Pharyngula

Posted by: Moses | December 6, 2008 4:29 PM

Very true.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 4:30 PM

Great find! Where have we heard that before?

Posted by: Michael.hawkins | December 6, 2008 4:35 PM

Granted, belief in gods deserves no respect because it is pure faith, but I think it may be a bit crass to suggest we should be laughing in each others' faces. We can disagree, but we should disagree in harmony.

Posted by: Rey Fox | December 6, 2008 4:39 PM

Scaurus is not amused.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 4:41 PM

Cue the sad violin music for Scaurus, the concern troll.

Posted by: LisaJ | December 6, 2008 4:44 PM

Parfait. I agree PZ, Scaurus just made this post all the more hilarious!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 4:47 PM

Scaurus, we all go about this our own way. If you like yours, do it. You have posted your opinion and we read it. We don't have to agree with it. Personally, I'm not going to agree with you, but I only speak for myself.

Posted by: Scaurus | December 6, 2008 4:53 PM

I rarely agree with PZ, but I do find it interesting to read his blog. I see many differences between the way Americans 'profess' their atheism and the way Dutch people do. The latter have been fully accepted in society: we had our first atheist prime minister in 1948. A socialist, but one cannot have it all. You American atheists are not unlike the African-Americans in the 1960s. You have to fight for your right not to belief. Though I am opposed to the liberal attitude among many American atheists, I admire their efforts in making atheists an accepted 'minority' in their society.

Posted by: ThinkingApe | December 6, 2008 4:59 PM

Hahaha. Holy shit, that is totally my Sister-in-Law. She came to Vietnam (where my wife's from) for our wedding and thought the shrines with fruit and Buddha statues were hilarious. "I wonder if they know their statues can't eat, hurhurhur". Then we'd see some old Cham ruins, "Hahaha, as if they beleived in Ganesh, hahaha...elephant head...snicker..."

Then, in all seriousness, she'll start talking about how there's more evidence of the literal resurection of Christ than evolution, or talk about being oppressed by non-believers.

Ah, I love her though...

Posted by: Scaurus | December 6, 2008 5:01 PM

Nietzsche went mad some years ago. Search for the archive in your local library.

Posted by: Wowbagger | December 6, 2008 5:07 PM

Scaurus,

If you don't like in the US then you mightn't understand that it's not the same as in Europe, or even here in Australia where I live. PZ and the US regulars are frequently told by politicians, tv/radio pundits and people in other media that they are, at best, worthless, second-class citizens - and, at worst, evil anti-americans compared to theists. If I had to put up with that I'd be a lot more vocal about my atheism than I am.

Posted by: John Morales | December 6, 2008 5:08 PM

Scaurus, you don't find the cartoon droll? I do (it's funny because it's true), and am amused.

As to your opinion in #12, you're indulging in a hasty generalisation.

Finally, your posts at #12 and #15 seem contradictory.

Posted by: Carlie | December 6, 2008 5:10 PM

(points) Scaurus! Ha ha ha!

Just trying to keep the theme of the comic.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 6, 2008 5:20 PM

Scaurus #15

I see many differences between the way Americans 'profess' their atheism and the way Dutch people do. The latter have been fully accepted in society: we had our first atheist prime minister in 1948. A socialist, but one cannot have it all.

Congratulations to the Dutch. Too bad the US isn't so advanced, including having a socialist as head of government.

You American atheists are not unlike the African-Americans in the 1960s. You have to fight for your right not to belief.

A reasonable analogy.

Though I am opposed to the liberal attitude among many American atheists, I admire their efforts in making atheists an accepted 'minority' in their society.

Missing Florentine Rost van Tonningen are you?

Posted by: Brad D | December 6, 2008 5:32 PM

Do Goatees count? I can't really grow much of the rest.

Posted by: Red Deer | December 6, 2008 5:42 PM

Scaurus in post #4

Furthermore, I cannot understand why people like hanging out here.

Scaurus in post #15

I rarely agree with PZ, but I do find it interesting to read his blog.

Pwned hisself.

Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 6, 2008 5:58 PM

. Too bad the US isn't so advanced, including having a socialist as head of government.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 6:10 PM

Scaurus: sorry but your english really sucks.

How's your Dutch?

Posted by: JStein | December 6, 2008 6:20 PM

This is great. Thanks for the saturday afternoon humor.

Posted by: Geoff | December 6, 2008 6:21 PM

How's your Dutch?

Posted by: Matt7895 | December 6, 2008 6:28 PM

Good catch, PZ. I just put it up on my Facebook page, I wonder if any of my theistic friends will comment.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 6:32 PM

You are right. I'm being petty.

