Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
WriterofAllWrongs:
--- Quote from: Susano on 15 Dec 2008, 10:42 ---But that is exactly the annoying fact which the strip gets wrong. Sure both sides think they are right - but normally Atehists dont go aroudn screaming "we are right" like christian extremists, do, but rather go "Its likely theres no god because <argument1>, <argument2>, <argument3>".
--- End quote ---
Yeah, and normally Christians don't go around screaming their balls off about the fact that they are going to heaven when they die and you better come too. That's why the people who do are known as extremists. It's considered an extreme viewpoint to discount all else but your beliefs and go around perpetrating overtly obnoxious acts in the name of a book or a quote or a set of logical rules, etc.
--- Quote ---Whereas the theological christian arguments are "Its in this series of book once started by an insignifcant tribe of goat herder some millenia ago" and the philosophcial arguments are all baffling stupid."
--- End quote ---
Keep in mind that some atheist arguments consist of "There's no way there is a god because a set of universal rules set by old smart dudes hundreds of years back said so." Objectively speaking, Christianity and Atheism's definition of the world and afterlife are just as plausible as one another. It's just as plausible that our chunk of rock in space has grown life because we're placed just right in this particular solar system (which is basically a mathematical impossibility) or because some otherworldly being of all-importance wanted to make us just because. It's all about the individual's decision of what makes sense.
Honestly, anyone who asserts their viewpoints as wholly correct or above another person's beliefs for whatever reason has lost a bit of perspective. We're all just individuals in the world, and religion is a way of joining a collective and being something bigger than yourself and connecting with others. One person doesn't have a right to say that their way is wholly correct, because no one knows. It's a mystery, and our beliefs are just our way of trying to demystify the world, and propagating your heavenly solution over everyone else's is a bit self-absorbed, and generally just serves to confuse and upset other people. Discussions on religion are great because you connect with a person over your views of the world in which you both inhabit, but arguments break that connection and just upsets everyone. What's the use of being TOTALLY CORRECT about something you can't know if that notion only serves to disconnect people from your view?
Is it cold in here?:
--- Quote from: Susano on 15 Dec 2008, 09:45 ---... strip 1289 is basically the usual silly criticism against outspoken atheists in caricature form.
--- End quote ---
It could also be read as simply being characterization of Rhymes-with-antelope Gaines, and that seems more likely given Jeph's own religious orientation. We've seen or heard of Penne-lope equally passionate about De Beers, Hemingway, alphabetizing bookshelves, and calling ex-girlfriends "crazy".
Also, saying something to the effect "But it's different when I say it because *I'm* right" is such a universal human weakness that you don't have to take it as a reflection on the views of whoever's saying it.
rb4havoc:
--- Quote from: Jeans on 15 Dec 2008, 11:39 ---
--- Quote from: Susano on 15 Dec 2008, 10:42 ---But that is exactly the annoying fact which the strip gets wrong. Sure both sides think they are right - but normally Atehists dont go aroudn screaming "we are right" like christian extremists, do
--- End quote ---
Atheist "extremists" do! There are Christians who don't bug others about their religion and Chiristians that do, just like there are atheists who don't take potshots at religious folks, and atheists who do. Like I said, people are always individuals, perceiving them as groups whose members all think and act the same way is a dangerous road to go down.
--- Quote from: Susano on 15 Dec 2008, 10:42 ---but rather go "Its likely theres no god because <argument1>, <argument2>, <argument3>". Whereas the theological christian arguments are "Its in this series of book once started by an insignifcant tribe of goat herder some millenia ago" and the philosophcial arguments are all baffling stupid.
--- End quote ---
There is no point in arguing religion with logic, from either side of the argument. It's about faith. Faith has got nothing to do with logic.
--- Quote from: Susano on 15 Dec 2008, 10:42 ---Its not about permission to believe silly things. Of course, everybody is free to do so. Its about regognicing them as silly, and not giving SOME silly beliefs a preferred treatment just because they have the word "religion" and some centuries of history to back their silly claims!
--- End quote ---
How is Christianity any more silly than your world view just because it is based on faith instead of logic?
--- End quote ---
I honestly think that from either standpoint, from atheism or religion, it's give or take from both faith and logic. Our world being habitable and then humans coming into existence are prime examples of it. From a logical point of view, the probability of either happening in mathematical terms is impossible, so help from an outside source to guide the creation process would logically make more sense than just a random bang and random primordial oozes mixing together to make a planet and human life, respectively. To me, it just seems like there's more faith involved in the latter than the former :laugh:
Usopp:
--- Quote ---Our world being habitable and then humans coming into existence are prime examples of it. From a logical point of view, the probability of either happening in mathematical terms is impossible, so help from an outside source to guide the creation process would logically make more sense than just a random bang and random primordial oozes mixing together to make a planet and human life, respectively.
--- End quote ---
The bit about this arguement that always amuses me is the fact that IF things were just random, and it all happened spontaneously, the only place that would have the potential to argue about whether or not it was truly random is the place where the exeption just proved the rule.
rb4havoc:
Yeah, but then the spontaneity would have had to occur over and over again, hundreds of millions of times, and wouldn't truly be random, but rather a pattern :wink:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version