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.
Was it Inman’s intention to show an accurate Catholic view and then shoot it down? Nope. Inman was simply showing how people often use religions to justify terrible behavior. GET OVER IT. It was hilarious. This thread might even be more hilarious.
For all of you saying Matthew Inmman sucks or whatever, then go get a REAL LIFE YOU JUNKS, that guy is an artist, making comics, nothing offensive. He raised a DONATION, something most of us won’t even be able to do. So, please learn the difference between HUMOR and BLASPHEMY instead of trying to downgrade this guy. If you don’t have a sense of humor, then I pity you :). Douchebag level super saiyan. OMG!
Comparing stem cell research to Mengele’s “research”? Ha ha ha. Don’t you have some altar boys that need rapin’?
lolz. The Oatmeal never actually criticizes religion in the comic… nor is the webcomic anti-religious. That’s a gross misinterpretation. And gross misinterpretation is pretty much the thing of which the comic was poking fun! Religion, as long as it’s a positive influence on you and those around you, is totally dandy! It’s when it’s taken out of context, distilled, or people only use pieces to justify their own radical beliefs that end up harming others that those individuals suck at their religion. Inman just found a funny way to say that, with pictures. I would’ve thought that was something that religious and non-religious alike could agree on! Sadness.
That’s a good one. I second what you posted 🙂
Okay, first off I am a Baptist but I am also a fan of the Oatmeal, i have been for some time now.
It is a comedy-based web comic. It is suppose to be over exaggerated and over the top. It wasn’t meant as something to pick apart and analyses.
Reading through this, i see all these fellow “Christian” saying how Matt is such a bad person and how horrible he is. Is that not just proving him right about how he exaggerates about Christians judgement on other’s beliefs? It is snap and irrational judgments like this that make others feel uncomfortable about Christianity. Some days i feel ashamed of some of my brothers & sisters in Christ.
There is nothing insensitive about criticizing a set of ideas. Religion, at its core, is just one of several sets of ideas, making claims to how the world is. Whether or not you think The Oatmeal’s critique was good, or funny or whatever is irrelevant when the claim you make is that it is in some way representative of the persecution of Christians, specifically Catholics.
Skipping right over the often repeated claims of “proof” for this or that version of a deity, which always start a priori believing some tradition and/or book, The Oatmeal is offering, via comedic medium, a critique of not just proselytizing but the often hostile pressure offered by a given majority religion. Claims of Christians being persecuted in a country (the US) where exactly one federal politician is identified as non theistic, where Protestant Christianity is a requirement of election and atheists are told daily we will go to hell and are the cause of such atrocities as in Aurora, I can not take seriously claims of persecution from this majority. Like claims of “reverse” racism and “radical” feminism, this Christian persecution complex is genuinely offensive to the marginalized groups across the world.
I do hope that atheists and other non theists don’t resort to assertions and ad hominems, but the point remains that many religious people treat any critique as an all out assault on their person. If I tell someone they have some issue with their political party or their sports team or their favorite show is that an assault on them, personally? I understand that many strongly identify with their religion, but strongly held beliefs and ideals are still not the person. If the criticism is wrong, then show that with your own evidence and logic, don’t cry “persecution” or “blasphemy” or tell me I am going to hell or causing tragedies. That would actually be offensive.
Logic Priest
It’s just a web comic… What are you so afraid of? As long as you have faith in your religion, then why do you care so much about his views? I like how you add “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?”. I can tell you why these ideas are extremely similar. Many parents of many different faiths (not just Christianity) believe forcing their religion on their children is important, and some go to such lengths as to punish them for not believing (I was raised in a christian home and this happened to me). Your religion, just like your favorite color, are both personal preferences that should be kept for your child to choose. This doesn’t mean you can’t live your life as a christian (or any other religion) openly, It just means you shouldn’t force your child into believing in something purely because you do. You can tell them something like “The reason I am a christian is because this or that…” but if your child decides to be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Pagan, or Atheist, or whatever else, you shouldn’t punish them for it, or tell them that they are wrong. As long as they are doing well in school, and are living life without hurting others or themselves, there is no reason for you to judge them for their personal beliefs. I believe that is the point “The Oatmeal” was trying to get across. And btw The title is “How to suck at your religion” you claim that you do not hold any of these views, so what are you whining about?
