- Me: This older generation pisses me off so much
- Therapist: Why?
- Me: Because when I was growing up, we were forcefed the idea that if we didn't want to be 'flipping burgers at McDonalds,' then we'd better go to college.
- Therapist: And?
- Me: And now we've all gone to college, have degrees, can't get a damn job, and the same people that told us to go to college call us entitled assholes because we refuse to flip burgers
- Therapist: Touche
okay so I drew this immediately after the new ww photo release, I couldn’t resist. Loving the design but I would make a few modifications. This is the Wonder Woman I would want to see on the big screen<3 with captain america:winter-soldier-esque shield yesssss!! eventually I’ll turn this into a trinity picture and maybe clean it up *sigh* it was rushed :/ on dA here too [x]
Until 9/11, Islam didn’t figure in the New Atheists’ attacks in a prominent way. As a phenomenon with its roots in Europe, atheism has traditionally been the archenemy of Christianity, though Jews and Judaism have also slipped into the mix. But emboldened by their newfound fervor in the wake of the terrorist attacks, the New Atheists joined a growing chorus of Muslim-haters, mixing their abhorrence of religion in general with a specific distaste for Islam (In 2009, Hitchens published a book called “God Is Not Great,” a direct smack at Muslims who commonly recite the Arabic refrain Allah Akbar, meaning “God is great”). Conversations about the practical impossibility of God’s existence and the science-based irrationality of an afterlife slid seamlessly into xenophobia over Muslim immigration or the practice of veiling. The New Atheists became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason. “Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death,” writes Harris, whose nonprofit foundation Project Reason ironically aims to “erode the influence of bigotry in our world.”
Flirtation is an understatement.
Dawkins, in a recent rant on Twitter, admitted that he had not ever read the Quran, but was sufficiently expert in the topic to denounce Islam as the main culprit of all the world’s evil: “Haven’t read Koran so couldn’t quote chapter and verse like I can for Bible. But [I] often say Islam [is the] greatest force for evil today.” How’s that for a scientific dose of proof that God does not exist?
A few days later, on March 25, there was this: “Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read the Qur’an. You don’t have to read “Mein Kampf” to have an opinion about Nazism.”
It’s an extraordinary feat for an Oxford scholar to admit that he hasn’t done the research to substantiate his belief, but what’s more extraordinary is that he continues to believe the unsupported claim. That backwards equation — insisting on a conclusion before even launching an initial investigation — defines the New Atheists’ approach to Islam. It’s a pompousness that only someone who believes they have proven, scientifically, the nonexistence of God can possess.
You know, being on tumblr, I kind of try to pick my battles carefully. So, I’ve read the article and had a bit of a pause trying to figure out if I actually want to respond to it. Do I actually care that much? I mean, I consider myself a militant atheist. I don’t think it’s a bad thing, though it is used as a derogatory term. I guess my position aligns with “The New Atheism”.
Then again, I like Dawkins, but don’t care that much for these particular quotes, and I guess they could be used to perpetuate craziness as well as counter it. I’m somewhat indifferent towards Hitchens and Harris. I remember disagreeing with both quite strongly on some issues, though not strictly religious ones.
I like Prof. Lawrence Krauss more (mostly because he is a physicist and a geek, which is closer to my own interests), but the article only barely mentions him.
What really bothers me is a few other things.
One, seems to be written from a perspective of someone who doesn’t just disapprove of the specific comments, but of atheism itself. I might be wrong, of course, but I feel like there’s a lot of smugness there, while pointing at how smug the atheists supposedly are.
The article uses a Fox News type of narrative, and somewhat misrepresents the atheist position. “Oh, look how arrogant they are, they think they can disprove God. Where is their proof?”. Well, that’s not how the burden of proof works, and personally I’ve never heard any of the three men claim they can. If they did, the article should provide a direct quote, I think.
Now, they talk a lot about science, yes, but mostly because they often have debates with Young Earth Creationists, and Intelligent Design apologists, who make a lot of pseudo-scientific claims.
Personally, I don’t think most Christians have a problem with evolution or the Big Bang. I never did, while being one. As long as your concept of a deity is vague enough, it works out fine.