His english still sucks.

alright then

Posted by: nanu nanu | December 6, 2008 6:34 PM

currie jean #38:
"zomg, it's Dana Scully! :O"

I lol'd

I did always find it odd that the christian was the skeptical one on that show.

Was anyone else bothered by that?

Posted by: notedscholars@yahoo.com | December 6, 2008 6:50 PM

I don't think good arguments could be constructed in support of the insinuated analogy between the elements that the comic describes.

NS
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Jadehawk | December 6, 2008 6:56 PM

It has become obvious that all atheists should have beards ;)

*that being the only two instances in which I might be able to grow one.

Posted by: Teleprompter | December 6, 2008 7:25 PM

@ Scaurus #4, #15

Some atheists seem to have "lost all humor and nuance"? What??? You're the one complaining about our jokes. Really...I think the one who has lost his appreciation for humor is you.

Also, you have no right to complain about the behavior of American atheists, since you have never been an atheist in America.

Yes, you are correct that we have to stand up for our rights. And it's also a great relief to be able to laugh about it along with people who (usually) won't judge us (which is why a lot of us enjoy hanging around this blog).

Atheists are not an accepted minority in much (if not most) of America, so thanks for your encouragement.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 6, 2008 7:38 PM

Fortunately for me, I have a beard. Unfortunately, my atheist daughter remains beardless. I must speak to her about this lack.

Posted by: Geoff | December 6, 2008 7:43 PM

This would be the beer in question:

http://www.eurobrews.com/bahhumbug/bah.htm

Posted by: Emily | December 6, 2008 7:48 PM

To be fair, that comic could be drawn with any of the other religious/paranormal believers in place of the Christian.

Posted by: SC | December 6, 2008 7:51 PM

Completely OT, but...

Q: What do you call a factory occupation in Chicago?

A: A good start!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6407451

Posted by: Teleprompter | December 6, 2008 8:14 PM

@ negentropyeater #56

Whoa...that is not what I meant.

If Creationists were marginalized as immoral, second-class citizens, that analogy of yours would be totally appropriate. However, they are not.

I made that statement in light of the comparison between the Civil Rights movement and the struggles of atheists in America. I think you took my ideas out of context...I'd suggest you go back and reread the discussion.

Posted by: clinteas | December 6, 2008 8:38 PM

I have no doubt that Neg got it right !
It was a silly thing to say.

Posted by: Kuki | December 6, 2008 9:39 PM

I may not agree with Scaurus' ideas, but I do think his English is pretty good. I enjoy reading this blog as there aren't so many Japanese-language blogs dedicated to these particular topics (atheism, science, etc.) and I find PZ's blog to be a useful resource. I know my English sucks, though, does that mean I should stay away from commenting here?

A bit off-putting, really.

Posted by: Teleprompter | December 6, 2008 9:42 PM

Okay, I imagine that I have some explaining to do.

Yes, John Morales is essentially correct. I was frustrated with negentropyeater's lambastment of American atheists, and I felt compelled to say something in response. I have to admit, that wasn't the best thing I could've said.

I still believe that it was silly for negentropyeater to say what he said; now, my comments weren't exactly the most appropriate, either. I believe that he is wrong; I also believe that I am wrong. So it goes.

The only way I can defend my comments is by once again re-emphasizing that what I said was in the context of a comparison between the civil rights movement and the problems of American atheists. That may not add any validity to what I said, but now you may understand why I said what I did, instead of casually dismissing it.

Yes, the "you've not experienced what I've experienced" argument that I used is not something I would say again in this context. It's a weak argument, yes. I realize that now. However, it's like this: negentropyeater was basically insulting American atheists. I rebuked him for insulting us when he has no idea what he's talking about. Is that intrinsically flawed?

I generally try to rebuke people who don't know what they're talking about, and I see the "you've not experienced what I've experienced" argument as a weak but logical counter-point. Going back to the original creationist analogy, yes, it would help to know something about creationism before insulting creationists. Likewise, it would be helpful to know something about American atheists before unnecessarily criticizing us.

Scaurus had no right to complain because he knew nothing about atheism in America. It would foolhardy for me to criticize creationists if I knew nothing about creationism in America, or anywhere else. Knowing little or nothing about the subject which one is referring to certainly does not take away one's right to comment on it, but it does put a bit of a damper on it.

Posted by: Geoff | December 6, 2008 9:52 PM

I know my English sucks, though, does that mean I should stay away from commenting here?

Your english does not suck.

