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.
You completely missed the point of the comic. The author was using gross over exaggeration to make a point. The Oatmeal is known for this. It’s not specifically about any one religion, it’s about telling all religions to suck it up, keep their religion to themselves, and let their children develop critical thinking skills to develop ideas and theories on their own.
I don’t think you read the same comic I did.
BTW as a former Catholic who attended several churches…yes, you do tell people they will go to hell if they aren’t Catholics or follow the Dogma of the Catholic church. Maybe you should write a blog post/memo to clarify to other priests if this is something the church opposes.
Also, most agnostics and atheists grew up in households of various religious backgrounds. They have friends, coworkers, and family members who are religious and to argue that they are ignorant of religion is absurd when it has been shown that they most often have a better understanding of various religions than the religious. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious
I believe in God and I personally think he is hilarious. He is a comedian/graphic artist and one of very few people who joke about this subject. You people are so easily offended its ridiculous. When a comedian tells a joke that you don’t like, you don’t sit there and heckle him. You gtfo and go on with your day. I’m sick of people giving Matt (creator of theoatmeal if you didn’t know) shit. Just don’t read his stuff if you don’t like it and walk away. Just walk away (drops mic)
>> I’m sick of people giving Matt (creator of theoatmeal if you didn’t know) shit.
LOL. Okay.
This post just proves the oatmeals point..
Exactly. This post just adds to the Oatmeals point and somehow, the author missed that he’s not part of the joke by his ironic response.
If you’re religious and OFFENDED by this web-comic.
YOU HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES AND MISSED BOTH THE POINT of the comic AND the points YOUR RELIGION TEACHES, ENTIRELY.
And so, YOU SUCK AT YOUR RELIGION.
(…and at understating satire and life apparently since you’re likely lacking a sense of humor.)
Also, if you’re offended by the comic you should SERIOUSLY reflect on WHY you are religious.
Is it so you can feel sanctimonious?
Because if it was, you’re a conceited dick.
Don’t blindly hate me, look up the damn definition of the word if you think I’m just name-calling.
Is it so you can feel morally righteous and give yourself a reason to HATE and JUDGE?
“Judge not lest ye be judged.” Matt. 7:1 and “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” are concepts from the Bible. So live by them if you claim to follow the Bible’s teachings.
If someone else doesn’t follow your PERSONALLY CHOSEN religion, DON’T BE A DICK HOLDING THEM TO YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOUS RULES. Should you be held to Muslim rules if you’re not Muslim?
You chose your religion FOR YOURSELF. You didn’t choose to believe it FOR OTHERS to live by YOUR personal moral code.
Right on.
Live and let live good people.
Real things require less defending, because they are real.
May the spirit of Elvis serve and protect you. Always.
Freedom.
>> God’s existence is either untrue, unknown, or unimportant <<
Pretty much sums up everything 😉
Wait till a child can decide for itself whether it wants to follow their parents religion. Instead of indoctrinating them into it.
Basically, what Pitchforkjesus said.
Also, I found the comic hilarious, so shove that in your pope and smoke it! n_n
You should fill out the “Butthurt Report Form,” found here and all over:
http://assets.smokingmeatforums.com/3/30/30154564_butthurt_report_form.jpeg
i need this as stationary.
The Oatmeal sent me here, which reminds me…
The Oatmeal gets approx. 4.000.000 unique visitors pr. month. Now he is recommending, that his readers read your article (to get a good laugh, which I sort of did, but nevertheless he recommends it). How does that square with your prejudgment, that the web-comic does not advance debate?
He recommends, that his readers be exposed to your views, where you recommend that your readers do not click on the link to his comic. Who is it, that is really not advancing the debate?
yey, i’m only here because of said link too!
Let’s be honest here. Debate and discussion wasn’t the purpose of the Facebook post. Inman posted it for pure mocking reasons (I’ve seen the post) and the responses here shows it. He wanted this website to be flooded and I bet he has it bookmarked for future mockings if he ever decides to make another webcomic about religion. You give your him too much credit.
>> where you recommend that your readers do not click on the link to his comic. Who is it, that is really not advancing the debate?
