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.
Thank you for the rebuttal. I know you’re getting a lot of flak on here, but most of your points were right on the money and needed to be said by someone of faith.
Point of order:
The blogger asserts that their beliefs are facts, which means that what they have is not faith (ie: belief without proof) but… something else… I’m not sure what.
Part of faith is to acknowledge the spiritual truth you feel within you, and accept that there is a gap between that Truth and a universal Fact, and holding to your truth. The need to prove your truth means that you’re not comfortable with that truth, and possibly *doubt* that truth.
Theoatmeal also has guides on grammar. Maybe you should read them and revise your article. Oh, and maybe take lessons in both basic spelling and typing.
The comic can mischaracterize and distort, but in the face of actual Catholicism, it’s silent.
Obviously it’s not seeing how many asses were clenched after seeing the comic. It’s the internet. Welcome. Honestly from a first hand perspective I can say that The Oatmeal is right on 90% of what he said. Even though it was meant to be funny.
Regarding the Muhammad point – did it not occur to your that he might have been making fun of the fact that the Muslims were so tightly wound when it comes to religion that not even their prophet isn’t allowed to be shown on a TV Show? Hence the empty drawing?
I think I’m gonna go worship some dwarf gods. At least they don’t make fusses and encourage lots of beer drinking.
Tbh.. Oatmeal 1 – This blog 0
You getting worked up and making this article proves it 😀
Dude, dude, c’mon. Are you serious? How can you write bullshit like your “reflection” on item 5 and expect to be taken seriously? You started out by implying that comparing the belief in afterlife to favorite colour was stupid, and then, and then (oh, this is gold) YOU compared it to the result of 3×3. Are you insane or just plain stupid? Have you ever heard of something called PROOF in SCIENCE? We KNOW what 3×3 is, because there IS PROOF. We base all our knowledge of SCIENCE on that, you numbskull! Do you have ANY PROOF on what happens after you die? Does ANYONE? Has ANYONE ever provided such proof? NO, of course NOT, this is just retarded. That is what he mean when comparing to favourite colour, cause no one can know, it’s a matter of OPINION!
Man, if Catholics et al. could get a sense of humour they would be able to appreciate discourse in whatever form it arrives in (and might remember that the world does not revolve around them). I was a believer for the first half of my life and think he makes some accurate and funny points.
Obviously, everyone has different experiences with religion and differing tolerance levels for certain types of humour, but … wait there’s no but… Yay for that!
I have to say this against your remark about Catholicism never condemning anyone to hell, you seemto be forgetting about the Crusades, the “holy wars” condemning anyone who didn’t believe your view of religion to death. All religions have their nasty sides, and nasty people, just like athiesm has its own share. I was raised a Catholic and fully understand what you mean by the “normal” Catholics nowadays, but every faith, ancient or modern, has its bad sides.
Dude, it’s a webcomic. Comic being the key word. You know, comic, comedy. No need to get so upset.
I have to say this against your remark about Catholicism never condemning anyone to hell, you seemto be forgetting about the Crusades, the “holy wars” condemning anyone who didn’t believe your view of religion to death. All religions have their nasty sides, and nasty people, just like athiesm has its own share. I was raised a Catholic and fully understand what you mean by the “normal” Catholics nowadays, but every faith, ancient or modern, has its bad sides.
Every point you made is just as bad and horribly thought out as you claim “The Oatmeal’s” to be. You assume he’s talking about Christianity. Sure, a few points, if not MOST points are about Christianity, but it’s not all about it. You also compared 3 x 3 (which is 9), a well known fact, to a religion, and by definition, No religion is fact. No parent should force their kid to believe something that isn’t proven to be true. Saying “PURPLE IS YOUR FAVORITE COLOR” is just like saying “YOU ARE CATHOLIC”. Every human being on the face of this earth has the right to chose their own religion. That’s why the agnostic approach is the most preferable. It allows YOU to decide your religion. And on the Muslim thing, “The Oatmeal” was not afraid to draw a picture of Muhammad, it was a joke, about how extreme some people are about their religion, using Muslim extremists as an example. In the comic, he wasn’t suggesting a good religion should restrict the people aloud to believe it, he was making a joke. One that people who feel so extreme about their religion won’t understand. Those are the people he was poking fun at! You assuming all atheists and agnostic people do nothing but sit at home and attack religion is just as bad as you say they are for doing nothing but attack religion.
