Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us
here. Thanks!
[close]
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Do you rely on observable facts rather than your gut? Are you interested in science, human rights, skepticism, atheism, or humanism?
If so, and you have something to say and want it to be heard, Factonista has an extensive network of connections to ensure your opinions’ wide spreadability. We offer you a platform for your voice to be truly heard.
So what is Factonista?
Factoista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought:
1. Defending civil liberties like freedoms of speech, inquiry, information, religion or lack thereof, and association
2. Opposing misinformation, pseudoscience, and quackery
3. Commenting on the intersection of religion with politics, science, human rights, and academia
4. Discussing media misinformation and reform, environmental defense, and human rights.
5., Defending and supporting the continued growth of the Internet as a central enabler of idea and information sharing, social organization, advocacy and political participation. Relevant issues include net neutrality, the social impact of the Net and various programs (e.g., the blogosphere, social networking and news aggregator applications, search engines), and means of enhancing netroots advocacy.
5. Contribute significantly to the expansion, coordination and social/political import and impact of humanism and freethought.
Factonista is about putting people before ideas, reason before superstition, and evidence before faith. It’s about being team players (i.e., putting reason, honesty, civility first), as we can achieve far more in collaboration than in isolation. And it’s about making the most of our creativity, diverse skills and backgrounds to contribute to a collective intelligence that will have influence far and wide.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
I especially appreciate the generalized atheist as a nerdy white male.
Hilarious, but hard to read. I love that the biker dude is cast as the tolerant xian.
If you click on the comic it opens larger.
Statistically, most atheists fit that description.
I’m a nerd and proud!
Well the main character is me when I was younger. I didn’t intend to stereotype atheists as all being nerds. It just by happened to be that I looked like a nerd.
The argument here seems self-undermining to me.
Biker dude is actually asking the right question: why the generalization?
He’s not asking why there’s *any* perception of anti-gay sentiment by Christians, or even why it is considered common, but rather why is it generalized to *all* Christians — and the blogger does not deny making such a generalization.
Evidence is not on the side of the generalization.
(For those not aware of the evidence: look up the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, and Bishop Gene Robinson.)
Hahahaha. As a gay atheist I loved it! While I suppose technically there may be a few Christians that aren’t homophobic I suspect between 90 and 95 percent of Christians are.
From a May 2008 California poll regarding marriage equality (pdf, p. 4):
Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?
Protestant (33% of sample) 34% Approve, 57% Disapprove, 9% No opinion
Catholic (28% of sample) 45% Approve, 48% Disapprove, 7% No opinion
A US nationwide Pew poll from May (pdf, p. 18) turned up 38% in favor and 49% against marriage equality for gays and lesbians, but is not broken down by religion.
“Supports marriage equality” is obviously not exactly synonymous with “not homophobic” but is probably a useful rough estimate. Also, admittedly, not every part of America resembles California. However, even if every non-Christian in the country supported marriage equality, it would still take a much larger percentage of Christians than you give credit to make up the rest of that 38% in the Pew poll.
So there’s some data about what’s going on — in this country anyway.
Beyond that though, you pretty much missed my point. Even if your estimate were correct, it would still make the generalization indefensible. Conventionally, LGBT folks are 10% of the population. If 10% of Christians were non-homophobic, that would make the statement “all Christians hate gays” about equally valid as “everyone is heterosexual”.
I have no problem with mocking intolerant and bigoted Christians (or anyone else with those qualities), but I don’t think the cartoonist does that successfully here.
The last sentence of my previous comment (while technically true) doesn’t really address what’s going on here. The cartoonist is not so much mocking bigots as a perceived cluelessness among moderates. I don’t think that’s successful either.
I just think you’re over analyzing my cartoon. The people that I’m mocking in the cartoon are people that I usually come across in Texas that haven’t really given that much thought towards their beliefs or arguments. My intent for the cartoon was to make it anecdotal. Just come down to Texas for a little bit, and you’ll see some of these people.
The main focus of the cartoon wasn’t to mock bigots. I was trying to poke fun at tolerant Christians that wonder why atheists make comments that homosexuality is a sin in most religions. Just take it with a grain of salt.
Calm down. It’s a play on media attention and generalizations, not religious bigots.
…not to mention that tolerant Christians are as responsible for intolerant ones as tolerant Muslims are for their intolerant kin. The criticism is valid. If it’s YOUR fairy tale they’ve hijacked, DEFEND it!
It’s not my job to be sensitive to your feelings.
I get what you were trying to do. And yes, the main focus was not to mock bigots (hence my self-correction above).