The main thing that bugs me though, is this. The thing reminds me of one of the debates Matt Dillahunty had, I think. Pretty sure it was this one, but I don’t have time to rewatch it right now. During the debate, the Christian guy adressed the audience with a comment like, and this is in no way a direct quote, I watched it maybe a year ago, like “atheism is for white people”. Which, I think, was really condescending (especially, since while Dillahunty is white, this guy was a walking stereotype of a white suburban church-going, golf playing type).
And this article feels like it’s using the same framework. Maybe unintentionally. The framework that I feel has been used sometimes to alienate black people, women, and poor people in general from atheism. Hey, look! These quasi-religious atheists are all rich, white men, with their Harvard degrees, they’re all yuppies and hipsters, don’t listen to them! They think you’re stupid! (While the other guys build megachurches and run for office)
Maybe I’m paranoid, or cynical, and yeah, it’s a year old article.
But I’m still wondering why the article goes 15 years back, talks about Dawkins (who speaks primarily about Christians), Harris (who isn’t that much in the spotlight), and Hitchens (who’s dead), but doesn’t mention someone associated with the New Atheism (whatever that means) who speaks primarily about Islam and made some quite strong statements against it?
There may be a perfectly good reason, what do I know.
Some inaccurately portrayed Modus Operandi.
Leah told me to check the MO tag earlier. I was half asleep and checked phone tumblr. I saw this, went “wow! Wow!” and then went back to sleep. When I woke up again, I thought I imagined this. NOPE IT’S REAL and it’s awesome
(guh thank you so much!)
Hey guys, I just launched a Patreon campaign!
Patreon’s a great way to support artists you like online. Plus, there are a few perks for backers, like ebooks, behind-the-scenes art, and stickers! If I get enough supporters, I’ll be able to improve Gastrophobia and maybe even pay some bills!
IF YOU WENT TO SAN DIEGO COMIC CON OR KNOW ANYONE WHO HAS, PLEASE READ.
One of my dearest friends was found on the side of the road, unconscious and bloody. She was wearing this cosplay on the day it happened. She was last seen with friends when she ran off after a disagreement. Please, please, please, if you have ANY information or saw her anywhere, contact her mother. The full information is down below. This isn’t okay and it’s sickening to know that this happened at a place people truly can enjoy themselves. Please spread the word.
”I just received a call from the San Diego Police Department and my daughter Emily Weyer aka Milly Makara was found on the side of the road covered in blood with no ID unconscious. They are unsure what happened to her. My husband is on his way to the police station and then the hospital. If you have any information on what happened to her please send me a facebook message or call me at 951 229 3394. Thank you in advance”. -JILL WEYER
And focusing on Marvel and DC at the expense of the dozens of other publishers in comics, and then declaring comics a failure at San Diego Comic-Con, is incredibly myopic. It’s a mistake to think that Marvel and DC are all that mattered, that their new events or announcements dictate the future of capital-c Comics. Marvel and DC are comics, just like the other publishers, and they make some great ones when they let the creators do their own thing. But at this point? You can’t treat them like the entirety of the comics industry, or even two companies that can dictate the future of comics. They run the movies, and that’s cool, but running comics? It’s just not true any more. Image in particular outsells Marvel in the book market as far as trade paperbacks go, and that holds true in the comics market lately, too. That’s no coincidence. People enjoy Marvel and DC, but they want more than Marvel and DC.
If the announcements from the Big Two felt lackluster, but the fans still had a great time, how did comics fail? That sounds like a Marvel & DC problem. Vertical debuted Moyoco Anno’s brand new book In Clothes Called Fat at the show, a comic geared toward adult women. They sold out of Fumi Yoshinaga’s What Did You Eat Yesterday?, a romance/cooking comic. At Image, we sold out of Greg Tocchini & Rick Remender’s Low, an aquatic sci-fi tale, and Nick Dragotta & team’s Howtoons, a comic geared toward getting kids interested in the science through practical play. Boom! burned through Lumberjanes, a comic about girls at camp. These aren’t your normal comics, and people were eating them up.
After two bad “Comic-Con was bad for comics!”/”Comic-Con was good for comics!” pieces, io9 lets iamdavidbrothers do his thing, and the result is—surprise surprise—a great piece that’s head and shoulders above the traditional (print) comic coverage on the site*.
(* I specify print because Lauren does really good webcomics stuff over there, because Lauren is great.)