Lucy Goosey

[Ingjald]

Yeah, I see that a lot.

There's a Swiss philosopher called Alain de Boton, who works in London, an atheist who studied religion and uses its many positive aspects to his and other atheists' advantage. He opened up centers that teach prayer-like meditation and stuff.

He wrote a book about what uses atheists can take away from religion. For that he was attacked by militant atheist Richard Dawkins disciples as a "theist in disguise".

Richard Dawkins is a clever man, no doubt about it, but as a biologist and a natural scientist he does not have the proper education and equipment to analyse and discuss religion with the authority he claims. Alain de Boton does. But yet Alain de Boton gets attacked by people who idolise and follow Richard Dawkins like some kind of guru.

What the fuck...

While I try to avoid fanboyism as much as possible, among other reasons so as to not be lumped together with the kind of people attacking de Boton, I feel the need to defend Dawkins here. Both Dawkins and Hitchens (another "strident, militant atheist", now sadly lost to cancer) went to schools with religious over- and undertones, and both have very much done their Bible-reading, as well as Koran-reading and Torah-reading. Saying that he "just don't have the right education" to analyze and criticize these texts for what they very much say, seems like a tactic of avoidance, and reminds me of an interview Dawkins did with a woman propagating for "Intelligent Design" who told him that if he just "did his research", he'd see that creationism is legit and "evilution" bunk.

Also, Dawkins never said that there are no benefits to be had from religion, only that the lions share of the claims religions make for themselves are simply demonstrably untrue. Also, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and his doctoral advisor was Nikolaas Tinbergen, an ethologist. So I'd say that he's very much an authority when it comes to analyzing behaviour, and there's at least one chapter in "the God Delusion" that deals with this.

 

[Kuredan]

In my experience and only in my experience, I've seen two main currents in the atheist camp.

One is ruled by reason by people who have examined religion and found nothing edifying in it and have reasoned the nonexistence of God from a lack of empirical evidence. Since there is no need for a God in their lives, they have no need for religion as a vehicle to this God. These are generally scientifically minded individuals and are a joy to have in a debate. They use reason in their arguments and while tenacious are generally polite because they are secure in their belief.

The other camp is ruled by emotion. They have become "atheists" because there was a part of religion that they were exposed to at some point that tried to make them feel at odds about some aspect of their life or lifestyle. This leads to one of two things- shame and repression or rebellion and anger. These "atheists" opted for rebellion and decided there was no God because "He's a mean ol' cranky pants." You cannot hold that God does not exist and yet still be angry at God. This would indicate that God doesn't exist because you wish that he didn't. These people are not a whole lot of fun in debate and generally raise the emotional level because they feel there is a personal stake in the veracity of their claim, for if there is a God there's a whole lot of "sinin'" there to account for. In reality they aren't as secure as their reasoned brethren and sistren in their belief.

What I find most interesting is that there is a similarity in certain theist camps as well. The difference between the Jesuit philosophy and the fundamentalist philosophy and their approach to knowledge shows that cool-headed people who use reason and hot-headed people who use emotion exist perhaps even agnostic to the subject or belief. What is odd is that orthodoxy which holds views almost as rigid as fundamentalism are not generally hot-headed or at least only intermittently. This might stem from the tendency of orthodoxy to form enclaves kept apart from mainstream society, where as fundamentalism tends to want to overtly change mainstream society to match their views.

All in all, Yay for reason and rational discourse! Boo for emotionally charged rhetoric and ad hominem attacks!

 

[Whoracle]

[...]On the believing or not front, it's a choice, and given the lack of evidence in either direction both valid.

While I totally agree with the underlying sentiment, that right there is just wrong. It simply does not work that way.

If someone makes a claim, he has to prove the claim. It's not a case of "both can't prove or disprove something." Especially not if one of the main traits of the thing you claim is "It's unobservable and thus CAN'T be disproven!"

Live and let live, yeah, sure, I can get behind that. But once it comes to the "evidence" part, that's where the fun stops.
You can't disprove something that has no proof of existence.
See also: Sasquatch, Yeti, honesty in politics.

 

[Major_Tom]

As long as it's not Ray Comfort's Noah, I'm fine with it.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaY

KAVINSKY!

*ehem*

Yeah, lol Atheism, right? It's true that the entire... group(?) has been kind of reduced to snark and sarcastic quips at religious groups.

Agnosticismwin >.>

If atheists are a "group" then people who don't play tennis are also a group. I do agree with the part about Kavinsky.

 

[happyninja42]

Most of the ones I've talked to can't agree between themselves on whether Agnosticism and Atheism are separate things, or it's a case of being either a Gnostic or Agnostic Atheist.