There is probably some way of writing the first panel that would convey that your Christian character is the particular kind of dope you’re trying for, but I don’t believe that the current version succeeds. It’s the word “generalization” that seems to be causing most of the problem. The logic simply doesn’t work.
The generalization is false, and given that the atheist character’s answer tacitly accepts the generalization as true, the cartoon is easy to read as an acceptance of ignorance on the part of the atheist. Thus, to anyone not predisposed to think the worst of Christians, the message probably backfires.
I have no idea what particular questions you hear from clueless believers, but if the Christian said something like, “Not all Christians hate gays! Why do you atheists go on about it so much?” it would avoid the problem, and the answer would still make sense. (I expect there are better ways to put it than what I came up with, but hopefully it shows what I’m driving at.)
In any case, best of luck with your cartooning.
Are those uses of “your” directed at me, or are they generic? If the former, your unwarranted assumption are showing.
Also, if you think anything you’ve said has any bearing on my actual argument, you should probably read it again.
Dude, settle! They’re directed at the clueless moderates. The criticism refers to the cartoon. The point is: where is the strong criticism among moderate Muslims of the terrorists? Does that not seem germane?
I obviously misunderstood your intent. My apologies.
It’s not that hard to find moderate Christians who are critical of fundie lunacy and the intransigence of other moderates on homosexuality and such — the media just doesn’t pay attention to them. However, I think the cartoonist is aiming at a rather more clueless group who give the appearance of not even comprehending that there’s a problem with theocrats and bigots taking over the public discourse.
nice one.
The comic is indeed funny – but it forgot to mention an important source of where Atheists get their opinion from… how about the foundation of their entire belief system – their Holiest of Holy Books, the Bible!
If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. [Leviticus 20:13]
And more:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm
Is the ‘Atheist’ in this cartoon wearing very big glasses because he’s myopic and can’t see beyond the most superficial and self-reflecting realities around him? May I recommend contact lenses?
“The comic is indeed funny – but it forgot to mention an important source of where Atheists get their opinion from… how about the foundation of their entire belief system – their Holiest of Holy Books, the Bible!
If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. [Leviticus 20:13]
And more:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm”
Ah yes! The Old Testament! Could you tell me the last time in history when the Jews, any Jews (for whom the book was intended), actually carried out that Commandment? Alas, Jewish teaching is not just the Old Testament or even the Books of Moses. There is also the Talmud, for instance, in which you will find the Jewish concept of ‘the Honour Of All Living Things’ which holds that no Commandment is ever to be carried out if it violates the integrity and honour of a living human being. Look into it. You may be surprised. Try those contact lenses I recommended if you find it hard to read.
And then let’s take a look at what the New Testament says on these subjects shall we? What do the Gospels say about homosexuality? Oh look! Nothing at all! How odd! What they DO say though includes:
“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, that ye also love one another.” – John 13:34-35
and here’s a good one which I am sure you will be familiar with:
“Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS.” – Matthew 22:35-40
In other words, the twin commandments of LOVE supercede EVERYTHING before. If Love does not inform one’s behaviour, then one is not, strictly speaking, entitled to call oneself a Christian.
Think I’m lying? Let’s see what Paul has to say:
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burnt, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing… And no abideth faith, hope and love, these three; but the greatest of these is LOVE.” – 1st Corinthians 13
and John:
“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love…. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us… he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” – First Epistle of John 4: 7-16
I think I’ve made my point. In terms of sheer volume, the injunctions to love (and there are many more than these) outweigh the references to homosexuality you will find in the Bible. Remember that for anyone calling themselves a Christian, the New Testament is supposed to SUPERSEDE the Old.
By all means slag religious people, but try not to be as stupid, as ignorant and ill-informed as they are.
Or at least buy contact lenses.
Yes, because we’ve all seen pro gay christian protests…..
I don’t see why anybody has a problem with gay marriage anyway. I believe they have as much right to suffer as heterosexuals if they so choose.
(sorry, bad joke)
Soooo…… Jews don’t follow the ‘commandments’ of god (presumably because they are ‘rational’) AND ‘true’ chistians don’t even have too!
ummm… I think you attached this reply to the wrong comment.
Very nice. But regardless of all that talk of love,god will still toss you into the big bad fire if you don’t do what he wants. Kinda pisses all over the love thing huh?
It would indeed – if it were what the Bible unequivocally said (and I was under the impression that that was what we were discussing ie the Bible as the source of all Atheists’ generalisations) or indeed if the reactionary element of modern Christianity was really born out by the Bible or the teachings of religion. THis is my point – and to be fair I should probably have included your average Christian to not be ignorant either – before you make a generalisation, you should inform yourself.
