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.
So … Though I’m sure this will get lost in the myriad of kudos you’re getting here, I was actually with you up until the second paragraph of number 5. Belief in the resurrection is based on faith (and I do believe) – unless someone invented a time machine I hadn’t heard about; multiplication tables, however are based on quantifiable fact. And I pretty much dismissed your whole argument there … well that and your lack of sense of humor at what was a pretty funny comic.
“…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”
You don’t have to be fundamentalist or extremist to perpetuate harmful world views, ie. ‘it’s wrong to be gay’, ‘obey thy husband’, ‘contraception is bad’, ‘sexuality is wrong’, ‘only men can be in positions of authority’. Furthermore, there are different branches of the Catholic church – Opus Dei for example – who practice differing versions of Catholicism and who may take on more ‘Evangelical’ traits or more traditional readings of The Bible. So you can’t claim to speak for all Catholics.
Also, drawing comparisons between embryonic stem cell research and Auschwitz is hideously offensive and incredibly lazy. The debate around stem cell research is just that – a debate! It concerns ethical questions of when life begins. The holocaust was an IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN MASS EXECUTION OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE – people who are STILL suffering incredible trauma as a result of those events.
Your claims to Catholic reason suffer greatly in light of such ill-considered statements.
Morality is not the property of Catholicism or, indeed, any religion. Ethical integrity, morality and human decency exist in equal measure regardless of a person’s philosophical bent.
Yours faithfully,
A Moral Atheist
Hi Joe,
I started to form an educated response to the points you bring up here, but then I read some of your comments. It honestly comes off that you hate atheism.
I find that quite offensive. I think that my beliefs are just as well-founded as yours, and you have no right to hate me just because I don’t believe the same things that you do.
Some atheists suck at their religion too. Like trying to force their beliefs down other people’s throats, or thinking that other people’s beliefs are crazy. Or not giving their children the chance to choose their own religion.
Some of us rock at it. Some of us help others, respect others, vote based on actual policies and not a politicians religious stance, expose our children to many systems of belief, keep an open mind to new discoveries and theories (no matter what religion or belief it is based on) without losing ours, and we smile when we read a caricature of our beliefs because it’s funny.
It sucks that you don’t find this comic funny. It also sucks that you just brought a lot of hatred upon yourself. Now that this link is public, you’re going to experience the worst of us, and I’m sorry.
I hope you meet some wonderful atheists in your life and realize that we’re not so bad and our beliefs are not so perverted and evil as you seem to think.
Point ten was very upsetting to read, mayhap I misread it, but I took a gander at that webcomic, and the comic’s (although insulting) metaphors did a better job than “Christian Taliban” and to honest, I wanna take a look at the comic’s other writings. Goodbye, Catholic Defense. Thanks for sharing.
This cartoon is more accurate than your gay fagish bible thumping homo priest. Fuck.
I read through half of this and a lot of the oatmeal’s points you seem to miss. What his points of comparisons were. The oatmeal also isn’t saying that everyone in this religion is like this. There are plenty of imcompitent people in their religions that push their beliefs on other people as if it is right, if it can’t be proven then it isn’t wrong or right. and people contradict their own beliefs. I believe the main point of the oatmeal was to emphasize the extremely stupid religous people.
“Would you kill for your religion? Would you hurt, hinder, or condemn in the name of your God? Yes? Then you probably suck at your religion. You should give it up. Maybe take up windsurfing or ping pong instead. However… Does your religion inspire you to help people? Does it make you happier? Does it help you cope with the fact that you are a bag of meat sitting on a rock in outer space and that someday you will die and you are completely powerless, helpless, and insignificant in the wake of this beautiful cosmic shitsorm we call existence? Does it help with that? Yes? EXCELLENT! CARRY ON WITH YOUR RELIGION!”
As a religious person who approves of TheOatmeal’s comic, both in terms of humor and the main message (above), it makes me sad to know that you were unable to get it, not to mention that you took it as an attack on you and your religion. …. I wish you all the best.
That there are so many comments here is enlightening. The fact is humans having a start (birth) and an end (death) feel the stupid need to project this concept on the world. The fact is the natural universe was here long before “god” and will be here long after the human race has died off.
To quote a person far smarter than I am but one who none the less sums up world religion (Islam, Xtianity, Judiasm, Scientology, Thugism you name it)
“Religion is the opiate of the masses.” It allows a power structure to manipulate the population as it best sees fit. If anyone REALLY believed in the teaching of christ then there would be no conservative politics in the USA as the policies set forth by this group of old white men are the antithesis of what Jesus taught.
Jesus spoke of peace unto men and helping your brethern. Not cutting charitable acts so that the Romans (oops I mean those in the top 1% of earners) become more wealthy.
The funny thing is that people take their worldviews for granted, and can’t seem to think beyond them.
I see this in Joe’s post. If you cannot suspend your belief to understand the other side of the argument, that’s where civil discussion fails.
The Oatmeal makes some valid points. Obviously, they are exaggerated for comic effect, but the underlying points are still valid.
Let’s have a point by point rebuttal to Joe’s article, shall we?
As for the first panel… I quote “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Sound familiar? It should. It’s from John 14:6. In essence the panel is saying exactly what the bible says. Joe presents a strawman himself: the strawman of the ignorant atheist. While I will freely admit that there are, in fact people out there who will lambast a religion without knowing what they are talking about, such people are few and far between, and Inman is not one of them. Joe (or someone like him rebutting such arguments) will usually get away with the misdirection because people will not usually question too closely a rebuttal that affirms their beliefs, and having seen a rebuttal of some sort made, will forget all about the whole matter and carry on with their lives withthe take-away ‘Ha! I knew I was right all along!’.
As for the second panel and the Galileo affair … the article essentially agrees that the Catholic church screwed up on that one. Read the whole article. They may have treated Galileo with kid gloves (by the standards of the time, standard practice today), but they screwed up big time by declaring that Galileo was ‘Vehemently suspected of heresy’ when he advanced his scientific opinion: Something that by modern human rights standards is a dire infringement on free speech.
As for the third point…oh wow. Joe has immediately jumped straight to Auschwitz. I mean I understand that this is the Internet and all…but Nazis? Really? Besides, the idea that human life begins at conception is…debatable at best. My stance is that what makes us human is sentience. I argue this since pro-lifers have no qualms about…say…eating chicken. Which was made by destroying life. For the vegan pro-lifer….I present the fact that hand sanitizer (which they no doubt use)kills millions of cells every bit as intelligent and living as a human zygote at conception. I point out this only to highlight hypocrisy where the term ‘pro-life’ is used. To the rest of us, you sound like the ‘meat is murder’ people.
