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.
I lol’d at the Oatmeal comic because it was hilarious. My fellow Catholic friend did the same mistake as you, responded to an eye catching comic with dry hunks of words that most people aren’t going to take the time to read. Especially in an ADHD world.
The real problem is everyone, both sides, are sooo wanting to express and force their own opinions in one another’s faces. Nobody is going to listen to each side either way no matter what is sad. It is the sad truth. Nobody wants to step back and listen then respond then listen again. It’s called a dialog. We all want to say I’m right, you are wrong no need to discuss I’m just going to shove my beliefs in your face and not respect yours. But I will call it educating you. What people post on THEIR fb page is THEIR business. Post what you want on your page and if you want to respectfully dialog do it privately. Don’t attack their beliefs of their own page.
Really kids, it is ok. No need to freak out, just live your life well, don’t be a scumbag … live-and-let-live.
If you want to turn your back on logic and reason and evidence, then I suppose you could choose to believe in a god .. but really, you know deep down there is no god. You’re just afraid, and that is ok. You need to cling to the idea of a deity because you are afraid of the truth. Deep breath, chill, go forth and just live. It’s ok, really it is.
The universe is not as scary as you think it is.
I don’t think you’ve captured the essence of the comic. He says it all in the last line: Feel free to keep practicing whatever religion you do if it makes you feel better about the world and helps you cope with some complex questions, but don’t force it onto others. (I think “keep it to your f***ing self” is a fairly clear way to emphasize that – I’m not sure how else you’d interpret it.) Yes, he magnifies problems in several different religions to show why he doesn’t subscribe to one of them, but that’s what comedians do. Anyone who espouses ideas as polarizing and unsubstantiated as those in religion has to develop thick enough skin to deal with parodies like the Oatmeal’s.
And olivier is right; he could have hit on *many* more serious problems than the ones he did. He just chose the most effective ones that make everyone else laugh at people like you.
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.”
This is it, this is what religion is, a coping mechanism for people who need or want a reason to exist. Personally I don’t care either way, but it’s how I view religion, especially being brought up in a an ultra conservative household.
Overall, this is a hilarious over reaction to a web comic that basically (in the end) says, do what you want, but don’t be in my face about it and you took the bait.
Well done 😉
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…
I had a few issues with this blog, but I will only respond to one of them as I don’t want to waste too much time with 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?”
Ummm… no. Good parenting is NOT about passing/imposing your views on to your kids. It’s about providing them with the tools to think critically about their world, ask questions, and form their own opinions.
Amen
Ai, you just lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
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…
You know what’s funny about all of this? God doesn’t exist.
This guy. I like him. ANOTHER!
Ding ding ding! Originality! Good one Corey, you’ll go far.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see anywhere in this where Inman actually says that religion is bad. He merely criticizes those who use religion and hinder/inconvenience/harm others. He’s not saying that all religions are inherently wrong, he just says that children should be presented to religions and choose that which makes the most sense to them (if they choose one at all). He’s criticizing groups like Christian Scientists, who believe they should not nor should they let their children go to doctors. Groups like Muslim (and to be fair Christian, and Jewish) EXTREMISTS, not Muslims, Christians, or Jews themselves. If you don’t believe there are Christian extremists feel free to look up the Westborough Baptist Church. Jewish extremists? They’re currently fighting over Holy Land with Muslim extremists along the Israel Pakistan border. But if you use religion or any other reason to motivate you to be charitable, friendly, and helpful he’s not criticizing you. He’s praising you.
I’m just glad he didn’t single out us Asatru, i don’t think Odin or Thor would have been happy about it. I would almost say to feel glad you are getting all the attention Catholics ^.^
EXCELLENT! Carry on with your religion!*
*Just keep it to your fcuking self
I’m catholic and I think your post is simply idiotic. You are proving him he’s right. You are putting our religion to shame… It makes you and Christian-ism look stuck up and narrow-minded like people likes to described it, and you are proving them right… good job.