Notice how I made my point without attacking any religion at all. You would probably assume I’m atheist because I was using logic instead of opinion, but I am actually Jewish.
You know what is really sad… if you didn’t care what this so called ‘atheist’ person said then you wouldn’t have written this ridiculous article. And I grew up in an extremely religious community and family and let me tell you… those are the people that are ruining the world by telling their children lies and not allowing them to think for themselves or express themselves. And if you all want to sit here and act like ultra relgious people don’t do that, you are living a nice little lie. Truth hurts, huh? I guess that’s why there is a ridiculously long and stupid buttal written.
I’d like to know what makes Christianity– Catholicism if you must choose one branch– more valid than any other religion. We’ve abandoned countless other religions over the centuries (or mostly… I still tend to really, really like Bacchus). Who’s to say this fad won’t go away, too?
In regard to the Oatmeal’s comic, I really fail to understand why religion has to be a “sacred” topic. When we stop the discourse, we stagnate. I (and the Oatmeal) am most certainly free to criticize Christianity, just as Christians somehow feel free to criticize what I believe (or don’t). Be religious, but don’t be afraid to have it questioned. Questions are at the root of all progress.
If I have to put up with the kind of asshattery I get from the Christians, they can take some of it back on occasion.
seriously funny.
I stopped reading at point #5…
That argument of asking your child what 3×3 is as compared to asking your child what they think happens after death is completely invalid!
We know 3×3 is 9 – that’s a FACT. We don;t know what happens after death…There is nothing proven.
Stupid argument!!!
The world just makes so much more sense without a god. Once you abandon a belief in that myth it feels like your eyes have been opened. You may also suddenly realize that there is no chance to see your loved ones after death, so it’s best to make the most of the short time you have together, now, here. You’ll also realize that all the pestering people do to make them change their behavior is such a waste of time. The only Hell that exists is that which we create for others here on Earth. Instead of spending Sunday morning singing and praying, why not coordinate that time with some other able-bodied people and go do some helpful things for those who can’t do for themselves?
But for all the believers out there who are will not be swayed, let me ask you this: Why does a god need your worship? How does that make any kind of sense?
True fact: I’m a Mormon and I thought it was hilarious. Especially the Jews on bicycles.
Man, if Catholics et al. could get a sense of humour they would be able to appreciate discourse in whatever form it arrives in (and might remember that the world does not revolve around them). I was a believer for the first half of my life and think he makes some accurate and funny points.
Obviously, everyone has different experiences with religion and differing tolerance levels for certain types of humour, but … wait there’s no but… Yay for that!
I find it fascinating that you’ve contradicted YOUR OWN ADVICE from a previous post with this ridiculous response to a comic.
“One of the most surprising things that Catholics discover in talking to Protestants and atheists is how misunderstood Catholicism actually is. Fr. Andrew Strobl is fond of saying that we should strive to understand non-Catholics’ beliefs well enough to be able to state their beliefs to them in a way that they would recognize and accept as their own. St. Thomas does this beautifully in the Summa, and unless we can do this, we don’t really know where the other side is coming from.”
A sense of humor is a fabulous gift.
While this is a well written article, same format as we all learnt in school… The arguments are being taken on a totally different level.
You people (Christians)*, are pointing out other religions, Scientologist, Atheist or Whatever to try to force others to believe that every religion but theirs, is bad.
I personally found this webcomic to be the MOST accurate (and hilarious) thing I read about religion in my entire life.
If I want to believe to the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, let me believe in it, but if I try to convert you.. PLEASE knock me out unconscious right on the spot!.
If I had the knowledge (Knowlegde of a larger english vocabulary and religions in general) to counter-argue this article, to prove the comic to be right… I wouldn’t even do it because you have the right to believe whatever you want. Although, YOU persist, to try to prove your point(s) on an internet blog about how a metaphoric cartoon on the internet is offensive!?
For god sake, what is your goal in life?