Now on to the fourth point. What the Oatmeal is trying to say is that your religion is defined pretty much by he family you grew up with. If you are born into a Muslim family, you will probably be a Muslim. In a Jewish family, you will most probably be a Jew. In a Buddhist Family…..you see where I’m going with this, no doubt. Now imagine that the believer were born in a family that follows a different religion. Would they believe in the other religion, rather than the one they believe in now? Most certainly. so how can you be sure that your religion is the ‘right one’ (assuming there is a ‘right one’)if your choice of religion is based solely on the happenstance of your birth? This applies to nationalism too, by the way. In fact it applies to pretty much any worldview that is dictated (or at least heavily influences) by the circumstances of one’s birth, since it is not truly one’s choice as an individual.
(continued)
The fifth panel. This follows from the fourth panel, and applies the same idea of forcing a worldview. It compares the choosing of a color to the choosing of a religion. If a parent forces the choice of a color on a child, almost anyone would consider it absurd. The same is not true of religion, however, and the fifth panel points out the double standard at work.
The sixth point. I take the stance that there is nothing wrong with adultery if all parties involved are in the know and cool about it. As for STDs and AIDS, there are things called ‘condoms’ that can help prevent those….which i understand that the catholic church (in particular) does not approve of. If you are going to go on about how certain behaviour is ‘unsafe’, it weakens your position when you oppose the mechanism for safety. It’s like being against motor sports because they are ‘not safe’ and then vehemently opposing helmets because they ‘encourage unsafe behaviour’ even though they mitigate a good deal of the ‘unsafeness’ to begin with. You can’t be against both safe sex and unsafe sex unless you are against sex altogether.
The seventh panel. I’m with Joe on this one. People are free to try and convince people of their beliefs, no matter what they are. Sorry Oatmeal, you cocked up on this one. Funny nonetheless.
The eighth panel: Joe apparently misses the point. This requires a ‘suspension of belief’ in order to be understood. “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” Is the best possible words I can put it in. That was Stephen.F. Roberts, by the way.
The ninth panel: As far as Joe’s point goes, I’ll argue against ‘human life begins at conception’. ‘Human life’ begins at sentience. It is our minds that make us human. To argue otherwise is to lend humanity to animals as well (see the non-vegetarian-pro-lifer-hypocrisy point). To allow for reasonable doubt, one must assume that sentience starts when the nervous system (the brain) begins to develop (unless there is research to prove otherwise…which there isn’t right now). Joe’s argument is based on a flawed assumption…one that follows out of religious dogma, rather than commonsense. Besides, Inman is ripping on bipartsanism as much as religion in this panel.
The tenth panel: Joe again kind of misses the point. The Oatmeal is making a very strong point against Islam….by not making a point against Islam. If you can’t see the blistering irony there, I can’t help you. He’s being more harsh on Islam than on Christianity (as per my interpretation). Joe does make a good point though (although rebutting a point that isn’t actually made) in saying that Christians in general don’t react as violently as some other religions (note the plural here). This is good in that Christians (in general) are willing to debate (at least in my personal experience) without getting ornery. This shows tolerance, and I respect that. We may not agree, but can still be civil about it.
The eleventh point: He’s referring to physical harm. You know…the sort that hurts more than your feelings? I don’t see him taking a tire iron to Christian proselytizers for there to be irony in this panel. Do you? Besides, he’s not just ripping on Christians, he’s talking about pretty much ANY religion out there. Christians are simply used as examples as they are the religious group that the bulk of his readership is most familiar with.
The twelfth point: Inman is (understandably) annoyed about people trying to force religion down his throat. The same way that you might get annoyed with telemarketers. While I (and I’m speaking for myself here) don’t condone the silencing of ANY group (the religious ones included), a little courtesy would certainly be appreciated.
Just as a note I this guy was really making fun of the “pushy types” and ignorant folk who state they are of a religion but don’t know anything but regurgitated information from a parent. I found this comic to drive me to question and seek to know more.
if you look at his site most of his comics are funny and educational and for the most part want to make people think something that is lacking in today’s culture.
There is also the “hypocrite” point you made, if you not he is an athiest and as such has no rule against judging as apposed to the contents of the bible which say (according to my friend) judgment is up to god and was as people have no right to judge something which the followers of the bible for the most part have forgotten.
I just wanted to post my 2 cents on this
Yeah… why so much fuss about this comic if the actual thing is so much hilarious ?
Don’t be so defensive! I think what the author and the “pro-religion” responders on this site have failed to realize is that Matthew Inmans message is not “don’t be religious, it’s wrong and bad.” Instead, he, like other atheists and those who have less common religious/philosophical beliefs, suggest an idea of “embrace the basic tenants of your religion and allow those who don’t believe the same as you, to do what they like and not concern you.”
I think most religious people in america have a different view of what atheists feel about them then we really do. I’m your average atheist/non-believer. I support your religious beliefs, if it encourages you to be a better person, a better neighbor/husband/wife/son/daughter/friend, provides purpose and explanation in life, and works for you, awesome. If however, your religion, causes you to tell others they are bad people for not believing what you do, or causes you to feel the need to regulate other peoples lives based on your ideals, then I have issues. I respect a need to convert others, and spread “the good news”, but I don’t appreciate being regulated based on your beliefs. Live and let live. Ex: Stem Cells. If you are personally against stem cell research, whether it be due to the way the stem cells are collected, or for other reasons, then don’t perform stem cell research, donate to organizations who do, or use it in your medical care. Don’t however, prevent those who don’t have your beliefs, from performing this research. Same for abortions, pre marital sex, gay marriage, or evolutionary theory instruction in school.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. He’s a terrible human being who supports all those things and his opinion doesn’t count!
But not so fast. I’m not particularly excited about abortion, stem cell research, and I’m totally against pre-marital sex, FOR ME. Note I didn’t include gay marriage. I’m gay(GASP! atheist and GAY, now he really is terrible!). But please hear me out. I have an incredible partner, I’d love to marry him, spend the rest of my life with him, adopt an awesome child who would otherwise be aborted, and let my child know all views on religion, science, politics and let them grow up to make their own choices about these subjects. The problem is, due to religious beliefs, many people vote to prevent that, because they feel that somehow, my marriage, my adoption, and my personal happiness, would violate their life in some way, despite a small likelihood that they will ever get an opportunity to interact with me.