I doubt the truth of you being a follower of Christianity because you have called it christian-ism.
Point 2, corresponding to Panel 2 – you link to the “Catholic Education Resource Center” and “a thousand other places”.
You understand that this is akin to me saying “I am the second coming of Jesus”, source (personal communication with myself, 2012, confirmed in my book “Jesus Pt 2” published 2011).
If you want to be taken seriously as an intellectual, (and I’m guessing you do…) then learning to provide proper and impartial source material is Step #1. Even Wikipedia does a better job on this issue of non-biased sourcing. I’ll come back when you’ve mastered said new skill 🙂 Then you’ll be ready for a real chat.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This “response” is terrible, and is full of the strawmen it claims to be “debunking.” TheOatmeal is spot on. Spot on.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Haters gon hate…
I just want to respond to one of the points you mentioned in this article: whether or not parents should pass on their political, ethical or moral views to their children. No, they should not. The only right choice I can see is for the parent to try and give their child an unbiased look at politics and religion. That way, the child can figure out for him- or herself what he or she thinks is right. Obviously the parent should give their kids a fair grounding in ethics and morals, but if the child discovers on his own the joys of having or not having a religion, he’ll either be more faithful in his own religion or more accepting of those who are religious while not believing it himself. Same goes for politics.
Also, comparing one’s favorite color to the math problem 3 x 3 just isn’t logical. A favorite color is subjective while the answer to 3 x 3 is objective. It can be proven. Whether or not either of these things can be compared to religion depends if you’re religious or an atheist. As a Christian, you (the author) think that what happens after we die is objective while Mr. Inman thinks it’s subjective. Therefore he’s completely justified in encouraging his child to guess at what happens after we die. After all, you’re the one who says parents should pass their religion on to their children.
I came here just to post this. Thank you. 🙂
The circular reasoning here is astounding.
Parents, apparently, “should not” pass on their political, ethical or moral views to their children. And again, “The only right choice I can see is for the parent to try and give their child an unbiased look at politics and religion”. Both of these stances are moral viewpoints, which…according to Carly…the parent should not teach. So…I wonder how the parent is to teach the child the clearly moral viewpoint that they “should not” pass on moral viewpoints if moral viewpoints should be taught.
None of what you’re proposing is neutral or unbiased. You’re simply stating that teaching your children a secular worldview is more preferable than teaching a religious one. And this viewpoint is neutral and unbiased in what way? It’s not, because you’ve clearly chosen one view over the other, and then just asserted that this view is somehow neutral.
Carly…I wish you luck with your future children as you implement this.
Carly said –
[—
whether or not parents should pass on their political, ethical or moral views to their children. No, they should not.
—]
If a person truly believes that Christ is the source of eternal life, then not sharing that with their children is just plain evil. If my child’s life is in danger, whether its riding a bike or in matters of faith, it is my duty to communicate the proper truth and knowledge that keeps them safe, body and soul.
“Whatever your religious views, this webcomic simply doesn’t enrich the discourse, or advance the debate in any positive or meaningful way.”
Well, obviously it DOES, because you just wrote a whole blog piece on it and got the opportunity to defend some of the bits you thought were wrong.
Anything that begins debate can bring information.
We can prove without a fact that 3 x 3 = 9. This is the most absurd counter argument I have seen. There is absolutely no way, and I cannot stress this enough, NO WAY to prove the resurrection… that’s why it’s called FAITH. You have faith that it happened, but you do not have proof it happened and you cannot prove scientifically that it happened. Just because it’s written in your chosen bible does not make it so.
I see nothing wrong with telling your child that we don’t know and letting them try to decide for themselves. Forcing religion on children at a young age is nothing more than brainwashing. That I believe is the message that portion of the comic was trying to convey. If you take a young impressionable child and you are teaching them your beliefs, but at the same time you tell them that 2 + 2 = 3 and that anyone who tells you other wise is a sinner and going to hell, those kids are going to grow up believing that 2 + 2 = 3 because they are afraid of the consequences that if it is 4, they might go to hell.
