You know, PZ, on days like these I like my humour a bit funnier.
And not that blatantly simplistic
birgerjohanssonsays
I prefer my gods/creators to be black monoliths.
Also, if a big slab of sone says “I am the Eschaton. I am not your god” you will be forgiven for not worshipping it.
The black stone in Kaba is supposed to be made of “impactite” but since only 50% of the mass likely comes from the meteorite, it is not truly heavenly.
birgerjohanssonsays
BTW, in Paris 12 died and we are all upset.
In Syria and Iraq, a helluva lot more than 12 are killed each day for religion and related power struggles, and we treat it as business as usual. The difference is, the darkies now target caucasians.
dicksays
Birger, I think the real difference is that they are targeting our Western secular values.
dicksays
Re our Western secular values, they were derived from the Enlightenment, when the rule of religion was diminished in the West, with the consent of the intellectual elites.
Islam has not experienced a similar, post-scientific age, assault (from within). Unfortunately, because the Enlightenment is seen as being Western, it is largely resisted in Islam, & probably will continue that way for the foreseeable future. It is for this reason that I see Islam as being more dangerous than Xinanity.
dereksmearsays
Good cartoon
@dick
Spot on, Richard. Since the Enlightenment, the ‘West’ has been nothing but a peaceful happy bunny land.
dicksays
Derek, I guess you do have a point there. But it could be argued that what happened in the World Wars & Russian Revolution was a reaction to the legacy of pre-Enlightenment conditions. We have gotten past that now. (Of course, we’ve got inequality to deal with, but Rationalism might get us there.)
Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thoughtsays
We have gotten past that now.
Except when we pass our own borders. Then it’s all murder any mayhem.
Must be something in the air in “non-Western” countries.
I think the “Islamic World” (which may be too nebulous to even define) would be improved by some kind of enlightenment, but not necessarily the Western one. A second enlightenment, really, considering that the European “Dark Ages” were the Islamic Gold Ages.
(Does increasing education for women, an unequivocally good thing in itself, qualify as “enlightenment” type stuff, or is calling it that just a case of my co-opting something for the West?)
And of course the West needs a lot of progress too; events like the Charlie Hebdo slaughter are unfortunately likelier to make Europeans question their tolerance for Muslims and/or foreigners, rather than their respect for religion.
(Does increasing education for women, an unequivocally good thing in itself, qualify as “enlightenment” type stuff, or is calling it that just a case of my co-opting something for the West?)
co-opting? for the West? I’m not sure what you mean…
co-opting? for the West? I’m not sure what you mean…
Because I’m calling it “enlightenment” and not something else, and “The Enlightenment” is considered a period of Western history rather than world history. (I’m just talking about semantics.)
lornsays
Good call.
As a schematic of how religions into being there can be little doubt cartoon is entirely accurate. On a functional level it isn’t much more complex than that.
David Horsey worked for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer when this was first published. Ooo, boy, did it cause a brouhaha, with letters to the editor appearing for more than a month afterwards. For some people, apparently, the truth hurts a lot.
zoniedudesays
Doesn’t it seem strange that the people who claim their “god is great” feel their god needs mortals to defend it? Of all the other gods around the globe I can’t think of any others whose believers think their god is that pathetic.
Of all the other gods around the globe I can’t think of any others whose believers think their god is that pathetic.
Really? It practically seems universal, especially in fundamentalist monotheism.
One example of Christians framing God as pathetically needing mortals for his defense: the notion that atheists “keep God out of the schools”, and that events like school shootings happen as a result.
Of course, in all cases, the believers would say that God doesn’t actually “need” any mortal’s defense, but that they are simply defending his “good name”, and/or defending their faith’s own honor (ironically ruining its image in the process)
At least, as far as I know, no religion has ever framed its deities themselves as vulnerable to human action or inaction. Even the notion that gods like to consume our sacrificed animals or else they will inflict punishment is not a notion that the gods require the calories of sacrifices to maintain the energy necessary to exist, though that would make for an interesting fantasy story…
The cartoon could be renamed, “Religion: Origins (and all you really need to know)”.