And there in lies the problem. Many, not all, but many, religious groups in the US, feel the need to regulate the course of the country based on their personal views, and what works for them. This is a small part of a larger issue in the US in which many americans grab onto one party or another and follow their marching orders with dogmatic conviction. They fail to consider that there are different paths for everyone and that Mr. Right Wing or Mr. Left Wing candidate could stand for more than just Jesus. He might 100% pro jesus and also for becoming communist. But they don’t care because he will save unborn children, take sex ed out of school, and send a bible to every child in Africa. The left is just as out there as the right, and many of us are left wondering where is the sane and logical candidate who makes friends on the hill and compromises. But thats another debate. The point is, your religion is not for everyone, and when we build laws, we should look at whats right for everybody.
Atheists and Christians are not inherently enemies. We often have similar views, just for different reasons. Atheists are often “good people” with “good values” that just aren’t based on a religious foundation. We may laugh at some of your beliefs because we fail to be able to believe it ourself, but we don’t condemn your choices.
I will number my points according to your rebuttals. But first…
0) This is a webcomic. You suggest that it’s also supposed to make a point; this is true. However, I don’t go to TheOatmeal to read a long boring essay which I could have constructed myself on the faults of [A] Christianity and [B] religion as a whole. One goes to TheOatmeal because Matthew Inman is funny. You may disagree.
“Nearly every panel raises a different argument against certain types of religion, with most of the vitriol saved for Catholicism.”
Only three of the panels are Catholic-specific, actually.
1) Would you be willing to state that atheists who are now dead and didn’t recant before death are now in hell? Would you be willing to say that you don’t know, appearing to contradict what you complain about in point five?
2) I only have 4000 characters.
/skip
3) To your credit, you acknowledge that not all stem cell research requires aborted fetuses. Something you’ve overlooked, however, is that half of the population is below average in intelligence and education. There are many who oppose all stem cell research because they don’t understand. This panel is for them.
4) “Should parents not pass their political, ethical or moral views on to their children as well?”
What parents should not do is simply declare these things as undisputed facts to their children. Parents should raise children with the tools necessary to figure out the things which ARE disputed.
5) “The author compares providing the Christian answer to this question with correcting your kid for having green as a favorite color.”
See response #4.
“Imagine if we treated everything that way. “Dad, what’s 3 x 3?””
That’s quite different. After answering THIS question, the father would explain how to figure out that 3×3 = 9. (If he didn’t, he’d be doing it wrong.)
What are the chances he would do that with the afterlife question?
And see response #4.
6) Agreed.
7) It’s great you brought politics up:
What would you do if Nazi’s came to you proclaiming the amazing economic policies of the neo-fuhrer?
See response #12.
8) “This just grossly misrepresents Christianity.”
The panel was pointing out hypocrisy in general. He could easily have used Buddhism instead of Christianity; Christianity is just more relevant.
9) “I don’t think anyone votes based solely on religious beliefs.”
Really? Those people are EVERYWHERE in southern Missouri.
10) “…the reason Christians are targeted for this mockery instead of Muslims is that smug atheists are afraid of Muslims.”
Obviously TheOatmeal isn’t afraid of Muslims because he’s making a joke about them. In fact, MOST atheists I know are not afraid of Muslims.
The actual reason we make commentary on Christians is because there are a lot more of you in the US and the UK, where most of the vocal atheists also live.
“…all of this is a beautiful reminder that … there really is something to Christianity.”
I’ve rebuked a lot of truly awful arguments, but never have I seen a non sequitur this terrible.
Mockery does NOT lend validity to your claims.
11) There’s a difference between condemning Christians/Christianity and offering a particularly harsh criticism of some of the things Christians are prone to doing.
It’s like examining a product:
There’s a difference between ranting about the things the engineers did wrong and ranting about how horrible the engineers are and how worthless the field of engineering is.
12) He isn’t saying that you should never mention your religious beliefs. Feel free to introduce the topic whenever it’s relevant… not at my doorstep, not in your [public school] classroom, and not in any other context where that discussion is obviously unwanted.
(Other Notes)
“Beneath all the smugness, profanity, blasphemy, and sneering hipster irony…”
Wait… “hipster”?
My Parents did place their catholic views in me, That God wants us to be good people. I posted this, I follow the Oatmeal. I saw it the day it came out.
I was placed in a room with a nun for an hour, the nun knew I had just been diagnosed with a serious medical condition. She Told me God didn’t love me the ay I was. GOd wanted me to be skinny. No exaggeration here. An hour of crying being attacked by a nun I trusted since childhood. She eventually apologized to my parents, but not to me.
Then to have a condition where you are in so much pain and get placed on birth control at 16 and have your church community accuse you of being a whore. You want to know the funny thing…*points to self* waiting til marriage.
I resigned as a student senate representative for my university’s catholic group based on the priest telling a young man who wanted to become a priest he should not because the young man claimed he was gay. Just as a straight priest he would have devoted his life to God, and you know what, he was the only priest I know of who was ever honest about his feelings prior to becoming a priest… but was willing to give it up.
Don’t sit there thinking that the incidents listed here (while in the extreme) don’t happen. I have seen them. What are my sources. 24 years of being Catholic, defending GOOD people against bad Catholics and seeing and hearing things that luckily I realized spread hate. especially during a sermon. Once again, my parents did force their beliefs on me…that I should focus on the scripture and communion and that the priest is entitled to his opinion but God gave me free will to decide for myself. Not free will to follow one old man like a puppy.
My post ended up being way to long, so I’ll split it:
Oh dear.
1. The comic (which shouldn’t always be taken 100% literally in the first place) is called “How to suck at your religion”. So, reading that properly doesn’t translate into “every religious man or woman thinks like that”. Seriously…
2. Yes, of course. I will now go check the facts on “catholic education”, whenever it comes to events that don’t make the church look especially good… Yes, it surely must be EVERYBODY ELSE who got it wrong.
3. There is a huge difference between stem cells, embryos who have finished growing and birthed people. Comparing someone to Nazis (specifically, Mengele) and other ways to stimulate emotions, not rational thoughts, in the reader – doesn’t really help your argument if you want to be taken seriously by people whose heads are not absolutely clouded.
4. “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? “
Seriously, what the hell? There is no KNOWING that god exists (and lets just put aside the fact that most facts point in the opposite direction) – so at the very least you might give your children the fact that not everyone believes in it. Children do and should be allowed to trust their parents. Abusing this circumstance to sell them your personal and unprovable believes as facts just isn’t right.