Oh please. The webmaster believes it does nothing to advance the debate since it feeds of off stereotypes and is offensive in his mind. he gives reasons why such a webcomic may be useless to ones time. He gives the reader a choice to either skip it or read it. If he never wanted to “advance the debate” then he wouldn’t have written an entire rebuttal.
Wow… his post on facebook brought me here. He is encouraging debate and viewing this criticism. Excellent questions, dub dub dub
Fairly one sided when one side is in defense of a ideology and the other is a kid stomping up and down on it rudely and laden with profanity. Seriously you act like someone decrying a pornographic website (with recommendations not to visit) is being one sided when the very content found therein is objectionable and not to be viewed.
Or do you also believe I should try any number of recreational drugs before I condemn their use?
You probably didn’t read that Oatmeal’s comic until the end:
“However, does your religion inspire you to help people? Does it make you happier? … … Does it help you with that? Yes? Excellent! Carry on with your religion!*
*just keep it to your _ self”
and that pretty much sums the discussion.
This is true.
The blog and many of the comments mention how absurd or ridiculous the arguments made in this web comic are… well that is certainly true. Nothing about the oatmeal comic isn’t absurd or over the top. That is exactly the point of satire, especially in cartoon format.
I am catholic and find no offense here. Lighten up guys, this kind of response is what makes mocking us so easy.
Smart man.
finally One intelligent person! thanks!!
Have you never heard these arguments used in all seriousness? I have.
I think that what Matthew Inman was trying to do with all of this is say that if you want to be all religious and stuff, it’s totally fine. He just thinks that it’s cruddy of people to try to impose their religion upon others. He is trying to say that people shouldn’t be alienated into religion, but rather learn about religions and choose for themselves. This goes for the children, especially. If they aren’t free to choose what to believe in, they will never truly be free.
agreed sir!
So.. you have, at least, two friends who didn’t know enough about their own religion to dispute a web-comic? (Or the sense to just laugh it off) I find it very telling that they apparently could not think for themselves, or do any research into the points Matthew was making, and instead “Ran” to you to be told how how to respond…
Comics are for just plain fun or for editorial purposes. Sometimes the two mix. The Oatmeal is one of those – a mix of read-for-fun and read-as-an-editoral cartoon, and often leans towards the personal editorial view of the cartoonist, which is well within his rights (and just so you know, an editorial cartoon generally uses a cartoon as a vehicle to employ “hyperbole and biting humour in order to question authority and draw attention to corruption and other social ills.” In my opinion, you obviously missed the point of the comic (the very last line), but with your attempt at a response, you have confirmed that The Oatmeal has indeed succeeded in creating an wonderful editorial that has sparked debate and conversation, just like a good editorial should do! And BTW, I believe that it does say a lot when a comic like this goes viral – the hypocrisy of both religion and atheism is something that should be openly discussed and debated and if it takes a webcomic to do so, then more power to The Oatmeal for taking it on. Go Oats!
Oh the irony of this entire blog post. It’s fantastic!
Does anyone else find the comparison of stem cell research to the Holocaust EXTREMELY offensive? There can be no comparison between a non-sentient, non-sapient, non-thinking, feeling, dream-having cluster of cells that could potentially be a human some day and those children who were experimented on and murdered during the Holocaust.
Hi! I’m an athiest and I just want to speak up to say that we’re not all crazy. Similarly, I don’t believe that Catholics or Christians of any type are insane, or suckered by a cult. I think all people need something to believe in, that’s our choice. On a very personal level, I’m actually comforted by the idea that I have this life and when it ends, I end. It’s that idea that gets me out of bed to be the best part of society that I can be today.
I’ve been calling myself an athiest for about a decade now, and I typically avoid religious conversation due to the inevitable gnashing of teeth and general queasiness from conflict.
I think that you need to accept that these “new athiests,” a movement I’ve seen appearing online more and more lately, are a pairing of cyber bullies and bandwagoners. It’s the same class of human that makes rape jokes, racial jokes, anti-feminist jokes. These are not people who want a peaceful co-existence with anyone, not even people they identify as “part of their club.”