Wait till a child is old enough to think for themselves to let them decide if they want to follow a particular religion and if they chose a different path, don’t condemn them for it. Let them figure these things out for themselves.
Where is the harm in that?
You would have been better off writing an article why the Catholic Church defends pedo priests.
So you complaint about strawmen and then show a diagram of a near-full term baby with the caption “do you need to be religious to know it’s wrong to murder him?” with the obvious inference being that people who are pro-choice want to murder babies.
In reality, however, abortion takes place before the heart is even formed, let alone beating – the foetus is far, far from being the fully formed baby shown in the picture. And with stem cell research, of course, you aren’t even dealing with foetuses you’re dealing with tiny, formless bundles of cells smaller than a penny. So, ideally, if you want to complain about strawmen then perhaps you should avoid proving yourself a hypocrite.
Wrong. The heart begins to beat at six weeks, many women do not even know they are pregnant until that much time has passed. Stop spreading misinformation, you’re hurting the cause.
Wrong, wrong, and wronger. The heart does not begin beating until week 6, and many women do not find out they are pregnant until then. You are only hurting the pro-choice cause when you spread misinformation like this.
In reality, induced abortion can take place at any Time throughout a pregnancy. In the USA most abortions are performed within the first 9 of pregnancy, but many still do occur later on in pregnancies.
As for heartbeats and circulation within human life in utero, that begins at about 4 weeks after fertilization. You can check the following information from the Mayo Clinic:
> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112/METHOD=print
Many pro-choicers are against restrictions on late term abortions and actively lobby and vote against such restrictions. Other pro-choicers are only okay with abortion up to a certain point in gestation. Given the variance of opinions among pro-choicers, by showing a picture of a late term fetus, the blogger hasn’t necessarily created a strawman.
Never heard of “Late term abortions” i’m guessing George? Or “Partial birth abortions”?
If you want the truth rather than some facacy in your mind about what abortion is and is not, i’m not going to point you in a particular direction so you can think i’m biased. But Google is your friend.
Go forth and educate yourself George!
Read an embryology book. Any embryology book.
George Potter said,
[—
In reality, however, abortion takes place before the heart is even formed, let alone beating.
—]
The heart starts beating somewhere around 20-25 days… usually close 23 days. Most abortions occur after that point but before the end of the first trimester. Secondly, the very existence of partial birth abortion just goes to show that you don’t know what you are talking about. The “partial birth” abortion procedure was invented to circumvent a law that said if the baby cried it was considered a “person” with a right to life. So they instead left the head suffocated in the womb to silence the child while they inserted a needle in the child’s brain.
George Potter said,
[—
And with stem cell research, of course, you aren’t even dealing with foetuses you’re dealing with tiny, formless bundles of cells smaller than a penny.
—]
First of all, the baby is not formless, there is a deterministic structure. Secondly, the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teen, and a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. The unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. Furthermore, from moment of conception, the complete genetic blueprints are there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the set of fingerprints that nobody else has are already determined. To claim that the unborn is not a human being is absurd.
Well, let’s not be hasty. Plenty of people want to murder babies, it just that usually the babies we want to murder are the ones on the plane or in the theatre behind us screaming their lungs out, not the ones that are being delivered in the hospital at closest a few blocks away.
This “response” to Oatmeal’s comic is so messed up in so many ways that it would take forever to point out all the problems. I can say with confidence that Oatmeal’s comic is totally in line with what I learned through 12 years of catholic school. But, I will pick out one particular issue and rip it up – the notion that being anti-abortion isn’t a religious view. Your first premise – “(a) human life begins at conception,” has never been proven by science or any empirical evidence. In fact, science tends to support the notion that a non-viable fetus is not a human life, since if you took it out of the womb and left it alone (AKA no scientific intervention) it would just die. Since science has no evidence to offer to show that “human life” begins at conception, such a belief is necessarily religious. OK, maybe I’ll take down one other point. Seriously, you think no one out there votes based solely on their religious beliefs? You sir, are not paying any attention at all. There are entire political organizations based solely on the notion of organizing voters based on their religious beliefs to vote together to promote their religious beliefs as law. Sorry you are mad that a cartoonist pointed out the hypocritical behavior that many Christians are unfortunately practicing. Even sorrier that you are apparently one of them.