That's not a big deal, most religious groups can't agree between themselves on their own religious deity and how he/she/it operates. Which is why we've got like 3000 different variations on Christianity alone, not to mention other doctrines for other faiths. People disagree about stuff, that's nothing new.

 

[GabeZhul]

The other camp is ruled by emotion. They have become "atheists" because there was a part of religion that they were exposed to at some point that tried to make them feel at odds about some aspect of their life or lifestyle. This leads to one of two things- shame and repression or rebellion and anger. These "atheists" opted for rebellion and decided there was no God because "He's a mean ol' cranky pants." You cannot hold that God does not exist and yet still be angry at God. This would indicate that God doesn't exist because you wish that he didn't. These people are not a whole lot of fun in debate and generally raise the emotional level because they feel there is a personal stake in the veracity of their claim, for if there is a God there's a whole lot of "sinin'" there to account for. In reality they aren't as secure as their reasoned brethren and sistren in their belief.

Please provide an example of this. No, I am not picking a fight or trying some kind of rhetorical judo move on you, I am seriously and 100% honestly asking you this. I have been mingling around in atheist circles for years now and I have never, I repeat, never met a single person like that.
On the other hand the crazy kind of Christian propaganda media (I am mostly thinking of Chick Tracts and that new movie, God is Not Dead or something) is chock full of these guys. That, and the easily convertible atheist that just never heard of Jesus for some reason. I also see accusations of someone being this flying around all the time by the nuttier creationist/radical Christian demographic but never a single atheist that described themselves as such.

So I have to ask: Have you actually met, either online or offline, a person that actually described them as "being an atheist because they hate God", or are you basing your dichotomy on hearsay that may or may not have been manufactured by apologetics?

Most of the ones I've talked to can't agree between themselves on whether Agnosticism and Atheism are separate things, or it's a case of being either a Gnostic or Agnostic Atheist.

That's not a big deal, most religious groups can't agree between themselves on their own religious deity and how he/she/it operates. Which is why we've got like 3000 different variations on Christianity alone, not to mention other doctrines for other faiths. People disagree about stuff, that's nothing new.

I don't think that is a good comparison. The whole gnosticism/agnosticism/atheism/anti-theism thing is more similar to a philosophical debate, where people are not arguing about tenets or agendas but what the different labels actually mean.

As far as I gathered along the years, the usual arguments go along these lines:
-The difference between the colloquial and specific usage of the word "agnostic". The colloquial usage refers to "Not being sure about whether go exists or not." while the specific usage can refer to not professing any knowledge about a subject.
-Do atheism mean "Lack of belief in gods." or "Disbelief in gods."? The question becomes especially muddied since an agnostic would be an atheist by the first definition but not by the second (since disbelieving means putting down one"s five cents on one side and therefore "technically" professing knowledge).
-Can an atheist be gnostic, not only professing disbelief but denying the existence of gods, and be logically consistent?
-Is anti-theism (opposing religion, especially organized religions) just a form of atheism or it's own thing that only overlaps atheism?

So yeah, it's a bit of a complex clusterfuck and a discussion about it is usually more similar to a linguistic or philosophical argument than a religious one.

 

[Jandau]

If the criteria for good/bad sci-fi is if they are 100% scientifically accurate, then by that reasoning Star Trek, Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica (new and old), Matrix, Stargate (all of them), Dr. Who, etc. etc. are all terrible shows and should be constantly called out for their scientific inaccuracies, right?

Seriously, the worst thing that the Internet brought about is that it made everyone so bitchy...

You do realise that people ***** about the scientific accuracy in all of the above, right? Even the fans will? There are people who just can't get past warp drive or the TARDIS or psychics or snakes that can cure all disease.

Sure, people *****, but pretty much everything I've heard about Lucy is prefaced with that 10%-of-the-brain thing, to the point where it's just annoying. And from what I've heard from people who weren't thrilled to have found something that makes them feel smugly superior, it's actually a good movie, so I'm extra annoyed at the prospect of a good film being shoved aside for a minor issue...

 

[happyninja42]

The other camp is ruled by emotion. They have become "atheists" because there was a part of religion that they were exposed to at some point that tried to make them feel at odds about some aspect of their life or lifestyle. This leads to one of two things- shame and repression or rebellion and anger. These "atheists" opted for rebellion and decided there was no God because "He's a mean ol' cranky pants." You cannot hold that God does not exist and yet still be angry at God. This would indicate that God doesn't exist because you wish that he didn't. These people are not a whole lot of fun in debate and generally raise the emotional level because they feel there is a personal stake in the veracity of their claim, for if there is a God there's a whole lot of "sinin'" there to account for. In reality they aren't as secure as their reasoned brethren and sistren in their belief.