*Maybe I should mention that I am too… Christian, but I use my head to link together, the information I have learnt since high school.
Maybe that’s making me an Atheist? Well I don’t know and I honestly don’t care at all about it.
Understand that it’s a comic. Made for comedic purposes. If you’re unhappy with it just keep moving. Not everyone needs to agree with your opinions and your beliefs. Please, I’m 15 and if I can grasp this concept then there’s no reason why everyone else can’t too.
It seems to me that you have taken a simple joke of a webcomic far too seriously. This suggests that either you have far too much free time on your hands and spend your this free time roaming the Internet in search of things to bash. Did Matthew Inman ask you to reply to his post? I don’t think so however I may be wrong. Did he do it for schock value humour? Yes. I personally think his comics are hilarious but I don’t take them too seriously because, let’s face it, if you do, you will get offended by them.
I am not going to comment on the fact that mathematics and religion are completely not alike (bold and underlined) and are therefore incomparable. I am not going to comment on the fact that although you have mentioned that religion is completely provable in your article and comments, you have not provided any proof other than verses from the Bible (which will of course want to prove the existence of Christianity as that is what it is all about). I am also not going to comment on the fact that arguing with you is practically going to be like arguing with a brick wall, as you are inflexible and unwilling to see things from other points of view.
What I am going to do is ask you to answer some questions, if it isn’t too much trouble. Was this really necessary? Why put up this post if you are so confident in your religion? Because to me this just screams insecurity. Do you have any definitive proof (that does not come from Theologists or the Bible) that Christianity or your particular branch of Christianity is the only true religion? If so then I concede my argument.Please supply the name and mobile number for the contact in charge of the return loads.
Funnily enough, for those that are against stem cell research somehow doesn’t feel as strongly about in vitro fertilisation (which by default, knowingly fertilises more than 1 human egg in the hope that 1 will get implanted thus allowing pregnancy while all the other eggs die off – murder!!). Creation of 1 life somehow justifies the “murder” of 5-8 lives yet the scientific research that could save millions should somehow be condemned? hummmmm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
1) Love that the author only responds to the comments that he thinks he can argue against… shows credibility (ha!)
2) You completely missed the point of the comic which is that all religions have fallacies and “believers” who use said religion for the wrong reasons. In the end he states that if your religion inspires you to do good then he is fine with it as long as you dont try to ram it down his throat and he is dead on.
3) Yes the comic does focus on Catholics more. If you are going to belong to the most widespread religion on earth (for now anyway) then expect the most criticism not to mention the seemingly never-ending stream of bad publicity and even worse PR/responses from the catholic church. While Islam is quickly catching up, I cannot think of a religion that has been used to justify more evil in history. I am not saying the religion is bad but you cannot argue that a lot of truly horrible things were done in the name of (and with the blessing of) Christianity.
Here’s the thing: more and more people in North America and other developed countries are identifying as agnostic and atheist every year, while religions are losing membership. The reason for this is very neatly outlined by the Oatmeal, albeit in a humorous, over-the-top way. Until religions realize that modern day people believe in things like equality and sexual liberation, this trend is certainly going to continue.
I think you misunderstood a lot of things about his comic. What was being the message was “You are fully welcome to be religious and believe these things, but seriously think the things through before you believe them without even concidering other options”
i’ve seen the comic and i thought it was funny, being an atheist, however this article has many valid points.
matt talks in hyperbole, for sake of comedy, so taking everything he says literally isn’t quite the right thing to do.
in arguement 5, the 3×3 comparison is….dumb. religion and color preference are an OPINION, while math is set in stone. i see why you would be upset at treating god unspoken in your home for the sake of parenting upsets you, but i think you misinterpreted theoatmeal’s point. i think he meant that, express your beliefs to your kids as much as you want, but if they want to believe something else don’t force them into what you believe.
sharing your religion because you’re happy about it and forcing it on someone else are two completely different things. no one is saying just because you are religious, means you’re going to be a dick about it,but rather that a lot of people are and that’s all anyone sees because those are the pushy ones and those are the people who ruin it for the rest of you. i respect everyone’s beliefs because they are entitled to them but if you’re saying you can share your beliefs with everyone and it shouldn’t be looked at as a bad thing, then fairly, it’s also okay for me to convert you to atheism. if i tried to convince you there was no god, you’d feel insulted, no?