“The comic can mischaracterize and distort, but in the face of actual Catholicism, it’s silent.”
Then why did you spend a few hours typing this entire post? 😀
Good God you people are so easy to bug 😀
WOW. What? This is horrible. Before I criticize to for everything you said here, let me make it clear the I am a Presbyterian Christian. Now first of all, you compared stem cell researchers to HITLER. Just WHAT THE F***? Then, you declared that people are afraid to make fun of Muslims because they are all terrorists. NO. Matt Inman was making a point, that the FEW Muslim extremists are in the wrong. He’s perfectly fine with religion, just as long as you’re not a douche about it. You then, to an extent agreed that Islam is bad. You have made so many offensive, stupid, and just plain asshole-y statements. And just for the record, the comic was funny to everyone I showed it to.
The Oatmeal sat me FREE!
Now i can see the light! Hallelujah!
Bwaahahahaha.
Jokes apart, guys…
Everybody knows Oatmeal is wrong. And the owner of this blog is wrong too.
There is only one god and only one church. It’s real and there are tangible proofs.
Be ready to meet:
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/
All power to the (search) engines!
This made me LOL pretty hard…
I’m not sure if the author of this article knows what the word “comic” means…I found the comic pretty offensive, but I’m not crazy enough to think he was trying to be factual and thorough. It’s a comic, it speaks in hyperbole and broad generalizations. It wasn’t a thesis arguing against the existence of Christ, it’s a bunch of funny pictures of cartoon people saying silly things.
Truth and religion don’t share the same sentence. Faith is not truth. The whole point of faith is you can’t prove it to be true! “The one Truth” “The only True religion”… That’s why I love poking fun at Christianity. Open your eyes a little wider! Read the Oatmeal and laugh =)
Science has NOT proven that “life begins at conception”. The Bible says that life begins at first breath.
Also, you didn’t mention a little something called the Inquisition. Which church was behind that?
If you can’t take criticism, there might be something wrong with your argument.
The bible also says if you beat a woman until she miscarries, you shall pay a fine. What’s the biblical punishment for murder, again? Because last I checked, it wasn’t “pay a few coins for compensation”
Okay, wait. Did y’all miss the part right after Mr. Inman lists everything, he says “That’s alright, I suppose.” Ergo, he’s saying that it’s fine for you. Him being an atheist (agnostic? I try not to delve into other peoples personal lives too much), and a comedian, he puts everything into an extreme light, so don’t get too upset. I’m a Christian myself, and I found the post to be hilarious!! I also found that the main point of the article, if you actually read it correctly, to be quite nice! 🙂
It was a joke!!!! wow to be this upset says a lot about you. God gave you a life, should you not enjoy it? If im not mistaken we were made in his image…right? we have a sense of humor….ssssooooo that means God does to. We have to be able to laugh at ourselves people. Believe in what you believe, but remember GOD WANTS SPIRITUAL FRUIT, NOT RELIGIOUS NUTS oh and btw that right there in case you didn’t know is funny. AKA a joke.
Meanwhile, in related Catholic news, Monsignor Lynn is sentenced to 3-6 years for enabling child rape.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/us/philadelphias-msgr-william-j-lynn-is-convicted-of-allowing-abuse.html?pagewanted=all
I forced myself to click on the comic link and read it in its entirety. I can’t believe such a popular comic can be full of so many lies and misinterpretations. Sure, a few of the panels were spot on and I am guilty of a few of these actions myself. However, mocking us religious people saying that we “suck” is inflammatory.
We need legislation to censor and punish these types of authors. I hate to admit it but I think Arab countries are way ahead of America in this regard.
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.
It’s hard to read the words “The idea that a religion is bad” so many times when nowhere in the comic or captions is it ever said, implied or alluded to that any religion or that religion as a whole is “bad”. The comic is entitled “How to suck at your religion”, implying that the following points are ways in which people fail at following the teachings and philosophies that religion attempts to convey. All of the panels stem from the notion that Religion at its very foundation is a means for self-betterment. The key word being “self”.
