Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
nastek:
--- Quote from: Jeans on 15 Dec 2008, 05:16 ---It bugs me every time someone says "<person> is not an accurate depiction of <stereotype>" - they're not supposed to be. Do you think Jeph based Penelope on the way he thinks every atheist ever behaves? Of course not. Penelope is a character, not a type of character.
edit because I just read this:
--- Quote from: nastek on 15 Dec 2008, 05:04 ---As atheist I don't usually go out of my way to tell people how I disagree with their believes but have met religious people that act like they are ofended by my opinion... Go figure.
--- End quote ---
Dangerous thinking, mate. There are atheists who are right dicks about their (non)-beliefs too. Don't label people based on something as arbitrary as what religion they were raised into, there are good Christians and bad Christians just like there are good atheists and bad atheists. If you must judge people, judge individuals, and judge them after you've come to know them.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I know there are unrational atheists too. I haven't written that this goes for all the atheist/religious people, it is just my experience - and even in my experience I have met dfferent kinds of people. So your response is not really in conntection with what I said.
What bothers me is that some religious people start discusing my opinion (it's not belief, I'm rational atheist so it has nothing to do with believing) but think that I shouldn't discuss their belifs - because it's private, sacred or whatever. Well, then they shouldn't go into this debate, should they.
Dotes:
Wow, great discussion everybody. A lot of great talking points and debate. I honestly didn't expect (but I was hoping for) this to happen. I was afraid I'd just get flamed. I'll just comment on a few things and then be on my way.
--- Quote ---I have indeed meet atheists like Penelope.
There are atheisms of skepticism, even sincere doubt, that challenge the idea of god.
There are also atheisms of certainty, of faith in there not being a god.
I also agree that it fits what we seen from Penelope. She seems to have defined what she is/isn't likes/dislikes very carefully, and rails violently against that which stands against her norms. That certainly reminds of me of people I know. wink
--- End quote ---
I had forgotten about Penelope's personality quirks, and you're right, now that I think about it, it is somewhat a part of her personality. The strips make a lot more sense now.
--- Quote ---I'm not particularly bothered by it. Truth of it is I sympathize with her and feel the same way. My parents are Catholic, well my mother's a hardcore one and my father's Christian in general in the way that he doesn't believe in any specific denomination, so I really feel the whole being raised under religious indoctrination and feeling that it's all highly irrational. You might say that I'm more of the 'militant' atheist in the way that I'm opposed to things such as teaching irrationality to children, indoctrinating them at an age where they're intellectually defenceless, labeling them under their parent's religion and so forth, but neither do I run around bashing religion and preaching the Gospel of Joe Pesci (kudos to those who get the reference).
Like christians and people of other religion, there are many kinds of atheists and Penelope just happens to be more 'fundamentalist', as you call it. I don't think it really paints atheism under a bad color. If people are so close-minded that they always think of atheism as being that way, then I doubt the personality of a webcomic character will make that much of a diference.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I'd say my view on religion is pretty similar to yours. And you make a good point about closed-mindedness.
--- Quote ---It bugs me every time someone says "<person> is not an accurate depiction of <stereotype>" - they're not supposed to be. Do you think Jeph based Penelope on the way he thinks every atheist ever behaves? Of course not. Penelope is a character, not a type of character.
--- End quote ---
I understand your complaint, but I my attention was drawn to it because it's similar to that same argument gets thrown around too often about the "fundamental atheist." It's a negative stereotype and it's not fair. Typically, when atheists are being belligerent, it's in the name of secularism, or some kind of attempt to maintain a separation of church and state (especially in the U.S.) I've rarely met an argument from an atheist claiming to know that God does not exist, but rather that God should stay out of our system of government. I'm getting a little off-topic, but what I'm really trying to say is that while people like Penelope may exist, I'd wager they're not nearly as common as they are often portrayed, and I guess it just bothers me how often that stereotype is used. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. It's not Jeph's fault, though, and I hope I haven't offended anybody with my thread.
--- Quote ---Granted, every person is different, but strip 1289 is basically the usual silly criticism against outspoken atheists in caricature form. And this does bug me a bit. Personally, I see no reason why us atheists shouldnt be outspoken. We have the weight of arguments on our side, dont we?
--- End quote ---
This pretty well sums up my point, about the silly criticism that is.
--- Quote ---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>". 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.
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 ---
That's not really a fair characterization of the Christian argument. I personally don't find the concept of a Judeo-Christian god to be intellectually tenable, I believe that with a certain degree of skepticism someone can reasonably believe in the possibility of a deity and develop a worldview or a lifestyle based on that.
Ok. I'm not going to comment on any more of the posts, 'cause it's late, but I appreciate all of your thoughts and opinions.
Oh, and the cracked list. I don't agree with all of the things on that list. In fact, I find the implication that Stalin killed religious people because he was an atheist to be a wee bit offensive. Also, the article just isn't very well-written. Cracked has done far better. The writer just seems to have a severe misunderstanding of an atheist mindset, and I didn't even have to get to the part where he disclosed his religion to figure out he's a Christian. I dunno, I didn't like it.
Surgoshan:
--- Quote from: rb4havoc on 15 Dec 2008, 13:21 ---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:
--- End quote ---
A: If there was an outside being shaping us, why did it take nearly 14 billion years for us to show up?
B: Conversely, if there was not an outside being, why did it take nearly 14 billion years for us to show up?
A: Um... because he's careful and deliberate.
B: Because the collection of events required for our existence was very improbable and required a very great deal of time and space before they occurred.
Yeah, faith is the reasonable position there.
Usopp:
--- Quote ---A: If there was an outside being shaping us, why did it take nearly 14 billion years for us to show up?
A: Um... because he's careful and deliberate.
--- End quote ---
Don't you know that the fossil record and gradually evolving species were just sent by god to test our faith? :evil:
WriterofAllWrongs:
--- Quote from: Surgoshan on 16 Dec 2008, 03:23 ---A: If there was an outside being shaping us, why did it take nearly 14 billion years for us to show up?
B: Conversely, if there was not an outside being, why did it take nearly 14 billion years for us to show up?
A: Um... because he's careful and deliberate.
B: Because the collection of events required for our existence was very improbable and required a very great deal of time and space before they occurred.
Yeah, faith is the reasonable position there.
--- End quote ---
But see, this is where atheists and more religious folks are always going to disagree. Some people don't identify with reason, they want something larger to believe in. Atheism could be seen by a lot of religious sects as in too much of a hurry to get everything explained away, just as a lot of atheists find the idea of being blindly faithful in an idea that is explained by what is, to them, silly folklore preposterous. Some people don't like the idea of us just being here, because chemical chance and scientific miracles guys. Some people want a reason to exist, and a spiritual purpose. I myself can't really agree with the notion that we're here for no reason, but I don't discount it either, because it's just as possible as anything else.
Another thing is, what scientific explanations are for atheists, the religious texts are for the religious. Saying that "Oh we've got science on our side" while it does help to explain a lot about the world, it will just not be a viable answer for those who believe in a supernatural being, as it is vice versa.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version