Raugiel,
Care to support your claim that science doesn’t know if human life begins at conception, or that human life is tied to viability?
Brainwashed christians with blogs are hilarious. But not as hilarious (or as correct) as The Oatmeal.
The Oatmeal requires a sense of humor. Read a book, and I don’t mean the Bible. I grew up Catholic, my family is Catholic, and I graduated from CCD. I’ve read scripture at the podium at Mass. Oh and I sang an Oh Holy Night duet at Christmas. I’ve also studied the Bible as literature, learning about its origins and translations and mass publication. The point is I’ve been there and done that and stood on your side fence, and I still find this hilarious. I am not an atheist, nor am I strictly Catholic or Christian or whatever label you want create. Relax. Get over it. If you can’t laugh at yourself or the silly fun and hilarious lewd tongue-in-cheek cartoons of what is clearly a very popular web artist, then perhaps you shouldn’t spend time on the internet. Seriously. Why don’t you try arguing from the other point of view. Pretend you are actually debating something, and take the opposite stance. What I read above sounds very defensive and was an immediate turn off. Also, if you take two seconds to read anything else on Oatmeal you will realize how little his works are based on reality. Fin.
SO well said! thank you. you basically summed up everything i was thinking so i don’t actually have to comment now. i’ll just ‘ditto this comment’ instead (except that i was raised Mormon instead of Catholic, but ditto the rest). =)
SO well said! thank you. you basically summed up everything i was thinking so i don’t actually have to comment now. i’ll just ‘ditto this comment’ instead (except that i was raised Mormon instead of Catholic, but ditto the rest). =)
sooooper well said. thank you because you said exactly what i was feeling so now i don’t have to comment at all – just say “Ditto this comment” (except that i was raised Mormon instead of Catholic, but ditto everything else).
This comment has been removed by the author.
I almost commented something as deep and thought provoking as this comic and blog aren’t, but I knew that any opinion I have would be shot down by someone one ho wants to hear them self talk about a bunch of crap. I’m Catholic and I think this comic is histerical. Now go ahead and tell me how bad a catholic I’m being.
yey! someone who doesn’t need to defend their beliefs! i have a lot of respect for you, and i wish others had as much confidence in their religion as you do; life would be much simpler!
EXCELLENT! Carry on with your religion!*
…oh I mean This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bad CAtholic! How dare you think and stuff! 😉
Courtney, you’re either a bad Catholic, or a non-Catholic. 🙂
– a recovering Catholic
I agree Courtney. Actually, I am wondering how old are the detractors. I was raised Catholic and indoctrinated with lots of crazy, so-called ‘truths’ by nuns and priests. So very sad how this can destroy a young, innocent child. My parents, “good” Catholics raised 6 children; not one is a practicing Catholic today. Now, go ahead and bash me as it won’t matter. I am no longer a wide-eyed child.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In the case someone was still in doubt about Oatmeal being right, this incredible quacking and shouting and worrying is making things totally clear.
And while in the very first sentence you are trying not to make people read the comic, Oatmeal is sharing your post on twitter and facebook.
Living without fear is much better, but you’ll never understand.
I respect your opinion and admire your conviction to your faith…
But did you really just compare stem-cell research to the human “research” that was conducted in Auscwitz????
This is a quote from the wikipedia link that you sited “Mengele’s experiments also included attempts to change eye colour by injecting chemicals into children’s eyes,, various amputations of limbs, and other surgeries.”
Another Auscwitz survivor is quoted: “I have never accepted the fact that Mengele himself believed he was doing serious work… Mengele ran a butcher shop – major surgeries were performed without anaesthesia. Once, I witnessed a stomach operation – Mengele was removing pieces from the stomach, but without any anaesthetic. Another time, it was a heart that was removed, again without anaesthesia. It was horrifying.”