The point Inman is trying to express is the notion that a religion can only be effective at improving one’s moral and ethical foundation if it is adopted both willingly and autonomously–with no outside influence. Thus, he states that those who attempt to coerce others into adopting a religion (even their own children) are essentially “doing it wrong”.
Whether or not you agree with that theory is a matter of opinion. I just wanted to clarify that Inman, myself, and most people who disagree with the practice of spreading religious beliefs is fundamentally incorrect don’t actually believe religion is “bad,” just that, as with most things, there is a right and a wrong way of practicing.
Just to satiate curiosity, no, I am not an Atheist, although I see nothing wrong with the notion of being one. My parents are very religious people, but they agreed to never push their religious beliefs onto me or my sister for our own well-being, and it’s probably the one decision they made while raising us that I admire them the most for. As for my own beliefs, I find spirituality easier to swallow if you auto-replace all instances of the word “God” with the word “nature” in your mind.
Why is the bible true? Because god says it is. Who wrote the bible? God.
wow. You completely misinterpreted the whole thing for your own means as to make your beliefs sound better. The point of it was that all of you shouldn’t try to force your religion on others–and that means all beliefs, whether you find them to be based on your religion or not. For example, your children should be allowed to believe whatever religion they wish, or no religion at all. Don’t brainwash them. And the whole afterlife thing, that is your belief. Do not force it upon anyone. If someone wants to believe there is no heaven or hell it’s not hurting them any. People can have basic morals without religion. Actually, people shouldn’t need religion to figure out that murder, rape, theft, and adultery are bad; since it takes anyone with a brain to know that it harms people and thus should not be done. And if you don’t think people can figure that out by themselves with just some common sense, than you have no faith in humanity, and thus it would seem to me your religion isn’t doing much good for you if you have such pessimistic views…
Okay let’s all calm down and remember that this is a web comic and you’re getting all upset and frustrated over a little WEB COMIC. COMIC meaning yknow comedy? Comical? Meaning some things written in the COMIC may be exaggerated or hyperbolic for the sake of COMEDY. Now, all this web comic is, is his opinion on religion based on what he has seen and experienced. So don’t get all upset and mad because some guy felt like sharing his own opinion, which everyone is entitled to, on his website. He is basically saying it’s cool if you’re religious, but the least you could do is still keep an open mind, and don’t shove your religious views on others. Now, debating about religion when it is appropriate is a whole other thing and I have no problem with that and I’m sure The Oatmeal doesn’t have a problem with it either. So he is not saying you should be quiet about your religion, he’s saying be considerate of other people’s beliefs.
That comic, as is the rest of The Oatmeal, was hilarious. Please try to lighten up and live a little. Your friends and family will thank you.
I’m going to try and skim through this as quickly as possible because I could honestly write an essay in response to this article. First let me start by stating that at one point I was a Catholic, went to Catholic elementary school and high school. It was after a world religions class in Grade 12 when I started questioning everything plated in front of me by the Church.
1. Religion has changed and ‘evolved’ for the past 5000 years. At one point humanity believed sacrifices to their God were necessary for a good harvest. Greeks and Egyptians believed in a system of multiple Gods. Hindus still believe in thousands of Gods. So my question for the writer and all Catholics is what makes you so sure your God is the right one? To claim even Catholics are Atheists to an extent would not be far from the truth since they have dismissed the thousands of Gods that have been rooted in humanity since the dawn of civilization.
2. Human life does NOT begin at conception. It is widely agreed upon that death in the body occurs upon death of the brain. An embryo does not have a brain and by law is not considered a person. This is exactly the reason why abortions almost always take place in the first 12 weeks as the embryo has yet to develop the electrical impulses in it’s brain to form consciousness and thought. By logic of the Church than someone who has been dead for 9 months is still alive.