Life starting at conception is nowhere near as settled fact as you suggest it is.
The problem is that we do not have a true definition of what life is.
Yes, a human body starts to be created at conception. But can it think? Is it conscious?
If you subscribe to Descartes philosophy of “I think, therefore I am” (which I do), then life truly does not start until a being is sentient. This definitely does not happen at conception.
It probably happens at some point in the womb, but I don’t have the prenatal medical knowledge to tell you or anyone else when – exactly – this is.
Whenever it is – however – that is definitively when life starts, and by extension any abortion prior to this point should not be an ethical or moral issue.
It’s humorous that atheists and theists have these debates.
The comic was funny (it was!) It was also hypocritical–he was judgmentally proselytizing his viewpoint (nihilism) while complaining about the same behavior in others.
I don’t blame him. When people discover a profound “truth”, they want to share it. That’s why there are missionaries, as well as comics like this.
The real truth is that no one knows if there is a god or not. There are no observable facts about life after death. These are unknowns.
Both atheists and theists are uncomfortable with this uncertainty, and so both groups, choose to assume. Both are faith-based decisions.
One group assumes an afterlife based on the dogma of their chosen religion, and the other group often chooses to assume the nonexistence of an afterlife or soul.
Both groups can become smug and self-righteous in their beliefs without realizing that they are both drinking the same kool-aid, just different flavors of certainty.
This debate is like having an argument with your reflection, while being unable to recognize yourself.
As someone who read and liked this comic, I find myself in an interesting place reading this retort. While I myself am not religious, I cannot really disagree with much you said, and only have to say that his comic was simply taking the very extreme, albeit typically false, views many have about christianity and blowing it up to large comical proportions in order to turn a joke. I thought your response was very mature and not really demeaning to the author at all, but instead trying to correct misconceptions such a comic might have made for readers. However, I also believe both sides are entitled to poke fun at what they want, and to be offended is a choice. The only point in this article that really irked me was your discussion of Islam vs. Christianity, and why Islam is not mocked as badly because Christians are not violent psychos like Muslims are. This is also very misleading – Islam is not a religion that incites violet psychos any more than christianity, we just hear more about the few violent psychos that happen to be Muslim; it is not a product of their religion they are this way, only an excuse and an outlet for tendencies already lying beneath. Islam is likely not made fun of as much here because we do not see it in our daily lives like we do Christianity.
It’s humorous that atheists and theists have these debates.
The comic was funny (it was!) It was also hypocritical–he was judgmentally proselytizing his viewpoint (nihilism) while complaining about the same behavior in others.
I don’t blame him. When people discover a profound “truth”, they want to share it. That’s why there are missionaries, as well as comics like this.
The real truth is that no one knows if there is a god or not. There are no observable facts about life after death. These are unknowns.
Both atheists and theists are uncomfortable with this uncertainty, and so both groups, choose to assume. Both are faith-based decisions.
One group assumes an afterlife based on the dogma of their chosen religion, and the other group often chooses to assume the nonexistence of an afterlife or soul.
Both groups can become smug and self-righteous in their beliefs without realizing that they are both drinking the same kool-aid, just different flavors of certainty.
This debate is like having an argument with your reflection, while being unable to recognize yourself.
You’re a good writer and I can appreciate your passion towards your beliefs even though I don’t believe them myself. I only have a couple of issues to point out:
1) You wrote: “Should we tell kids that maybe Julius Caesar was head of the Roman Empire? Or do we trust a bunch of first century eyewitnesses?”
Our textbooks and historical records don’t claim that Julius Caesar performed implausible miracles and was raised from the dead as the son of God. If those claims existed, we would need to either find some way of verifying them with proof or we would have to treat them as fiction.
Don’t confuse accepting the existence of Jesus Christ as a man with the belief of him as a god. Those are two very different things. Generally atheists don’t doubt Jesus existed as a man (there are historical records of his mortal life, after all), but we become skeptical when he is deified.