Posted by: Aquaria | December 6, 2008 10:00 PM

Tele: I got what you were trying to say, even it it came out kind of mangled.

Posted by: Teleprompter | December 6, 2008 10:02 PM

On the other hand, I would feel sad if people like Scaurus left Pharyngula just because some people disagree. I like when people disagree -- no matter how angry I may sound at the time, haha.

I want to maintain some kind of variety, and things just get dull.

Posted by: Teleprompter | December 6, 2008 10:10 PM

@ becca #74

What do you mean by that???

Posted by: Miguel | December 6, 2008 10:13 PM

Classic! :D

Posted by: Sastra | December 6, 2008 10:20 PM

Emily #57 wrote:

To be fair, that comic could be drawn with any of the other religious/paranormal believers in place of the Christian.

I'm not sure it could. One of the 'nice' things about people with New-Age style fringe religious and paranormal beliefs is also one of the most frustrating: they do not like to criticize opposing beliefs of others in the same category. "There are many paths to enlightenment." "We all have our own truths." "Take what you need, and leave the rest." It's all non-judgmental, ecumenical acceptance.

Go to one of the New Age fairs, and you will not see the crystal healing people sneering at the pyramid-energy people. The tarot card readers will not roll their eyes over the astrologers, the astrologers will not laugh at people who were abducted by aliens, and alien abductees don't shake their heads in disbelief over people who think we are surrounded by shape-shifting lizards. This is the case even when the claims of one directly contradict the other. The guy who insists that all cancers are caused by eating cooked foods has no quarrel with the lady who announces that all cancers are caused by liver flukes. Their common enemies, Big Pharma and the Scientific Medical Establishment, unite them in harmony.

There are no quarrels at all. No arguments, no debates, no disputes. No peer review where they rip apart bad ideas. It's all good.

Unless you're a Christian who thinks New Agers are going to hell and their spirituality is false. Or an atheist who thinks there's no good scientific support for any of the claptrap they're promoting as science. Then they laugh, scoff, sneer, and scorn those who are judgmental and close-minded and less tolerant than they are.

We atheists see the point of the cartoon as being that the Christian is just as silly as the 'fringies,' and has no right to protect her own similar views with a sudden and hypocritical call for respect. Faith is a cop out. All religious beliefs are fair game.

Fringies, on the other hand, might very well read the cartoon as showing that the Christian is just as bad and intolerant as the horrible atheist, and should follow her own advice. Faith is cherished. No religion should ever be disrespected.

Posted by: John Morales | December 6, 2008 10:38 PM

Aquaria @70 FTW,

In fact, I think from now on, I'll refer all people with such grievous concerns about the "tone" of this site, whether it be "mean" or "angry" or "militant," to the Nitwit blog.

I'm sure they'll be much happier there.

Posted by: clinteas | December 6, 2008 10:44 PM

becca,

it did not occur to me at all to interpret anything into whos saying what to who based on what genders they are.
I think its totally irrelevant to the cartoon.
Some sensitivities on your side,I assume.....

Posted by: Steve Saunders | December 6, 2008 10:53 PM

Just thought I'd stop in to say I absolutely loved this strip! Thanks a million to PZ and the cartoonist for making me almost choke on my soup from the laughter. :)

Posted by: Freki | December 6, 2008 11:27 PM

It's not necessary for the joke to have the genders be like that, so why perpetuate the "women are less rational" tripe?

oh, horseshit, the woo-agers were majority male.

From one woman to another, you're a twit.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 6, 2008 11:58 PM

Clinteas #78

One of the flaws of the English language, actually, IMO, in French or German or Spanish there is a female form.

I've always thought lack of genders in English was a strong point, not a flaw. Why should everything have a gender, especially inanimate objects that have no obvious sexuality or gender identification?

Posted by: Liberal Atheist | December 7, 2008 12:33 AM

Funny cartoon, what's not funny is that it really works like that in real life too.

And since I'm not a sexist, I don't care who is male and who is female in that cartoon. Some do, I'm sure. But since someone brought it up... It seems there are three females and two males in that cartoon.

One woman believes in spirits.
One woman believes in flying saucers.
One woman believes in at least one god.
One man is a Hindu.
The other man is an atheist, but may very well believe in both the spirit world and flying saucers.

Somehow it is offensive to have one of the women believe in at least one god, yet for some reason it's not offensive to portray a man as a Hindu and another man as an insensitive jerk who also may believe other weird things.

Funny.

Also, I'm really sorry that my English is as bad as it is...

