Comic Genesis Forums

::cries:: ...and I love SinFest.

This is the worst sinfest ever. So, we counter-balance with panel three of this one which may well be the best panel of SinFest in history.

Honor wrote:::cries:: ...and I love SinFest.

This is the worst sinfest ever.

In Sinfest there is a god.

And a devil. And a buddha. And a dragon.

True, and also, obviously, 100% beside the point.

First, if it had been intended as a "cannon cohesive" installment, it'd be a non-starter. The character has spoken to and had conversation with the cannon deity directly. Unless she's suddenly become a brain-damaged amnesiac, then it's a non-issue.

So... It must be another kind of statement, huh?

Perhaps it's a statement about the "obviousness" of the need for a supernatural architect? And the path to faith seems to be "Gee... Since I'm too small minded to imagine any other way for all this to have gotten here, it must have been made by a magical genie in the sky!"

(What a coincidence. I was going to link you to this one the next time I saw you online.)

I was a little upset by that Sinfest comic, too. It seems strange, though, that the artist would express that kind of sentiment, considering how often he writes material that could be construed as sacrilegious. I've tried to convince myself that it's not a moral installment so much as an insight into one of the character's minds. I can't see Slick saying the same thing, for instance - not unless he was facing a huge pile of tits and money.

And I'm with you on the third panel of "Gay Sinfest". It's super hot. And super frustrating. Why, why, why, why, why do I have to be so attracted to lesbian women?

While we're on the topic of "earthly material as evidence for/against God" comic strips, this is probably my favorite.

My two cents..

Sinfest has been nothing if not consistent goodliness.. and for a daily webcomic, that one guy is doing quite well methinks. As for the comic in question.. I think it's a moot point for her to be debating the existence of God, having once seen (and held) his autograph. Perhaps, if we add an extra 'o' into the word "God". I daresay that might be what she was looking for, and what she might have found.

As for the gay comic.. I'm not sure which panel you mean as the best one. The last one, with Jesus and Satan, or the second to last one, which I will now end this post and go do something about? *fap fap fap*

Freerefill wrote:My two cents..

Sinfest has been nothing if not consistent goodliness.. and for a daily webcomic, that one guy is doing quite well methinks.

I agree... He rocks. Which is why this rather blunt-instrument obvious strip bothers me so much, I think.

Freerefill wrote:As for the gay comic.. I'm not sure which panel you mean as the best one.

I wrote:So, we counter-balance with panel three of this one...

...emphasis added, for clarity.

He doesn't say which god it is. Heck , it could even be that she was talking about the god inside her. Do you Grok?

I was also kinda disturbed by the tone of your post. Sounds like you are as zelous in your non-belief as they are in thier belief. Why does it bother you so much that some people believe in god?

[quote="Wipperwill"]. Do you Grok?[quote]

awesome book.

On the subject of God and idiots, I have no problem with people beiliving in god. They cross the line when they persuct others. That being said I think those people who do believe in god are stupid and just dont want to have the fear that they really dont matter in the grand scheme of the universe and when they die they gone.


Ps i realize that was a horrible run on sorry.

There is no grand scheme of the universe.

Wipperwill wrote:I was also kinda disturbed by the tone of your post. Sounds like you are as zelous in your non-belief as they are in thier belief.

Yes... By any reasonable measure, I am zealous... But zealous is not the same thing as zealotry...

Wipperwill wrote:Why does it bother you so much that some people believe in god?

It bothers me in the same way, and for the same reason, as it bothers me when someone is consumed with unnatural fears... Or when someone is crippled by racism... Or when someone is hobbled by an addiction to drugs.

It bothers me, as it bothers me to see someone condemned to a life half lived for lack of education and broad understanding.

It bothers me as it bothers me to see a little girl or young woman think of herself as less than she is, because she is told, repeatedly, of her own worthlessness by those who should be helping to hold her up and realize her own potential.

It bothers me when I see someone drowning... But this is so much worse, because these people are so very rarely satisfied with drowning by themselves. They cling to those around them, and drag them down with them...

They've filled a hole inside themselves with a hollow shell of an idea, and they're desperately thrashing... Consumed with the fervid hope that, if they simply surround themselves with enough 'others' to reassure them that they're ok and on the right track, the feeling of emptiness will go away.


It's not that I want people to 'believe' as I do, per se. I simply want to see them secure and at peace on their own terms. To be, of and for themselves. To see them not enslaved and made puppets and zombies by those around them, who are driven by their own short comings.

I know lots of people who take personal peace from their faith in "god" without trying to reinforce it by persuading others to tell them they are right, by accepting their views... I don't hassle them. I don't much debate with them, uninvited.

But, when I see them reaching for someone else, intent on filling the hole inside them by taking away someone else's hope and potential and very agency... I am driven to say "Leave them alone!!"