Pah. He got it completely wrong. Any fule know that only flat rocks are truly divine.
Too soon, for me.Scratch that. Too late. But better, in this case, late than never.
You know, PZ, on days like these I like my humour a bit funnier.
And not that blatantly simplistic
I prefer my gods/creators to be black monoliths.
Also, if a big slab of sone says “I am the Eschaton. I am not your god” you will be forgiven for not worshipping it.
The black stone in Kaba is supposed to be made of “impactite” but since only 50% of the mass likely comes from the meteorite, it is not truly heavenly.
BTW, in Paris 12 died and we are all upset.
In Syria and Iraq, a helluva lot more than 12 are killed each day for religion and related power struggles, and we treat it as business as usual. The difference is, the darkies now target caucasians.
Birger, I think the real difference is that they are targeting our Western secular values.
Re our Western secular values, they were derived from the Enlightenment, when the rule of religion was diminished in the West, with the consent of the intellectual elites.
Islam has not experienced a similar, post-scientific age, assault (from within). Unfortunately, because the Enlightenment is seen as being Western, it is largely resisted in Islam, & probably will continue that way for the foreseeable future. It is for this reason that I see Islam as being more dangerous than Xinanity.
Good cartoon
@dick
Spot on, Richard. Since the Enlightenment, the ‘West’ has been nothing but a peaceful happy bunny land.
Derek, I guess you do have a point there. But it could be argued that what happened in the World Wars & Russian Revolution was a reaction to the legacy of pre-Enlightenment conditions. We have gotten past that now. (Of course, we’ve got inequality to deal with, but Rationalism might get us there.)
Except when we pass our own borders. Then it’s all murder any mayhem.
Must be something in the air in “non-Western” countries.
I think the “Islamic World” (which may be too nebulous to even define) would be improved by some kind of enlightenment, but not necessarily the Western one. A second enlightenment, really, considering that the European “Dark Ages” were the Islamic Gold Ages.
(Does increasing education for women, an unequivocally good thing in itself, qualify as “enlightenment” type stuff, or is calling it that just a case of my co-opting something for the West?)
And of course the West needs a lot of progress too; events like the Charlie Hebdo slaughter are unfortunately likelier to make Europeans question their tolerance for Muslims and/or foreigners, rather than their respect for religion.
@12, chrismorrow
co-opting? for the West? I’m not sure what you mean…
@10, dick
Just to be clear, Rationalism needs to be combined with Empiricism. Measurable facts have a habit of contradicting armchair philosophy.
brianpanksy:
Because I’m calling it “enlightenment” and not something else, and “The Enlightenment” is considered a period of Western history rather than world history. (I’m just talking about semantics.)
Good call.
As a schematic of how religions into being there can be little doubt cartoon is entirely accurate. On a functional level it isn’t much more complex than that.
David Horsey worked for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer when this was first published. Ooo, boy, did it cause a brouhaha, with letters to the editor appearing for more than a month afterwards. For some people, apparently, the truth hurts a lot.
Doesn’t it seem strange that the people who claim their “god is great” feel their god needs mortals to defend it? Of all the other gods around the globe I can’t think of any others whose believers think their god is that pathetic.
zoniedude:
Really? It practically seems universal, especially in fundamentalist monotheism.
One example of Christians framing God as pathetically needing mortals for his defense: the notion that atheists “keep God out of the schools”, and that events like school shootings happen as a result.
Of course, in all cases, the believers would say that God doesn’t actually “need” any mortal’s defense, but that they are simply defending his “good name”, and/or defending their faith’s own honor (ironically ruining its image in the process)
At least, as far as I know, no religion has ever framed its deities themselves as vulnerable to human action or inaction. Even the notion that gods like to consume our sacrificed animals or else they will inflict punishment is not a notion that the gods require the calories of sacrifices to maintain the energy necessary to exist, though that would make for an interesting fantasy story…