Haha! This Is Awesome. How To Suck At Your Religion:

trailerfitter

I like the second to last line of the whole thing....

The Oracle

Great cartoon. Hilarious !

Thanks for sharing.

3rdgen

One JW to another:"Those scientologists sure have some wacky beliefs!!!" "Yeah, what a bunch of idiots."(shakes head)

neverscreamagain

Low-Key- Look further into his blog and check out his cartoon on the Utilikilt. You might appreciate that. Funny stuff!

glenster

I know the cartoonist just intends humor but I like how these articles give me
a chance to think about my overview of such things again. I don't see any
reason to change them due to the cartoons.

Too judgmental? (the only example is someone who is, even damning to hellfire)

I leave judgment about afterlife (inclusive, exclusive) open (e.g. "Judgment
is mine sayeth the Lord").

Regarding this life, I judge that neither belief in the basic concept of God
nor atheism are character determinants. We shouldn't be 'centric and intolerant
about those things or race, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, etc., and we
should be impartial in not liking when matters of bad character or unnecessary
harm are shown by any of them.

Hinder increase of knowledge? (only examples given of believers and advance-
ment of knowledge are Popes regarding Galileo or stem cells)

As usual, I'll distinguish orthodox/conservative from liberal/progressive/re-
form on certain controversial topics this way: the former is more prone to de-
fend perceived integrity of old interpretations of old texts without keeping up
to speed with the known things, and more prone to giving God as proven so may
want their belief law of the land which comes with punishment and even execu-
tion. The latter keeps up to speed with the known things regarding faith in a
possible God, and, understanding faith as such, wants to go among the different
kinds without giving offense--arbitrary harm or killing is sadism and murder.

The reason I'd recommend liberal/progressive/reform is that I understand faith
as such in a possible God beyond the known things and keep up with the known
things. If there is a God, it wouldn't honor him to misinform or harm arbi-
trarily.

One type of misinformation some believers or non-believers use is propaganda
against those different than themself (all believers characterized by the worst
of extremist conservatives--all Muslims are terrorists, the Dark Ages myth,
etc.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29

The Galileo controversy is explained at the next link. Since it serves as an
example of orthodox/conservative (the Pope at the time) vs. liberal/progressive/
reform (Galileo), it doesn't clearly distinguish belief vs. non-belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism

The stem cell controversy brings up the controversies of different opinions
about the start of life and the related ethical question of how to regard the
potential of stem cells to save lives, notably regarding the current Pope:

"Use of stem cells from amniotic fluid overcomes the ethical objections to
using human embryos as a source of cells. Roman Catholic teaching forbids the
use of embryonic stem cells in experimentation; accordingly, the Vatican news-
paper 'Osservatore Romano' called amniotic stem cells 'the future of medicine.'

"It is possible to collect amniotic stem cells for donors or for autologuous
use: the first US amniotic stem cells bank was opened in 2009 in Medford, MA, by
Biocell Center Corporation and collaborates with various hospitals and universi-
ties all over the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells#Amniotic

Did you choose or were forced? (A forced choice is given between demanding
agreement with intolerance or the recommended choice--just asking with no
preference.)

I make the analogy of faith in a possible God and the known things to subjec-
tive reactions to music and the math of the music. You can recommend as with a
song you love while asking what the other likes--you can realize freedom of sub-
jective reactions doesn't oblige us to one another about them.

I learned of it basically as a loving hope from my parents, but it wasn't a
demand. Our love was there while I didn't or did have faith or had friends who
were this way or that. I did a lot of research on my own, took a comparative
religion course, and don't know anyone who obliges me about it one way or anoth-
er. I like liberal/progressive/reform Christianity--your mileage may vary.

Anxiety about sex per se or homosexuality (only a goof on the most conserva-
tive stances is given)?

No.

Constantly trying to substantiate your choice to have faith by trying to
convert others? (Only militant intolerance is shown.)