When I see someone in chains, so to speak, I am driven to release them.

Should I discover that they willingly and knowingly put those chains on themselves... I'm cool with that. I have lots of friends who are into bondage, and I understand the sense of security they derive from it, even if I don't share it. But I'll be damned if I'll stand by and let them chain up someone else, just to make themselves feel less kinky and perverted.

Wipperwill: A lot of it has to do with how, for a lot of people, "belief in God" translates into "belief in a super-powerful overseer who will make sure everything turns out for the best for everybody". They see God as an ally to all humanity, so by their logic, anyone who rejects the notion of such a being is viewed as an ingrate, a fool, or someone who actively hates things that are good and beautiful. Even the wishy-washy "God is love" types can be problematic, since by equating the two, they see anyone who rejects God as somebody who rejects love, and goodness, and decency, and all those things that really don't have anything to do with a celestial magic man. It's extremely difficult to get along with somebody - not just on a personal level, but on the level that we have to interact with humanity at large in order to function as a society - when they suspect you of being subversive and destructive.

While I more or less agree with Honor that people should be comfortable with the world on their terms - I can't force them to believe otherwise, nor do I want to try to do so - I think it's damaging to society when this sort of thinking is accepted and encouraged. Cognitively speaking, it is extremely difficult for someone to hold the opinion that "I'll believe that God exists and is looking out for us, and someone else can not hold that belief, and that will be that", because if they truly believed that beliefs made no difference whatsoever, they wouldn't even bother with their own. And if, somehow, they manage to cram those two notions together into their head where they don't mesh together at all, they obviously haven't really considered things carefully; dealing with people who exhibit such poor reasoning is difficult, and dealing with a society that promotes this type of doublethink is objectionable.

On a more visceral level, the people who believe "everything will turn out okay" and "there is goodness everywhere" are extremely cloying and aggravating, especially when they're confronted with actual badness in the world; since its existence doesn't fit in with their beliefs, they minimize its importance and fail to take real problems seriously, or if they do take it seriously, they trust that a powerful external force will make things right if they just want it enough, rather than taking real initiative and doing what they can to fix the problem themselves. Saying everything will be okay and avoiding the concept of unpleasantness, and not actually doing something about it, is childish and silly, and should have no place in a world run by mature, thinking adults.

Seth Marati wrote: Saying everything will be okay and avoiding the concept of unpleasantness, and not actually doing something about it, is childish and silly, and should have no place in a world run by mature, thinking adults.

Hmm, this statement sounds flawed to me. Something about "leading a horse to water...".

You can't tell a fool what to do, they will do what they want in any case. You're only responsible for yourself. Sure you can try to help others but they won't be forced. In the end, the world doesn't care what we think "should" belong in it.
I understand your point but again, fools and horses....

Honor wrote:
It bothers me in the same way, and for the same reason, as it bothers me when someone is consumed with unnatural fears... Or when someone is crippled by racism... Or when someone is hobbled by an addiction to drugs.

It bothers me, as it bothers me to see someone condemned to a life half lived for lack of education and broad understanding.

It bothers me as it bothers me to see a little girl or young woman think of herself as less than she is, because she is told, repeatedly, of her own worthlessness by those who should be helping to hold her up and realize her own potential.

It bothers me when I see someone drowning... But this is so much worse, because these people are so very rarely satisfied with drowning by themselves. They cling to those around them, and drag them down with them...

They've filled a hole inside themselves with a hollow shell of an idea, and they're desperately thrashing... Consumed with the fervid hope that, if they simply surround themselves with enough 'others' to reassure them that they're ok and on the right track, the feeling of emptiness will go away.


It's not that I want people to 'believe' as I do, per se. I simply want to see them secure and at peace on their own terms. To be, of and for themselves. To see them not enslaved and made puppets and zombies by those around them, who are driven by their own short comings.

...
(cut out some stuff)
...

But, when I see them reaching for someone else, intent on filling the hole inside them by taking away someone else's hope and potential and very agency... I am driven to say "Leave them alone!!"

When I see someone in chains, so to speak, I am driven to release them.

Should I discover that they willingly and knowingly put those chains on themselves... I'm cool with that. I have lots of friends who are into bondage, and I understand the sense of security they derive from it, even if I don't share it. But I'll be damned if I'll stand by and let them chain up someone else, just to make themselves feel less kinky and perverted.

With the exception of the little I cut out, this could sound like any fundie I ever met. If I reposted it in a fundie website I wouldnt change a thing and they would think I was a christian. (Is that on purpose?) I could even leave in the part I cut out and substitute "athiesm" and it would work great. They have the exact same reasoning for prolestything (I can't spell that word). I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing from an argument standpoint.