For what it’s worth, I appreciated your post and read the whole thing. You lost me a little on point #10, though. I think it toed the line of saying “Muslims have a greater potential for violence than Christians.” I urge you to be careful with that line of thinking. All humans are capable of violence when you ignite their passions over something so dear as faith, God, belief. I don’t mean to repremand you, just to let you know how I viewed that portion of your rebuttle. I’m sure you didn’t mean to seperate Muslims from the rest of humanity at all.
Peace,
(V)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
On the sex part… just wanna remember you guys that ur OWN Catholic pope as declare, not 1873098209 years ago, but in the 4-5 years that just past that using a condom is against nature and people in Africa should “keep it for themself” instead of using a condom. And for the link about Galileo… Damn i would really, really like to see some ressources. Books? Thesis? Doctorat writing? nop. nada. nothing.
I agree, The oatmeal don’t go nice on this one but, sure you all remember the inquisition? the death of thousand of women just because they were “witches” ? Do you know what kind of torture the Catholic Church have done to these human beeing? Shave their head, then put some alcool on it to burn what’s left of their dignity, site them on a chair that actally “empale” them ? No don’t remember this part of our common history?
N.B. sorry for my poor English writing, im a french-canadian 🙂
“Of course, if the Resurrection is true, that claim is false.”
Keyword: if
Have you any proof that it is true?
I find it interesting that you said that one should at least understand what they are bashing before bashing it, but, without intending to, you are doing the same thing. Don’t get me wrong, knowledge is power, but have you ever wondered where people who have these viewpoints get them? Equating what you consider facts of afterlife to preference of colour may seem silly to you, but to someone who does not see it as a fact and sees your choice of belief to be equivalent to theirs… to them, it is a preference. It has nothing to do with 3×3; which is a fact, regardless of belief system; either. Do you consider their beliefs silly as well?
Your points are valid. Your anger and disgust is valid. However, it sounds to me, from reading your arguments, that you don’t understand them any more than they understand all of the different belief systems. He took on a very broad topic in what he would have considered a concise way. Does it bother you that the facts are wrong, and you believe that if he knew the facts his opinion would change, or that he doesn’t agree with religion? My guess would be that regardless of knowing what you know, he still would not believe. It’s a deeply personal issue on a broad spectrum. This is his belief system and deserves to be respected just as much as your own… more so in fact because your belief system and morality deem that you should, while his is a morality based on experience rather than the Bible.
I know that Jesus wouldn’t want any of us living with hate in our hearts, wasting the time we do have on this beautiful Earth that his father created for us to enjoy, sitting on our computers reading things we don’t agree with just so we can start an argument (even if you feel you are doing it for him); when we could be out enjoying the sun, mountains, etc. An easy way around all of this? Rise above, hold your head high, and remember that the only soul that is truly yours to worry about is your own (and your kids). While bringing people to God is important, trust that God has a plan for everyone, including those that read and wrote the article. You don’t have to try to convince non-believers of anything. They won’t want it, they’ll resent you and your religion for it, and you won’t change anything.
How should I accept your logic when you think adultery is easy once you accept that sex is fun? Adultery requires lying. Lying and “sex is fun” are not mutually inclusive conditions. Guard your own sense of wisdom before trying to critique others. Furthermore, assuming he was targeting just your religion is the height of hubris. Shameless indeed.
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?”
that’s because 3×3 IS 9. it’s a fact. based on solid, imperical evidence.
please prove there is a “heaven” afterlife with evidence. then i wouldnt think you’re just a flaming moron.
Well as it turns out, according to quantum mechanics, once every hundred trillion years or so, somewhere in the universe, 3 x 3 is actually a jellyfish that can phase through the wall of your garage for a billionth of a second before reverting back to 9.
Funny old world we live in.
“Anti-Catholic”? You can see clearly that it is equally hard on many different superstitious! You need to have a sense of humor about the universe, because you can be darn sure the universe will have a sense of humor about *you*! 🙂
I think the problem here is that you’re forgetting that the comic was a joke. Like. It wasn’t a piece if intellectual writing to be taken seriously in any sort of religious “debate.” Although the term “debate” can’t really be used to describe a religious dialogue, since it’s all just a bunch of people who can’t be convinced of anything trying to talk louder than each other. The use of the word “debate” to describe the comic or this post embarrasses me, as an actual debater.
