Thoughts on The Oatmeal's Thoughts on Religion

Recently, the generally amazing website, "The Oatmeal," published a bit titled, "How to suck at your religion," and sadly, displayed once again that, when it comes to religion (particularly Christianity) ignorance and negativity reign supreme in web land.

Right off the bat, the author implies the tired assumption that Christians somehow possess a greater amount of self-righteousness than others with the question:

Let's be clear on a few key facts:

1. Every single person on the planet, whether atheist, Buddhist, or Christian, makes moral pronouncements. The problem with raising an objection to "judging," is that in some form or another, we are all guilty. And yet, sometimes, we should be guilty. Oftentimes, recognizing that an action is indeed, wrong, is the first step in extending a hand in help to the individual engaged in such an action. And be perfectly honest with yourself, you really weren't sure that that guy who cut you off in traffic last week wasn't a self-involved "asshole," but did that stop you from making the judgment?

2. The second an individual criticizes another for something deemed "judging," they are in essence engaging in the very act of judging themselves. Not to mention, this entire page is one judgment against the religious after another. Did the author miss that? 

3.  "Judge not" is one of the most abused verses within the Bible. The guy who said it (Jesus), was also fond of standing up in public places and calling Pharisees "white-washed tombs" and a "brood of vipers." I for one, believe he was right on, so does "judging" really mean that we are not to make moral pronouncements, or does the author need to go deeper in his understanding of this word?

4. In the most negative sense of "judging," like when you really are being a total dick, religion really has nothing to do with it. Humans are more than capable of aspiring to great heights of self-righteousness with no such help at all. Just look at some of the leading atheists today. Those guys are total dicks (oops, a judgment).



The next question is, to put it simply, completely ridiculous for a number of reasons.

To begin with, it's difficult to name even one individual related to scientific discovery prior to the modern era who was not extremely religious in some sense. Secondly, the modern controversy over stem cells was and is far more complex and nuanced than this representation. To be clear, I'm neither Catholic nor against stem-cell research, but by simplifying the stance of the opposition, the author commits the straw man fallacy, and makes the opposing viewpoint appear absurd. Obviously, there is an attempt at exaggerated humor here, but when wrapped in a moral pronouncement (using stem cells for research is right, logical and scientific), it is more maddening than comedic. And, if I'm not mistaken, hasn't the author judged the religious yet again?


Now we begin to enter the realm of sheer absurdity, as the author apparently believes that no parent with religious leanings (so, umm...like 6 and a half billion people?) should teach such beliefs to their child:

Here comes that Straw Man again! Twice!

Isn't it interesting that the majority of atheists I know were raised by atheists? And the majority of agnostics by agnostics? The point is, parents raise their children with certain beliefs simply because those parents are convinced that those beliefs are the most proper way by which one should live one's life. While it saddens me to see a child raised to embrace atheism, I don't accuse the atheist parent of "forcing dogma" on their child, because I'm pretty sure that most likely that parent loves their kid a lot and has the best intentions.

The next question is one in which most of us can identify with:

However, as obnoxious as that Mormon or Jehovah's Witness visit can be, it usually has nothing to do with the validation of one's beliefs. Bear in mind that when that pair of young Mormon men are at your door, they're not there because of some sort of lack of confidence in Mormonism, they're there because they genuinely believe their religion and they genuinely care about other people, namely you. If someone honestly believes that you are going to Hell, and they honestly believe that by having a discussion with you, a complete stranger, they can curtail that event, who are we to accuse them of being obnoxious or needing validation? Take it as a compliment, be courteous, and ask yourself, how often do you bother others with your beliefs? The atheist astounds me: He has a message of absolute meaningless coupled with an eventual heat-death for the entire planet, and yet he's often ten times the evangelical than the average Christian! The Christian offers a message of hope and reconciliation with God, leading to an eternal paradise, and yet we want the Christian to "stop forcing your beliefs on me!" Fascinating stuff, all around.


The next question, in a page chock-full of mockery, deals with mockery:

And yet again, the straw man.

Here we once again see evidence of the true target of the author's mockery, Christianity. And again, the Christian belief is presented in such a way as to make it appear that anyone who would ascribe to such a belief is a complete idiot. Isn't it wonderful that I could do the exact same thing with atheism? Just fill in the caption with, "Everyone knows what really happened is that nothing existed, and then, for no apparent reason whatsoever, every single atom in the universe appeared, ordered itself into an astounding level of complexity, made a planet in which a single cell with mind-blowing complexity magically decided to self-replicate and resulted in human beings with the capacity for intellectual and spiritual thought!"

Hmm..now that I look at that, I'm not sure if it's even a straw man. Take out the word "magically," and that really is the atheist belief in a nutshell. Astounding. I didn't even need to exaggerate.



And, now for the finale:

I'm sure that if you are a religiously minded person, you are now relieved that the author has given you permission to carry on with a religion that, though utterly meaningless and insignificant, makes you "happy." Of course, there is this one caveat, that you "keep it to your ****ing self." And with that strikingly painful bit of irony, dear readers, I leave you with this, a link to Google images for the word "atheism." Enjoy the lesson in subtlety, tolerance, and above all, proselytizing.

God loves me? Keep it to yourself zealot! God doesn't exist? Preach it brother!