3. Force feeding children religious ideologies destroys their ability to form their own. Personally, I would never teach my children about the Bible but would not hinder them from exploring it on their own. The Oatmeal does a great job of portraying this. Try the same tactics on a 25 year old and they will take your statement and come to their own conclusion. Forcing everyone to believe the same thing destroys the wonder that is human diversity. To take it another step further, I believed the Teenage Mutant Turtles were real until I was about 5 or 6. I was a child and was incredibly vulnerable to new ideas, as every child is especially when those ideas come from someone they trust like their parents. Had my parents force fed me the idea that they were real, I might still today believe that the Ninja Turtles together form an omnipotent force.
4. Instilling morals in a child has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. It has EVERYTHING to do with mutual respect for other human beings. I did not need a Bible to tell me killing or stealing is wrong. I also don’t want to instill the idea of a place called Hell in my children. Doing this leads to a life of fear and disassociation from what is really important, humanity.
5. Finally, I would like to say that I am not an atheist who slams everyone for their religious ideologies. I believe everyone has the right to establish whatever faith they want. The problem I have is when religious people shove their ideas down my throat and this writer has done an excellent job of that. I do not go around saying, ‘there is no God, there is no afterlife, live in the moment.’ I do not belong to a corrupt system of priests, bishops, imams, rabbis or popes. If religious institutions took this same view I would not have a problem with it.
When you step back from the religious or non religious ideologies in this world, we are all human. Black, white, yellow, brown, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, we are all the same at our core. For thousands of years the Catholic Church and in fact many others have abolished the notion that we are all the same. That, is why people suck at their religion.
So I can’t begin to respond to every point, because some will just be a difference between devoutly religious belief vs. anything less than that. However, there are a few points I’d like to comment on.
3 and 9 – I’ll circle back to 9 for a different reason, but your argument hinges on the main point of the pro-life/pro-choice debate, being “When does life begin?” You’re going to have a different view about it than I will, which is fine. However, see it from the other side. If life doesn’t begin until you’re born (are you born nine months old?) or, as most states tend to define an acceptable timeframe for abortion, about three/four months in when it is more scientifically accepted that a fetus can feel pain, it seems weird to classify a mass of cells as human life. Let’s take it away from abortion though and talk about evolution. The Catholic Church is ahead in terms of accepting scientific facts and findings as we understand them today, but we have museums here in America dedicated to a Creationist/Young Earth view of human history. That is wildly incompatible with scientific findings. There’s a bigger issue of trusting God to deliver all the answers about this universe, rather than using the tools and intuition He gave us to explore and discover on our own. I don’t think He gave us such a powerful brain to follow a book to the letter.
6 – Your post shows the sexual anxieties within religious institutions. Sex is a great, wonderful thing, but treating it like something to be ashamed of and stuffed away is pretty much akin to telling you to keep your religion to yourself. Are there risks with sex? Absolutely. Preaching that abstinence until marriage teaches kids to bottle their sexuality up until it erupts in such a way that causes abortions, STDs, unplanned pregnancies, etc…Most sexual behavior is dictated by people who can’t seem to remember how crazy teenagers and hormones are, and no amount of pledges, vows, and God will keep a teen boy and girl from going all the way when given the right set of circumstances. I’d rather those two know they should have a condom, rather than just going for it.
9 – You just dismiss the political situation and instead talk about abortion. I don’t believe this country could elect an openly non-Christian President, at least not today. The closest we got away from the Protestant Presidents was JFK, and someone killed him.
10 – Missing the point. Fundamentalism is mocked, as other commenters have shown with things like Draw Mohammed day. Christianity is the dominant religion in this country and honestly, there are Christians who do some dumb and idiotic stuff (see: abortion doctor killings, Westboro Baptist Church). If countries in the Middle East had the same degree of freedom we have here, like the freedom of speech, you’d see more people living in those countries mocking the dominant religious dogma. The difference is there, the government is more likely to make their citizen dissenters “disappear”. The rest of the world mocks and condemns them for the crazy stuff they’ll do though.
And the overall point is that The Oatmeal uses HEAVY sarcasm to deliver a point. Rather than be caught in the details and picking apart what Inman tries to say, there are broader terms that ring true. The issue isn’t that religious folks believe life begins at conception, its that there’s a general distrust of scientific inquiry among religious folks.