5. This obviously belongs to the part above …the one about choosing to believe or not.
6. Would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. First off…well, you do realise that comic drawers might use exaggeration to make a point and make it entertain at the same time? Well. An open “Aufklärung” (I was surprised to find another German-imported word here ;)) with the children being able to talk about what’s happening to them (growing up can be REALLY confusing, after all) seems to work better than just damning everything from “natural recreation” to “adultery” as immoral. This just enlarges the child’s confusion.
The tragicomical part is that sexual repression seems to be a main cause of seriously WRONG sexual behaviour. Popular and obvious example: The very “special” relations between catholic priests and young boys.
7. As you say yourself: We try to convince each other of our worldviews. Just inflicting them on children is a different matter.
And uhm… as this comic (or narratives in general) thing really seems to be difficult for you: Inventing a character with an opinion does not have to mean this is the exact opinion of the creator.
8. Comics, exaggeration, humor… you get the gist. The obvious point is that there’s lots of things a religion teaches that may look “a little” weird from the perspective of a nonbeliever. So: Whenever religious people mock other people’s believe, I have to laugh and sneer (evil atheist that I am) because obviously, their own religion looks as ridiculous to me. Note: As stated in point 1, this aims at people who DO mock other religions, not at religious people in general. Obviously. As the title said.
9…. but it does take a huge part of the decision for an actually secular state. And there ARE people who prefer to vote for the candidate who “sides with the angels”. There are a lot of articles that point out the fact that actual agnostic/atheist members of the parliament wanted this fact to stay unknown.
About abortion: You don’t have to be a christian to simplify a complex debate like this, but it seems to help.
10. I am tired of hearing this argument. It is often used by islamophobic/racist people here in Germany as a default response to any critique/ridiculing of the church.
Again: Sarcasm and Irony… and of course, the main aim is the belief that is prevalent in the comic drawer’s social sorroundings. For obvious reasons.
And yes, the fact that you’re arguing instead of wanting to blow poor Mathew up makes you a more sensible target of this comic. As I see it, it is partly mockery to entertain the likes of me, but also a humorous (and … rather provocative, as is the Oatmeals’ style) appeal to religious people.
11. Christianity or any other belief, it doesn’t matter. Doing any of these things because they don’t believe the same you do would be horrible.
12. Profanity is part of the Oatmeals’ rather unique style. And it seems like you didn’t get a good shot at the underlying arguments of this terribly rude and profane man in a 12 points-pamphlet that was intended as a response-advice to other people.
“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.”
I think you seriously misunderstand him here. This is the disillusioned worldview of an atheist. The “why” of our existence is not easily answered without the easy “god” as a “joker answer to everything”. As Richard Dawkins is asked very often “Why do you even bother getting up in the morning?”. So, the message probably is “Life seems pretty pointless to me, which is a rather disappointing answer to “Why?!” – so if your religion makes you feel better about that – good for you! But relgion tends to spawn negative sideeffects (see above).”
I will just skip the part about “knowledge” and “truth” for – again – obvious reasons and wish you a good night/day.
Cheers.
The part about being a parent… based on your post (since I haven’t read the comic), is promoting the agenda of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. If you don’t know about that bit of world legislation, I hope you will inform yourself. It does now impact the USA’s courts and will continue to grow in far-reaching impact. It’s disturbing if you get past the way it sounds like it’s trying to do something good. 🙁 Fulfillment of taking the role of parenting away from parents as the comic suggests should be done, at least, with regard to religion.
I would like to say that, just like the author of the oatmeal post has taken a cheap shot at Christianity, this article takes a cheap shot at Islam!!!! In what world is being Muslim equal to being part of the Taliban??? There are fundamentalist right wing religious groups in Christianity as well!!! Are they lumped together with all the followers of the different denominations of Christianity??
Islam is a religion of peace and those that choose to preach and practice a violent version are grossly misrepresenting the religion. They are wrong! simple. In short, all muslims are not Taliban/fundamentalists, and Taliban/fundamentalists are not real Muslims.
Wow, you are exactly what the comic is taking about! Do not listen to anything anyone else says… listen only to me”
Knowledge is power. Stop living in your fairy tale.
Regardless of one’s beliefs, if one truly believes, does it really matter what anyone else believes?
I do like oatmeal but he got pwnt, thoroughly
This is the exact kind of thing that the Oatmeal is pointing out! “Do not read other things; only read what I say”
Well, that and you base your life around a damn fairy tale.
I laughed more at this article than the actual comic itself.
First of all i just wanna say you missed the whole point of the comic. it was meant to target bad practicioners of any religion (atheists included), not the religion itself. you talk as if this comic was pro-atheist but as you seem to always respond to other people, show me where exactly does the comic says that atheism is the way to go?
oh well, let me just debunk your points one by one in a constructive way (sorry about any mistakes, english is not my first language)
1. Lets put aside the “church sending people to hell point” and answer me, if the church and your Bible say that only those who believe will go to heaven, then were do the others go? since we only have hell and heaven (and purgatory if you will), sayin that is the same and condemning the resto to the other places. Brothers A and B live with their mother, who keeps a cookie hidden, brother A eats the cookie in secret, and when the mother asks “who ate the cookie” brother A answers “not me”. did he give his brother B away? i would say he did.
2. Since you outsourced your arguments i wont bother discussing this point with you. (no offense, i just think that discussing over someones elses point is meaningless)
3. the comparison you just made… its wrong, just… wrong, dont even compare the levels… but this topic doesnt belong in a religious discussion really, its a humanitariam topic, and should be discussed as such (and im sure whatever i said here would just become a “misinformation counter argument” on your part, because you just need to twist the angle a bit to find anything wrong with any prespective in this topic)
4. again, you miss the point, the comic doesnt talk about christians, it talks about THOSE parents who, instead of actually giving their kids some leeway to think, impose their religious arguments. you ask what else would there be to pass on? hum, i dunno, VALUES? i am not religious (i have a certain belief that is not comletly atheist), but i do appreciate most of the values christianity tries to pass, “i like your christ, i do not like your christians”, i actually believe jesus existed, but just as a normal man who had a tremendous self awareness and high moral on every topic, and that those who wrote his tales addeda little spice to the story (more on this later, this is where i solidify my point)
5. you just fell apart here, this makes totally no sense, you say the religion-color is not even comparable, then you and compare it with 3×3.
moreover, as you like to point out in responses to comments, people do change from one religion to another, so it IS a matter of personal preference (unless you state that everyone non-catholic is just wrong, but i believe you realise how hypocrital that would be)
and yes, if ressurection was true, that claim would be false, but, are you a prophet to know that ressurection exists? why is ressurection more possible than just emptiness? there is not a single proof of anything, therefore the “no one knows” because, guess what, NO ONE KNOWS. you probably though that im saying that ressurection doesnt exist, that is NOT what im saying, im saying theres no proof of anything, hence, NO ONE KNOWS.