Mengele was a torturous monster. I don’t think ANYONE has tried to argue that the acts he committed on those children was science. It TERRIFIES me that ANY person would see these acts as remotely comparable this to stem-cell research. It breaks my heart to see this example of human torture thrown around so casually… I stopped reading after this point.
The only source of evidence for the 3 Abrahamic religions come from books. Paper + ink = Texts…………..HOW THE HELL CAN YOU CALL THAT EVIDENCE?!?
This is very well said. I am both an agnostic and a huge fan of The Oatmeal, so please know that I do not say this out of any sort of allegiance to your point of view. I say it because I admire your ability to rebut something this sensitive with so much grace and professionalism. For the record, I do believe there are a host of valid arguments to refute religion; I just agree with you that the Oatmeal failed to take advantage of them. He routinely exaggerates for comic effect, but this one was a miss. I also appreciate why you felt it was a pot-shot at Catholicism in particular. Having been raised Catholic, and now living in an area steeped in Fundamentalism, believe me when I say I understand the profound difference between them.
At any rate, I just thought you might appreciate knowing that your writing reached a reader outside the range of your expected audience. While I do not hold your beliefs, you have made it easy to respect them. I agree that the Oatmeal cartoon did not add to the discourse; I hope it is some consolation to you that your piece did.
I’m a religious Catholic from the Philippines, and I was educated on everything the religion has to offer from the ground up.
And I don’t find anything wrong with the comic. If Jesus were alive, he’d be puzzled over the strong defense fundamentalists, evangelicals, and even people who’re remotely militantly religious are putting up for the Chruch. Jesus didn’t judge Mary Magdalene, who was a whore. I imagine he wouldn’t judge anybody trying to make sure that everybody, despite his religion, class, race, gender, or sexual inclination, got treated fairly, and is given the chance to make his own choice.
I mean, even the Catholic church has made mistakes. Just look at the history books, and you’ll see A LOT of them. The Oatmeal didn’t condemn the Church, if you actually took time to read through it. The point is made at the end: if you believe in your religion, and actually help other people, then GOOD. And I agree. Religion isn’t a tool for judging. People who judge other folks actually haven’t found religion, because religion is supposed to help people identify with the world at large, and understand why people move the way they do.
I have no problems with the Catholic stance against abortion and reproductive health control. It’s their RIGHT as individuals with the choice to make. But it’s the same with everybody else. You don’t own the souls of other people, and if they want to believe in abortion, it’s their call. If you let it affect you personally, then that’s YOUR problem, not theirs. You can blame it on love, if you love the people, and that’s perfectly understandable. But it’s still YOUR problem.
Don’t use religion as a tool to debase other folks. If you think they’re being stupid, then you’re sinking to their level. But half the time, if they’re actually making sense, you’re the one who’s being silly.
This is a very insightful comment, and it’s probably the best stance anyone has taken on the argument so far.
The whole point of the comic was to say that NO ONE likes someone who thinks it’s okay to shove a religion down another person’s throat, nor is it okay to govern OTHER PEOPLE by YOUR RELIGION.
I suppose the thing to keep in mind is: Catholicism and religion in general is losing it’s foothold on the minds of the masses. Ever since the whole ‘rapist priests’ bit started, I think people have decided to take a second look at their own beliefs. And seriously wonder about those who are supposed to be teaching their children what is right and wrong. Religion is becoming less and less important in our lives, and thank God for that!
The correct approach to this would be to realize that this is satire and have a good laugh with everyone and then try to gently “corect” the “mistakes” you perceived. As per usual, it turns into a “how dare you blashpeme my beliefs” and then the whole Internet laughs at you and your point is lost under the crushing weight of Internet retaliation and vitriol. You make it hard for people like myself that were raised in the Christian faith but are able to use clear rational thinking when you start jumping around screaming, making a big deal out of it.