2) You wrote: “…Do you go around playgrounds, telling kids that Santa isn’t real, so that they can’t derive pleasure from something that’s untrue? What sort of person purposely mitigates the placebo effect, unless there’s a really good reason?”
If little Billy was using his belief in Santa to influence, control, or harm another child, then yes, it would be time to sit him down for an unpleasant talk. In broad (and comedic) terms, the point of the Oatmeal’s comic is to state that having a belief in something that gives you pleasure or meaning is great, but using it as a way of negatively affecting others is where there’s a problem.
For a current example, look at the debate over gay marriage rights. The only argument against granting these equal rights to gay couples is based on intolerant religious beliefs. Again, having faith in something is great, but using that faith as a tool to deny other people happiness and equality for no other reason than it goes against your personal beliefs is a problem that we constantly have to fight against in America.
So let’s go back to your Santa example and make a little parable for what I’m saying. We have two kids in a playground and two toys that they can play with. Little Billy believes in Santa and little Sally doesn’t. Billy says that his belief in Santa entitles him to a toy, but because Sally doesn’t believe, Billy breaks her toy and says she can’t play. Toys are only for him and his Santa believing friends and no one else. What would you do in that situation?
3) You wrote: “Rather than argue against the arguments I make, you just make up stupid arguments, and answer those. For example, you actually wrote this: “you claim that atheism requires no struggle and no sacrifice and is just a bail-out for sexually perverted people that couldn’t hack living by your ‘high’ standards.”
Okay, let’s compare. This is what you wrote in a previous comment: “You claim that all religion is placebo. Mind you, that’s demonstrably untrue: there are plenty of people for whom religion involves a life of self-sacrifice and struggle that atheism wouldn’t (honestly, is it merely coincidental that the turn towards atheism so frequently coincides with a turn towards the sexual sins?)”
He was actually pretty spot on. You do imply that you think atheism requires no self-sacrifice and struggle (by the whole “…that atheism wouldn’t” part), and by asking a leading question you certainly imply that atheism is related to sexually sinning. Don’t get mad because he paraphrased your words in a way that supported his argument.
It’s exaggeration for humorous effect, that’s all. Atheists (such as myself) find humor in the extreme exaggeration of how we as a group (on average) tend to view Christians, which points out to us that some of our positions (if we agree too strongly with any particular panel) may be unbalanced and underinformed. The final statement in the comic is kind of like what they do at the end of South Park sometimes; follow comedy by saying something to the effect of “ok we’ve had our laughs, but seriously: “. And I couldn’t agree more with the final statement in this one. If it works for you and makes your life better, GREAT! Just don’t push it on me. fair enough?
that Joe Heschmeyer tries to respond to every single question… things are what they are no need to control them!
Hey there,
I am a former Catholic (14 years of Catholic schooling, altar server, whole bit) and current atheist, and I love the oatmeal generally but this comic especially. I have to say a lot of it rests on enjoying the Oatmeal’s sense of humor, which you clearly don’t. That’s fine. In addition, you are arguing with footnotes to a comic strip. That’s always going to lose. Yes, things are generalized. It’s a comic strip. If he wrote an extensive footnoted essay NOT for humor that would be another thing.
Generally I agree that Catholics are less terrible at being judgy evangelical black & whiteists (yeah I made that word up!) than Born Again/Evangelicals. Admittedly for most atheists though all Christians generally believe in the same general cosmology so you do get grouped in together. Don’t blame us–there’s just too many Evangelicals out there giving you a bad name! 🙂
However, this comic is about religions in general not specific people who hold religious beliefs. That’s one of the main points of the comic. Can anyone disagree with the fact that the Church has done MANY terrible things historically (i.e. Children’s Crusade, excommunication of Joan of Arc, WW2 positions, etc.) and currently has a lot of beliefs that even the majority of American Catholics would never believe? Catholics as people don’t condemn people to hell, but the Church does.
You can raise children without making them be your religion. By letting them decide. People without your religion do it all the time!
