[Closed] Religion...

Sorry if this one has been done

I forgive you

It's always a shame when this smart kind of humour is undermined by getting a few underlying facts and assumptions wrong.

should be on the national curriculum syllabus...

I forgive you

Brilliant 🙂

Sorry if this one has been done

*cough*

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-oatmeal-does-religion

(-:

That's very good.

As an aside, I also think poetry should be banned, because it doesn't make sense, and is sometimes ungrammatical.

Also, art. I don't understand that, either, and some artists seem a bit weird.

...undermined by getting a few underlying facts and assumptions wrong.

Really? What parts were wrong? There were undoubtedly a few exaggerations for comedic affect but there wasn't much that I saw a wrong.

Well, one would be that people vote according to what is best for them as an individual, rather than society as a whole

then the eating of the fruit, which wasn't really the bad thing

Really? What parts were wrong?

Some lazy stereotyping. And possibly some mixing up of Christianity with Creationism.

but there wasn't much that I saw a wrong

and there in a nutshell is the problem. There are things that you don't see as wrong that others see as completely wrong - e.g. how religion is discussed with children/the galilleo thing etc. We have had endless threads on this and they always end up the same way 🙁

Well, one would be that people vote according to what is best for them as an individual, rather than society as a whole

Some lazy stereotyping. And possibly some mixing up of Christianity with Creationism.

Wow, are the jokes you guys tell always 100% factually correct with no exaggeration? It's a cartoon, not a documentary.

There are things that you don't see as wrong that others see as completely wrong

I meant wrong in the "factually correct or not" rather than the moral sense. Poor use of language on my part.

[img] [/img]

Wow, are the jokes you guys tell always 100% factually correct with no exaggeration? It's a cartoon, not a documentary.

no but the structure of the joke has to work otherwise it distracts from the humour. A bit straw mannish,

but also it just undermines the strength of the joke

Graham > would that be "jokes are like frogs" perchance?

for example

Alex Ferguson is very worried about his Manchester City players who seem a bit sluggish so he asks the teams psychologist what he can do.
"Keep their minds alert by firing off questions at them all the time; that's what we used to do when I was at Liverpool."
"Like what?" asks Fergie
"Well mind puzzles; for example, like 'I am my fathers son but not my brother - who am I?", was the reply.
Fergie went off happy with the idea but couldn't puzzle out the riddle himself and wanted to make sure he knew the answer so he called Arsene Wenger at Liverpool to ask him....

[i]Really? What parts were wrong? [/i]

They're trying to make out that cyclists are mormons.

Yeah, there shouldn't be the second 'm'

Some lazy stereotyping. And possibly some mixing up of Christianity with Creationism.

Isn't that the point of the cartoon? That if you fulfill the roles depicted (indoctrinating children, promoting creationism over science) then you suck at religion - therefore, if you don't do those things then although you may be religious, but you don't suck at religion.

It's worth bearing in mind that The Oatmeal is based in the US, where they do have proper scary right-wing Christian nut-jobs (in some states they're trying to prevent birth control from being available, never mind abortion, gays are banned from being in the Scouts, etc).

But artists don't knock on your door trying to convince you to starting painting daffodils.

What set my atheism in stone...

I was decorating the ceiling in my first house... I was up a stepladder and the carpet was neatly rolled up beneath. The door bell rang. In my haste to answer it I jumped from the top of the ladder, landed half on the rolled up carpet and ripped the tendon out of my ankle. It was the worst pain I've ever felt in my life and put me on crutches for 6 weeks - I was a freelance journo back then making my living producing route guides for mags and this put me out of work for 6 weeks.

So who was at the door?

Jehova's Witnesses.

I blame religion for my broken ankle and loss of income. Thinking about it I should sue for damages!

😉

SamCooke - There is a difference between messing up the punchline of a crap joke and an incitefull and cutting comic that has room for some patheitic and irelevant pedantry.

And I dare say the power of the pedant will provide a crap load more publicity.

the punchline of the Fergie joke is not affected by the details, but it works better if the details are correct

Me and AdamW are sorry about all the nickleback albums.

*scratches head*

Am I missing something with that football joke?

SamCooke - No it doesn't. The "funny" thing is that fergie doesn't know the answer. It doesn't matter whether the reader knows Wenger is actually the Liverpool manager or not. You could have said Bendan Rogders, Arsenal or Joe Bloggs. It makes no odds to the puchline...

