towards the sexual sins?)”
Really? I would take the position that correlation is not causation, and say that the reason a turn towards the priesthood or the episcopate may correlate with a desire to participate in or cover up child rape but that one may not cause the other.
I would think that someone defending the Catholic Church would at the very least avoid talking about “sexual sins” for tactical reasons.
Well… Just to be clear. 3×3 = 9 is a fact. Afterlife and reincarnation are theories.Comparing this to math? Seriously? I think the point there was 9 is true while the afterlife is yet to be proven. So when a kid asks is 3×3 9 you say yes because it is absolutely true. But when they ask if here is an afterlife? You cannot just say The afterlife is as true as the 3×3 = 9
Joe,
As an atheist (frankly I don’t know what a “New Atheist” is supposed to be) and a fan of the Oatmeal, I actually read your article with an open mind, and though I could certainly argue pretty much all your points that others have here also, I can understand your points (not agree, but understand). However, you pretty much have proved the point of the comic, i.e. that instead of preaching and practicing peace, love and forgiveness as dictated by Christ, you are judgmental and intolerant. To dare to say that I’m an atheist because of sexual sins as opposed to my own faith in science is first off insulting and secondly pathetic. Catholicism has a long history of murder, oppression, and most recently covering up sexual abuse of children. I have no problem with you having a faith in something greater then yourself, but I do have a huge problem with you passing judgement on me without having any idea of who I am, and completely going against the basic tenets of your religion. You have actually proved that the Oatmeal was trying to say. Congratulations!
Thank you Jim Schweitzer for finally bringing that up. I’m not all that concerned with the legal system in regards to beliefs, but this is an argument that has seriously been lacking some critical thinking. Religion has the the burden of proof; no books written by man, or how ever many men will self-sacrifice or bludgeon non-believers in ridiculous conquests will prove its validity.
Keep your religion to yourself, or as the Oatmeal suggests, despite in his insanely sarcastic, exaggerative and suggestive manners that seem to go right over yours and many others’ heads, how about saying it’s YOUR belief, but that there are other beliefs out there as well? Nobody says you need to deny telling your children your beliefs, but you need to readily point out that it is your belief, and that there are countless of other religions and beliefs, and that you will love your child no matter what they choose to believe.
Thank you Jim Schweitzer for finally bringing that up. I’m not all that concerned with the legal system in regards to beliefs, but this is an argument that has seriously been lacking some critical thinking. Religion has the the burden of proof; no books written by man, or how ever many men will self-sacrifice or bludgeon non-believers in ridiculous conquests will prove its validity.
Keep your religion to yourself, or as the Oatmeal suggests, despite in his insanely sarcastic, exaggerative and suggestive manners that seem to go right over yours and many others’ heads, how about saying it’s YOUR belief, but that there are other beliefs out there as well? Nobody says you need to deny telling your children your beliefs, but you need to readily point out that it is your belief, and that there are countless of other religions and beliefs, and that you will love your child no matter what they choose to believe.
Julius Caesar wasn’t head of the Roman Empire. Just thought I should point that out.
Also, Julius Caesar was never an emperor. Just thought I should point that out.
Jim- you have the clearest, best argument on this entire thread. 100 internets for you sir!
Thanks Mr Schweitzer! That’s the whole argument that religious nuts don’t get..if it’s true, where is the proof? Are we waiting for the magic unicorn to bring the proof, or did it fly away? When I get some proof, I’ll convert, but until then I’ll remain a Pastafarian!
Joe,
You strike me as a intelligent man, but one thing scared me about your replies about the placebo and the self-sacrifice and struggle. I mean, why would it be good to self-sacrifice and struggle in your life for things as sex or if you’re gay.
The thing about getting people to believe in God or to become atheist is so many times in the mindset: but it will be better for you. How would you like it if I would try to convince you over and over again that you’re wasting your time with religion and that your self-sacrifice is throwing away nice experiences for a God that doesn’t exist. You wouldn’t like it I guess because you know that your story is right, just as much as I know mine is (I’m an atheist).
So please don’t throw the “we can self-sacrifice and the atheist can’t” at people. Just know that you’re right and know that there are a lot of people of know they’re right. The thing is, I don’t see door-to-door atheists trying to convince believers to abandon their believes. And I do think it would be better for a lot of believers to let their religion go because it’s killing them (I know a couple of gay people who are enormously struggling with this).
PS. Sorry if my English isn’t that good (I’m Dutch)
Joe,
I’m responding to your reply to Rock, above, in which you write:
“For plenty of people, like those who struggle with same-sex attraction, or are dealing with lust while they’re still years away from marrying age, Christianity calls them to self-sacrifice in a way that atheism doesn’t.”
Atheism (if we really must anthropomorphise it) doesn’t call these people to self-sacrifice because there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. You frame homosexuality as a mental disease called “same-sex attraction”, which I find contemptible.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading your post, and your responses to many of the comments that have been made. While I admire the calm, collected attitude you bring to your writings, it only makes me sicker to discover the little nuggets of judgement and hate that lie (badly) hidden in the content. It’s very obvious that you are anti-gay, and whether that is because you see virtue in giving more weight to the more hateful parts of the Bible than the truly wonderful parts (which I know exist), or if you’ve come to this conclusion after reading more than one book, it’s plain wrong to pass judgement on people for circumstances out of their control, and even more wrong to try to “fix” them.
You know what I did when I had lustful feelings in the years leading up to “marrying age”? I masturbated. It’s really good fun. So much fun in fact, that I still do it to this day.
We’re all very different people, and we forget that sometimes. I understand that this is your blog and you’ve got a following that may hold a similar set of values to you, but that comes with its own disadvantages. The most blatant disadvantage is that the some of them may have insulated themselves from thoughts, ideas and opinions that don’t match their own. This is a pity because it’s not very often that a blog post such as this gets so much exposure that people from outside your circle drop by and try to offer different views for your (and your readers’) consideration. I know there’s been a lot of snark and nonsense offered up by both sides, but please don’t fall back on that as an excuse to not learn from the people who don’t resort to such tactics.
I don’t have an issue with Christianity. It’s all too easy to group people together under banners and throw around generalisations. I’ll leave that to people like Matt Inman at The Oatmeal (who does so with quite the comedic effect). I do have an issue with you though. Your personal attitude to homosexuals, atheists, the sexually adventurous and (even) comedians that dare to oppose your worldview, is shameful. It wouldn’t rile me up nearly as much if your words weren’t so infectious to any impressionable minds.
For shame.
Joe,
I’m responding to your reply to Rock, above, in which you write:
“For plenty of people, like those who struggle with same-sex attraction, or are dealing with lust while they’re still years away from marrying age, Christianity calls them to self-sacrifice in a way that atheism doesn’t.”
Atheism (if we really must anthropomorphise it) doesn’t call these people to self-sacrifice because there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. You frame homosexuality as a mental disease called “same-sex attraction”, which I find contemptible.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading your post, and your responses to many of the comments that have been made. While I admire the calm, collected attitude you bring to your writings, it only makes me sicker to discover the little nuggets of judgement and hate that lie (badly) hidden in the content. It’s very obvious that you are anti-gay, and whether that is because you see virtue in giving more weight to the more hateful parts of the Bible than the truly wonderful parts (which I know exist), or if you’ve come to this conclusion after reading more than one book, it’s plain wrong to pass judgement on people for circumstances out of their control, and even more wrong to try to “fix” them.
You know what I did when I had lustful feelings in the years leading up to “marrying age”? I masturbated. It’s really good fun. So much fun in fact, that I still do it to this day.
We’re all very different people, and we forget that sometimes. I understand that this is your blog and you’ve got a following that may hold a similar set of values to you, but that comes with its own disadvantages. The most blatant disadvantage is that the some of them may have insulated themselves from thoughts, ideas and opinions that don’t match their own. This is a pity because it’s not very often that a blog post such as this gets so much exposure that people from outside your circle drop by and try to offer different views for your (and your readers’) consideration. I know there’s been a lot of snark and nonsense offered up by both sides, but please don’t fall back on that as an excuse to not learn from the people who don’t resort to such tactics.
I don’t have an issue with Christianity. It’s all too easy to group people together under banners and throw around generalisations. I’ll leave that to people like Matt Inman at The Oatmeal (who does so with quite the comedic effect). I do have an issue with you though. Your personal attitude to homosexuals, atheists, the sexually adventurous and (even) comedians that dare to oppose your worldview, is shameful. It wouldn’t rile me up nearly as much if your words weren’t so infectious to any impressionable minds.