Thankfully I read some of these comments before I came down here to type my own, for if I hadn’t I surely would have gone off you, sir. Not only are you being hypocritical, you’re making the exact point as to why I happen to despise these sorts of things -in other words, a complete ass of yourself and most likely your religion. I must admit that it’s taking a comic way too serious.You are merely proving half the points from the comic. Pardon if I offend you further. Aren’t people like “Shameless Popery” the reason why a comic such as The Oatmeal’s even exists? If some religious individuals didn’t act the way they do, then voila, no need for a comic. I wondered how long it would take someone to get butthurt over that. If you hate his comics so much, why waste time on reading them? Or writing grossly over analyzed articles about them? Religious people will always have a comeback to any argument atheist or agnostic people do. Why? Because religions are based on ambivalent and misleading ideas that can always be interpreted whatever way they want. They use that principle to tell the people how they act and then when confronted they said that is not that way, and give a load of arguments to validate that, when clearly religion is the ultimate manipulation form humans have against humans.
Well written rebuttal, but it was a bit disingenuous to throw Fundamentalists under the bus.
I love The Oatmeal, but I am disappointed for him linking me to your article. Your writing is literally painful to read (like citing Wikipedia and this statement, which assumes your audience is as blissfully ignorant or willfully indignant as you are “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?”). Just because you don’t understand, or don’t agree with the comparison doesn’t make it less REAL (kind of like God, huh?). Additionally, your attitude works against your cause – those that believe that they can “speak” for the church, like yourself, are often sardonic and can’t laugh at themselves. It is people like you that make religion inaccessible for the common man. Instead of indulging your knee-jerk reaction to be angry, spiteful, and argumentative, like you are in this post, relax a bit. Try to harness positive energy and perhaps write an informative post on Catholicism without feeling the need to mock and be rude (leave that up to people who can do it with humor and wit). But don’t worry, I’ll forgive The Oatmeal for citing this article and stealing minutes from my life. And I will pray for you, Joe.
Thanks I needed a laugh.
I though your arguments were reasonable up to point #5 and then I’m afraid you lost me. using your 3×3 example is frankly ridiculous a mathematical equation using multiplication has only one absolute answer, I saw your link trying to explain away 3×3 might not be what you think, but linking to an advanced research paper only undermines your argument further.
I’m not a religious person myself, I don’t have a problem with any religion as long as they keep it to themselves and don’t try to force theirs upon me. The way I see it I will live a good life, help others, do no harm, if there is a heaven and a god I’ll be in. If I am denied then your God is no god I want anything to do with.
Religion is like having a penis, it’s fine if you have one, just don’t go pulling it out in public and waving it around.
This comic is not in any way anti-religious. It’s anti-hate and anti-ignorance. What’s wrong with wanting to be surrounded by considerate and intelligent individuals, religious or otherwise?
It takes a very ignorant person to write the following comment,
“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.”
You’re are guilty of the same vice as The Oatmeal, simply shameless.
From your commentary:
“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”
I’m very, very sorry, but truth does not equal fact. All facts must necessarily be true, but not all truths are facts.
Otherwise, I’m going to have to ask for some outside, verifiable, reproducible, airtight citations to establish God as fact. The bible is not fact, and a gnostic experience of God is not a reliable source of proof: It’s a personal, subjective experience.
But that’s not going to happen, because your beliefs are Truths to you, not Facts to the world. To seek to turn Truth into Fact is at it’s root an indication of a false faith, with faith being specifically belief without proof. Anyone who aspires to turn what should be, a personal, spiritual Truth into a universal Fact isn’t faithful. In fact, they reveal themselves to be doubtful of their own beliefs.
And as an agnostic who finds the idea of a supreme creator being contained within a 2000 year old book to be absolute hubris, I have a very simple rule of thumb when it comes to evangelizing. Before opening your mouth, ask yourself if you could possibly be more christ-like. If the answer is “yes” you can, please work on that before coming to me. Walking the path of Jesus is a far, FAR better argument and far more persuasive than any evangelizing. And let’s be honest, if you answer anything other than “yes”, you’re either lying or supremely egotistical, and at any rate need to go read some more scripture.