Unless you are a pedant, in which case you focus on the minute and inconsiquential detail but miss the wider point that is trying to be made that Alex Ferguson is also a bit thick.

So actually your analogy is quite useful.

Edit: Oh and what was wrong with Millwall as you originally wrote.

It makes no odds to the puchline..

Edit: Oh and what was wrong with Millwall as you originally wrote.

and that is exactly my point, I changed it and then you don't like it

Graham > would that be "jokes are like frogs" perchance?

Don't make me explain it 😉

jokes are like worms

Quality - Ive copied it out and invited my work mates to draw the prophet mohamhed on the blank page just to spice it up a bit.

🙂

It doesn't but it does affect the flow of the joke.

Edit: Oh and what was wrong with Millwall as you originally wrote.

and that is exactly my point, I changed it and then you don't like it

WTF? I found it wierd that you had gone back and changed it for no reason. Now I know that you changed it to try to score some inconsiquential points I find it more weird. However it made no difference to my understanding of the "joke" or the point you are trying to make.

My point is that the oatmeal using a small bit of poetic licence to make his point more straight forward in no way diracts from the overall message of the comic. Only a pedant would think it might.

It wasn't to score a point, but to make one. But you admit it is a distraction, that there may have been some reason for saying Liverpool and not Millwall. Same way as you might wonder if putting Fergie in charge of Man City was relevant to the joke or not,and not seeing that it wasn't, only when you hear the punchline.

*scratches head*

Am I missing something with that football joke?

It's only the start of the joke.

Alex Fergusson is very worried about Manchester United players who seem a bit sluggish so he asks the teams psychologist what he can do.
"Keep their minds alert by firing off questions at them all the time; that's what we used to do when I was at Arsenal."
"Like what?" asks Fergie
"Well mind puzzles; for example, like 'I am my fathers son but not my brother - who am I?", was the reply.
Fergie went off happy with the idea but couldn't puzzle out the riddle himself and wanted to make sure he knew the answer so he called Arsene Wenger at Arsenal to ask him.
"Can you help me with this riddle", asked Fergie, "I am my father's son but not my brother - who am I?' ",
"Obvious", replied Arsene Wenger, "It's me"
"Thanks", said Fergie and resolved to try this out on the first player he saw, which turned out to be Rio Ferdinan
"Rio, a new mental regime we're starting; you have to answer the following questions - OK"
"OK boss - yeh fire away", said Rio
"I am my father's son but not my brother - who am I?", asked Fergie
Rio thought for a while
"Ah, don't know boss", he said
"Well go home home and think about it and tell me tomorrow." said Fergie
Rio puzzled over the riddle all night and eventually rang his mate Dwight Yorke.
"Boss's has set me a question I can't answer", said Rio, "can you help me?"
"Glad to!", said Yorke.
"I am my fathers son but not my brother - who am I?", asked Rio.
Obvious", said Yorke, "It's me"
Next morning Rio drops into Fergie's office
"Have you figured out the riddle yet", asked Fergie, "I am my father's son but not my brother - who am I?"
"Yes Boss, It's Dwight Yorke", replied Rio!
"Don't be stupid", snapped Fergie, "It's Arsene Wenger!"

It wasn't to score a point, but to make one. But you admit it is a distraction, that there may have been some reason for saying Liverpool and not Millwall. Same way as you might wonder if putting Fergie in charge of Man City was relevant to the joke or not,and not seeing that it wasn't, only when you hear the punchline.

Ever head the phrase "stretching the analogy"?

The distraction was not from the point you were trying to make but to wonder what strange reasoning you may have for changing one wrong statement to another. If The Oatmeal had gone in and changed his comic for no obvious reason I admit that may distract from his point, but he hasn't. So I realy don't see what the wierd edit has relevance to what you are trying to show.

Only now we are arguing about your weird "joke" and unfathomable pedantry rather than relflecting on the message in the comic which is rather brilliant.

It's only the start of the joke.

Aha. That makes more sense, thank you (-:

As for the 'getting a few facts wrong'; the strip doesn't say "this is what religious people think", it says (paraphrasing) "[b]if[/b] you think this, then you might want to reconsider; if you don't, cool, enjoy your religion"

It's not stating any facts at all. There's nothing for it to be getting wrong.