For shame.
Felipe, that’s what I think about this. Maybe he exaggerated a little but the points in the comic were pretty much spot on.
Joe, I like how you admit that it’s a placebo by comparing it to telling kids that Santa isn’t real. That’s 100% true. This is like Santa Clause and the tooth fairy except a lot of people don’t grow out of it. Grown adults believing there’s a magical sorcerer who created everything and causes everything to happen. In today’s day and age and with today’s technology grown adults still believe this?? It’s a fairy tale, written by Arabs in the desert many years ago. Funny how God ONLY ever came out and spoke with crazy poor people. Never has he come to a group of people or to a more advanced and intelligent population, which there were a few around at the time, to speak with them. Nope, only poor crazy people…
Now it seems to me that it’s either a bunch of insane people completely made up stories or hallucinated, sometimes manipulated existing stories that were based on astrology, OR God seriously doesn’t want anyone to believe in him by never ever showing himself at all to a single reliable person in the history of this planet. If he existed he would know that we have the right to know whether or not he’s there. He would show himself to at least a substantial percentage of the population at least every couple thousand years, if not way sooner. I have no doubt of this, he would not sit by and watch how we destroyed this planet and see how many people are unsure or completely sure that he doesn’t exist and have to rely on fairy tales passed on from generation to generation that you ONLY believe because you were told as a child..
Felipe, that’s what I think about this. Maybe he exaggerated a little but the points in the comic were pretty much spot on.
Joe, I like how you admit that it’s a placebo by comparing it to telling kids that Santa isn’t real. That’s 100% true. This is like Santa Clause and the tooth fairy except a lot of people don’t grow out of it. Grown adults believing there’s a magical sorcerer who created everything and causes everything to happen. In today’s day and age and with today’s technology grown adults still believe this?? It’s a fairy tale, written by Arabs in the desert many years ago. Funny how God ONLY ever came out and spoke with crazy poor people. Never has he come to a group of people or to a more advanced and intelligent population, which there were a few around at the time, to speak with them. Nope, only poor crazy people…
Now it seems to me that it’s either a bunch of insane people completely made up stories or hallucinated, sometimes manipulated existing stories that were based on astrology, OR God seriously doesn’t want anyone to believe in him by never ever showing himself at all to a single reliable person in the history of this planet. If he existed he would know that we have the right to know whether or not he’s there. He would show himself to at least a substantial percentage of the population at least every couple thousand years, if not way sooner. I have no doubt of this, he would not sit by and watch how we destroyed this planet and see how many people are unsure or completely sure that he doesn’t exist and have to rely on fairy tales passed on from generation to generation that you ONLY believe because you were told as a child..
Felipe, that’s what I think. The comic slightly exaggerated in a couple parts but overall the points it made were spot on.
Joe, you pointed out yourself that it’s a placebo by equating saying this is a placebo to telling children there’s no Santa Clause. You’re right, it is the same thing. Except that many of us outgrow the Santa Clause, tooth fairy and God fairy tales. God is only different because a lot of adults choose to still believe it when they grow up. Then some are still like children “you’re saying he’s not real!! No way, it can’t be! I’ve been lied to all these years!”
It’s weird to see all these people not grow out of that one even after growing out of the Easter bunny, Santa Clause, and the tooth fairy.. I have as much, if not more proof of the tooth fairy than of God..
Joe,
I’m responding to your reply to Rock, above, in which you write:
“For plenty of people, like those who struggle with same-sex attraction, or are dealing with lust while they’re still years away from marrying age, Christianity calls them to self-sacrifice in a way that atheism doesn’t.”
Atheism (if we really must anthropomorphise it) doesn’t call these people to self-sacrifice because there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. You frame homosexuality as a mental disease called “same-sex attraction”, which I find contemptible.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading your post, and your responses to many of the comments that have been made. While I admire the calm, collected attitude you bring to your writings, it only makes me sicker to discover the little nuggets of judgement and hate that lie (badly) hidden in the content. It’s very obvious that you are anti-gay, and whether that is because you see virtue in giving more weight to the more hateful parts of the Bible than the truly wonderful parts (which I know exist), or if you’ve come to this conclusion after reading more than one book, it’s plain wrong to pass judgement on people for circumstances out of their control, and even more wrong to try to “fix” them.
You know what I did when I had lustful feelings in the years leading up to “marrying age”? I masturbated. It’s really good fun. So much fun in fact, that I still do it to this day.
We’re all very different people, and we forget that sometimes. I understand that this is your blog and you’ve got a following that may hold a similar set of values to you, but that comes with its own disadvantages. The most blatant disadvantage is that the some of them may have insulated themselves from thoughts, ideas and opinions that don’t match their own. This is a pity because it’s not very often that a blog post such as this gets so much exposure that people from outside your circle drop by and try to offer different views for your (and your readers’) consideration. I know there’s been a lot of snark and nonsense offered up by both sides, but please don’t fall back on that as an excuse to not learn from the people who don’t resort to such tactics.
I don’t have an issue with Christianity. It’s all too easy to group people together under banners and throw around generalisations. I’ll leave that to people like Matt Inman at The Oatmeal (who does so with quite the comedic effect). I do have an issue with you though. Your personal attitude to homosexuals, atheists, the sexually adventurous and (even) comedians that dare to oppose your worldview, is shameful. It wouldn’t rile me up nearly as much if your words weren’t so infectious to any impressionable minds.
For shame.
“There are plenty of people for whom religion involves a life of self-sacrifice and struggle that atheism wouldn’t (honestly, is it merely coincidental that the turn towards atheism so frequently coincides with a turn towards the sexual sins?)”
Sounds pretty ‘holier than thou” to me.
Jim Schweitzer,
Actually, court systems do not work on the basis of proving things “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. It works on the basis of proving something “beyond reasonable doubt”.
The difference is in the magnitude of the requirement.
You require an airtight case, which courts don’t. In courts, things don’t need to be proven conclusively in the sense of “eliminating all doubt”, rather just “reasonable doubt”
@Joe
Actually, you did say it;
“There’s one more thing that’s been sort of nagging at me. You claim that all religion is placebo. Mind you, that’s demonstrably untrue: there are plenty of people for whom religion involves a life of self-sacrifice and struggle that atheism wouldn’t (honestly, is it merely coincidental that the turn towards atheism so frequently coincides with a turn towards the sexual sins?)”
Backpeddling can get dangerous. The comic must have a ring of truth to it, or you wouldn’t have your panties in such a twist.
Unknown – no. He didn’t equate the two. But he’s comparing the truth of historical reports. The disparate historical records of Jesus of Nazareth all involve accounts of the resurrection so I think it’s fair to include that in the example. Let’s just say it DID happen… it would be a miracle, right, and prove the existence of God. That’s not illogical though. The whole point is that it would have been an isolated act of God. And to consider if THAT could have actually happened we can use the historixal records… look at the explanatory power and scope of the evidence, the separate accounts, etc. What is the best explanation? Just think about it for yourself.
Re: “That is a great response. I actually wrote this post yesterday. Before writing it, I checked Marc’s blog to see if he’d written it, since it seemed like the kind of thing he handles well.”
If you are Marc’s friend, please send a message to him from me. I haven’t been successful in contacting him myself about the matter, though I was rash in my e-mail. If you want to discuss this privately, and wish to delete this comment, you can contact me here: [email protected] (I don’t know your email, so I unfortunately couldn’t email you this)
At http://www.1flesh.org/support Marc says, as a way to bring sexy back, “Troll Planned Parenthood’s Facebook page,…”
Trolling is uncharitable, and thus ought to be avoided. It might also be a sin or a vice, but not sure on that. In any case, it’s uncharitable, since it annoys and frustrates others and can lead to unjust anger.
Ha ha ha, did you just equate trolling to be a possible sin?
Silly Nick,
I’m pretty sure that trolling requires *some* sort of deception – of one’s beliefs, motives, or intentions. I imagine that could be construed as bearing false witness. Still, I find this sort of obsessive overanalysis of whether this or that is a sin or a vice etc. LOLworthy.
I find this article HILARIOUS! They only bash it because the assume that you are an Atheist!