6. again, the problem here are the BAD PRACTICIONERS OF RELIGION, not religion itself, even though the bible says that it is wrong to have sex with the same gender and that pre-marriage sex is a sin (it does, not sure of exact quotes though, but you seem to know you bible well), the problem here is this:
http://cdn.unicornbooty.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/All-Hell-Breaks-Loose-After-Pastor-Erects-Gay-Is-Not-OK-Church-Sign.png
but i think Biggs said it better about this previously. i dont have any experience with american church so i wont talk more uninformed but i do know that around here, some priests take wrong many things others priest dont find any problem with (again, the problem are the people, not the religion)
7. the comic artist doesnt advocate anything, he makes a funny here, clashing how different approaches mormons and jews have. all that he says is that you shouldnt need to force your view of the world to enjoy your religion. i have my belief, and i talk to people about it just like any other thing, being sensitive about it makes no sense cause if i truly believe in it, why stress out?
8. (this i where i wanted to get to), nowadays, there are two kinds of religious people, but im more familiar with christian ones so lets go with that.
there are those that believe that whats written in the bible (as i said, im using christians as an example, not because i wanna mock them in specific, when i say bible i mean any general religious book) is literal truth, i once had a nice discussion with a man i respect that is a truly religious man. i asked him to describe me 2 events from the bible in his view, sodoma and gomorrah, and jesus giving sight to the blind man. he gave me the answer i wanted to hear. everything in the bible is a metaphor, none (or most) happened, sodoma and gomorrah didnt exist, theyre just used as an example of how rot the human being can be. the blindman didnt start to see, he just “opened” his eyes to christianity.
those who take the bible literally should rethink things, did jesus exist? perhaps, i believe so. was he the son of god born from virgin mary? hell no, joseph had sex with his wife, had a baby who grew in a modest environment, became a man with good values an tried to get them acroos to the people around him. people around him appreciated him and started telling his tales just like a bard.
9. many people vote based on religious beliefs, or can you garantee me that every single christian would vote for an openly atheist polititian, no matter his measures? and as i said before, abortion and everything around that is a humanitariam issue and not religion, we can agree on that (however, your preposition a) is not entirely correct.)
10. lol? so, he made a joke about a muslim scandal, so that shows how he is afraid of making jokes about other religions outsife christianity? wut?
and i find it funny how you imply that all muslims are “violent, intolerant psychos” (point 1 all over again, you doint say that they are that directly, but you say he bullies christians instead of muslims cause you arent that), and, constrary to the comic artist, you actually imply ALL muslims are like that, which is extremly hypocrital. i mean, there is so much wrong in this point i could write a whole comment on it.
there are enough extreme christians that work the same as “taliban”, what, religious crimes only happen as muslims?
you imply all atheists think the same, again, you attack atheists while the comic is also dierected to them, and even that aside, you just put every atheist in the same bag.
11. so, same mistake as ever, he doesnt condemn christians, he condenmns those who use religious as an excuse for bad deeds. oh! you also have another fallacy here! you say he targets only christians? i though he just used mormons, jews and muslims too, dumb me! he is accusing malpractioners of EVERY RELIGION. ATHEISM INCLUDED, but atheist dont have anything concrete to make fun about do they? this still is a comic.
how could he write a comic about it, and im sure he more familiar with christians, just as me, so he uses them more as an example.
12. i thought the closing line quite deep actually, no matter how dark and pessimistic they were (talking about the bag of meat part, since i also dont believe that), but tell me, if you read ONLY these last line, none of the pictures above it, would you really think it was saying something truly wrong?
well, its late so, ill just leave this question to you, and i would like you to answer me thoroughly without beating around the bush or taking jabs at any other religions (be pro-you not anti-others).
how literal do you take everything that is written on the bible? i feel pleased that you feel confident in your religion, however, you clearly have some insecurities, or you wouldnt have made this rage post (which it is sorry), and those insecurities probably come from this question, cause everyone likes to take jabs at how christians may believe that people actually walked over/split water, had supernatural powers etc (just like people take jabs at scientology or mormons).
i mean, every christian i like has a feet to the ground view of the bible. the bible is a metaphor to “good deeds will bring you personal and honorable satisfaction”, but so is every religions main book, and since when do i need religion to follow the path or righteousness?
I say on my Twitter feed all the time… Ever come across an Atheist website, webcomic or Twitter feed that positively espouses atheist belief, rather than negatively attacks everyone else’s beliefs?
I am a Christian and though I have infinite faith, I think religion is invasive and controlling. The comic isnt based on actual facts because it is meant to be funny in an extreme sense. So stop taking yourself so seriously and fibs a way to be more productive instead of finding theory to disprove a freaking comic! You have proved the comic right by hating on Islam by basically calling them a group of terrorists which is pathetic. It’s people like you who make the rest of us with spiritual beliefs look like freaks!
I finally took the time to read the comic, and yes, Joe is spot on in his comments. We meet the same sloppy atheistic arguments here in Norway…
I was brought here by Oatmeal via Facebook. He shared your link with this comment, “bahahhahahahahaaa”. So, I read your post first and agree with several points.
Just a bit of my history. I was a free-thinker who liked Buddhist philosophies and believe there is a higher power. Then I thought of converting to Tibetan Buddhism. But eventually, I become a Catholic, baptised in 2006.
After reading your article, I went to the Oatmeal comic. Frankly, some of it was pretty offensive, but I see what he is getting at. Many free-thinkers, including old me, have been shoved Biblical verses of salvation by over-enthusiastic evangelists. I get them a lot from all Christian denominations but Catholics. (Note: Catholicism isn’t a denomination) So after I’ve become Catholic, I tell these evangelists I’m Catholic and question them instead. After a while, they become afraid of me which is a nice change.
The gist of what Oatmeal is saying is that these over-enthusiastic evangelists are doing it wrong, they literally suck at promoting their religion. And sadly, I agree with him. And he thinks what parents should do is not force it down their children’s throats. Which I agree too. Because by doing so, children will choose the religion/beliefs they’re happy with. God will call them but how happier He will be if children freely choose to believe in Him and not because parents force them to. If parents have to force them, then something is wrong.
