maybe

May 1st, 2009
└ Tags: ,

Discussion (44)¬

  1. Maggs says:
    May 1, 2009 at 3:07 am

    Hmm, I think I’ve lost my sense of humour. I find it really scary that so many folks dearly held religious beliefs mean that most of the world’s population believes in magic. I also find it really scary to think that if no one believed in magic, would civilization break down completely… Is a deeply held self respect and caring about others, combined with an ability to tell right from wrong, enough?

  2. tie says:
    May 1, 2009 at 3:54 am

    “Is a deeply held self respect and caring about others, combined with an ability to tell right from wrong, enough?”

    yes it is,

    Sweden is proof of that Maggs. Number one democracy in the world 6 years running, and 80% agnostic atheist population.

    reality and facts come to the rescue once again.

  3. MartinDH says:
    May 1, 2009 at 4:45 am

    “A complete and utter lack of respect for your dearly held religious beliefs”…hmmm, true dat…plus a modicum of contempt.

  4. Bodach says:
    May 1, 2009 at 5:42 am

    Care enough for others to share with them why “magic” interferes with experiencing fully in the wonder that is reality.

  5. John Cowan says:
    May 1, 2009 at 5:56 am

    Lack of respect (and contempt) for people’s beliefs easily slips over into lack of respect (and contempt) for the people themselves, though. In the 17th-century English play “The Atheist’s Tragedy”, the atheist is a cynical and ruthless Machiavellianism, someone who will swear an oath and then renege on it without an atom of conscience. The subtitle of the play is “The Honest Man’s Revenge”, so as you can imagine, the atheist gets it in the neck at last.

  6. jerry w says:
    May 1, 2009 at 6:04 am

    For me, A complete and utter lack of respect for your dearly held
    religious beliefs is just the starting point, then I get serious.

  7. arensb says:
    May 1, 2009 at 7:04 am

    “Maybe they weren’t doing it properly.” Har!

  8. dyl says:
    May 1, 2009 at 8:09 am

    off subject, I was explaining to a friend how his non-practicing-christian status seemed to me like a person claiming to believe a superstition and then ignoring the event of that superstition. (i.e. walking under a ladder, crossing paths with a black cat etc.)

  9. TallPaul says:
    May 1, 2009 at 8:29 am

    tie: I think you’ll find that Sweden is 80% *atheist*, not 80% agnostic (although the actual figures seems to vary depending on who you believe and how the question was asked).

  10. Mike says:
    May 1, 2009 at 8:32 am

    Not all religious people are theocrats or evangelical.

    If a person’s religious/spiritual beliefs do not include an impetus to compel those around them to agree with them, if they’re just a matter of private thought/faith, it’s hypocritical for atheists to treat them with contempt.

    It becomes atheist evangelism; starting with the zealous belief that everyone should or must share one’s philosophical worldview and all other perspectives are deluded or actively evil, and from there attempting to convert the world. At its extremes it becomes xenophobic religious bigotry, with all the ugliness and evil that involves.

    There’s a lot more potential nuance and subtlety to religious thought than blind superstition, but that’s a whole different argument. You don’t have to agree with someone’s specific beliefs to respect them as a person.

    In matters of private faith, it falls into the same category as respecting your neighbor’s belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are geniuses. You may not agree, but it’s none of your business.

  11. Oddtwang says:
    May 1, 2009 at 9:14 am

    Mike: True enough, but THEY’RE not the ones we object to…

  12. Uncle Roger says:
    May 1, 2009 at 10:32 am

    “plus a modicum of contempt.” Bingo!

    Mike — consider this: http://www.stupidwish.net/religion.html

  13. M says:
    May 1, 2009 at 10:36 am

    Unfortunately Sweden is a [lot of percents] other woo… I hardly know anyone who believes in god, or practice a religion. But almost all I know still believe in an afterlife, and ghosts, and mediums, and ‘there must be something’ or are taking homepathic “medicines”, or… Yeah, not many believers in the abrahamic god here compared to USA for example… still not exactly ‘a paradise’ for rational people and skeptics…

  14. Necessary Evil says:
    May 1, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Mike, Am I allowed to say that if there’s one thing I can’t tolerate, it’s intolerance? If there was to be a contest between a religious evangelist, who starts with the zealous belief that everyone should or must share his philosophical worldview and that all other perspectives are deluded or actively evil and from there attempts to convert the world, and an atheist who took exactly the same line with his beliefs, all other things being equal, whom would you support if you had to choose?

    I would support the atheist because his argument would likely be more rational.

  15. grouchy-one says:
    May 1, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    Necessary Evil – “Am I allowed to say that if there’s one thing I can’t tolerate, it’s intolerance? ”
    No, you’re not allowed to say that! It’s a logical paradox and that is intolerable.

  16. mishahu says:
    May 1, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    Hey! Barmaid is using the same circular logic that she usually reasons against. Excellent that it’s good enough to convince J&M.

  17. Ironwolf says:
    May 2, 2009 at 3:55 am

    Barmaid is a bit snarkier than usual. I love it!

  18. Chaz’s Lifestream » Blog Archive » Daily Digest for 2009-05-01 says:
    May 1, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    […] Shared a link on Google Reader. maybe […]

  19. Hobbes says:
    May 2, 2009 at 5:53 am

    John, “In the 17th-century English play “The Atheist’s Tragedy”, the atheist is a cynical and ruthless Machiavellianism, someone who will swear an oath and then renege on it without an atom of conscience. ”

    Actually that describes many fundamentalists today.