Too much about nothing!
If that’s the best an atheist can do?
BORING!
By the way, the proper capitalization is “him”, not “Him”. Drives me nuts!
It’s beautifully hilarious that in point 10 you quite openly make a what you thought was probably indirect attack at the Muslim faith/community, even if it was just a specific faction you did generalize it to the entirety of Muslim. Then in the very next point you scold him for the irony of condemning Christianity then speaking against condemnation. You did the very same thing but first condemning Muslim then not only speaking against condemnation but /pointing out/ a double standard while making that /same/ double standard.
Religion is fine, as long as you don’t try enforcing it on other people. I have a muslim friend who’s sister-in-law, a Christian, who took every opportunity to remind her that Islam is wrong and Christianity is right. Mind you, this comic is not aimed straight at Catholics, it’s aimed for all religions. I’ll take that right back – it’s aimed at all religious people who are hiding in their small societies, refusing to mix with other societies, and are damning all others. I kid you not, there are many of those.
Your belief is your belief and I respect that, as long as it makes you feel happy and content with your life. As other people have said, there are varied degrees of being a Christian too. All God wants is for all of us to be respectful to eachother.
It’s funny how you talk about logical fallacies like you’re going to a debate tournament with your friends (we’ve all been there), yet you make one serious mistake: the eventual appeal to authority (this is a different that you’re argument is circular–I’ll get to that). All of this was perfectly logical; however what annoyed me was: “I know God is real because the Bible said so”. If you’ve actually learned anything about this it’s a appeal to authority. The authority: God/the Bible. But, let’s assume by definition that God holds the secret to life and the ultimate fate of the universe (like 42). Then proving God,given that the Bible is God’s Word, would prove your case. So, your proof: “I know God exists, because the Bible is God’s word, and it tells me God exists” or sometimes you skip the middle part. I’ll give you the Deontological Proof of God (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/) except that it falls into the category of Argumentum Absurdum, and still falls apart when not existing is required to be truly perfect. A magical force that knows all? Well, there seems to be one idea that’s not terribly outlandish (relatively) and that’s Aliens. Now I know this sounds like the History Channel, but it’s still the most plausible argument I can see without using blind faith–though the Drake Equation could be B.S. As to your retort of science as a faith based “religion”, well you’d be happy there’s a Radical Skepticism community, just I do not think they’d look kindly on you’re idea of God. This should not be an attack on your religion. Religion is a wonderful thing. It can organize people and bring people close together. For example: my Synagogue is in a Methodist Church. There’s a piece of clothing in my religion (I think it’s called a Tiffilan–I’m not Orthodox). You wear five slots on your forehead to symbolize ways of thinking, and one slot on each hand for ways to act. This says that there are many ways to THINK, but only one way to ACT. I respect you, and I hope you do some good on your time on Earth, and in the spirit of your religion: I hope you get called by St. Peter into the Gates of Heaven. Shalom.
Ha! A Catholic talking about truth. That is some rich irony.
All humans are agnostics, meaning that no one KNOWS about the existence of god or gods. Religion is about faith: belief in the absence of evidence. You aren’t supposed to pretend to be agnostic. You ARE agnostic. And you are an agnostic who believes in a god. Stating that you must deny the resurrection implies that you know the resurrection actually occurred/ is true, which you absolutely do not. You do not “know Him to exist,” no matter how confidently you claim to. A little humility with your faith can go a long way.
Related to pane #1: As a Catholic, and according to the new testament, can someone get into heaven without accepting Jesus as his/her savior? If not, then you cannot truly refute pane #1 of the web comic. Those who do not accept Jesus (i.e., non-Christians), are doomed to hell.
Why not use this as a reminder that we sometimes appear brash to the outside world and that we need to be more hospitable? That’s what I took it as.
I laughed a few times through out this
“Should parents not pass their political, ethical or moral views on to their children as well?” I don’t follow the same political views as my father. As a matter of fact, I have no idea how my mother votes, but having talked to her, I don’t think she would agree with my father. So, if both tried to force it on me, which one would I go with?