Which, incidentally, you *can* do, because of someone who split off from the Catholic Church 500 years ago by the name of Martin Luther. Because until then, you couldn’t read scripture unless you knew Latin, which only clergy and nobility could afford to learn. And for that, and the audacity to suggest that the Holy See couldn’t condemn people to purgatory or release them from hell on indulgence (and a few other complaints), he was excommunicated and persecuted for the rest of his life. Which is probably a better concept of the censorship of the Catholic Church in that time period than Galileo.
This is why all of you fail at both religion and life, take satire as satire and move the pope on.
It takes a very ignorant person to write the following comment,
“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.”
You’re are guilty of the same vice as The Oatmeal, simply shameless.
I don’t necessarily think The Oatmeal is ‘anti-religion’. In fact, he even says “Carry on with your religion – just keep it to yourself” at the end of his cartoon. The point he is trying to make is ~ you shouldn’t condemn other people just because they don’t have the same beliefs as you do. It’s just pointless, rude, and to be quite honest: flat-out annoying. Believe it or not, there *are* other religions out there aside from your own (quite a few that have been around for ages before certain others), and it is so small-minded and ignorant to bash anyone else who doesn’t believe in the same deity/deities as you choose to.
I haven’t read the comments, I just had an additional observation on the popular New Atheist trope of how religion is just a security blanket for folks too immature to face the reality of no afterlife.
First off – the idea of an afterlife is NOT necessarily comforting. It opens up the possibility of all sorts of things happening to you after you die that you can’t predict. That can actually be a rather upsetting notion for more than a few people.
And what’s more, in discussing the subject of death with New Atheists, I have repeatedly heard them recount how much of a “relief” it was when they just accepted that there was no afterlife, and therefore, no expectations beyond this life that they had to live up to. When you die – “nothing happens.” They describe how liberating and… well… comforting it was for them to realize this.
You’ve probably already spotted the double-standard here.
So, when I take comfort in the notion of an afterlife – it’s a “pitiful security blanket for a weak mind”, but when the New Atheist takes comfort in the idea of no-afterlife, it’s a principled, realistic and mature look at the human condition.
And while the New Atheist has found a view of the universe that gives him comfort with it’s sterile tidiness through sheer discovery of truth, I have only found my view of the universe by a desire for my religion to give me comfort.
Except when my religion doesn’t provide me with comfort, that is. Because on the other hand, this same New Atheist is telling me how I am constantly being emotionally ABUSED by my belief in the afterlife. How religious leaders are “scaring” me with the notion of the afterlife in an attempt to control me and oppress me.
But wait – weren’t you just saying that I use my afterlife as a source of comfort? A security blanket?
So why is my afterlife now a source of oppression and a means to keep me cowering in fear?
I mean… make up your mind. Am I brainlessly and ignorantly happy? Or am I terrified? I’d kind of like to know.
It takes a very ignorant person to write the following,
“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.”
You are guilty of the same vice as The Oatmeal, simply shameless.
Kudos for you to have an opinion. I disagree, and I feel that you miss the point of the comic. Matt Inman’s comic is not an assault on religion except in the context of those who “kill, hurt, hinder or condemn” in the name of God.
As a Christian, my personal view is that it’s not my place to place judgement on anyone but myself. I try to show God to others through my actions, but it’s not my place by any means to force others to convert or change their ways. I am not God, so it is not my place to say who is going to hell and who isn’t. Many folks appear to have this wrong, I think, and if we all just reflected inwardly and took God personally and merely showed his good doings through our own actions, we could have a greater effect than beating people over the heads with Bibles.
But that’s my point of view – not trying to tear you down. Keep having an opinion and I respect your right to have it.
Tim
Ok, I was reading this blog and thinking to myself “yes another religious extremist” but also considering to respect his opinion until I read point #6: “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.”
What do you think a priest giving aids to a 13 year old kid is?Lack of faith?
Do you think that because someone is not catholic is the only reason there are broken hearts, homes, stds and unplanned pregnancies?