ATHEISM IS THE DEFAULT PEOPLE!!! YOU ARE HOLDING SOCIETY BACK!!!!! But no matter how hard we try, you will never agree with us. And you will force your dogma on every child you see! notice how no one has ever joined catholisism as an adult, only children, who’s parents force them too are put in. I know because the same happened to me. I had the good thought to change, but every child that is forced into religion before they can even SPEAK, might not get that choice. I know that you guys think that you are doing something good, but I’m sorry, you are not!
Shotgun217,
From the first sentence, I’m not sure if you know where you are. Did you think that this blog is the Oatmeal? Who assumes that I’m an atheist? Who are you talking to?
“[N]otice how no one has ever joined catholisism [sic] as an adult”. That’s fascinating, since every year, over 100,000 people join the Catholic Church in America … and that’s not including infant Baptism. You just deny that these people exist? Try telling that to folks like Jen Fulwiler or Leah Libresco, both of who(m) were not only adults, but atheist bloggers, before converting to Catholicism. Meanwhile, fully 70% of those raised as atheists abandon go on to abandon their atheism. So you’re free to keep telling yourself that atheism is the “default position” and that religion only exists because parents indoctrinate their children, but those pesky facts are going to keep making your argument look ridiculous.
I.X.,
Joe
> “ATHEISM IS THE DEFAULT PEOPLE”
In what way is it the “default”? Atheism is comparatively new. In fact, to be an Atheist means to conclude that 99% of the humans in throughout history have been utterly deluded.
Atheism is not comparatively new by any means. Atheism has always existed, and was in fact LESS frowned upon BCE than it is now.
> “ATHEISM IS THE DEFAULT PEOPLE”
Means that, when you’re born you don’t believe in Christ, Buddha, etc. It’s “taught” to us.
The best argument I know “against” the delusional religious beliefs of the world is that there are so many of them. The idea that one of them is right and the others are wrong seems laughably arrogant and completely illogical. If you look at the world religions objectively it’s pretty obvious they’re simply a means of dealing with the mysteries of life “explaining” things we don’t understand yet. They’re a crutch for people who need everything neat and tidy in life and everything explained to them. Something happens, we don’t understand, must be God… that kind of thing.
Also – many rationalists have a pretty hard time swallowing this term Atheism – as it implies we believe there is no God. While this is in the ballpark it’s not really accurate. We don’t have a blind, unshakeable belief that there is no God, we just find no evidence to support that there is one and generally feel that the available evidence points towards God not existing so far.
Kind of like Loch Ness… I don’t “believe” it doesn’t exist… that implies some sort of leap of faith. I believe there isn’t evidence available to prove it’s existence though.
It’s just a rational way of looking at things. If you have $100 in your pocket – take it out and show me – don’t expect me to just blindly believe you have said $100 in your pocket because a you read about it in a book or it came to you in a dream or some other no-win argument.
Well, you are an “enlightened” 13 yr old, who keeps it “real”, with an odd fascination for Nerf guns so it makes it very hard to Not take you seriously. And again, at the tender age of 13. Such a disappointment.
Ignorance is the default state in which all children are born into this world. there has never been an infant born with knowledge of truth or fiction.
so, yes, in a way atheism, the lack of belief in any god/s, is “the default”
also, to refute the OPs claim that no adult has ever converted to christianity, there is Dave Mustaine, Lead Singer/guitar of Megadeth is a Born-again Christian. But he’s not a dick about it.
this Oatmeal comic was meant to take the piss out of all those who are dicks about their Faith.
Being a christian means believing 98.9% of all humans throughout history have been utterly deluded.
It is the default in the same sense that it is the default *not* to believe in anything that there is not clear evidence of. There is not clear evidence of the existence of a God in the sense that there *is* evidence of the guy next to me in the subway, or of the millions of people who live in the same city as me, by the sheer fact that I see many of them, and the artifacts they create and leave behind, every day. No one would seriously dispute their existence. People can, and do, dispute the existence of God because the artifacts that a given God would at least have left behind do not exist. Everything in the physical universe that we can perceive could exist with or without a God.
Hence, “faith.”
With regard to Restless Pilgrim, to be a Catholic means that you conclude some vast majority of humans throughout modern history have been deluded. E.g., atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Protestants, Buddhists, animists, Taoists, Shinto. That argument, such as it is, strikes me as both misleading and beside the point.
Atheism is the default because you aren’t born believing in a deity.
That stat on 70% of those raised with no affiliation converting later on is from 2008. The 2011 data is here and also shows the percentage of converts that claim no affiliation (the group with the largest growth from affiliation changes). PG 30: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf
Goldenrush Apple,
What does your comment add to the argument? Attacking the arguer does nothing to advance the argument. Argumentum ad hominem.
Goldenrush Apple,
argumentum ad hominem
Attacking the arguer does nothing to advance the argument. It only makes you look bad.
Goldenrush Apple,
argumentum ad hominem
You are merely attacking the arguer, and do not address the argument. This does nothing to further the discussion, and only serves to make you look bad.
“Kind of like Loch Ness… I don’t “believe” it doesn’t exist… that implies some sort of leap of faith. I believe there isn’t evidence available to prove it’s existence though.”
This is completely irrelevant to the conversation, but you sir are an idiot.
Of course Lock Ness exists! Because LOCK is Scottish for LAKE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness
I think you are refering to the Lock Ness MONSTER, a possibly real and possibly mythical creature that has supposedly been seen by various people over the years in said lake.
Sure, i’m being pedantic, but if you are going to use examples to back up your arguements, at least use one that doesn’t make you look like a fool.
Completely off topic, but Ben I think you are mistaken re Lock Ness and you really gave me a laugh.
Lock (the Scottish form of the world Lake) is a significant sized lake in Scotland, which 100% exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness
What you are refering to is the Lock Ness MONSTER, a possibly real, possibly mythical creature that many have supposedly seen inhabiting the said lake over the years.
Am I being pedantic? Sure! But if you are going to try to use an example to back up your arguement, it’s best not to use one that makes you look like a fool!
@ben
Very good post.
This:
”The best argument I know “against” the delusional religious beliefs of the world is that there are so many of them. The idea that one of them is right and the others are wrong seems laughably arrogant and completely illogical.”
Especially when the – at the core – the only ”argument” you have that your particular faith is true is… faith. And I think we all know faith isn’t a very good argument – it’s just arbitrary. So faith vs. faith? Good luck. 😉
Ben, those are all really terrible arguments. Nothing personal, honestly, but you really should consider looking into this for yourself – visit reasonablefaith.org, watch a few debates on youtube etc. Some Christians believe blindly, but that’s not the majority. People just misunderstand “faith” to think it means believing unconditionally and without any supporting evidence. There is shitloads of evidence for theism and Christianity. Does the multitude of religious beliefs mean there is no correct one? That there is no God, even if those beliefs are wrong? Of course not; what’s important is to look at and evaluate the historicity for Christianity, the same as you would for any purported event in history.
It also astounds me how many people still do not understand what atheism actually is. It is a belief. It’s the affirmative belief that there is no God. It’s not a ‘lack of’ belief. That’s agnosticism. My cat doesn’t believe in God, but he’s not an atheist…
Great response. *sigh* Normally, the Oatmeal is so funny…
Take the bullet, sometimes you have to laugh at yourself.
the oatmeal was spot on. why else would you spend so much time trying to dismiss it. if your religion sucks, own it brotha…..
“the oatmeal was spot on. why else would you spend so much time trying to dismiss it.”
That’s the worst reasoning I’ve ever heard. So people can be expected to take the time to refute true allegations rather than false ones? LOL.
Fascinating reasoning. So the only reason that Christopher Hitchens wrote “God is not Great” is because he knew that God was great?
religions, all religions, are true. they are true because they are institutions that actually do exist. their claims about life, the “true meaning of existence” and all that other bullshit (by bullshit i mean the un-provable and the scientifically disproved)that they all spew as a means of fear-based population control is False. False with a Capital “F”. (included to be read to any blind folk having this read to them)
i especially like point 5, paragraph 2. the whole damn thing shoots its self “in teh dick.”
all of the authors “life begins at conception” talk clearly shows that Catholics believe that all women who have fertilized eggs (i forget the term for the egg/sperm combo before it attaches to the uterus, my bad) that fail to attach to the uterine wall should be tried as accomplices to murder. YAY!!!!
love the picture of the fetus that is clearly able to survive outside of it’s mother. apparently catholic babies look like that as soon as conception happens!
o~-<
do you like my “Stick-figure” Mohammad?