“I don’t think anyone votes based solely on religious beliefs.” Yes. Yes some do. Some politicians run on religious campaigns too and tell people to vote with the side God would choose.
“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.” I feel as if you purposefully skipped the words “in the name of your God” in there.
Most of the rest of the arguements I have would belong in the “I don’t believe in that, therefore it applies to NO ONE ELSE!” and also denial categories. So I’ll save myself the tome.
Ok – the part you have written about panel five is just ridiculous.
You wouldn’t say ‘No one knows for sure’ about ‘What is 3×3’ because we DO know for sure what that is. What Matthew Inman is saying is that no one knows for sure, no one has any stone hard prove that you go to heaven after you die, or that there is a god, etc, and that you shouldn’t force your BELIEFS onto your children, just because that is your OPINION.
Because that is what all religion is – a bloody opinion. Until you can give me rock solid proof that there is a god then I will continue to believe that there is no god.
I have no proof that there isn’t a god, or a heaven, so I wouldn’t go around telling everyone that they’re wrong and should believe exactly what I believe because somehow every religious person’s beliefs are incorrect. I wouldn’t tell my child that – I would tell them my beliefs and what other people’s beliefs are, and then let them make their own informed choice without me judging them, like any half decent and sane parent would do.
And that is exactly what The Oatmeal is trying to say, and with this entire article you have done what he was complaining about. I applaud you.
Hi,
I read the comic, but I couldn’t really be bothered to read your argument about it – basically, because it was a comic. And despite the offensive references in it, the overall message was aimed at religions that are used as a reason to kill people… Having gone to a Catholic school, to be fair, I was never asked to kill in the name of God.
The ultimate message of the comic, “How to suck at your religion” – is if you use it as an excuse to kill. As he then goes on to say, if it makes you happy, and inspires you to help others, and if it helps you to understand your place on the planet, then it’s a good thing…
The Oatmeal uses offensive and extreme images and terms in order to be shocking – this way, his opinions make more of an impact. Despite your objections to it, and your belief that it doesn’t enrich the discourse etc … it inspired you to write a rather lengthy and detailed blog defending your religion. So actually, I think it served its purpose rather well.
With regards to the people who emailed you asking you how to respond, perhaps you should have said –
“You are someone who is happy and confident in your belief system. Regardless of what other people believe or write, you have your own beliefs which do not need to be questioned. As the comic says, if you are happy, and your religion inspires you, then this is excellent.”
Oh man this joke of a response was almost as funny as the original comic.
The Oatmeal uses hyperbole because he’s saying that if these things apply to you, then you suck at your religion. If you aren’t as Fundamentalist as these stereotypes (which exist for a reason!), then you probably do religion pretty good.
You, however, are humorless and close-minded and have a blog trying to defend those traits. So it’s too bad that The Oatmeal comic offends you, because IT’S ABOUT YOU! HA! OH THE IRONY! It’s so delicious. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless your pathetic day.
Well as a Catholic myself I don’t find your arguments overly inspiring. It’s the Oatmeal, a.k.a. a website that takes certain ideas and heightens them to the 11 level for humor. And I laughed at this one. It reminded me of some of my own thoughts and experiences that I’ve had with my faith. Now I don’t necessarily agree with all of his examples (like the stem cell one), but that doesn’t demean the comic as a whole. And his point with death is especially true. No one really knows what happens when we die – but we can have faith that we go to Heaven (or Hell). And I don’t think he was targeting Catholicism… just religion as a whole.
Also, for the record, I’ve found that with many religious arguments there are pretentious people who think they know everything, may it be by Bible or Science textbook. No one knows exactly for certain. So let’s respect each other’s ideas and no name-calling, please.
Hey there!
I was linked here by the writer of the Oatmeal.
First off, a LOT of the guys coming here to debate against you have arguments that are cringe-worthy. They’re simplistic, mean-spirited and sneering in a way that doesn’t elevate the discourse you’re trying to have. Sorry about that.
I consider myself a Buddhist, one of those religions that Inman approves of. I consider my spirituality a personal system of belief that works for me and makes me a better person. I leave room for doubt — it’s quite possible that what I believe might not be true, and I could be wrong. If faced with convincing evidence I’ll re-adjust my view. I might do it kicking and screaming from my safe position, but I’d like to believe I’ll come around eventually.