The main point of this comic is that if you are religious and not doing any of the things that make people suck at religion (i.e. not judging people in other religions, not hindering science, not foisting that religion on your kids, not making people feel bad about their sexuality, not evangelizing, not mocking other religions, not voting on your beliefs, etc.) then you are doing it right. The fact that you are mocking The Oatmeal for his religious beliefs though would point to the fact that you aren’t! Which is fine, because most of us are doing it wrong according to you too.
I was linked to your article and while I don’t think it’s my place to comment here on the relative religious or cultural merits of a webcomic I’d like to make some suggestions to your post that will improve it’s accuracy on certain points.
(1) Anglican, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals all wear clerical collars not just Catholics.
(9) While it is difficult to show whether religion is the sole factor for a voter there is a very strong correlation. See: http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-Church-Attendance-Affects-Religious-Voting-Patterns.aspx and http://phys.org/news/2011-04-religion-impact-voter-decision.html
Concerning your logical statement:
(a) human life begins at conception
(b) the intentional ending of innocent human life is murder
(c) murder is bad.
Which of these beliefs requires being a Christian?
The answer is only none if specifically being a Christian is required. If you expand the requirement to being religious in general then it’s actually both (a) and (c).
Defining human life isn’t possible scientifically since the definitions for “human being” and “life” are arbitrary. Therefore any statement about when human life begins is a religious one to some degree.
The definition of murder is a legal one, otherwise it’s just killing.
The source of killing/murder being bad is generally religious because good and bad are generally religious. In absolute terms there isn’t any good and bad.
Lol just read “The Galileo Affair” link. It says it is ok to murder someone if he is a pain in the a$$ and you are a christian. Go ahead with abortions then, some pregnancies are more of pain than Galileo was. Church avails it (?)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Me thinks the Catholic protests too much.
That was a comic. And funny. Stop thinking that the world revolves around you. The last guy to prove that wrong turned out to be right..
Oh, and tell me why your God wears the World Champ belt and all the other ones don’t?
It took a lot to wade through your verbal gymnastics here, but I did. You want to believe the wafer is the body of Christ and that a rubber is somehow different in intent than the ovulation method, then go for it (man, talk about verbal gymnastics when you ask a Catholic about their silly birth control “beliefs”) but learn how satire works before you write the next boring diatribe, please.
Spot on… If you run for public office let me know because I would vote for you
You just compared research that could be used to save lives and significantly improve quality of life for many ill people, with concentration camps. You can’t seriously believe that. This is why comics like The Oatmeal exist – they’re not pulling these stereotypes out of thin air.
okay, some atheists are dicks, and some christians are dicks. someone’s religion does not dictate whether or not they are a dick, but everyone tries to use that, or their lack of, as a reason for their dickery.
Life starting at conception is nowhere near as settled fact as you suggest it is.
The problem is that we do not have a true definition of what life is.
Yes, a human body starts to be created at conception. But can it think? Is it conscious?
If you subscribe to Descartes philosophy of “I think, therefore I am” (which I do), then life truly does not start until a being is sentient. This definitely does not happen at conception.
It probably happens at some point in the womb, but I don’t have the prenatal medical knowledge to tell you or anyone else when – exactly – this is.
Whenever it is – however – that is definitively when life starts, and by extension any abortion prior to this point should not be an ethical or moral issue.
Don’t put Descartes before the horse, though.
Sorry.. 🙂
Please stop talking. What if some kid sees this?
Holy shit, what an ignorant article. The insanity you suffer everyday is staggering, even for a Nazi like yourself.
As a freethinking rationalist I found the comic quite funny, I don’t think it’s hostile to Catholics as such, although I’m not a Catholic and hence unaware that they were so thin skinned as to take a poke at religion in general as an attack on a particular sect of Christianity.
I am not an atheist by the way, my lack of belief in religion in general is the lack of proof of the existence of any god or gods exist, I tolerate those who do believe, and allow them to freely lampoon and make remarks about my lack of belief, ( no, I do no find my lack of faith disturbing in the least).
I really enjoyed the joke against the Muslim Extremists who would surely have issued a fatwa calling for death on Mr Inman if he had published a picture of the prophet, not posting one was genius, not fear.
Linked here by The Oatmeal. Read the article. Well written. I thought the comic was funny…
The 3×3 example was less logical than the green example. Enjoy the onslaught of comments, The Oatmeal has a huge fan base.