That’s because you’re stupid and fail to get the humor and point behind the comic. He’s not trying to accurately represent the religions, but how people perceive and react to them. Your article is total butthurt. Sorry.
No, he wrote it because, in fact, god is not great. He’s an insufferable, vengeful, jealous whiner if he exists.
The Oatmeal is a cartoon. Are you likening God to a cartoon? Something we shouldn’t take that seriously to begin with?
Serious concepts deserve serious conversations. Cartoons do not. Laugh when they’re funny, dismiss them when they’re not. It’s odd to get so wrapped up in a couple of drawings, and I think you do a disservice to Catholicism by responding.
Sooo you’re saying Jesus, after three days of being dead, and decomposing, was suddenly reanimated?
Frankenstein is that you?? O.o
Take a biology class smh
relgion is false, its a lie, that too many people believe. Its sad a dissapointing watching people believe in fairy tales. I know people tell themselves lies, but this goes beyond whats acceptable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
HA
Wow…I literally searched the title of your blog post yesterday when I was trying to find a quick answer to all these allegations for my girlfriend (who just wanted to learn to respond to “criticisms” like these). Lo and behold, today appears a post with just the title I searched for! Thank you so much for writing this.
Great!
No need to think for yourself, just find someone else who has already thought of these rebuttals for you!
Shocker!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deleted, since it linked to a pornographic website. For anyone who didn’t see, the commenter claimed that the Oatmeal wasn’t anti-Catholic, since “Discrimination (the anti- prefix) is hostility or prejudice toward, and not criticism of, something or someone. Example: antisemitism,” and the webcomic at hand was simply “fallacious criticism for humor’s sake, not hostility or prejudice.”
If you genuinely can’t see how this webcomic is hostile to Catholics and other believers (not just critical of them, but actually hostile), I think you need to get out of atheist echo chambers on the Internet, and become friends with believers. Perhaps a question to ask yourself: is there anything that the New Atheists say that you see as anti-Catholic?
I.X.,
Joe
Tell me in what way the writer of the Oatmeal has been hostile towards Catholics.
It’s not “hostile,” it’s truthful, since he’s not caught up in religious blither he can see how it is to other people, without religious reviews, he can see what you’re really doing, you think it’s righteous, he thinks it’s immoral. Does that mean he’s right? No, does that mean you’re right? No, he’s no singling people out, he’s just offering an opinion, if you asked him to do a comic on agnostics or atheists he’d find something funny about them too I assure you, he wants to make people laugh, not start fires and make people hate eachother for absolutely no reason.
Shotgun217 hasn’t a clue. Thousands of adults join the Church every year through the RCIA program. Dude – Do some research. Buy a clue. Oh, and God bless you and save you from your ignorance ; )
Jim,
Strangely enough, Shotgun wasn’t even the only atheist in the comments thread to make that argument: Rock61992 said something very similar, claiming that the “worst part is that no one is ever asked. What a pity that this indoctrination begins before a child has had a chance to think for themselves.”
There’s this myth, popular among atheists, that the only reason religion still exists is that we’re raised to believe in it, and that if we were just brought up free of religious instruction, we’d all be atheists, too. But as I said above, a whopping 70% of those raised atheists go on to leave atheism. So we already know that this is just a myth.
I’m reminded of Marxism. Before Marxism was ever put into practice, I can understand how some people might naïvely imagine that if only the entire country were Marxist, it’d be a utopia. But after it was repeatedly put into practice, and failed time and time again, it takes something more than naïvity: specifically, it takes a doctrinaire resistance to facts. If the atheist myth was true, the retention rate of those raised as atheists would be nearly 100%. It’s 30%. To continue to believe the myth despite this takes a similarly doctrinaire resistance to facts.
I.X.,
Joe
Hey Joe, I’m an ex-jew, and consider myself athiest (I’m 16 right now, so my beliefs are still evolving as I grow older). I respect you and your beliefs, and I appreciate your long and awesome responses to everyone, but I wanted to point out something..
“Strangely enough, Shotgun wasn’t even the only atheist in the comments thread to make that argument”
Just like some Christians give other Christians a bad name (probably the ones that the Oatmeal was mocking), atheists can give other atheists a bad name. So, while I respect your replies, I don’t belief that the statement you posted was fair.
Respectfully,
Richard
@ Unknown: Joe never said “all” or “most” or “every.” He was simply referring to the atheists who had shared such thoughts on this thread. There were no sweeping generalizations in the part that you’ve quoted.
Richard,
Point taken. I didn’t mean to suggest that all (or even most) atheists take this view. It’s just one that I’ve seen among a certain subset of atheists: generally young ex-believers who would consider themselves New Atheists. If it came off as me ascribing that view to all atheists, I apologize.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
This argument that people “leave atheism” is illogical. First – do you have anything back up this claim that “70% of those raised atheists go on to leave atheism”? And, second, this is sort of akin to saying that being sober is a myth as 99% of those raised sober go on to do some form of mind altering substance.
There is a logical thought process to “atheism is the default”. See my previous comment. No one is born Christian, Muslim, etc. Now – whatever that’s called – it’s a human’s default state. It’s why there are so many different religions on earth. Each society made up there own stories over time – something that helped them deal with whatever they needed help with, psychologically.
Also – I again object to this term Atheism being used to describe “us” as some organized group. We’re not some organized group that hold hands and sign songs on Sundays and have huge global lobbying groups and all the other trappings of an organization. “We” refers to people who don’t find there is sufficient evidence to support the majority of the world religious beliefs – well – sort of – as far as i know – there is no agreement on this. No Atheism doctrine as it were. For ease of discussion you can call that Atheism… but it’s not an “ism”. No more than people who eat lollipops are lollipopists and follow lollipopism and have some agenda, group, etc.
Well said Richard, I am in the same boat. I respect Joe’s opinions even though I disagree, but I’m not too pleased at all Atheists being tarnished with the same brush throughout this page.
Plus Joe, while I know that you disagree with Matthew Inmans comic, you cannot deny what he has been doing for charity recently, and think it would be good of you to acknowledge this on some part of your page. Have a look at the link too see what I mean.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/charity_money
Ps Oats – one word – legend! 🙂
I don’t care how religious you are, or what religion you belong to, the fact is that religion is not concrete. You can’t compare the existence of God to the answer to the math problem “what’s 3×3.” That has an exact answer and if the parent was smart, they would make their child figure it out on their own. Just like you are claiming that The Oatmeal did, you are taking everything literally when it is a comic meant to have metaphorical meaning. It doesn’t matter if a parent believes in God, because the child has to figure out what they believe in for themselves. Unlike what the comic suggests, where the parent tries to get the child to explore the possibilities, most adults, authority figures, and religions try to force their opinion on others and show it as the only plausible option.
70% data is out of date. 2011 Pew Data pg 30 http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf
Joe,
I see some numbers getting thrown around here, most interestingly those about Atheist Converts. What do you think of these numbers?:
There are 77 million self-proclaimed Catholics in the US (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/survey-catholic-infant-baptisms-decline/)
25% of Catcholics attend mass (http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/unusual-study-asks-former-catholics-why-they-left-church)
Although there are “100,000 people join the Catholic Church” each year, there are nearly 800,000 people baptized into the religion per year (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/01/american-catholics-and-catholi)
So, for Catholics, most people are born into the religion, but not willing to practice it. Most people identifying as Catholic are not adult converts (1/8 Catholics).
If you respond, I’ll see what other data I can dig up.
Richard,
It saddens me that you’ve received replies from neither Atheists nor Christians on your comment. You’ve acted as the epitome of acceptance here and should be appreciated by BOTH sides. I, for one, wish more people were like you, regardless of your religion or lack of one. 🙂
It’s not so much that if you weren’t raised to believe in a religion, you’d be an atheist. It’s that you would be able to objectively learn about various religions, and decide for yourself what you believe in (if any).
If you believe your religion (whatever that is) is the true one, then you should be confident enough to NOT influence children from a young age. Let them learn, process and decide religious data for themselves – when they are ready. Especially if your God will welcome people from the very moment they want to become a believer, I don’t see the harm.
It’s not so much that if you weren’t raised to believe in a religion, you’d be an atheist. It’s that you would be able to objectively learn about various religions, and decide for yourself what you believe in (if any).
If you believe your religion (whatever that is) is the true one, then you should be confident enough to NOT influence children from a young age. Let them learn, process and decide religious data for themselves – when they are ready. Especially if your God will welcome people from the very moment they want to become a believer, I don’t see the harm.