Conversely, you probably got more pageviews once Inman tweeted this link than you’ve ever seen in your entire life, so I guess…mission accomplished?
I agree there should be discussion in regards to so many facets of the comic and this rebuttal – but FACT is that neither side can prove most of the ‘facts’ they claim are fact – If you take a book as fact, then yes, the rebuttal makes sense. If you take a particular book as nonsense, then EVERY ARGUMENT IN THE REBUTTAL IS NONSENSE.
Might I ask how we know that any religion is true? I have been told that Christianity is the true religion, but that seems to me to be the only group that has attempted to sway me to their side. Why is it that this religion is so much better than any other? What makes Christianity not a cult? You might say that people who worship Thor are part of a cult, but what does that prove? That just means that they are on the same level as yourselves. Religion is next to worthless (speaking as a christian here.) It doesn’t matter whether you have it or you don’t, but what does matter is people’s privacy and the right to free choice. People don’t like it when others attempt to sway their minds, and people should have the right to choose their own path’s without the subtle hints from parents or others.
“honestly, is it merely coincidental that the turn towards atheism so frequently coincides with a turn towards the sexual sins?” – Joe
And the Catholic Church is immune to sexual sinning? I really can’t stop laughing at that “observation”.
My favourite part of this post is where the author accuses The Oatmeal of using straw-man arguments, then proves his point by making a load of straw-man arguments. Christian logic at its finest.
WOW…that’s about all I can say at this point
The Oatmeal also writes about reasons to keep your Tyrannosaur off crack cocaine. I implore you to take that article just as seriously.
#5 No one knows for sure…anybody here seen heaven? I don’t think so…
Yes, such things will always require faith. But I still find this study interesting.
Van Lommel Study
Of the 62 patients reporting a near death experience, all of them experienced some of the following ten characteristics, according to the following distribution:
(1) Awareness of being dead (50%)
(2) Positive emotions (56%)
(3) Out of body experience (24%)
(4) Moving through a tunnel (31%)
(5) Communication with light (23%)
(6) Observation of colors (23%)
(7) Observation of a celestial landscape (29%)
(8) Meeting with deceased persons (32%)
(9) Life review (13%)
(10) Presence of border (8%)
just a few counter points:
1) I didn’t get an indication this was supposed to be Catholic until you suggested it. I assumed it to be a random back hill protestant minister. The people who were supposed to be Catholic I thought were obvious by the fact that they were wearing bishops clothing. (I think that also hurts your case that the comic is primarily anti-Catholic. I think that claim is just resulting from an extra feeling of persecution and butthurt).
2) The biggest problem with your point #5 is that we don’t have a dozen different types of math that says that 3×3 is 9. Math is math. And while I’m sure Christians are sure that what they believe are true, there is 1) a genuine disagreement of opinion on that point and 2) it’s something that has neither has been proved nor can it likely be proved. So no, saying that you go to heaven when you die is not the same as asking what 3×3 is.
3) I think the point of #6 is that, if there is to be a discussion about sexuality, it should be part of a rational discussion about actual actions and consequences, not “you’re going to hell unless you follow these strick specific instructions.”
4) I think you’re taking point #7 far too literally. I think the point is probably his experience (and mine) of basically having someone’s religious views forced down our throat because they see it as their absolute DUTY to try to convert us to their point of view. This is rather different than most political debates I would say.
5) Again, you’re taking #8 too literally (and clearly aren’t familiar with Oatmeal’s comic writing style)
6) “I don’t think anyone votes based solely on religious beliefs” – then you obviously haven’t spent much time in the south
FleetadmiralJ, I think you just earned your fourth star! Kudos to you! 🙂
I feel you have failed to realize what this comic is about, and more or less validated it. What the oatmeal is saying isn’t that ALL catholics/mormons/jews do this, but that the ones that do are doing it wrong. He even takes a jab at atheists saying they only vote for people who like hybrid cars are whatever. The point of this comic isn’t to CONDEMN religion, it’s to make a point that if you are one of those people whose religion is forced down the throats of others, than you are doing it wrong. I am an atheist. My best friend is a catholic, my boyfriend is Mormon, and my grandfather is a bhuddist. We all get along just fine because we can all agree to love each other despite our differences. That’s how it should be done. And that’s what the Oatmeal is trying to (Satirically) say. You being over sensitive and starting an internet witch hunt over it, does nothing but prove his point.