I feel the same way as you about the idea of Hell and Eternal Damnation, that it pisses on the whole idea of love and justice which is preached by Christ. Thing is, its not born out as an idea by the Bible or Christ. For starters, if the Old Testament is being used as any guide there is NO notion of Hell in it. The Jews don’t believe in Hell. At best there is a Purgatorial-type place where Sins can be burnt off over a fixed period of time. As Jesus was a Jew, its reasonable to assume he was referring to this and NOT the Eternal Damnation place used as a means to terrorise everyone into obedience by the Catholic Church. But even this is a perversion of the message of the New Testament in particular, the NT being what any so-called Christian is actually supposed to be working from. Paul hardly mentions Hell and Christ’s few mentions of it are far outweighed by the vast amount of positive statements about forgiveness, equality, justice, love and light (see above). If you go back to the Zenith of Christian thinking, Hell as an idea is almost entirely superceded by discussion of the Light and Love imagery of the Bible – check out St Bonaventure, St Francis, St Bernard of Clairvaux, St Gregory of Palamas, St Gregory the Theologian, Meister Eckhardt, Juliana of Norwich etc etc. Never heard of these guys? Well that’s what I mean about informing yourself – and I think this applies to most Christians who know nothing of their past either. These guys were all pivotal to the development of Christianity and lie at its root.
Besides which, obsession with Sin and Damnation is primarily a Western Churches phenomenon and is much less in the Eastern Churches (ie Russian. Greek, Syriac, Coptic etc etc) and even less so in other forms of Christianity (ie Gnostic, Cathar, Lollard, Beguine etc etc) all of which focus on the Light/Love/Indwelling Spirit/Divinity of Man imagery of the Bible. The Nazi School of Christianity we know and hate is all about control and reaction and emerges out of the tortured history of the West, particularly Calvinism (at the root of American Christianity), Catholicism and Protestantism etc etc. This has caused “all this talk about love” to be resolutely played down in favour of ‘”the big bad fire” which is where I join you in condemnation of what we now call Christianity. But it was not always so and the Bible is not the main problem. The main problem is the ignorance and stupidity of so many people (many, but not all, unless you want to make stupid generalisations) who call themselves Christians but who don’t read or think about what they are supposed to be following.
I’m guessing this particular cartoonist is American? I am very aware of the danger of the rise of the reactionary Christian Right in the US. But I should point out that they are the CHRISTIAN RIGHT and do not speak for all Christianity or all Christians – or even Christ, who said nothing about gay people, abortion, gay marriage etc and a great deal about helping the poor, loving even those who are our enemies and not killing anyone.
So – what is the problem: Christ and the Bible or a load of dangerous, intolerant nuts who don’t know what they are talking about?
To conlcude – I should point out that I belong to no religion. particularly not any organised version of Christianity as in my POV, none of them are very much based on anything Christ said. The difference between us is that I draw a distinction between Christ and those who call themselves his followers – and I see Christ solely as a Teacher as valid and influential as any other in history.
Sigh…
If you knew anything about Judaism you would know that the Old Testament is only th starting point of what Jews do and think, with the Books of Moses in particular being no more than a blueprint. Jews also revere the Talmud, the Kabbalah, the Midrash, the Mishnah, the Halachah and the Gemarah, all of which involve centuries of discussion and exploration of what the Old Testament actually means. Thus since the Books of Moses were written they have been discussing and debating and working out what the meaning of the words are. Every objection you would have to them – they are contradictory, harsh, complex and obscure – they have already anticipated and been discussing for ages. Hence their approach to the most severe of the Commandments mentioned above. So no, its got nothing to do with not following the Commandments but interpretation of what those Commandments mean and how they can be understood in the light of justice and compassion which are central to Jewish ethics. This is why, although there have been reactionary Jews and Rabbis in the past, by and large none of the death penalty Commandments have been followed over the centuries as they conflict with the more humane side of Judaism. Punishments, when inflicted, have been symbolic or tempered by mercy etc etc.
As for Christians, again if you knew anything about it you would know that Christ constantly emphasised that Love and Mercy should supercede all the Commandments of the Old Testament. He speaks out against stonings, spends his time with people who have been outcast by orthodox Pharisaic Judaism, argues that killing is wrong etc etc. He does say that people should keep the old commandments, but he gives new ones, the prime one being that everyone should ‘Love one another as I have loved you’. In the first Chapter of John’s Gospel the text says that the Law came with Moses but that ‘Grace and Truth’ came with Christ. Then if you look at Paul and the whole trend of Christianity you will see that there is a concerted push away from the legalistic so-called ‘Judaizers’ of Christianity who wanted to keep all the Old Testament commandments intact. You see this particularly in Paul who argues in favour of Faith over following the Law doggedly (he was behind the remark ‘The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life’ ie that the Spirit of the Law was more important than the Letter).