Sometimes it sounds like you only care about the method of their preaching, and other times its the message itself. From the way you put it, the first case is laudable, the second case is hypocritical. Complaining about others being zelous when you yourself are no different just sets off bells to me.

I agree that people shouldn't impose thier values on others but society's rules will have its way.

Its too bad I am leaving for 2 weeks, but I will be interested in your response when I get back. (Spelling and grammar nazis can eat a bag).

Wipperwill wrote:With the exception of the little I cut out, this could sound like any fundie I ever met. If I reposted it in a fundie website I wouldnt change a thing and they would think I was a christian.

o.O

Umm... Ok. So what?

I don't think it would be too very difficult to find a whole lot of individual statements, taken out of the greater context, that would work well as an oppositional statement. Heck... There's a whole sub-school of political campaigning and persuasion dedicated to just that practice, isn't there?

So, person A says "They're raping the baby ducks! That's just wrong!" and person B says "They're not raping the baby ducks! That's just wrong!" and you can't see a difference?

Are you... I mean... Is there some meat here somewhere? Are you just trying to be argumentative?

Ideas matter... As I've said here many times before (although, not in direct conversation with you. I'm not implying "you should already know", just a "I know I'm repeating myself" disclaimer) not all ideas or opinions are equal in merit... Not all ideas or opinions are automatically worthy of equal respect just because someone holds them dear. I think, far too often, particularly in certain circles in America, we tend to confuse "you have an equal right to express your opinion" with "you have an equal right to respect for your opinion."

The right to hold an opinion is literally inalienable... The right to express most opinions is protected... But the opinion still has to stand up for itself in the "marketplace of ideas", and some opinions - often even, historically, some of the most widely and popularly held opinions - are just plain fucking stupid, and thus deserve to be attacked, ridiculed, and discounted.

Wipperwill wrote:They have the exact same reasoning for prolestything (I can't spell that word). I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing from an argument standpoint.

Neither. It's just a fact of life. There are only about two reasons for proselytizing (which, incidentally, there's not a damned thing wrong with, in and of itself... There could be no social progress without it.) Either you think your position is superior... i.e: More beneficial to 'society' in general or specific... Or you think you have something to gain by changing the way the other person thinks, even though it may be detrimental to them.

Wipperwill wrote:Sometimes it sounds like you only care about the method of their preaching, and other times its the message itself.

First, let me be absolutely clear... I am both usually vehemently opposed to the method of their "preaching", and to the message itself. I say "usually" because there are instances of each that I find at least somewhat more acceptable.

Wipperwill wrote:From the way you put it, the first case is laudable, the second case is hypocritical.

I disagree entirely, and challenge you to defend that statement. There is nothing the least bit "hypocritical" in having logic, data, and history on your side and saying "Your ideas, beliefs, or opinions are batshit crazy, childish, ridiculous, dishonest, malicious, demonstrably fallacious, intellectually anemic, poorly founded, and generally both unimaginative and weak."

Hypocritical would be saying "My imaginary friend is obviously real and superior, while your imaginary friend is obviously a fraud. Therefore, my morals and values trump your morals and values."

Wipperwill wrote:Complaining about others being zelous when you yourself are no different just sets off bells to me.

Again... I think you're confusing zealousness and zealotry. They're as different as "enthusiasm" and "fanaticism".

Still... Even if we stick to "zealousness" on either side, I see no intellectual difficulty in distinguishing between being zealous about freeing & enlarging people, and being zealous about enslaving and reducing people... Even if the second group is either clever and malicious enough, or simple-minded and deluded enough to call their activities "freeing and enlarging".

Just because Spanish missionary priests said and believed they were "saving" indigenous infants souls by baptizing them and then bashing their brains in, neither the statement nor the belief would make it "no different" from, say, 'Doctors without Borders' providing medicine and health services to indigenous infants.

Wipperwill wrote:I agree that people shouldn't impose thier values on others but society's rules will have its way.

Well... There's the idea of the need to agree upon a "social contract" that allows us to live peacefully together, and there's the idea of imposing arbitrary restrictions on the harmless behaviors of others based on the falsified mandates of an imaginary Sky Wizard.

The first almost always comes down to forming agreements not to allow individuals or groups to infringe upon the freedoms of others, while the second almost always comes down to individuals or groups demanding the "right" to infringe upon the freedoms of everyone else.

Now... Enjoy your trip, and let's see if you actually dig this up when you get back

*bounces into the discussion* You know, I think the main problem I have is the ... abrasive tone. I'm a generally nice guy, and the generally-rude phraseology kind of rubs me the wrong way, even though I mostly agree.