What is truly funny is how you tried to come back and be witty by adding this “Dad, what’s 3 x 3?” “No one really knows for sure. What do YOU think 3 x 3 is?” First and foremost, we can actually prove that 3 3’s equal nine. But what we can’t prove is that there is a god or life after death. Or if the Resurrection was a big hoax or not. No one was there for that. Heck, today we are catching people left and right with cons. Why may you ask, because everyone is well educated. Or at least enough to know B.S. when they hear it. Why do you think there are atheists, we are the educated ones that can see through the B.S. that has been fed through the centuries to calm and control the masses to do as they want us to do.
You missed the point of the comic completely. The comic was not picking on Catholic’s or any other religion as a whole, it was aimed at those who take their religion too far and repressing other religions/people/individual beliefs. The comic did not say, “religion is bad, and here is why”… instead it showed how it is unfair to press your beliefs onto other people, and doing so in a negative manner.
Even at the end of the comic it says that if you hurt, hinder, condemn, or kill for you’re religion, i.e. purposely hurting a person because they are gay, or rejecting a women because she had a baby out of wedlock, etc., then that is wrong. In the Catholic faith we are taught to “treat others as you want to be treated”, and treating someone differently because of you’re religion is just ridiculous.
At the end of the comic he says that if you’re religion inspire you to help people, it makes you happier, and gives you a meaning of life, then good, carry on with your life. And that is how someone should go about their religion; by loving everyone, because we are all children of God.
Yes he did pick on Catholic’s, Christians, and anyone else who believes in God. But he is from America, and in America those are the main religions and religious beliefs. If he was from China or India, his comic would have probably featured those God’s because those are the main religions. Why would he feature other religions in this comic when most religious problems that happen in America involve Christians and Catholics?
Before getting all butt-hurt over a comic on the internet because it talks about religion, maybe you should read it over more carefully and try to understand what the cartoonist was trying to point out. There is nothing wrong with being religious, but when someone takes to too far by shoving their beliefs down someone else’s throat, and/or repressing other’s then yeah, you probably do suck at your religion.
That’s so nice, that you completely missed the point. The point being that it’s not christians or pastafarianists that suck at their religion, but those people that try to force an unprovable belief system onto others (without allowing for the possibility of said belief system being actually wrong – which is, you know, exactly what you, a clear religion-sucker, are doing) thus limiting other people’s freedom in order to obey some laws YOU think are the best for everyone.
And that applies to catholics, whose oh-so-guilty conscience just FORCES them to think EVERY single remark about ANY unspecified religion relates to THEM – well, guess what, they don’t, Oatmeal’s critic applies perfectly to most major religions, specially the monotheistic ones (the fact that he applauds on the non-conversion policy of the Jews doesn’t mean he doesn’t criticize them in all the other panels – it does).
So, Catholics, just suck it up: you’re not the center of the world anymore. Atheists don’t hate you. Agnostics don’t disbelieve your God – they disbelieve every single God that was ever thought up by any man, prophet or supernatural entity whatsoever. That your beliefs are in the way is just an accident. If you didn’t exist, if Jesus had ever had the good idea to shut the hell up and keep up with the carpentering, toning down that “son of god” crap, atheists would still loathe the idea of deity, and agnostics would still say “what the hell, I can’t prove it or disprove it, I’d rather just ignore it”. JUST. THE. SAME. Grow up.
“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?””
Terrible point. There is no correlation.
3×3 = 9
It is a fact that can be mathematically proven.
Jesus exists = ?
Not a fact; cannot be proven (I’m still waiting for someone to prove this to me, anyway). Can be hoped for, can be prayed for, can build beliefs and morals around. Is not factual; IS theorized.