Posted by: pcarini | December 7, 2008 3:39 AM

becca @ #80:

I mean that the atheist in the cartoon (or the "haha God" dude, who needn't be an atheist, I suppose) is male, and the punchline is him laughing at a woman.

It's not necessary for the joke to have the genders be like that, so why perpetuate the "women are less rational" tripe?

*scroll down a bit to see his picture on his site: http://fleasnobbery.blogspot.com/2008/12/laughing.html

Posted by: scelesor | December 7, 2008 3:57 AM

For some of you who want even MORE pics making fun of religion,

http://lolgod.blogspot.com/

Posted by: John Morales | December 7, 2008 4:49 AM

blf @96, in English the convention is to use the singular they - e.g. "anyone can be an atheist, if they wish to be". Other efforts ("hir") haven't achieved acceptance.

Posted by: blf | December 7, 2008 5:02 AM

John Morales@97, the singular "they" fails the clearly-understood requirement. If you drop the need for clarity, I agree, it is a convention that is used. But it is not clear, and it is not what I was opinionating was needed.

Posted by: clinteas | December 7, 2008 5:40 AM

gender neutrality in English is nice and appreciated when you first learn it,it almost feels too easy....
But its lacking in clarity IMO,and can be confusing.
Same with "How are you",you will use the same phrase whether you talk to your professor or the beggar across the road.I guess there's an equalizer there somewhere,and Im just more used to hierarchies LOL

Posted by: blf | December 7, 2008 6:09 AM

John Morales@100, don't get me wrong, ambiguity or unclarity is just the thing at times. But not at other times. Anyways, I think we agree: Singular "they" is useful and used, but is not always ideal.

clinteas@101, Bill Bryson in one of his popular books on the English language quoted an expert to the effect "English is the only language which doesn't have hierarchies". I presume it may have had them in the distant past (it did have both accents and genders), but they vanished a long time ago as a regular part of the language. And as I recall, they vanished partly as a result of the Norman Invasion: The conquerors spoke Norman French and ignored--but to their credit made no effort to suppress--the English of the time. With no-one using it much for writing or anything other than local verbal communication, it developed (simplified) considerably, but that also lead to the many variations in spelling, pronunciation, and meaning, and other assorted weirdnesses it's now famous for.

(I apologise for not recalling which book (Bill's written several), or the expert. And I hope I haven't misrecalled the ghist of the quote.)

Posted by: clinteas | December 7, 2008 6:51 AM

I love this time of the night,when we aussies and europeans can have the blog for ourselves,only the occasional coward drive-by troll shows up,and the discussions are red-hot and open-blade..:-)

I've missed SC tho tonight,she would have had fun.

Posted by: blf | December 7, 2008 7:18 AM

Well, Europeans and convicts do seem to predominate at this time of the day, but don't forget our friends in Japan, Africa, and other parts of the relevant timezones. Judging by the worldclock it looks like the N. Americans will be waking up soon... oh well, it's fun while it lasts! ;-)

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | December 7, 2008 8:34 AM

becca @80

It's not necessary for the joke to have the genders be like that, so why perpetuate the "women are less rational" tripe?

Being the cartoonist, I think I can answer that.

In the early stages of drawing this cartoon, I made the decision of having either the Christian or the atheist as a female, and the other as a male. There was no reason for this other than having a cast of varied gender, and there was also no reason for the final choice. I didn't think much about it; I could have as easily have the sexes reversed, since it never occurred to me that that could be in any way relevant to the joke.

And, as it has already been pointed out, both the Hare Krishna and the ufo buffs are guys (yes, people, the ufo buff is a guy with a ponytail).

Posted by: blf | December 7, 2008 9:21 AM

Andrés, so you intended the bearded guy to be an atheist? That's certainly the obvious way of reading the cartoon, but it has occurred to some people (including myself) he could just be some other religious type. Perhaps a bit far-fetched, but not implausible.

Not that it matters any. It is a funny cartoon, perhaps simply because it's a good caricature of what happens. Thanks!

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | December 7, 2008 9:33 AM

blf @111, you've got a point there. But I don't think that it ultimately changes the effect of the punchline or the overall meaning, so the guy in red can be anything you like.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 7, 2008 9:48 AM

thx blf

Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 7, 2008 10:11 AM

blf,

On English lack of grammatical gender and (mostly) explicit cases, I've heard it suggested that this preceded the Norman conquest, because English arose as a pidgin all down the east coast of Britain on the 7th-8th centuries. However, I can't give you a specific reference.