See I've yet to meet this atheist. And I understand you put quotes around the word when referencing them because of the discrepancy in their behaviour, but I've just yet to meet this type. I don't deny that they're out there, but they are most likely a very small minority. I mean me and my atheist friends, and the social networks we communicate in about it, just really don't have any beef with God, just like we don't have a beef with the Easter Bunny or leprechauns. We have some major beef with the people who believe in them, and follow them, and the stuff they do in his/her/it's name, but that's an issue with the person, not the fictional skyfather they follow.

I do find it really interesting, and darkly amusing though, that in movies and books, the "Angry at God" atheist is the only type of person portrayed in entertainment. Like the default state is to believe in a deity, and the only way someone could think otherwise is if they had some great tragedy in their past that has made them mad at God. Usually including a Beard of Sorrow trope, as well as some career change. Then by the end of the movie, they overcome their grief and anger about the Tragic Loss in their past, usually because of some very random odd occurance that is attributed to God, and then poof, they're a whole and happy person again, who loves God and has faith, cue credits.

It's tiresome really, considering it portrays the entirely wrong perception about atheists to people who don't know about them.

 

[orangeapples]

so was this a jab at theists or atheists? or was it a jab at everyone involved?

 

[happyninja42]

I don1t think that is a good analogy. The whole gnosticism/agnosticism/atheism/anti-theism thing is more similar to a philosophical debate, where people are not arguing about tenets or agendas but what the different labels actually mean.

As far as I gathered along the years, the usual arguments go along these lines:
-The difference between the colloquial and specific usage of the word "agnostic". The colloquial usage refers to "Not being sure about whether go exists or not." while the specific usage can refer to not professing any knowledge about a subject.
-Do atheism mean "Lack of belief in gods." or "Disbelief in gods."? The question becomes especially muddied since an agnostic would be an atheist by the first definition but not by the second (since disbelieving means putting down one"s five cents on one side and therefore "technically" professing knowledge).
-Can an atheist be gnostic, not only professing disbelief but denying the existence of gods, and be logically consistent?
-Is anti-theism (opposing religion, especially organized religions) just a form of atheism or it's own thing that only overlaps atheism?

So yeah, it's a bit of a complex clusterfuck and a discussion about it is usually more similar to a linguistic or philosophical argument than a religious one.

My point was just that the comment I was responding to was using the statement of "The atheist's can't seem to agree on exactly what they are" to sort of discredit their stance on things, because they can't agree with each other. I was pointing out the similarity with religion as an example of how people just disagree about definitions of things, whatever it is. That it's not anything specific to atheism, or a knock against their arguments that they have debates to define what they are. Everyone does that,it's what humans do.

That was the impression I took from the poster's comment anyway, perhaps that's not what he was conveying, but it seemed like it to me, thus my response.

And religious types argue over what stuff means all the time. Seriously the number of definitions, which is what something means, about how God is, how he operates, what the Bible says and how to interpret it's meaning are vast and varied. And these are usually debates over meaning, because they have to find a positive spin on some of the stuff in those books, to make them look good.

 

[Robyrt]

On the other hand the crazy kind of Christian propaganda media (I am mostly thinking of Chick Tracts and that new movie, God is Not Dead or something) is chock full of these guys. That, and the easily convertible atheist that just never heard of Jesus for some reason. I also see accusations of someone being this flying around all the time by the nuttier creationist/radical Christian demographic but never a single atheist that described themselves as such.

Chick Tracts are absurd because they port the standard Christianity elevator pitch (which is super successful on people who genuinely have never heard of Jesus) to a culture where everybody already knows the story.

In my experience, people are areligious for 3 reasons: rationalism, an emotional response to the world's unfairness, or simple indifference. Similarly, people are Christian for 3 reasons: reason, an emotional response to God's love, or just going with the flow. Generally, the rationalists call themselves "atheists", while the emotional people will say "I don't believe in anything" or "I stopped believing in God" or on the other side of the aisle, "I'm a very spiritual person". There is definitely not a hierarchy of the "correct" response and the "immature" response; the best human beings I know have a very small set of overlap with the most rational human beings I know.

 

[Darth_Payn]

When I read these strips that don't focus on video games and veer into other things, I assume Erin is Carter's mouthpiece for whatever's on his mind, like Brian Griffin is for Seth MacFarlane. Yet, Erin is portrayed as a terrible human being, so...

I'll give you one, since you only gave ten percent of your effort to your joke.