One thing I know for sure is that it’s easier to be an atheist when you’re not dying of cancer.
Yeah because of all the science that is being used to try to keep you alive?
I had extremely advanced cancer, cured by modern medicine, and I’m no more religious now than I was before, which is not at all. Thanks for playing though.
Exactly. Do you look both ways when crossing the street or do you trust that your “god” will protect you? I guarantee it’s the former. So by the same reasoning you won’t need chemotherapy because the will of “god” determines whether you live or die.
In all seriousness, how would you know? Have you ever been a cancer-ridden apostate? How would believing in a god who supposedly *created* the cancer in the first place change anything?
Imagining, for a moment, that this is true (despite significant evidence that there are, indeed, “atheists in foxholes”) – what evidence does this provide of the existence of god?
If I were dying of cancer, I might, for instance, be more open to belief in homeopathy; this would in no way change the fact that homeopathy is baseless garbage.
Citing the reasoning of people who are at their highest levels of fear and stress is not much of an argument.
Moreover, if I had cancer I might well have significant cause to question the existence of a benevolent and merciful god. I might think that god is a tremendous jerk.
Imagining, for a moment, that this is true (despite significant evidence that there are, indeed, “atheists in foxholes”) – what evidence does this provide of the existence of god?
If I were dying of cancer, I might, for instance, be more open to belief in homeopathy; this would in no way change the fact that homeopathy is baseless garbage.
Citing the reasoning of people who are at their highest levels of fear and stress is not much of an argument.
Moreover, if I had cancer I might well have significant cause to question the existence of a benevolent and merciful god. I might think that god is a tremendous jerk.
Your argument is terrible, you’re implying that religious people don’t worry about their own well being because they leave everything in the hands of their god. it is human nature to preserve your own life, no beliefs should change that.
The parent comment is the dumbest in the thread so far.
…because when you’re dying of cancer you’ll probably grasp for anything that might help you or could ease the pain of knowing that you soon might be dead. It’s the same principle as for when there is something important that you can’t understand. Some’ll take the quick fix that is known as religion, but some’ll hope that there eventually might be an answer that could be verified and objectively be accepteded by everyone, or even that the question never might get an answer. The 2nd route is of course the hardest and most self-sacrifying.
English is not my main language so go ahead and [sic] me.
Indeed Felal, that’s why the doctor recommended treatment is just to read the part of the bible that covers how to treat cancer. Woulda been nice for god not to make cancer in the first place, or at least mention it once in his book, but whatever. Everyone’s a critic.
I hope we all know that religion and defence of such beliefs is a lost cause as a place for argument. Almost everyone has come to a conclusion already and is simply looking to reinforce what they already “know” as a relative truth. Religion, no matter how illogical on face value, means more than the stories and hand picked, modern remnant of their dogmatic swill. It represents their families that also believe, their friends, safety from the terror of loneliness and the thought of a meaningless life and death. It’s an entirely human construct with an entirely imperfect human shape and will be around as long as there are humans clever enough to think it up. There’s a whole person behind the beliefs, there are reasons why they came to them and there are reasons why they cling to them, sometimes giving up on much bigger ideas to hold on to a safe one. Don’t lose the person behind the label.
That’s kind of where the comic I think was going. Not as an attack on one, but as an attack on the misappropriation of the powers that religious belief can have on people. Do you think a Catholic priest should bless a canon before a battle? Do you think a Buddhist monk should walk around an under-educated village in India and threaten to put a curse on you if you don’t pay him? What about an Imam ordering his followers to murder someone he considers immoral? A Jehovah’s witness accepting a blood transfusion to save their life and then being disassociated with their family in the church and shunned by the only community they know? All of these are examples of how a small madness can be amplified when spoken behind a pulpit and can ruin lives with any of the violence at it’s disposal. Religion is as mixed a force as the people behind it. God has always had man’s image, never the other way.
Felal, I’m absolutely stunned that you could possibly say something as awful as that. Someone very close to me died of cancer and at every moment was an Atheist. He didn’t struggle with it. When he was diagnosed as terminal, he sat us down and explained to us that he was at peace with the notion – that at first he was afraid of death, but then looked back at his full life and was content. He looked at us as his ‘afterlife’ – we who survive him and remember him. He is gone. He exists no more. No soul, no mind, nothing. And he was fine with that.
To claim that Atheists are only so because their lives are not threatened is to agree to Joe’s remark (but possibly not false) that frequently people become Atheists just to satisfy ‘sinful’ sexual desires. That is insulting Atheists as being weak and dishonorable people. Just as the saying goes “you can’t chose your family” – implying that sometimes there are members that are less than ‘graceful’, the same applies to both Christians and Atheists: There are those in each group who bring shame to the rest, but this does not represent the whole, ever.
Most genuine Atheists are not afraid of death – they struggled with the notion, certainly – and having no afterlife isn’t a problem to them either. As a matter of fact, it’s this precise certainty that makes them live this life so much more – they want to do as much as they possibly can, effect as much positive change and leave as deep an impression on their loved-ones as they can, so that after they no longer exist, their presence in this life can be sensed by their positive work and effects upon the people who remain.
Ah, the “no atheists in foxholes” theory. I found it MUCH easier to be an atheist during and after cancer treatment, so, no, it’s not. You’re mistaken. Christopher Hitchens and Steve Jobs disagree as well.
Isaac Asimov said “Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.”
I heartily agree.
Catholicism is not the opposite of science. They’re very closely tied, actually.
If you notice, Catholics go out into the world and invest a lot of effort in keeping people alive.
What a ridiculous straw man argument. You people probably found a lot of value in the Oatmeal propaganda.
This comic isn’t hostile at all. I believe you have simply misunderstood the message/didn’t read it completely. The comic is designed, like most comedy, to take fallacies and heighten them. That is exactly what the Oatmeal did. He took the fallacies of religion as a whole, using historic and current events, and heightened them to comedic points. Also, if you had read the comic properly you would have seen at the end when he said everything listed above is fine to do as long as your religion DOES NOT HARM OTHERS. If it actually helps others and yourself, then by all means have one! Many of the religious groups we see in the media today are there because they harm others; e.g. Fred Phelps’ followers, abortion clinic bombers, and the Taliban. I have seen both sides of belief (Catholic school for 8 years and I’m currently Agnostic/Atheist) and I have many friends of different races, beliefs and orientations. The reason we all get along so well is because of what the Oatmeal is asking for in his comic: you are free to believe in whatever you want just don’t shove it down the throats of others. I find it personally offensive that you are generalizing so many different types of people. People aren’t meant to fit inside the imaginary boxes of society. You generalize atheists to being smug and hostile while implying that believers are SUPERIOR to all other human beings. Don’t you remember what events that kind of thinking inspired? The Holocaust, Crusades, and Apartheid are just a few of them. This post reinforces the stereotypes of “the religious nut” who is hypercritical of any opinion that opposes their own. If anything, I find this post to be hostile, bigoted, and pretentious. It actually exemplifies some of the reasons of why I stopped believing after years of internal debate. You are free to believe whatever you wish but do not decry the beliefs of others to be wrong or try and force them upon others (otherwise known as oppression. Look it up) I fully respect your right to your opinion but other and myself will enact our right to dispute it.
Abby,
Let me get this straight. You find absolutely nothing hostile “at all” within the webcomic itself, but for responding to it, I’m a “religious nut” who is “hostile, bigoted, and pretentious,” and this somehow affirms you in your atheism?
He says Christians are wrong. That’s okay, since it’s part of atheists’ collective “right to dispute” the views of Christians. I say he’s wrong. That’s bad: in fact, I shouldn’t have been able to do that, because that’s oppressive, since I am “decry[ing] the beliefs of others to be wrong.” Am I getting that right, more or less?
And where do I generalize that all atheists are smug and hostile, and that believers are superior to all other human beings? And how are you making the jump from that to the Holocaust?
I.X.,
Joe
P.S. You seem to allude to the behavior of Christians as a reason for your atheism. How does the bad behavior of Christians disprove the existence of God? Do jerky chemists disprove the existence of chemistry?
Jerky chemists do not claim that their chemicals are the one true source of happiness, justice, peace, love, compassion, humility, and generosity while showing all of the opposite effects. As a christian you should hold yourself and your behavior as a representative of your God and if that responsibility is too great then you should at least be a representative of the beneficial changes that you claim he can make. However, you would be hard pressed to prove that theists are any better as people than atheists or agnostics. In fact I’m inclined to believe(probably biased)that those with God may be worse off.