The conquerors spoke Norman French and ignored--but to their credit made no effort to suppress--the English of the time. - blf

I don't think the possibility of suppressing it would even have occurred to them. What could it possibly matter to the invaders (damn the swine for robbing us of our Saxon liberties!) what patois their serfs grunt in? The intermediaries who they needed to deal with would have had to learn Norman French.

Posted by: blf | December 7, 2008 10:43 AM

Nick@117, I've heard that as well (and also lack any reference); that is, that gender et al. was already on its way out by the time of the Norman conquest. However, it's my understanding (but I couild easily be mistaken here) that the process is more obvious (or appears to have accelerated) after the conquest. On the other hand, there's so little written English from those times that the timing is uncertain, and that that effect, if it even exists, could just be sampling error.

You're point about it not even occurring to the Normans to try and suppress English is certainly plausible. One small bit of evidence in support of that is William himself apparently tried to learn English (but didn't succeed). What I believe we can say with reasonable certainty is there's no known evidence of an attempt, and very possibly none of a proposal, to suppress English. Again, however, I could easily be mistaken since this subject, whilst of some interest to me, is not my area of expertise or study.

Of course, after awhile, the very idea would have gone nowhere. As English-speaking locals became lords and other higher-ups in the court, they had to learn the (increasingly outdated) Norman French. It's always been my understanding that as you look at court/royal (and possibly other) documents in the centuries after the invasion, you see more and more evidence they were originally composed in English and then translated to the court's Norman French. And of course, at some time (I don't recall when) the royals/court finally switched to English.

Posted by: jose | December 7, 2008 12:36 PM

ever read one of those Chick comics?

http://fleasnobbery.blogspot.com/2008/09/offer.html

Posted by: Kevin | December 7, 2008 1:13 PM

I think the irony would have been better displayed if you had the Religious person making fun of everyone else's beliefs, then have the atheist make fun of the religious person belief.

Posted by: Steve_C | December 7, 2008 1:32 PM

eh?

Posted by: Kevin Burton | December 7, 2008 6:02 PM

Hey,

Don't mock my faith. I still believe that Zeus controls the thunder and lightning :-P

Posted by: Wowbagger | December 7, 2008 6:18 PM

Re: #114

Well, as a descendant of convicts transported to Australia, I can say that, while I'm not exactly proud of it, I do also realised that the laws of England in the day were overly harsh and what my ancestor(s) did to deserve transportation may not have been all that bad.

Clinteas #116 - well, he wasn't one of mine. All my famiy on the convict-descendant side live in Sydney...

Posted by: Steve_C | December 7, 2008 8:51 PM

Are Spock and Scarus related???

Posted by: Kel | December 7, 2008 9:07 PM

I was recently called an "elitist, pompous, bigoted asshole" for making a case against faith as a justification for belief. Now what there anything wrong with what I said? Not really, but man did I touch a nerve. The religious meme has a great defence mechanism in that respect, the cultural taboo sits there and acts as a guardian to silence anyone who dare question it.

Posted by: Graculus | December 7, 2008 9:40 PM

Weirdly, despite being essentially Germanic, English has borrowed very few words from German.

Well, we were talking grammar, not vocabulary, but...

English doesn't have to borrow words from German, as it *is* German... Old Low German. Think about it.. why do you need to "borrow" your own stuff?

I'm not saying that there isn't a lot of French loanwords, but a lot of them are from modern French, and a lot of them are "technical" terms. Conversational English vocabulary is somewhere north of 80% Saxon. In fact, someone with a working knowledge of archaic modern English can read Old English without a dictionary and with very very few lacunae.

I paraphrase from memory: "English does not borrow from other languages, it chases them down alleys, knocks them over the head and goes through their pockets."

Posted by: Wowbagger | December 7, 2008 10:12 PM

One of my favourite quotes about English - and its priorities - comes from Terry Pratchett:

Mind you, the Elizabethans had so many words for the female genitals that it is quite hard to speak a sentence of modern English without inadvertently mentioning at least three of them.

Posted by: Pokhara | December 8, 2008 12:38 AM

old but nice one.

Posted by: Boerwars | December 8, 2008 8:34 PM

To becca, your preposterous unnecessary banter on "sexism" reminds me of this strip by the great Tracie Harris...

http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/?id=13

enjoy!

Posted by: teammarty | December 9, 2008 2:56 PM

Is a moustache OK??

Posted by: Anon | December 9, 2008 3:28 PM

Dear Scaurus,
......

You're a douche
-anon

Posted by: mike | December 9, 2008 7:18 PM

beards! hahahahahaha

Posted by: Vlad Nistor | December 10, 2008 3:50 AM

I'm not sure why, but the woman in the picture reminds me of Sarah Palin...