You can believe what you want, but don’t be so convoluted to try and convince me that it is fact.
The existance of some Jesus of Nazareth born circa 0 A.D. (actually somewhat earlier) is actually an almost historically proven fact. The fact that Jesus = god is the really, REALLY hard to prove fact.
You’ll note that I said “Jesus exists”, not “Jesus existed”.
Actually Jesus cannot equal god. I don’t think religion depicted god as a velociraptor with akimbo rpgs flying sharkback to the top of Mount Everest to fight the nine Nazgûl and a balrog before descending into the heavens with the two other prophets, leaving behind the triforce in the sacred realm, waiting for the chosen one to enter and pull the master sword from the stone and fight the evil that is Darth Vader and Rupert Murdoc and restore peace and prosperity to the lands, so to avoid ZALGO singing the song that shall end the worlds by causing the dead to rise again, leaving the fate of the human population to a handful of gun-toting southerners to take down the swarms of the undead and take down our demonic ruler.
“is actually an almost historically proven fact” Oh lovely, this made my day. I bet you’re a scholar with a fine standing in the scientific community, sir; because I, for one, am completely almost seriously somewhat convinced.
“is actually an almost historically proven fact” Oh seriously, this made my day. I bet you’re a scholar with a fine standing in the scientific community sir, because I, for one, am completely almost seriously somewhat convinced.
I cant prove God exists anymore than I can prove that I love my mother. However, I know it is true that I love my mother, yet empirically, any proof would be unconvincing because science is ill equipped to answer such questions. Yet, we know that every scientific model of the universe has a beginning, which at least implies a creative agent to me.
I see two definite references to Catholicism in the offending webcomic. Two. Now, I can understand why you might be offended on someone ragging on your religion, it’s something deeply personal. I am not conventionally religious. I believe in God, not church. I try and treat people like people, and I go out of my way to help people. In short, I try and make myself a valuable member of Society, as do most people. I would say the vast majority of people who believe in God are like me.
However. Extremists always draw attention to themselves, be they extreme in political views, habits, or beliefs. Due to the natural human interest or aversion to that which is different, they gather more interest and attention from the “general populus”. Nobody is interested in someone like themselves. I don’t watch TV to see people eating breakfast, going to work and having an uneventful day, then coming home and having a quiet evening in. A webcomic about a catholic helping out in a soup kitchen would not be amusing, nor would it challenge preconceptions or stir controversy.
The proclivities that The Oatmeal mentions are ones that niggle or annoy the general population. The Oatmeal has exaggerated some of these activities for comic effect, but a lot of them are true. I don’t like people trying to change the way I think (see the mormon panel). I think people shouldn’t be brought into a religion at a young age – people should be allowed to choose. As for the “indoctrination of youth”, if a young person sees their parents being kind, and see that religion gives their parents strength when they need it, then they will choose to follow. Being forced to do something, when you’d rather be elsewhere, leads to feelings of resentment. That’s the way we, as humans, function. I’d rather see people choose religion than feel obliged to do it due to a set of morals imprinted on them when they are at their most impressionable.
The part that shows people mocking things for having different beliefs is pretty spot on. But again, that’s something that everyone does. Some people believe in ghosts. Some don’t. I’m happy to leave it at that myself, but put two people who strongly believe in opposing views together, and unless they find mutual interests elsewhere, they will argue and mock each other.
I can see why you’re upset. I can see why the Oatmeal made that webcomic. And even though I agree with the Oatmeal, I understand your anger. However, the good part to come of the comic, and I hope you’ll agree, is the fact that it’s stimulated conversation, which will maybe lead to some people re-evaluating annoying habits, and maybe toning them down. The cynic in me, however, suggests that all The Oatmeal, and as a result yourself, are doing here is urinating into the wind. However, people are laughing WITH the Oatmeal. Your defensive response makes you look weak, as is the way of nature. Kudos to you for defending your beliefs, but they are your beliefs. Not everyone elses.