You actually bring up a great point, it is possible to use the actions of Christians in an argument against God. If a chemist tells the world that he has found a cure for hair-loss but has a shiny bald head you wouldn’t believe him. In the same way you can dismiss someone who claims he has found THE source for all of the above mentioned good attributes then turns around and shows the opposite if not worse.
Except of course that Christianity explicitly teaches that merely knowing the cure will not make you better. Just as in medicine, you must actually take it.
It sounds like you’ve finally debunked the Christian claims that “all followers of Christ are happy, just, peaceful, loving, compassionate, humble, and generous.” The only problem is that I can’t seem to find that claim anywhere in my Bible. In fact, in my Bible, one of the followers of Christ actually sells Jesus out (literally), while countless others abandon Him, act rashly (like cutting a guy’s ear off), etc. So what Christian claim does your argument disprove, exactly?
I met a morbidly obese football coach. Does that mean that football isn’t good exercise? Or might it just mean that the coach wasn’t doing those things he knew he should have been doing to stay healthy?
The answer is exactly what Mary said: the failure in Christianity isn’t that we’re following Christ too closely, but that we’re failing to follow Him closely enough. The areas you complain about here are precisely those areas where Christians fail to follow their own Scriptures. Unless you think Christianity promises a life free from sin and moral failings, this doesn’t seem to disprove Christianity at all. If anything, it’s just a reminder of the need to behave more like Christ.
I.X.,
Joe
“Let me get this straight. You find absolutely nothing hostile “at all” within the webcomic itself, but for responding to it, I’m a “religious nut” who is “hostile, bigoted, and pretentious,” and this somehow affirms you in your atheism?”
The comic wasn’t hostile to all religious people. The comic was calling out the people who use religion to harm others. Please don’t pretend you don’t understand that. If you don’t use your beliefs to harm or belittle other people or to deny them their Constitutional rights, then the comic isn’t for you.
It seems to me that you took his comic to be an insult to Catholicism, but at no point does he specifically call out Catholics. He is calling out all religious people who use their religion against others. You mentioned the preacher in the first panel: I know a Presbyterian minister who dresses that way. It’s just an image. You took the comic WAY too seriously. If you don’t agree with what he has to say, great. But ignore it. You do realize that by making such a big fuss that all you’ve done is helped more people find the comic, right?
Joe, I would like to point out that he only said that EXTREMIST religions and religious people are wrong. He said clearly that as long as your beliefs do not step on the beliefs of others that he fully supports religions(so long as they don’t bother others)
Hugs and kisses,
-The Ivakiin
Joe. You fail to understand the meaning and humor behind the comic. Your article is complete butthurt crap.
But if you say that most followers of God do not follow Him closely enough, then why don’t you work on that by yourself instead of making Christianity look bad to people you’re trying to convince to convert by not demonstrating what you preach?
In addition, in the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament, God orders Joshua to send spies and soldiers to demolish the city of Canaan so that the Jews could take over. They killed every single human and animal in the whole city except a scared prostitute (and her family) that helped the soldiers kill her whole city.
So even when God says not to murder, why did God himself order the murder of hundreds or thousands of innocent non-believers without a single chance or message beforehand?
“The areas you complain about here are precisely those areas where Christians fail to follow their own Scriptures.”
which essentially was the point of the Oatmeal comic. the title was “How to suck at your religion”, not “How religion sucks”.
when an Irish Catholic missionary told me he traveled to African countries to save the savage people there from Hell, i think he was sucking at his religion. when my friend’s Catholic family shunned him because he came out as being gay, i think they were sucking at their religion. when i witnessed a bible class where the instructor raged on about how anyone-ANYONE-who wasn’t part of their Lutheran synod was going to be tortured and burn in Hell for all eternity, i felt that instructor was sucking at religion. the woman who smugly told me she left her husband of twelve years because he refused to join this new-age Christian church she had discovered, she seemed to suck at her religion. or take anyone who has shoved a sign in my face with “GOD HATES ______” on it, or tried actively to “convert” me to THEIR religion because mine apparently isn’t good enough…once again, all sucking at religion.
“the Church has never declared anyone in Hell” you say. while that may be true, many of the Flock seem all too happy to jump on the damnation bandwagon. i see it in my own life all around me, first hand, and it saddens me. it is those people the Oatmeal was attempting to comment on, not the religions themselves.
allowing your religion to veil your eyes from the actual meaning of the Oatmeal’s comic and taking it as a directed attack on that religion as a whole may perhaps be another way of “sucking at your religion”.
“The areas you complain about here are precisely those areas where Christians fail to follow their own Scriptures.”
which essentially was the point of the Oatmeal comic. the title was “How to suck at your religion”, not “How religion sucks”.
when an Irish Catholic missionary told me he traveled to African countries to save the savage people there from Hell, i think he was sucking at his religion. when my friend’s Catholic family ostracized him because he came out as being gay, i think they were sucking at their religion. when i witnessed a bible class where the instructor raged on about how anyone-ANYONE-who wasn’t part of their Lutheran synod was going to be tortured and burn in Hell for all eternity, i felt that instructor was sucking at religion. the woman who smugly told me she left her husband of twelve years because he refused to join this new-age Christian church she had discovered, she seemed to suck at her religion. or take anyone who has shoved a sign in my face with “GOD HATES ______” on it, or tried actively to “convert” me to THEIR religion because mine apparently isn’t good enough…once again, all sucking at religion.
“the Church has never declared anyone in Hell” you say. while that may be true, many of the flock seem all too happy to jump on the damnation bandwagon. i see it in my own life all around me, first hand, and it saddens me to see them use religion as a means to declare superiority over all others. it is those people the Oatmeal was attempting to comment on, not the religions themselves.
and if your religion is used as a veil to obfuscate the actual meaning of the Oatmeal’s comic, painting it as a directed attack on that particular religion as a whole, perhaps this is another way to “suck at your religion”.
I think Abby is right (and that in a way you aknowledge it Joe in the way you defend the Christians).
This post by the oatmeal is called “How to suck at your religion”, not “Why Religions Suck” and I think it is very sad that you don’t seem to see the difference.
Never in the comics is it said that all religious people act like this, it is just said that some people do and they shouldn’t. I understand that as a Christian you want to answer on some topics, like education of the children, and I also get that the preachy ton of the comics might appear as a bit aggressive, or that you could get offensed by part of it. But if you want to be fair, you have to admit that all of the behaviours described in the comics are real behaviours of SOME religious people and that you can not agree with all of them.
Some people suck at religion, as much as some people suck at atheism, and being able to admit it as a Christian would be the best way to brighten the Christian image. And well, there are lots of religious people fighting against extremism among their pears, they are the religious people I want to talk to because that would lead to rewarding discussion. I’m not saying that this is the brightest comics about religion, I think the OatMeal is usually much more subtle, but reacting the way you do, by acting like he blamed all the religious people for all the bad things in the world, is really counter-productive and kinda make his point of showing that some religious people can not accept any kind of criticism and lack humor.
So go ahead, defend your religion against hatred and misconception, but if you want to do so, defend it against people who practice your religion with hatred and misconceptions too.