During my conversion, a Redemptorist priest has taught us it is okay to question our beliefs. Because if we blindly believe in God, we will educate others blindly.
That said, I have met great evangelists and I am glad to say they are all Catholics and some of them are now my friends.
I was going to add my comments about why the Oatmeal pretty much got it in a nutshell, but then I remembered that a far cleverer and eloquent man has said all that needs to be said about the Catholic church, so here you go, all you people who found his comic offensive: watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqB3F6N527U&feature=related
As an agnostic who occasionally reads the Oatmeal’s webcomics, I feel like I want to commment on your post/position.
1. If you were familiar with Matt’s sense of humour and comics style, by now you would know that he has no intent of judging the Catholic church through this comic, but religion itself. The fact that he depicts the priests wearing the Roman collar is because most (atheist) people recognize this ‘outfit’ as “priest”. If he were to draw a guy in a suit, probably few people would know to associate him with an Evangelical priest. Similar with the Pope drawings, he is a world-recognized religious figure.
2.You accuse Matt of pulling a straw man, pardon me… a lazy straw man, yet you do the same exact thing once with the comment on the Hebrew twin kids picture and same on the sex debate. Associating stem cell research with the image of Nazi experiments during WWII is a grossly misrepresentation of stem cell research. Maybe someone should make a webcomic where Catholicism is associated with the Inquisition… oh wait… Moreover, the fact that sex is “recreational fun” doesn’t necessary mean that it will lead to STDs. Instead of handing out Bibles in Africa, maybe the Catholic missioners should hand out fliers about how unprotected sex can lead to STD and not fliers about how it’s a sin that makes God angry. It’s just like saying that drinking wine in other circumstances than at the communion is probably the leading cause of liver poisoning. Just because X percent of the human species is uneducated and lacks the self-preservation sense, it does not mean the rest of us have to be associated/compared with them.
With that in mind I could pull out a stray man myself and respond you to ” 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?” …Ready? NO! Parents should not pass their political or religious creeds on to their children. This is why so many children grow up to be abusive parents, because they have seen such behaviour in their parents. Liked that?
Ethics and morals do not root in religion AND I HOPE you are aware of that. A human being can be a moral human being outside of religion, so passing on political and/or religious believes to children should be treated as optional and from an agnostic point of view. There’s no need to cause confusion to a child when it’s too young to comprehend the complexity of a religious/political system. Besides, I don’t know if you’re aware but lots of people really suck at parenting so maybe passing on flawed philosophies to children is not such a good idea after all. What every parent SHOULD DO instead is teach his/her children to question everything, especially authority figures. This idea could extend to that debate about how God demands people to respect their parents, for otherwise they are sinning against Him. RESPECT SHOULD BE EARNED, NOT IMPOSED by some authority figure.
Now I realize you moderate this blog and there are slight chances that my comment will not pass your vicious moral filters, so don’ bother, I will copy paste MY opinion into MY blogger blog and then link people to it, these people here and the people @The Oatmeal’s Facebook page. I will also do that because blogger doesn’t allow ‘lengthy’ replies like my original comment.
I was thinking of ending this with a quote from the Bible, to give you something to ponder upon as you know, a start of the “I thing I have to re-evaluate my religious creed” period. However, my good ol’ friend Voltaire made a good point when he said “If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities”.
Look, I may just be an “ignorant teenager who thinks she knows everything,” and you can ridicule me as much as you choose to for any loopholes or whatnot in what I’m about to say, but I just think Mr. Inman was making jokes about the people who ruin the image of religions.
Some women believe all men are dirty evil bastards just because there were one or two men like that in their life. Does that make all men dirty evil bastards? No, it does not.
The Oatmeal was doing that, except with the stereotypical religious person who might be like the people he’s describing in his comic. That doesn’t mean all religious people are like, “Everyone shall believe in my religion because it’s right!” or “People who don’t follow my religion? They can all just go to hell!”; not everyone’s like that.
I myself am not of any specific faith, but I used to be a Catholic. I went to a Catholic school, learnt all about Catholicism, and I was a good little girl. Then I looked closer and realized some of the stuff that Catholics believe are not what I had learned from my mother (who is not Catholic). For example, I don’t believe that those who follow the faith will go to heaven, I believe all good people do, no specific chosen-by-God group who always go to church on Sunday.
Also, I don’t believe that God hates any specific group that are not following him, and neither does Jesus (which is only believed by some people, not everyone), therefore we should too. As I learnt when I was in first grade, Jesus is inside of us, so if we be hatin’ on someone, we be hatin’ on Jesus.
And then, if God hated that group so much, why did he create them like that? And if “it’s because of free will, that’s Eve’s fault, whatever”, then think of this: if God sees all and knows all, then why didn’t he intervene when Eve was being tempted and stop free will from happening? Shouldn’t he have seen it coming? That kinda confuses me.
Now, I’m not trying to say that I believe whatever Mommy believes; we have different points of view on all sorts of things, and we’ve even had fights over stuff that we disagreed on, if that proves anything.
Also, just because I’m no longer Catholic doesn’t mean I’ve abandoned the ways. I still have similar virtues and values that Catholicism has, I just don’t believe in a bunch of stuff that they spoon fed me when I was a wee li’l one.
Deep down inside, I think everybody knows atheists are wrong: http://www.venganza.org/
You sir, just sucked at your religion. If you had any idea who and what theoatmeal.com is, you wouldn’t make such a fuzz about nothing. Learn to take a joke.
Damn, you really are stupid full of shit bastard. But it’s okay, just keep thy religion to thyself, don’t be christian conquistador and believe in invisible man, who lives in the clouds. The man who have list of 10 things he does not want you to do. And if you do one of the things he didn’t like, he’ll own ur ass very much. But he loves you! And he need tax free money! Not for helping those who need them, just to build awesome chappels and churches (instead of Flying Spaghetti Monster, who doesn’t give fuck about churches, just want to help poor…).