Beyond that, as a Christian myself, can't we just get along? (I know what the answer is BTW). Also I don't know if you are doing it because it's based on the Bible, or the movie deviated from the source material. (I'm going with the former, just asking the latter because of the Game of Thrones article I read just a second ago.

Ha! that's a better zinger than what Erin tried in today's strip. You get +10 points!

Yeah, I see that a lot.

There's a Swiss philosopher called Alain de Boton, who works in London, an atheist who studied religion and uses its many positive aspects to his and other atheists' advantage. He opened up centers that teach prayer-like meditation and stuff.

He wrote a book about what uses atheists can take away from religion. For that he was attacked by militant atheist Richard Dawkins disciples as a "theist in disguise".

Richard Dawkins is a clever man, no doubt about it, but as a biologist and a natural scientist he does not have the proper education and equipment to analyse and discuss religion with the authority he claims. Alain de Boton does. But yet Alain de Boton gets attacked by people who idolise and follow Richard Dawkins like some kind of guru.

What the fuck...

Irony: aman well known for refuting the existence of God is followed like one.

If the criteria for good/bad sci-fi is if they are 100% scientifically accurate, then by that reasoning Star Trek, Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica (new and old), Matrix, Stargate (all of them), Dr. Who, etc. etc. are all terrible shows and should be constantly called out for their scientific inaccuracies, right?

Seriously, the worst thing that the Internet brought about is that it made everyone so bitchy...

They might as well ***** about the Winter Soldier's cryogenic freezing and memory wiping processes, or Arnim Zola uploading his mind onto a supercomputer. Or, like, everything in Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

[Erttheking]

Religion is no longer a major force in the secular, Western world, so there's not much for atheists to argue or fight about. Hence, a large proportion of the arguing is from those who can't see the silliness of shooting fish in a barrel.

It is in the United States, especially in some parts of the South, and it can get pretty damn frustrating at times let me tell you that.

OT: Eh...I don't know. I barely define as Catholic anymore, I'm more agnostic, but this joke...I'm just gonna say it isn't that funny and leave it at that.

 

[Hoplon]

[...]On the believing or not front, it's a choice, and given the lack of evidence in either direction both valid.

While I totally agree with the underlying sentiment, that right there is just wrong. It simply does not work that way.

If someone makes a claim, he has to prove the claim. It's not a case of "both can't prove or disprove something." Especially not if one of the main traits of the thing you claim is "It's unobservable and thus CAN'T be disproven!"

Live and let live, yeah, sure, I can get behind that. But once it comes to the "evidence" part, that's where the fun stops.
You can't disprove something that has no proof of existence.

See also: Sasquatch, Yeti, honesty in politics.

That's the problem though, there isn't any actual evidence of any of the attributes, if you can't pin down the thing you are looking for how do you know you didn't just look right past it?

That argument doesn't get you anywhere since you can't say anything useful about the concept other than "I believe" or "I do not believe"

 

[lacktheknack]

Tag: "INB4 Fedora Of Sound"

...shots... fired...?

 

[hazydawn]

Agnosticismwin >.>

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. There is agnostic atheism.

 

[Ingjald]

[...]On the believing or not front, it's a choice, and given the lack of evidence in either direction both valid.

While I totally agree with the underlying sentiment, that right there is just wrong. It simply does not work that way.

If someone makes a claim, he has to prove the claim. It's not a case of "both can't prove or disprove something." Especially not if one of the main traits of the thing you claim is "It's unobservable and thus CAN'T be disproven!"

Live and let live, yeah, sure, I can get behind that. But once it comes to the "evidence" part, that's where the fun stops.
You can't disprove something that has no proof of existence.

See also: Sasquatch, Yeti, honesty in politics.

That's the problem though, there isn't any actual evidence of any of the attributes, if you can't pin down the thing you are looking for how do you know you didn't just look right past it?

That argument doesn't get you anywhere since you can't say anything useful about the concept other than "I believe" or "I do not believe"

Celestial teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorn, False Equivalence. Occams razor. Look them up.

What do you mean by " there isn't any actual evidence of any of the attributes"? Do you mean attributes of God? Because if that's what you mean, sure, there are plenty of attributes to be taken from his holy book. Leaving aside all the "-isms" the God character might quite reasonably be accused of, we are left with an all-powerful, all-knowing (contradiction right there) anthropomorphic (we are in his image, after all), intervening (answers prayers and grants wishes in exchange for burning oxen) being that is powerful, complex and intelligent enough to create literally everything by speaking it into existing with magical words.

is this the thing we just might have overlooked a big pile of evidence for?