Militant insistence to agree never comes up among the ones I know or run into
although I know it's happened in the world (like in Iran or state atheism).
Therefore, adding a non-militant example would make it a more realistic multiple
choice. It also could be more realistically balanced by showing that believers
or non-believers make themselves dislikable by being unfriendly and propagan-
dizing or worse against those different than them.

Mock other religions for believing crazy things?...

I understand faith as such (basic concept "How to Think About God," Adler--any
specifics added understood to be matters of faith). I keep up with the known
God is possible beyond and don't want anyone harmed over such things of belief
or non-belief: harm for an arbitrary reason is sadism and murder. So I would
reject not keeping up with the known (arguments against evolution or against
believers via the urban myth rendering of the Dark Ages) or harming for it
(4,000 homosexuals executed in Iran since 1979, persecution of believers, etc.).

...while believing crazy things? (a skewered goof on a conservative idea of
Jesus is the only alternative given)

I don't believe in causing the kind of harm I described above--no. That's
when believers and non-believers really get crazy to me. I understand faith as
such in a possible God beyond the known things. Crazy as in giving faith mat-
ters as proven and violating the known, that you have to reject faith to stay up
on important matters, or hurting people over belief or non-belief, no.

Vote solely on religious beliefs? (candidates stances on Christianity,
women's rights on abortion, gay rights, ecology)

No. The Christians in the NT don't ask for their religion as law of the land
(compared to some who hoped for a Messiah to provide that). Understanding faith
as such I'd prefer separation of church and state over religion as law of the
land or state atheism harshly enforced.

Concern for the ecology isn't a religious issue but more generally considered
conservative vs. liberal. I favor concern for it, so I guess I'm liberal. I
don't know how I'd decide anything about choosing faith or not over it.

The example given of liberal religion favoring rights for women or homosexuals
is at least, as it applies to religion, an actual matter of conservative vs.
liberal Abrahamic religion, and I'd recommend liberal for the reasons given
above. Homosexuality: since the known things indicate a small percentage of
people and animals are born that way, I'd recommend liberal, which is more
broadly a matter of not being 'centric or intolerant about things that aren't
character determinants.

I could dislike a candidate if they make belief or non-belief law--either has
caused a lot of harm, even to the point of appearing on lists of the biggest
abominations of history--including wanting to make a conservative religious
conviction against women or homosexuals law.
http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

Hurt or kill oneself or another for God?

I understand faith in a possible, not proven, God, so don't want anyone hurt
or killed for it--arbitrary hurting or killing would be sadism and murder.
More balanced, I don't like that people of religious belief or atheism have
spread propaganda, persecuted, or killed those different than them. Common
human selfishness is too unfortunately appropriately named whether people choose
to have faith or not, so I'd make the recommendations given above.

Happy?
Yes.
Help others?
Yes--my outlooks are guided by that. Helping others is recommended if you be-
lieve in God or not--some, not all, of either do.

Keep it to yourself.

Having mainly characterized those of faith by worst case examples, some ob-
jections of which I share if qualified as given above, the cartoonist allows
that those believers who are happy at being helpful are acceptable as long as
they realize they're insignificant and don't talk about their views. I could be
more impressed by the balance--it reminds me of a chauvinist's outlooks on women
(like one of Sacha Cohen's characters meant as a comment on bigotry).

I wouldn't bother someone who didn't want to talk about it anymore than I'd
force headphones playing a song I like on someone else's ears. I'd rather have
the nicer believers and non-believers be friends of mine or with each other, and
agree to not like when either is unfriendly or causes harm to those different
than them (sort of like Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
applied to the choice to have faith or not). Since the cartoonist doesn't indi-
cate that balance good enough, I don't think I'd miss out on any improvements in
my overview by them not wanting conversation--I like my outlooks better.

Haha! This Is Awesome. How To Suck At Your Religion:

Low-Key Lysmith

Low-Key Lysmith

finally awake

trailerfitter

The Oracle

Mickey mouse

3rdgen

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

neverscreamagain

glenster

Share this