I think what Inman is saying here is that so many people use religion as a weapon as opposed to a tool. A lot of us who aren’t in the Christian majority here in the US have been affected badly by that, and we’ve grown up with a poor disposition towards religion because of it. It’s true that the sneering of most atheists, agnostics and adherents of alternative religions isn’t logical — but that’s because so many of us have been personally hurt and made to feel less than worthy because we don’t hold the same beliefs. That hurt, buried and nursed over time, eventually gives rise to anger. And we all know that the Internet is a great place for venting that.
I genuinely do believe that Inman took some care not to say “religion sucks” as you seem to think he does, but that there is a right and wrong way to express your religious beliefs. Even if you believe that your religion is *objectively* true, you have to leave room for those people who don’t. In order to reach people across an ideological gulf effectively, you have to start with where they are, take them by the hand and lead them gently. This doesn’t happen in most theological debates. The tolerance of non-Christians towards believers has been eroded on a societal level because of this.
What I think we’re seeing, culturally, is Christianity untempered by doubt or compassion for each other. This lack of consideration (both for our beliefs and for other people) is an issue that transcends religion though. Atheists suffer from the same thing, and that’s why so many of their arguments come off as mean and reductive — they don’t consider Christians as anything other than ‘the enemy’, a load of sheep who can’t accept the possibility, however small, that they’re wrong. To so many of us, Christians are unbending zealots who won’t listen or reason. And that’s frightening.
Mind you, I’m not saying any of these views are correct. I’m SURE there are a lot of great, kind Christians out there who are better people because of what they believe. But these people — by their very nature — might not put themselves out there to be seen. In their place, we get unyielding people who use religion as a weapon to beat people down. If that’s what most of people see, then that’s the image they’re going to be stuck with whether it’s fair or not.
I would love to see a Christian organization that strove to be more Christ-like: kind, humble, optimistic and intelligent. Instead, we see every day in the news how people are using Christianity to exclude groups that they don’t agree with. Jesus hung out with the scum of his day and elevated them into being better people. That was his goal. There doesn’t seem to be many Christians following that lead.
Well said! A lot of UN Christ-like Christians and churches out there.
” 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?””
…had to stop there. The stupid burned my brain too much.
3×3 is a mathematical problem. To find out the answer, you have to multiply the two numbers together.
What happens when you die is a philosophical prediction. To find out the answer, you have to die.
We don’t have to imagine if we treated all knowledge that way. Religious people already do.
And I’d also like to point out that my dog and cat are wonderful beings, and will surely go to heaven, even when the Rapture happens.
Not sure if this response is equal parts satire but the fact that many of the Authors responses fall in line with the EXACT things the comic is shedding light on is hilarious to me, especially if this isn’t fake.
Seriously, the agnostic parenting part couldn’t have been more missing the point if indeed this isn’t satire.
“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.”
You realize how that is the exact attitude that he’s pointing out is wrong with popular religion? “Treating beliefs about the afterlife as mere matters of personal preference like having a favorite color… is stupid”
Right, it’s stupid to you because you think your religion is right. What if someone else has a different personal belief?
Again, you’re either incredibly narcissistic and deny the world exists outside of your own vision of it or you’re a really talented satirist.
Ok – the part you have written about panel five is just ridiculous.
You wouldn’t say ‘No one knows for sure’ about ‘What is 3×3’ because we DO know for sure what that is. What Matthew Inman is saying is that no one knows for sure, no one has any stone hard prove that you go to heaven after you die, or that there is a god, etc, and that you shouldn’t force your BELIEFS onto your children, just because that is your OPINION.
Because that is what all religion is – a bloody opinion. Until you can give me rock solid proof that there is a god then I will continue to believe that there is no god.
I have no proof that there isn’t a god, or a heaven, so I wouldn’t go around telling everyone that they’re wrong and should believe exactly what I believe because somehow every religious person’s beliefs are incorrect. I wouldn’t tell my child that – I would tell them my beliefs and what other people’s beliefs are, and then let them make their own informed choice without me judging them, like any half decent and sane parent would do.