It's not stating any facts at all. There's nothing for it to be getting wrong.

Indeedy. +1

Also it doesn't say (as SamCooke suggested) [i]"that people vote according to what is best for them as an individual, rather than society as a whole"[/i] either.

It just shows two voters, on opposing sides, so caught up in headline rhetoric that they can't offer any real political opinion or thought.

There. I think I can see the frog's spleen now. 😆

As for the 'getting a few facts wrong'; the strip doesn't say "this is what religious people think", it says (paraphrasing) "if you think this, then you might want to reconsider; if you don't, cool, enjoy your religion"

Sure, but if the strip get its humour from satirising beliefs, it would be better if it chose beliefs which people actually held.

it would be better if it chose beliefs which people actually held.

If you don't think people hold those beliefs then you need to spend more time on American websites: political, religious or otherwise!

Sure, but if the strip get its humour from satirising beliefs, it would be better if it chose beliefs which people actually held.

You actually [b]KNOW[/b] what everyone's beliefs are worldwide?!?! Wow, I'm impressed!

It's satirising widely held beliefs. Just, perhaps, not yours.

As someone else has said, it's worth remembering that Matthew Inman is American (or at least, the site is based there), so The Oatmeal will be satirising American beliefs primarily, not Brits.

There are other comics about cats if that's more to your liking?

Here's some.

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2012/05/13/the-16-greatest-animal-photobombs/

It's satirising widely held beliefs. Just, perhaps, not yours.

No, not my beliefs but that's never been my point. For example there are few people, even amongst the Christian community, here or in the US who believe for example that eating the fruit was a bad thing. That is not a widely held belief, it is in fact a widely held misconception that this is what Christians believe. I understand the point of the satirisation, but think that it missed the target somewhat, probably.

You actually KNOW what everyone's beliefs are worldwide?!?! Wow, I'm impressed!

Well,i'm not the only one

If you don't think people hold those beliefs then you need to spend more time on American websites: political, religious or otherwise!

It's satirising widely held beliefs. Just, perhaps, not yours.

I suppose that a few of us don't think it is too grand a claim to [i]KNOW[/i] what people of certain religous faiths believe. I also understand that you don't have a clue and that's probably OK too. I wish you well in that, but you probably get involved in too many debates about religion

you need to spend more time on American websites

Sure, but if the strip get its humour from satirising beliefs, it would be better if it chose beliefs which people actually held.

As Graham S said:

If you don't think people hold those beliefs then you need to spend more time on American websites

Just Google some of the crazy stuff any of the Republican presidential candidates have said, or the Westboro Baptist Church.

But even in the UK there are extremist nutters around. I remember being terrified as a kid when I was sent to an evangelical children's group after school. The pastor told me that I would burn in hell if I didn't love their god and Jesus more than my own family. "You have to love The Father more than your own father".

I used to pray at night, asking their god to forgive me for loving my family too much. But the more I read the Bible, the more I found it preposterous. My dad stopped me from going there when he realised it was a proper bonkers church, he thought it was a more sedate Church of England affair! 😀

By the time I was nine, I had decided that the whole religion thing was nonsense, which got me into trouble with Mrs Webster, my teacher at the time. She was also a devout Christian, and when the time came to teach us about Darwin's theory of evolution, she told us that it was a false theory, and that her god had created the world in six days. She didn't like children who asked questions.

At high school, we had an English teacher, Mr Daley, who was also a hardcore Christian. He told us that the apocalypse was coming within the next four years, and only true believers who had accepted Jesus as their saviour would have a place in heaven. He told us that everyone belonging to other religions were going to suffer eternal damnation. Which is nice.

Admittedly I was terribly immature, and would wear my most provocative metal t-shirts on non-uniform day. Although that wasn't as bad as two lads in the year below who kept on drawing inverted pentagrams and goats heads on the blackboard in his classroom, and put black feathers in his desk drawer...

I know some lovely Christians though, my brother's mother-in-law is a devout Christian, attends church every week, and is one of the nicest, most compassionate people you could hope to meet. She changed churches because she felt that the vicar at her previous church was too judgmental, after he did a massive sermon slagging off single mothers. Although she wasn't too pleased that my brother and his wife had told their son that they were atheists, and didn't believe in any gods, but that some people did and that he'd have to make his own mind up. :s

There are other comics about cats if that's more to your liking?