PS – paraphrases, credits to R.I.P. mr. George Carlin
PPS – if you know about religion as much as about WWII (which after reading this piece of shit i think is true), you better just go kill yourself, Konzentrationslagger photo is not showing Jewish twins…
I was raised very religious, until around the age of fifteen I followed it blindly. After that I started to look outside what I was raised on to find answers that made sense to me. One of my core beliefs has always been that people have the right to believe what they want and do what they want as long as it doesn’t prevent anyone else doing the same. No matter which side of the argument you are on, most people seem to just assume that their way of thinking is the right way. The entire post picking apart the comic has the author assuming that their religion is correct in every single paragraph. He seems to feel they know the facts of the universe and how everyone should feel without knowing any of it for sure. If you are set in your ways and believe certain things, you are more than welcome to it but that doesn’t play any part of a logical argument. If you’re not willing to consider other views than of course you are going to think you are right. This also applies to most atheists that try and dig for arguments with religious people as well. It seems fairly clear to me that the author of this comic was mostly speaking about the majority of christians in the United States. Most christians are not willing to accept anything that they haven’t been taught either in church or by their parents about how the world looks and will never budge from their own beliefs. A very large portion of them have not even read the religious text that they claim to follow, and just as prevalent seem to be those christians that don’t realize what was in the old vs the new testament. I have met a few intelligent christians in my day and enjoy my friendship with a few of them even tho we have varying beliefs, I respect them and their religious views because they are good people and that’s all I care about. I would never be able to stand having to be around most ignorant christians in America. Obviously it’s not only religious people who are stubborn but also a lot of atheists and agnostics I know as well. The thing that I just can’t get over after reading this article is that the author is clearly just grasping at straws of arguments to defend his religion from a webcomic that does nothing to harm him or his religion. If churches have the right to actively speak out against things like homosexuality then that does leave them open to the same from people who view things they do as wrong. This article is nothing more than someone who assumes that they are correct and has the right to stand on their pedestal preaching that they have a tolerant religion and yet not accepting anyone else’s views.
I’ll counter your comment of the oatmeal being sloppy with an equal reply your response is just as sloppy and quite frankly just as entertaining to an agnostic as the cartoon was. I’m going to take your comment on face value that the church has never said anyone is going to hell. The reason I am baptized is due to the local priest knocking on my non religious parents door at home and telling them if the plane they were about to take with me crashed with out their son ( me ) being baptized I would spend eternity in purgatory. Purgatory or hell the message is the same if you don’t get baptized you ain’t joining us in heaven and that just can’t ain’t on….. The message the oatmeal was sending through humor. I also enjoyed your stab at the comment that you should tell your son or daughter you must believe in my god because I treat my believe as truth, what’s wrong with this is my belief for these reasons and I hope you share them. What about the kid who believes in Hindu gods cause his dad, what message do you send him? Your dads wrong? I’m right!
Oh, get over yourself. Not having a sense of humour is your problem, not the Oatmeal’s. His comic is right on spot. A religious person can go around shouting “BLASPHEMY” at pretty much anything if he sets his mind to it. Lighten up and try using your faith for good instead of evil. Blessed be.
(As far as the religious debate goes; carry on. I’ve got my gig, you’ve got yours, I don’t care.)
I feel as though this communication is being done by two people wearing different colored glasses, one wearing a red outfit and green colored glasses, and another wearing a green outfit and red colored glasses. They can talk to each other, but most of the substantive points each other makes can’t actually be seen by either side. So the only debatable points are things that aren’t necessarily important or trivial logic fallacies which aren’t fun to debate to begin with.
For instance, the catholic person on here defends the church’s opposition to abortion by stating his own knowledge of the world as universally accepted facts. (Life begins at conception, abortion is murder, etc.) These points make sense and are perfectly defensible points when fully contained within the Catholic world-view. Once you step out of that world though, into the shoes of the non-Catholic, those same facts and views shift slightly and to debate with each other requires a different approach. This kind of “stepping into the shoes of the non-believer” requires a genuine suspension of belief in ones own firmly grounded beliefs, which in most all cases is impossible to do because they clearly aren’t “firmly grounded beliefs” if they can imagine a world without them. This is why religious debates are often fruitless.
The thing that really blows my mind is that I would argue that in order to defend many religious views, you need a decidedly non-religious point of view to evaluate and comprehend the entire religious view first, then construct a new non-religious view of the religious viewpoint to be able to debate the non-religious person. Quite a mighty feat to accomplish I would say. Also, using science as a blunt force instrument to prove ones belief in something doesn’t often work, when either side uses it!
I love the spirited intelligent debate though, keep it up!
Hmm, I just finished reading the Oatmeal article all the way to the end, where the key points are lurking. All the sections before are like the nibbles you have with your drinks whilst your waiting for your meal. So….
“Would you hurt, hinder or condemn in the name of your God? Then you probably suck at your religion.”
It seems hard for anyone to disagree with that (unless they actually do suck etc etc….)
“Does your religion inspire you to help people? Does it make you happier? Does it help you cope with your existence? Excellent, carry on!” says the piece “just keep it to yourself.”
Good advice.
If more of us just got on with treating everyone as well as we all hope we will be treated by others, the world would be a much easier place to live in; and a lot less time would be spent arguing pointlessly over whose particular beliefs were better. This is an argument that can never be won by the people doing the arguing. Doing the right thing is a lot more important than wasting precious time being overly concerned about who’s beliefs are right. Common sense really…
Oh, and a sense of humor and a sense of perspective go a long way towards leading a happier life….for all concerned!! 🙂
“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.” are you trying to say that the existence of god is KNOWN. Where is the evidence? Without evidence it is merely believed. If you should decide that you have heard enough believable things concerning the matter, and choose to believe, then fine, but people should come to those conclusions on their own, and not because of the influence of parental guidance. However positive that guidance is, no one should try to convince anyone, let alone impressionable children, about things that they can straight out prove.
And even so, in my humble opinion, good moral guidelines (and some sort of inner peace and tranquility) are the best thing that can come out of religiousness and the problem is that they are not synonymous (any more, if they ever were), and actually being a GOOD PERSON is no longer a must (if it ever was), and THAT is why there is such animosity towards the religion. Because of the fake moral high grounds, the “holier than thou” attitude and the hypocrisy of people who just pretend to be christian.
For me my brother is a true christian, not perfect, far from it, but constantly trying to be better, and not trying to MAKE me believe anything, contempt with me being a good person (yes, this is my view of myself as well, and no I don’t think that it’s in any way inappropriate to say it) and not in any way disturbed by the fact i don’t believe in the same things he does.