Joe, it’s interesting that you decided not to answer to the first part:
[This comic isn’t hostile at all. I believe you have simply misunderstood the message/didn’t read it completely. The comic is designed, like most comedy, to take fallacies and heighten them. That is exactly what the Oatmeal did. He took the fallacies of religion as a whole, using historic and current events, and heightened them to comedic points. Also, if you had read the comic properly you would have seen at the end when he said everything listed above is fine to do as long as your religion DOES NOT HARM OTHERS. If it actually helps others and yourself, then by all means have one!]
but only to look offended by 4 words in the rest of the post
joe,
if a majority of chemists are jerky chemists, then chemistry would lose its grounding as a proven method. if alchemy hadn’t been stigmatized by the unfounded, mythological implications it made, all chemists would be alchemists, and they would teach alchemy in school instead of chemistry. this comic isn’t making the assertion that christianity is untrue because there are some nutjob christians out there, it’s making the assertion that nutjob christians give christianity a bad name, are bad for the ultimate universal good that is at the core if its teachings, and there are a LOT of them. there are also a lot of nutjob atheists who give atheism a bad name, but you seem comfortable generalizing about them because it’s convenient for your argument to accuse everyone else of hypocrisy while ignoring its presence in your own rhetoric. you must be pretty dense to be taking this as a personal attack on your religion. the whole point of the comic is to reaffirm the validity of religious beliefs for those who use them as a guide for being a good person, and condemn those who bastardize the institution for personal and political gain that in many ways harms others. i seem to remember a common theme of this comments section being “know the argument before you try to debunk it.” it looks to me like you forgot to do that before you wrote this response. every single one of your criticisms assumes that the corresponding comic panel is generalizing about all religious people, but anyone who actually read the comic carefully understands that he is isolating extremist behavior. if you aren’t guilty of these behaviors, then why are you being so defensive?
joe
if a majority of chemists are jerky chemists, then chemistry would lose its grounding as a proven method. if alchemy hadn’t been stigmatized by the unfounded, mythological implications it made, all chemists would be alchemists, and they would teach alchemy in school instead of chemistry. this comic isn’t making the assertion that christianity is untrue because there are some nutjob christians out there, it’s making the assertion that nutjob christians give christianity a bad name, are bad for the ultimate universal good that is at the core if its teachings, and there are a LOT of them. there are also a lot of nutjob atheists who give atheism a bad name, but you seem comfortable generalizing about them because it’s convenient for your argument to accuse everyone else of hypocrisy while ignoring its presence in your own rhetoric. you must be pretty dense to be taking this as a personal attack on your religion. the whole point of the comic is to reaffirm the validity of religious beliefs for those who use them as a guide for being a good person, and condemn those who bastardize the institution for personal and political gain that in many ways harms others. i seem to remember a common theme of this comments section being “know the argument before you try to debunk it.” it looks to me like you forgot to do that before you wrote this response. Almost all of your criticisms make the assertion that the corresponding panel in the comic is generalizing about christianity, when actually it is isolating extremist behavior. if you are innocent of behaving in this way, then why are you being so defensive?
I think what Abby, and others on this blog are trying to say Joe, is that you and a majority of the supporters of this blog post, have misread the web comic. I find it genuinely funny and extremely sarcastic, and I am religious. Why do I find it funny? Because I can connect with him through he extreme exaggerations (which the oatmeal is well known for) and see them mirrored in my religion (which is, surprise, not catholic.)
I don’t think he’s ripping on Catholics only, I think he is ripping on any and all religion. However you and the other people who are defending this post are acting like he went out and said “Yo! Christianity and Catholicism are wrong, and these are all the reasons why.” Nope. Not it at all.
The message, if you care to know, in the web comic is simply: Is your religion making you kill people? (aka: terrorists, bombers, cults who make you commit mass suicide for god) No? then great! Be a member of your religion. But respect the beliefs of other people and don’t expect them to all believe the same exact thing you do.
He’s not trying to debunk Christianity. He’s trying to promote respect for other peoples beliefs. My advice? Stop trolling yourselves.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dear Abby,
Making fun of other people’s religion and misconstruing it for laughs is insensitive and rude. It is even more so when the “comedian” makes fun of another person’s religion in front of a wide audience of people that the comedian doesn’t personally know. Since you have friends from all different backgrounds, I’m surprised that you don’t seem to get that.
Also, many people are ignorant about other people’s religions, so after reading such a comic, I wouldn’t be surprised if many people end up thinking “wow, those [insert the name of a religious group] sure are crazy, but at least they’re worth a good laugh.”
The comedian’s disclaimer which says that it’s ok to follow a religion as long as you don’t hurt others, does not eliminate the injury done. In the context of the comic, that disclaimer really implies the following:
Religion is just a matter of whimsical opinion.
Do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anybody.
But, by the way, if you do believe you are pretty crazy and/or foolish.
I may also suggest that when somebody thinks another person is crazy or foolish, they are likely in turn to think that that person is inferior to them in some way. Thus, I think comics like this make it more likely for people to consider religious believers to be inferior, which then brings us back to your point about the Holocaust, Stalinist purges, Apartheid, etc.
It’s fine for people to discuss and argue about religion in good faith, but I doubt that any conversation will be very fruitful, if the first salvo from one side is “you’re delusional, but, hey your delusions sure are entertaining!” For that reason, the author of this blog rightfully points out that “Whatever your religious views, this webcomic simply doesn’t enrich the discourse, or advance the debate in any positive or meaningful way.”
–Kudos to Heschmeyer for expounding his points clearly and concisely. Thanks for taking the time to do so.–
Dear Joe,
Making fun of other people’s sexuality and misconstruing it for laughs is insensitive and rude. It is even more so when the “heterosexual” makes fun of another person’s sexuality in front of a wide audience of people that the heterosexual doesn’t personally know. Since you have friends from all different backgrounds, I’m surprised that you don’t seem to get that.
Also, many people are ignorant about other people’s sexuality, so after reading such a heterosexual, I wouldn’t be surprised if many people end up thinking “wow, those [insert the name of a minority group] sure are crazy, but at least they’re worth a good laugh.”
The heterosexual’s disclaimer which says that it’s ok to follow a sexuality as long as you don’t hurt others, does not eliminate the injury done. In the context of the heterosexual, that disclaimer really implies the following:
Sexuality is just a matter of whimsical opinion.
Do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anybody.
But, by the way, if you are heterosexual you are pretty crazy and/or foolish.
I may also suggest that when somebody thinks another person is crazy or foolish, they are likely in turn to think that that person is inferior to them in some way. Thus, I think heterosexuals like this make it more likely for people to consider gay people to be inferior, which then brings us back to your point about the Holocaust, Stalinist purges, Apartheid, etc.
It’s fine for people to discuss and argue about sexuality in good faith, but I doubt that any conversation will be very fruitful, if the first salvo from one side is “you’re delusional, but, hey your delusions sure are entertaining!” For that reason, the author of this blog rightfully points out that “Whatever your sexuality views, this webcomic simply doesn’t enrich the discourse, or advance the debate in any positive or meaningful way.”
– The entire Catholic hierarchy, who constantly slander homosexual people in public
Stella,
Are you sure you meant to direct this at me? It looks like you’re responding to the comment above you, which wasn’t me. But in any case, I’d love to see one of your examples in which the “entire Catholic hierarchy, ” or any of the commenters above, made fun of someone’s sexual orientation and misconstrued it for laughs. As it is, this entire comment looks like a total non sequitur offered without any support.
I.X.,
Joe
Stella, you just won the internet. How does it feel?
Do they not constantly slander homosexuals as deviant sinners who must repent or burn in hell, and who, in the meantime, do not deserve the same civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy?
The point, you missed it.
But religious types are rarely any good at irony. If you were, you wouldn’t be religious.
Does the Catholic hierarchy not routinely slander homosexuals, including by saying they deserve to burn in a fiery pit for eternity, while simultaneously working to deny them basic civil rights?
I wouldn’t have expected you to get the irony. Religious people generally don’t understand irony; if they did, they wouldn’t be religious.
I think Joe and every believer out here should simply cool down.
I am a believer of God too and Oatmeal’s point was to humorize the beliefs we thrust on others. Religion *is* a personal thing and should remain so. It is about your own beliefs, scientifically proven or otherwise.
So just put your opinion across and stop at that. Don’t push it in others’ faces. Also, why do you put people in two buckets — believers and atheists? Is this so black and white?
I think what Anna, and many of these people are trying to say Joe, is that you are all taking a simple web comic too seriously. At least that’s what I’m trying to say. He isn’t ripping on Catholics, he’s ripping on religion in general. I look through the post and I find it genuinely funny, and extremely sarcastic, and I AM religious. Why do I find it funny? Because I can apply a majority of the extreme exaggerations (which if you knew about The Oatmeal, you would realize most of his content is based on extreme exaggeration. Extreme. He’s not serious) to my religion itself which is surprise!!! not catholic. His message if you care to understand the meaning behind it is: If you’re not hurting people with your religion, (bombing, terrorists, cults, crazy insane people who kill for “god”) then good on you! Be an active member of your religion. But accept other people for their religious beliefs and don’t try to make everybody else believe exactly what you do.
Pretty sure he’s not being like “All you stupid idiots, the catholic church is wrong and these are all freaking reasons why!” Which is what you, and a majority of the people who read the comic took from it apparently. Otherwise this post would be non existent. Stop trolling yourselves.