So, you still don't get that it is not the subject matter which Is the issue? Never mind. Next time pay more attention.

Westboro Baptist Church.

But the Westboro Baptist Church are a group of a few seriously misguided individuals whose beliefs would be unrecognisable to any other christians. They are not even an extreme, they are not part of the same continuum. Nevertheless they get cited as an example of religious extremes, no other groups are even similar. It's no use citing outliers as examples

But the Westboro Baptist Church are a group of a few seriously misguided individuals whose beliefs would be unrecognisable to any other christians

I'd say that their core belief (that homosexuality is an abhorrent sin because their god says so) is shared by many American conservative Christians. Rick Santorum compared homosexuality to bestiality and paedophilia, Michele Bachmann said being gay is "personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement", and many Republicans are still promoting the Defence of Marriage act (banning same sex marriage, which was actually signed into law by Bill Clinton) and want to repeal the recent lifting of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', allowing soldiers who happen to be gay not to have to hide their sexuality.

Where they differ is their method of expressing their displeasure, which is more extreme than most.

STW has really gone downhill, some of you boys are proper weird 😯

STW has really gone downhill, some of you boys are proper weird

Just the boys? 🙁

I'd say that their core belief (that homosexuality is an abhorrent sin because their god says so) is shared by many American conservative Christians

So you don't think they are extremists?

They are not even an extreme, they are not part of the same continuum. Nevertheless they get cited as an example of religious extremes, no other groups are even similar. It's no use citing outliers as examples

If they aren't part of the same continuum, how can they be outliers?

Don't worry Mrs T, I think you're weird in the nicest possible way of course 😉

Most religious people seem to want to interfere with me and my gf's life. so I don't think they are extreme.

"STW has really gone downhill, some of you boys are proper weird"

For me that is STW's USP

Westboro baptists are the extreme end of a spectrum. Many Christians consider homosexuality to be wrong hence the furore over gay priests

If they aren't part of the same continuum, how can they be outliers?

By deviating greatly from other christians. What? Is this going to turn into a discussion about statistical definitions?

Most religious people seem to want to interfere with me and my gf's life. so I don't think they are extreme.

Isn't that a selective sample? There may be lots of christians who don't have any issue with yours and your gf's lives and so you never encounter them

If they are "outliers" wrt christian beliefs then they are christians. Granted christians with extreme views but christians nonetheless.

...a few seriously misguided individuals whose beliefs would be unrecognisable to any other christians

By the way, that's dangerously close to the one true scotsman logical fallacy.

Emsz, maybe they are just curious 😉

So you don't think they are extremists?

Whether they're extremists or not is irrelevant, the point being made here is that your assertion that no-one hold the beliefs mentioned in the cartoon is erroneous. Clearly they do, are we gaining anything by arguing over what to call them?

If we say instead that the cartoon is satirising extremist religious beliefs (which it ostensibly is, it's not targeting religion, it's targeting intolerance), does that mean we can all agree and have a big group hug?

I'm not sure we can, I don't think even Westboro believe that the eating of the fruit was the bad thing

There may be lots of christians who don't have any issue with yours and your gf's lives and so you never encounter them

Sam, listen to yourself, you are now admitting that some people do actually hold these beliefs, but that they are wrong and there are lots of nice religionists who are entirely tolerant.

WHICH. IS. THE. ENTIRE. POINT. OF. THE. COMIC!

Those people. The ones with the extreme or intolerant views. Those are the ones that "suck at religion". Y'see?

If they are "outliers" wrt christian beliefs then they are christians. Granted christians with extreme views but christians nonetheless.

but everyone holds some beliefs which Christians hold, does that make us all Christians?

[img] [/img]

Sam, listen to yourself, you are now admitting that some people do actually hold these beliefs

Which beliefs in particular are you referring to?

Sam is right. I'd assert that, in this and many other countries, the percentage of people holding religious beliefs who find homosexuality abhorrent doesn't differ much from the percentage of non believers holding the same views.
To denigrate the intersection of religious + gay bashers, for example, by mocking all believers does no-one any favours.