I might have trailed off a bit, but it’s still matter related upon closer inspection 🙂
Perhaps Catholics (and other religious people) should spend less time in a deffensive posture, and more time reflecting why they awaken such angry responses from so many people. Hints: centuries of repression? Denying basic human rights to millions based on their sexuality? Trying to impose their views on people who simply view the world differently and/or are not interested? Never apologizing for things like the Inquisition, thousands of years of misstreating women? Still treating women like second-rate human beings? Covering up paedophilia any chance they get? Also, DO NOT, at this point in history, keep confusing your spiritual life with a religious organization that ill-serves you…
Perhaps Catholics (and other religious people) should spend less time in a deffensive posture, and more time reflecting why they awaken such angry responses from so many people. Hints: centuries of repression? Denying basic human rights to millions based on their sexuality? Trying to impose their views on people who simply view the world differently and/or are not interested? Never apologizing for things like the Inquisition, thousands of years of misstreating women? Still treating women like second-rate human beings? Covering up paedophilia any chance they get? Also, DO NOT, at this point in history, keep confusing your spiritual life with a religious organization that ill-serves you…
Just to say that while the Oathmeal cartoon is just fun and shouldn’t be taken serious, your response is quite serious and defensive. I am sad to say that your arguments contain so many logic errors and fallacies that only someone not too experienced would agree and applaud. So my words is try to relax and enjoy more life, have a laugh every now and then.
While you argue, I’m here to say that I like quantum mechanics, jellies and elves.
Thank you for attention.
Oh you silly little child molesting Catholics you … Always know how to make me laugh.
I only read this as it was linked from The Oatmeals facebook. I love this comic, it is very well done. You just proved everything I hate about religion. People beliveing in an imaginary, so called god is rediculus. There is no scientific proof for any of 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?”
Most idiotic line of argument ever created. That’s because we KNOW what 3 x 3 is, it’s completely universal. Unless a single religion is universal and accepted by everyone, then it’s down to your personal opinion. Like your favourite colour, deciding which thing you want to like the best is your own opinion. Stop acting like it’s anything else.
Hi, I’m not going to argue your religious beliefs, they are your own to express, I would just like to clarify something about point 3. It doesn’t appear that you are very well informed about embryonic stem cells so I thought I would just leave a few facts here for you to consider.
– a common misconception is that the research encourages abortions, however, research uses frozen fertilized eggs, not foetuses, with the permission of parents who would otherwise discard them as many parents are uncomfortable with donating left over embryos for implantation in others.
– another misconception, research will increase the killing of embryos, is also false, embryos are not created or cloned for the purposes of research/treatment, only fertilized eggs already created for the purposes of IVF which would be discarded are used. Often these are embryos which have been frozen for too long and are no longer viable for implantation.
Basically what this means is that the embryos “killed” for research or treatment would never been implanted in a woman or become adults, in fact thousands of embryos are discarded from IVF proceedures without being used for these purposes.
In fact in 2000 President Bush added a mandate that the NIH can only fund research on cell lines from embryos fertilised before August 2011 –> so currently 72 cell lines eligable for study have been identified but no further embryos will be added to this (thus research doesnt actually “kill” any new embryos)
Your choice of image suggested you believe embryonic stem cells come from embryos with recognisable body parts – this too is false, they come from blastocysts.
I would also like to add, that although you think your side in the embryonic stem cell debate is rational and would be held by anyone rational, other faiths also do not share the catholic veiwpoint.
Catholic and greek orthodox churches believe embryos are potential humans, even if being destroyed for other reasons their use is immoral BUT Synod (protestant) believe research is not immoral if it occurs before implantation Islamic schools do not recognise early embryos as moral persons and have no difficulty with the use and study of them and the Jewish faith says saving human lives is moral obligation and a divine mandate as long as care is taken to ensure that the process is fair to all parties involved.
As much as you have the right to argue that life begins at conception, that is very much in debate, not just between atheists and people of faith, so I think it is unfair to classify that as the only possible true answer. Many define life as sentience, when the foetus develops brain activity, or at first breath even. What defines life at conception to people is often the “soul” which unfortunately cannot be proven to exist and is entirely based in a religious faith not shared by everyone.
Even disregarding these philosophical points and the fact that in your eyes it is a life, I hope you can see it is a life which will be ended before it even begins regardless of how it is used, which cannot be described as even remotely similar to the murder and torture of thousands of living, conscious, self aware, sentient human beings who could have lived. It grossly misrepresents the situation, only illiciting fear and hate without context.
Anyway, I hope this at least helps you understand the other side of the debate a bit better so you can express your feelings with a bit more context in future and help others be informed on the other side of the issue too 🙂
RT @googlebooks: The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. http://ow.ly/cxMR8
I am quite surprised when I’m reading your post, I would actually think that christians would like “How to suck at your religion”. One of my Catholic friends actualy shared this on Facebook, and thought it was quite good.
Do you deny that there are religious people (Like Catholics) who hypocritically says that you shouldn’t judge, while at the same time claiming that having any other world view would send you to hell?
Do you deny that there are religious people (like Catholics) holding back the scientific progress (By for example wanting creationism to be taught in schools on the same level as evolution)?
Do you deny that there are religious people (Like Catholics) who are pushing their religious views on their children too aggressively?
Do you deny that there are religious people (Like Catholics) who have an unhealthy relationship towards sexuality?
Do you deny that there are religious people (Like Catholics) who mock other religions?
Do you deny that there are religious people who would hurt others in the name of their religion?
I would without a doubt say that all of the descriptions above would fit certain religious segments. As a Catholic, wouldn’t you want to get rid of those views and attitudes, which in the end only harms your religion? That is what Mr Inman is trying to accomplish. He specifies that far from ALL religious people are like this, he only criticizes those who “suck at their religion”. And I think we all agree that such individuals exist, and that their views should be changed. As long as the last panels explain that religion can be used in a good way, I honestly don’t see the problem.
I often see Christians criticizing other Christians for misrepresenting Christianity (Not being “true Christians”, as it were). That looks fairly similar to Inmans comic. I don’t really think that the comic in itself is what you have a problem with, the problem is that it’s done by an outspoken atheist, and they aren’t “allowed” to criticize Christians, even those who misrepresents the religion.
To your Muslim point: Don’t you see that by falsely sensoring himself, Inman is mocking Islam more than he would have done by just drawing the prophet Muhammad. His point is actually quite similar to yours. You can’t really make fun of Islam in the way you can make fun of other religions without feeling threatened, and by indirectly saying that, he’s actually pointing out that Islamic fundamentalists “suck at their religion”.
I take pride in being a Buddhist when I see such things as the South Park episodes “200” and “201”, where Gautama Buddha is mocked in various ways, for example by showing him snorting cocaine. I think that is definitely a good thing, because it shows that Buddhists will not take offence by having their world view made fun of.
If you can’t accept satirical humour made on the cost of your religion, you definitely suck at it.
my reply to this blog, http://dustinellis.org/?p=157