On the other hand, I've also considered the opposite stance, paraphrased from Scott Adams: perhaps the whole "we ought to respect each other's opinions/beliefs" idea is part of the problem. If logic worked on fundies, there wouldn't be any: people generally don't change their fundamental ideas when confronted by logic. I mean, people like Honor and me would be willing to change our views on a given scientific idea, if one theory disproves another, but neither of us would be willing to convert to Catholicism and join the Spanish Inquisition. However! Lots of people change their behavior for fear of being mocked. Perhaps we should encourage open rudeness about peoples' beliefs in society as a whole; thus, the dominant beliefs will become the ones which are hardest to mock.

Honor wrote:Again... I think you're confusing zealousness and zealotry. They're as different as "enthusiasm" and "fanaticism".

That's the trouble though, they're easy to confuse.
zealous: Filled with zeal
zealotry: Excessive zeal
How do you know when it becomes excessive? And here's the worst part, the more zeal you have the harder it is to see when it's too much.

ManaUser wrote:

Honor wrote:Again... I think you're confusing zealousness and zealotry. They're as different as "enthusiasm" and "fanaticism".

That's the trouble though, they're easy to confuse.
zealous: Filled with zeal
zealotry: Excessive zeal

Um... Not so much, no.

Zealous is having "zeal" (great energy or enthusiasm)...

Zealotry is being an uncompromising, blindly radical fanatic.

It might be more accurate, illustratively speaking, to say that "Zealous" is having some zeal, but "Zealotry" is more like being made of zeal.

ManaUser wrote:How do you know when it becomes excessive? And here's the worst part, the more zeal you have the harder it is to see when it's too much.

Ah, yes... That's always a problem. Like drinking... It's never so easy to drink too much as when you've already had a bit too much to drink.

With zeal, though, it should be a lot easier... When you find that you're dismissing rational arguments without due consideration, you've probably crossed the line.

Kittyboymuffin wrote:I mean, people like Honor and me would be willing to change our views on a given scientific idea, if one theory disproves another, but neither of us would be willing to convert to Catholicism and join the Spanish Inquisition. However! Lots of people change their behavior for fear of being mocked. Perhaps we should encourage open rudeness about peoples' beliefs in society as a whole; thus, the dominant beliefs will become the ones which are hardest to mock.

First, I would just like to say... I would totally join the Spanish Inquisition, if the pay and benefits were good, and there was a nice retirement package, and I got to wear a cool uniform. And change my name to Cardinal Biggles or Cardinal Fang.

Next... Yes! Yes!! Oh, god, yes!!! (sorry... got distracted...)

I think it's a brilliant idea, and I like it, and I think we (meaning everyone on earth) should start today.

It's becoming a more and more popular lament, happily... Why do I have to pretend to respect this one batshit crazy belief? Why is it that, just because it's indefensible, it's impolite to ask someone to defend it?

It's perfectly ok to ridicule someone if they say their mashed potatoes told them to kill their neighbor... It's ok to snicker at someone who wears a tinfoil hat to keep out government mind control rays... Why should someone who insists that a giant invisible genie make the world be someone we have to be not only tolerant of, but referent toward?

In fact, it seems the more indefensible a person's position logically is, the more taboo it is to require them to defend it with logic and reason.

To quote Thomas Paine: "All the tales of miracles with which the Old and New Testaments are filled, are fit only for impostors to preach and fools to believe."

...So let's lift the social taboo on calling them such. I agree and believe this may well be the fastest and perhaps even only way to wrest from the lunatics the control of the asylum.

I acctually enjoyed it, yes it's simple and not incredibly thought out.

but if i didn't have faith that there was a higher power to judge me when I died I might have commited suicide, injured my body in a hedonistic fashion, taken up heavy drug use and other sorts of things.

to a person with little to no spiritual faith and awareness yes, the panel is garbage.

but for a person who belives it makes me smile.

I respect the fact that you don't belive, I won't bash so long as you give me the same respect.

and no I'm not trying to provoke argument, I was just stating my opinion.

Spiral Zer0 wrote:
but if i didn't have faith that there was a higher power to judge me when I died I might have commited suicide, injured my body in a hedonistic fashion, taken up heavy drug use and other sorts of things.

This makes no sense whatso ever. I was held back from sucide Because i knew that if I did there would be nothing after. Granted I never was really resolved to commit suicide and I only thought about it during my idoitic teenage years. If someone believes that there is a wonderfull existance after this why wouldnt you want to see it. I know that many denomiations tell you sucide sends you to a worse place but some dont.

Honor wrote:Ah, yes... That's always a problem. Like drinking... It's never so easy to drink too much as when you've already had a bit too much to drink.

With zeal, though, it should be a lot easier... When you find that you're dismissing rational arguments without due consideration, you've probably crossed the line.

Should be. But is it really? I think you're overestimating the human capacity for objective self-examination. Most people are really bad at that. And dismissing rational arguments isn't the only excess to worry about either. Misplaced priorities is the one that concerns me the most.