You say that Christians aren’t violent? There have been countless attacks directed at homosexuals and atheists by Christians, not to mention the Westboro Baptist Church and other churches like it who picket funerals and hate on the troops as well as homosexuals. Now you may say that you have no relation to these people but you did say that Christians, in general, are quote ”not violent, ignorant psychos”. I hate to break it to you Jim but some of them are. And as for your statement that life begins at conception, the fetus doesn’t even develop brain activity until 40-54 days after conception and a human being can’t live very long without brain activity. And how is a math problem the same as a question about the afterlife. First of all there is no proof of what goes on after we die, only speculations and beliefs. Second of all 3×3 is 9, according to the elementary arithmetic called multiplication.
PS. I’m Christian and I believe in God, I just also believe that you’re an ignorant Christian fanatic who has absolutely no sense of humor.
PSS. Jesus was jewish.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Also, I see you remove comments. Way to level the playing field…
Agree with you, or have your comment deleted. Way to defend your writing, fascist.
I remember one Thanksgiving, right when the movie The Golden Compass was in theaters, there was a preacher at the dinner. And he and a few other of the adults talked of how they weren’t going to see the movie with their kids specifically because the book it was based on was written by an atheist. I asked if they had read the book, because I had. All of them, including the preacher had said no. They had no complete knowledge of what the books contained, just that an atheist wrote them. So they were deciding for their children that it was ‘bad’. And let’s not talk about all the people who cursed books like Harry Potter because of the witchcraft.
And what about all the private Christian/Catholic schools that ban books because they say something that is different from what the bible teaches? Or the communities that band together behind their religion to ban the books from the PUBLIC schools. That is not the will of the students, it’s the will of the parents and school for fear that their children will what…? That seems to be forcing an ignorance to anything that questions their religion. Is that really teaching children about their religion? Because that seems like the fear of the church that the kids will learn of something else and realize how much they’ve been forced not to know.
Let’s describe this like The Oatmeal. It’s not forcing that child to like purple instead of green, it’s forcing that child to never see or know any other color besides purple.
Oh, and let’s just hit that sexuality/anxiety thing right now. What about homosexual kids who are born and raised in Christian families. Don’t they feel some anxiety about coming out, because they’ve been taught that they are sinful? Oh and their peers have been taught that too.
Maybe that’s why there are hate crimes against homosexuals and transgender persons? Maybe that’s why so many homosexual teens commit suicide? Because of the bullies that were taught to judge anything that isn’t apart of their religion as bad. And who taught them that? Their parents and the religious documents that they were forced to read and hear over and over, while the rest of the knowledge was banned from ever even passing through their school doors.
I do actually have a lot of friends who are Christian, and all of them are homosexual. They weren’t force fed it as kids. They got to explore and experience other religions. They found Christianity was right for them. They weren’t banned from getting further knowledge; they know a lot about all the other religions that are out there. And sadly, my friends, the people who are considered sinners by a good portion of the religious community because of their sexuality, are the only people I want to sit and learn Christianity from. Because they don’t diminish any of the other religions’ ideal’s and they have a superior knowledge of Christianity because of their time exploring. So when you say that ‘agnostic’ response from the Oatmeal, you are actually giving the kid a chance to have a stronger relationship with God. Because then they get to decide what they believe, not their parents or schools. Thus meaning, they won’t get their faith shaken so easily.
That’s what he was saying, let the kids choose for themselves what they believe. He’s not saying don’t talk about God, just don’t shove it down their throats as the only thing to believe. Also, sure pass along moral and ethic knowledge to kids, but politics goes in the same vein as this. Let them figure out themselves.
Firstly, Joe I respect your opinions even though I disagree with them. And even though you do not like The Oatmeal comic, you cant deny what he has been doing for charity recently, (hardly the sign of a disgusting man, as some of your peers had mentioned).
So I think it would be nice of you to personally acknowledge it on here. ( If you have already, then I apologise for missing it )
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/charity_money
PS well said Justin, nice to see that not all Catholics have been offended and can understand a bit of satire,
PPS Oats – one word – legend 😉