Ignorant.
Defend Christianity but don’t make us all look like retarded extremists and shut up please.
The comic (as the name says) was meant to be fun. You on the other hand, make us Christians look stupid.
Excellent example of Godwin’s Law!
Joe,
Cameron is spot on. Inman is not saying all religion is bad. All he is saying is that if you’re using your religion as a crutch to judge, condemn, shame, maim, or kill others then you probably suck at your religion. It would be false to say that religious people have not done all of these things in the name of God. He goes on to say that if your religion inspires you to help people, be happier, or cope with the thought of the afterlife, then excellent! In your argument, you talked a lot about the importance of understanding what you’re arguing against, maybe you should do the same.
Kelli
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
testing
I disagree with you on many points but the biggest one is that, as I understand it, you seem to think that The Oatmeal is criticizing you for what you believe in. When I read the comic I understood him to be criticizing the Way in which you express your faith. Catholicism inspires me to be happier, healthier, and nicer to people. It does not provoke me to condemn people, vote a certain way, or go door to door forcing my beliefs onto people. By the comic’s logic, that means that my religion is awesome and I should continue as I am.
Now I believe you have every right to be angry IF the Oatmeal was saying what you thought he was saying, but he isn’t. You have misunderstood the point and for that I am sorry you cant appreciate the humor.
At any rate I hope that you take a closer look at things in the future and seriously think about the author’s intentions before posting an indignant response that only makes you look bad.
God Bless.
1. I’m a Catholic and was taught that if you are not Catholic you will go to Hell. So Oatmeal’s comic about that is true.
2. From what I was taught in Catholic grade school and high school, again Oatmeal got this right too.
3. Oatmeal got this partially wrong. We don’t agree with aborting for stem cell research or using aborted fetuses for stem cell research. But stem cells can be found elsewhere in adults and that can be used for research.
6. Oatmeal got this right. Catholic grade school, high school and we were taught any sex outside of marriage means you’re going to Hell, sex in marriage using birth control and you’re going to Hell, masturbation at any time and you’re going to hell, what you think if it’s not a sexual fantasy of your spouse it’s the same as committing adultery and you’re going to Hell.
9. We are told by our parish priests during homilies at mass that we have to vote according to our religion or we are committing sins. So Oatmeal got this right.
You might want to pray for a sense of humor.
This entire post was just one long, “He’s wrong and I’m right!! He’s a stupid butthead for saying all those mean things!” Dude, stop being so oblivious to what everyone else believes. Besides, as a catholic, you should expect a post like The Oatmeal’s. Your religion has endured centuries of hate and if you think it will stop anytime soon, then might as well stop being a Catholic. If you do follow and believe in Jesus, then you should know that he accepts others from all different backgrounds into His home as they are. He doesn’t write a post like this as a retort to a comic that was simply meant for humor in such a patronizing and condescending tone. The Oatmeal knows his audience and knows who visits his site on a frequent basis. If you don’t like it, then you obviously shouldn’t be reading it or even scouring the internet for more comics like this to judge.
I am a Kal-Elian Scientist and this does not dissuade me from my view that one day He will come from a parallel universe and save us in our darkest hour. He is the one with the blessed S on his chest. S for Savior. S for Super. He will be there to stop Doomsday.
This comment has been removed by the author.
1. I’m a Catholic and was taught that if you are not Catholic you will go to Hell. So Oatmeal’s comic about that is true.
2. From what I was taught in Catholic grade school and high school, again Oatmeal got this right too.
3. Oatmeal got this partially wrong. We don’t agree with aborting for stem cell research or using aborted fetuses for stem cell research. But stem cells can be found elsewhere in adults and that can be used for research.
6. Oatmeal got this right. Catholic grade school, high school and we were taught any sex outside of marriage means you’re going to Hell, sex in marriage using birth control and you’re going to Hell, masturbation at any time and you’re going to hell, what you think if it’s not a sexual fantasy of your spouse it’s the same as committing adultery and you’re going to Hell.
9. We are told by our parish priests during homilies at mass that we have to vote according to our religion or we are committing sins. So Oatmeal got this right.