Thus Christians are supposed to REINTERPRET the commandments of the Old Testament in the light of Christ’s new teachings. By and large they don’t, because they are too hard. Christ doesn’t really deal in black and white ‘rights and wrongs’ but instead emphasises a kind of ascetic spirituality which is against such boundaries and judgement. THe whole tendency of organised Christianity has been to move away from that in favour of Old Testament judgements (without the benefit of Jewish discussion on them mentioned above) as boundaries and absolutes are all most people can grasp. And if you want to keep people in place giving them fixed laws to keep is the best way, but this isn’t what Christ taught.
So I hope this answers your question and clarifies things a bit.
Pegasus, thanks for your reply. Having been a ‘nominal’ Christian for a good part of
my life, I don’t know a lot about Judism after the Old Testament. I’ve come to think
of Jews as being mostly atheist with a religious heritage/history. I see of lot of
Christian churches going in the same direction. Anyway, study the bronze age writings all all you want, they don’t add one bit of proof that their is a ‘god’ or mystical places to go after death to either be roasted, praise or just wait in ‘limbo’.
Thanks again.
John
Thanks for your reply too. And thanks for being courteous. Apols if there was any less-than courteous tone in mine.
As for ‘proofs’ of the things you mention, I wasn’t aware that was what we were discussing nor was I arguing for any such ‘proofs’. I thought we were talking about the issue of ‘where do Atheists get these crazy generalisations from’? I was responding specifically to the poster above who said it was all from the Bible, bringing one example of intolerance we wouild despise now to prove his point. I was just trying to set the record straight on that score.
In studying ‘the writings of the Bronze Age’, my interest is in finding out how our Consciousness in the West has evolved, not trying to ‘prove’ God. I am at the moment in India and it is fascinating to see a country in which so many religions and non-religions co-exist. Very quickly you see how each so-called ‘religion’ or tradition is an expression of millenia of thinking and how each one expresses itself in a different, though similar way spiritually, physically, politically, artistically, morally, politically and, most revealingly, architecturally. What I find fascinating about Judaism and Christianity is how they have shaped our view of the rights and dignity of the individual. Like it or not, Judeo-Christian ethics have shaped your liberal and humanr views, even though now these views are shorn of their Divine aspect. THe irony is that the very things that people attack these religions for – intolerance, fanaticism, reaction, ignorance etc – are the very things those religions originally came about to combat. THings have come full circle. Everything Christ preached against in the Gospels the Churches have been guilty for millenia. You will find the same evolution of a humane consciousness in Judaism. One might even say that, given an inhuman religion, the Jews set about humanizing it while given a human one, the Christians set about dehumanizing it!
Don’t leap to the conclusion, so often leaped to by people in this debate, that because I am interested in religions I am in some way some kind of mindless member of any religion. As I said above, to my mind most religious people are ignorant of their own religion and remain happy with a reactionary intepretation which they don’t have to think about. But great thinking and achievements have emerged from religious aspiration and cultrue in the past and I am interested in what that is, why it is and what has gone wrong. Just because I have a more subtle appreciation of these things, don’t assume I think I have ‘proofs’ of God or believe in the existence of Hell or Limbo or whatever. Religion and spirituality are just two of the many things I am interested in.
I am also very interested in the fact that so many of the posters on this site who are Atheists were once members of religions, ‘nominally’ or not. I wonder if your antipathy is as subjective and emotive and as based on ‘anecdotal’ reasons (ie ones derived from personal experience) as those who remain in religions? I have found that the worst religious proseletysers are converts, ie people who have taken on a religion having not had one. I tend to find that most haters of religion once were members and moved away. I myself have no religion and was not brought up with one so don’t have that experience. I wonder what your thoughts on this possibility might be? It would explain why so often when I have these discussions walls of hostility and a refusal to engage emerge. Anything I say tends to get reduced to comments such as ‘they don’t add one bit of proof that there is a god or mystical places to go after death to either be roasted, praise or just wait in limbo’, things I never suggested and don’t believe in either. Thus a nuanced, interesting discussion never happens, which is a shame as there is so much to learn from each other. From my POV, and I have had similar discussions with religious people, a closed mind is a closed mind and is often so because open it would mean risking allowing all sorts of difficult issues to come in and rock cherished opinions and defences.
I don’t mean this as an attack. Like you, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and respect for that. Its just that, from my perspective, the fixed thinking I find on this site is no different from the fixed thinking I find from religious people. Take away the viewpoint and the behaviour is the same. I wonder what you think about this?