And that is exactly what The Oatmeal is trying to say, and with this entire article you have done what he was complaining about. I applaud you.
Comics are for just plain fun or for editorial purposes. Sometimes the two mix. The Oatmeal is one of those – a mix of read-for-fun and read-as-an-editoral cartoon, and often leans towards the personal editorial view of the cartoonist, which is well within his rights (and just so you know, an editorial cartoon generally uses a cartoon as a vehicle to employ “hyperbole and biting humour in order to question authority and draw attention to corruption and other social ills.” In my opinion, you obviously missed the point of the comic (the very last line), but with your attempt at a response, you have confirmed that The Oatmeal has indeed succeeded in creating an wonderful editorial that has sparked debate and conversation, just like a good editorial should do! And BTW, I believe that it does say a lot when a comic like this goes viral – the hypocrisy of both religion and atheism is something that should be openly discussed and debated and if it takes a webcomic to do so, then more power to The Oatmeal for taking it on. Go Oats!
This comment is about to be removed by a blog administrator.
It’s disturbingly ironic that YOU choose to post a picture in relation to the holocaust. A war in the name of religion. I don’t think religion is a bad thing,if the church of the flying spaghetti monster helps you though the day then thats fine by me, but people use religion as a bad thing, and THAT’S how you suck at your religion.
People have been shoving their religion down everyone’s throats for centuries. And injecting it into government. It’s harder to see when it’s your religion, and you agree, but what if your president passed a law making all women wear burkas, just because they were muslim, You won’t stand for it, So how come Catholicism is in play in government with homophobia and misogyny.
express your religion all you want, but you need to keep your religion out of our bodies, or are you going to call me a murderer for exfoliating because those are just cells too.
Religion is supposed to be a way of having something to hold on, to carry with us and make us beleive we actually have a goal in our existance. but at some point, church was used in taking control. its like everything, where there is good, there is bad too. the next one that tries to tell me how to beleive in something is just doing it wrong in his own religion. this would mean they forgot what beleiving is and taht other may have a different point of view. this comic is really funny. and this post of yours just show me how close minded you are and how you misunderstand what a religion is. I gently ask you to stop judging people like that. accord to super jesus, that’s what he wanted, right.
seriously….
Your blog post is so stupid. You are trying to look into a web comic and apply shaky logic to it. Especially with your view of panel five. YES, we don’t know that there isn’t a god. That cannot be scientifically proven yet, but it’s getting close. However, you cannot compare this fictional beast to a math equation, as the latter has been proven again and again. Saying that god is real without being able to prove it is as logical as me saying that blumaroos, slenderman, the rake and unicorns are real.
Religion makes me lose faith in humanity, namely when they try to apply their logic into other peoples logic and stories.
I’d like to say firstly, I like both the Oatmeal, and I like this blog posting. I appreciate both for the sentiments and ideas that they point out.
As someone living in the ‘Bible Belt’ I see a first-hand view of some of the hyperbolic circumstances that Mr. Inman uses through the comic. I was in a church once where someone stormed in, calling on all the individuals to repent because what everyone in that church believed was wrong and they were worshipping false idols (true story), which is why I can see some of those points as funny to me. I don’t believe (and I could be fully wrong, but this is my interpretation of it) Mr. Inman to be using the comic to describe ALL Christians, or even all religion. The thing I seem to see, across any ideology (atheists included here, I mean all ideologies), are people who demonstrate some of those unfavorable characteristics – the people that affirm the stereotypes of a group, the individuals who perpetuate a feeling of hypocritical judgment. To those that represent those same situations, I don’t want those people discussing their religion with me, because I don’t feel safe to discuss religion with them. I feel judged; scared even; and like I wouldn’t receive a reasonable give and take in the conversation that would enlighten me of the beliefs they hold.
I feel religion does some amazing things, and on the flip side, there are people without a defined religion that have also done amazing things too. Religion can give people purpose, perspective, bring people together, but I also see where it – or the people who believe in it – can do (and historically has done some) terrible things too. I don’t see it as the only way to achieve purpose or meaning in one’s life – but I don’t see it as something completely negative for someone to believe.
~L