I think what Anna, and many of these people are trying to say Joe, is that you are all taking a simple web comic too seriously. At least that’s what I’m trying to say. He isn’t ripping on Catholics, he’s ripping on religion in general. I look through the post and I find it genuinely funny, and extremely sarcastic, and I AM religious. Why do I find it funny? Because I can apply a majority of the extreme exaggerations (which if you knew about The Oatmeal, you would realize most of his content is based on extreme exaggeration. Extreme. He’s not serious) to my religion itself which is surprise!!! not catholic. His message if you care to understand the meaning behind it is: If you’re not hurting people with your religion, (bombing, terrorists, cults, crazy insane people who kill for “god”) then good on you! Be an active member of your religion. But accept other people for their religious beliefs and don’t try to make everybody else believe exactly what you do.
Pretty sure he’s not being like “All you stupid idiots, the catholic church is wrong and these are all freaking reasons why!” Which is what you, and a majority of the people who read the comic took from it apparently. Otherwise this post would be non existent. Stop trolling yourselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This is funny. Ká chúkwu nónyeré umú nke yá.
Even Google translate is at a loss for what that last sentence meant. Any help?
http://messianicdrew.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-to-suck-at-criticizing-religion.html
I will just stick with my own religion, and laugh about things on the internet. Honestly…most the things on the internet aren’t serious anyways. Don’t take the face value of what you read or see. Ever heard of Trolls? They are mean. They don’t care what you think and the internet is full of them.
lol @ all the butthurt in the response to the comic above. GO OATMEAL!
This. <3
+1 go oatmeal
+1 go oatmeal
+1 go oatmeal
Your response only makes this EVEN FUNNIER to people who understand humans have had 8900 different gods in the past ten thousand years, and that none of them were real.
“God” himself said: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” So even “He” acknowledges that there are other gods in existence.
Oh, good point Ashley, Hadn’t thought of it in that way before.
Ms Awesome,
Christians only believe in one God. So your statement was very close to true:)
As a Lax Agnostic that comic deeply offended me… or maybe it didnt.
Thank you sir. I just sprayed my laptop with the soda I was attempting to drink.
you’re just mad bor.
an hero.
Thank you.
The Oatmeal is exaggerating for comic intent and you made the mistake of taking it seriously. Actually, however, Roman Catholicism with its dogma and its rules, and its institutionalized homophobia, misogyny, and hypocrisy, IS a load of hooey.
Did your parents set up rules for you when you were growing up? Did they ever appeal to their teaching authority as parents? Did they warn you against dangerous behavior? Without convictions and rules, civilization would fail.
Too Long, Didn’t read
On one hand people should respect each other. On the other people think different and they are free to express it.
Religious people are stupid, just like this article.
Mr. Heschmeyer, could you delete this comment? It’s giving us non-believers with level heads a bad name.
You guys probably believe Beetle Bailey and Garfield are real live characters too. In fact I think I saw Marmaduke the other day being walked by it’s owner. It’s a comic strip.. Also did you even read the last part of the entire message?
This comment has been removed by the author.
You should consider yourself happy that the oatmeal passed on the Church defending pedophiles.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You guys probably believe Beetle Bailey and Garfield are real live characters too. In fact I think I saw Marmaduke the other day being walked by it’s owner. It’s a comic strip.. Also did you even read the last part of the entire message?
I just want to throw it out there that, as a comedic author, some of his humor (in fact, if you read his work, a LOT of his humor) is based around extreme exaggeration. This is the same thing as those who took serious offense to his Nikola Tesla article. He isn’t bashing the entire Catholic, Christian, or religious community. He’s taking a stab at those who say ‘If you don’t do exactly as I do and believe what I believe word for word than God is going to condemn you to Hell.’ As a Christian, I believe there is room for interpretation in God’s word. I don’t believe that committing one sin causes us to have to spend eternity in Hell. His point with the comic was taking those extremists and radicals who condemn others to Hell, force their beliefs upon others, etc. and emphasizing them. Not to bash the entire religious community.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am quite amused that The Oatmeal posted this blog on his facebook. Enjoy your peaceful discourse.
No wonder there’s so many trolls. It’s what Inman wants and he’s relishing it. What a jerk. Inman and Redditt — they’re basically trying to find any and all sites that do not “high five” the webcomic, letting loose their dogs. Real mature, Inman. Real mature.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Historically Jesus existed, some people just don’t believe that he did all the things people say he did. and i’m pretty sure having faith in something that gives you hope and happiness doesn’t make you scum, because in the end that’s what religion is supposed to do.
You lost me at six. You barely had me before then, but I’m not going to wade through the other points when I got to six. If you’re actually, straight-faced denying the church doesn’t attempt at EVERY LEVEL to suppress sexuality, make per-marital sex an evil indoctrinated to very young children leaving them with serious psychological issues as they get older regarding sex, love and intimate relations with their partner, you’re astoundingly absurd and naive. I can tell you from first hand experience one of the things the church does best, and has been doing so for decades, is messing with kids minds regarding sexuality, safe sex and relationships between hetro and homosexual couples. No, you’re dead wrong. I’m glad you’re faith is strong, good for you… but this article perpetrates the very point that Matthew Innman is trying to make his is hugely hilarious, and brilliant post on Oatmeal. You guys can’t laugh at yourselves and you deny the very evil things that happen because “well, it hasn’t happened to me” being the most oft used excuse, or simply denying that kids grow up with serious mental distress regarding sexuality because of what you’re indoctrinated by horrible, evil Sunday school messages as children. I can tell you, it takes YEARS to get over that stuff… and you denying it happens, is the real insult. Broken homes and premarital sex have absolutely no connection to each other. You’re just as likely to get an STD from someone who is super careful with partners as someone who sleeps around with dozens. Children should be taught, from an early age that there is NO STIGMA to sexuality or the discussion of it as a topic. It’s not a “powerful” thing – it’s a force of nature, something we’re programmed to perform to survive as a species. It’s not some god-ordained activity that you have to pray about or wait to perform when you’re an adult. It’s a natural expression of love and something you evolved to be able to do more than once and, like it or not, designed to do it with more partners than one. It’s how we’re programmed as a species. Feel free to disagree, but that’s the science.
Here in Ireland, this concept is surmised as “Catholic Guilt”. Although it’s most certainly waned as we’ve eased ourself out from under the church’s boot over the last 20 years, the generation now in their 30s and early 40s were traumatised across the country being taught that sex was an evil and wicked thing that would be bound to send you to hell. Children born out of wedlock in the 60s and early 70s were taken from mothers and put in horrific convents where they were instilled with a self-loathing for their unholy births by the nuns.
We are not evangelical in this country, so that first post thinking that we “New Atheists” just target them is redundant. We have conducted several high-profile investigations into irish priests raping our children, and it was UBIQUITOUS. Like seriously, if Scientologists were raping children by the thousands, there would be calls for their church to be utterly abolished and you’d spit on one who dared to get up in your face and tell you where your cock should or should not go.
Here in Ireland, this concept is surmised as “Catholic Guilt”. Although it’s most certainly waned as we’ve eased ourself out from under the church’s boot over the last 20 years, the generation now in their 30s and early 40s were traumatised across the country being taught that sex was an evil and wicked thing that would be bound to send you to hell. Children born out of wedlock in the 60s and early 70s were taken from mothers and put in horrific convents where they were instilled with a self-loathing for their unholy births by the nuns.
We are not evangelical in this country, so that first post thinking that we “New Atheists” just target them is redundant. We have conducted several high-profile investigations into irish priests raping our children, and it was UBIQUITOUS. Like seriously, if Scientologists were raping children by the thousands, there would be calls for their church to be utterly abolished and you’d spit on one who dared to get up in your face and tell you where your cock should or should not go.
‘like’ 🙂
“like” 🙂
Actually, your assertions about premarital sex are false. Those who engage in premarital sex are far more likely to divorce.
http://www.focusinsights.org/article/marriage-and-family/premarital-sex-and-greater-risk-divorce
This would be a great rebuttal if God existed.
^This
^
Let’s put it more succinctly. When you push your religious beliefs toward me and through the political systems, you suck.
Amen!
This!
But it’s okay for you to push your beliefs at me through the political system… why?
Yes. ^^
Bible must be the most epic book ever written. It’s been two thousand years since the last book was published and people still talk about it. Sure, Harry Potter and Tolkien’s novels have their own respective fanbase, but Biblelovers must be the most hardcore fans of one fictional universe I know.
Actually, no. Qo’ran fans are more hardcore. Biblers come only second.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.