It seems to me that the irony here is that stw is constrained by the narrowmindness it says it sees in others. 🙂

Most religious people seem to want to interfere with me and my gf's life. so I don't think they are extreme.

No they don't. Maybe one or two that you've spoken to, that's all. There's millions who've made no judgement, applaud you, or don't really give a ****.
🙂

Most religious people seem to want to interfere with me and my gf's life.

Most? It might seem like most, but you don't know about the millions of Christians who don't care either way.

[b][i]Most religious people seem to want to interfere with me and my gf's life. so I don't think they are extreme[/i][/b].
No they don't. Maybe one or two that you've spoken to, that's all. There's millions who've made no judgement, applaud you, or don't really give a ****.

So, you still don't get that it is not the subject matter which Is the issue? Never mind. Next time pay more attention.

You just struck me as a cat person.

I haven't met them all obviously 😛 , the ones I've met, or have come to my door to early on Sunday seem have an issue with it.

I'll bet money if you like that the ones I've met aren't that extreme.(in their views of gays)

As G says the comic's about intolerence, not really about definitions

Which beliefs in particular are you referring to?

The ones that are berated in the comic.

I'd assert that, in this and many other countries, the percentage of people holding religious beliefs who find homosexuality abhorrent doesn't differ much from the percentage of non believers holding the same views

I'd assert you're wrong. But I'd be interested in your figures...

Either way it doesn't really change the thrust of the satire. Of course, atheists can be intolerant, judgemental and have hang ups about sex, but that's not because they "suck at religion" - it's just because they suck.

They may not share your orientation and prefer to remain [b]tight lipped [/b]

*s*****

But seriously, what's the concern if they don't share Emz' orientation? I don't share it, and I have no problem with her getting married to her girlfriend, and don't expect her to hide her relationship away. Just as I wouldn't expect her to be all frowny and disappointed because a straight person was in a relationship with or wanted to marry their partner.

But seriously, what's the concern if they don't share Emz' orientation? I don't share it, and I have no problem with her getting married to her girlfriend, and don't expect her to hide her relationship away.

and in that respect, you are like many Christians

I don't think even Westboro believe that the eating of the fruit was the bad thing

Ok, I'll bite, because it seems to be important to you. Tell me about the apple.

My understanding of the story is that mankind ate the apple (which probably wasn't an apple at all but a fig or something IIRC), gained "knowledge" and became self aware in a Skynet sort of way.

Catholicism takes this a step further with original sin; what makes us human rather than godly is Adam & Eve's disobedience of god.

Whether this was a good or bad thing overall is probably a much longer discussion; I'm not convinced that a species doomed to (mostly) think for themselves is all that terrible an outcome. Regardless, it doesn't seem to be a huge leap to summarise this with 'people ate fruit, which was bad' as a throwaway comment in a humorous story. In the grand scheme of things it does seem to be a minor point, and given that it's mentioned in the same sentence as zombie Jesus I don't think it's intended to be a wholly serious critique.

The ones that are berated in the comic

I haven't met them all obviously , the ones I've met, or have come to my door to early on Sunday seem have an issue with it.

A lot of people you meet are probably religious, but don't say anything about it so you never find out.

I'd assert that, in this and many other countries, the percentage of people holding religious beliefs who find homosexuality abhorrent doesn't differ much from the percentage of non believers holding the same views.

I'd like to see the data upon which you base this assertion.

To denigrate the intersection of religious + gay bashers, for example, by mocking all believers does no-one any favours.

Which is not what the original cartoon does by the way so is a strawman argument.

Maybe one or two that you've spoken to, that's all.

Seriously!! Did you actually read that before pressing post? Seldom have I read anything so patronising. I'm surprised you didn't end it with "my dear".

Ok, I'll bite, because it seems to be important to you

oh no, not at all. it was just an example

To denigrate the intersection of religious + gay bashers, for example, by mocking all believers does no-one any favours.

Sure. Who's doing that? *looks around*

As GrahamS (I think) said: it's not religion (generally or specifically) that's being mocked; it's the views of those people, and only those people, who use religion as an excuse for prejudice and hate. The cartoon [i]very specifically[/i] makes this clear.

Which is not what the original cartoon does by the way so is a strawman argument.

No, but it does seem to be the most commonly presented view on STW.

Hi! Just clocking in, a bit late. Did I miss anything? 😀

*ducks*