  20. Svar til Nafeesa « Bohemian Rhapsody says:
    May 2, 2009 at 6:36 am

    […] berører en pointe, som Jesus&Mo ogsÃ¥ kommer ind pÃ¥ i dagens stribe. Jeg synes at det er umagen værd at sætte Nafeesas kommentar overfor The Barmaids […]

  21. Submoron says:
    May 2, 2009 at 7:13 am

    Yes, religions automatically assume that they have to be treated with reverence!
    I’ve just read the plot of The Atheist’s Tragedy. It just shows what the Jacobean period thought that an atheist would be like. Of course, admitting to atheism at that time would be tantamount to suicide; the Scots actually had the death penalty for it at one time. That, I suppose, is why we would be assumed to be hypocrites.
    When’s Jonathan Miller’s History of Unbelief going to be available on DVD? The Atheist Tapes are jolly good, but let’s have the whole thing please!

  22. Stonyground says:
    May 3, 2009 at 2:06 am

    The problem that I have with this notion that atheists are dishonest, selfish, have miserable and pointless lives etc. is that proof to the contrary is everywhere. There are millions of us here in the UK and in no way are we less trustworthy, generous, law abiding or happy than those who have imaginary freinds.

    Mike, I do up to a point want to convert people to my worldview because I think the world would be a better place as a consequence. However, I believe in only evangalising in self defence, that is writing to letter columns, blogs etc. to counter arguments from the other side, especially when they get their facts wrong, which they tend to do rather a lot.

  23. JohnnieCanuck says:
    May 3, 2009 at 10:40 am

    which they tend to do rather a lot.

    Gotta love that tradition of understatement in Jolly Old’. I’m still waiting for that first verified fact claim made in support of religious evangelism.

  24. Ophelia Benson says:
    May 3, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    “In matters of private faith, it falls into the same category as respecting your neighbor’s belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are geniuses. You may not agree, but it’s none of your business.”

    So a neighbor is always a man?

    Assumed male strikes again.

  25. Mr Gronk says:
    May 3, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Tautological barmaid is tautological.

    Still funny.

  26. Steelman says:
    May 3, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    “So a neighbor is always a man?”

    H.L. Mencken made that assumption, before Mike butchered him in the comments section…;-)

  27. Aykavil says:
    May 4, 2009 at 4:16 am

    A prequel to October 16th, 2007…

  28. kiyaroru says:
    May 4, 2009 at 5:18 am

    Ophelia

    The assumed male neighbor is an assumed male only when wrong about his wife and children.

  29. Specops17 says:
    May 4, 2009 at 5:49 am

    “So a neighbor is always a man?

    Assumed male strikes again.”

    I don’t get it. Are you bent outta shape because of “neighbor’s belief…his wife…”? For reals? Wow!

    Butterfliesandwheels.com Interesting.

  30. Stonyground says:
    May 4, 2009 at 5:52 am

    JohnnieCanuck
    I am mainly referring to more general stuff about history and Science as well as the actual tenets of their own religion that there is a general ignorance about among the godly people who write to their local rag. It is quite fun to quote the Bible at them when it is obvious from their statements that they don’t have a clue what is actually in it.

  31. B says:
    May 4, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Can somebody tell me why I must have respect for people that outsource their conscience and shun responsibility for their own actions?

  32. J. Steve White says:
    May 4, 2009 at 1:20 pm

    mishahu :”Hey! Barmaid is using the same circular logic that she usually reasons against. Excellent that it’s good enough to convince J&M.”

    There’s no circular logic. She’s not trying to prove anything (as J and M are usually doing with circular logic). She’s explaining that Atheists are SHOWING that because they FEEL that. One might certainly contest the accuracy of the statement, but it’s not a syllogism, or a logical argument, but an expository one.

    grouchy-one: “No, you’re not allowed to say that! It’s a logical paradox and that is intolerable.”

    There’s no logical paradox here. That’s an argument too many apologists make, and too many skeptics/non-apologists/non-christians have fallen for. There is no paradox; this is the embodiment of the “equal protection” doctrine. Tolerance + equal protection == “Tolerate everything but intolerance”; no paradox inheres, it’s just that it’s sometimes thorny to puzzle out the boundary cases between them.

  33. DonR says:
    May 4, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    This one is not up to Author’s usual standard. It had potential through frame 1-3, then Barmaid became a busty, blonde version of J&M.

  34. Paper Hand says:
    May 5, 2009 at 12:05 am

    Considering we never actually *see* the Barmaid, it’s interesting that you assume she’s busty and blonde … 🙂

  35. JohnnieCanuck says:
    May 5, 2009 at 9:28 am

    Pub regular: “Why are you acting all pissed off at me?”
    Barmaid: “I’m not acting, Don. I am pissed off at you. You assume things about people based only on appearance.”

    She could as easily be a flaming redhead, couldn’t she?

  36. Stonyground says:
    May 5, 2009 at 10:49 am

    On the subject of the assumed male, I used to pack my car with karate types to go to competitions. On one occasion I remarked that just as I wanted to pull out onto a main road, the world and his wife decide to drive past. From the back seat our resident feminist came straight back with “The world and her husband!”. This girl also was heard to remark at the end of the song Summer the first time by Bobby Goldsborough “If he thinks that’s all it takes to make him a man he’s got another think coming as well”.

    My image of the barmaid is not very tall, quite busty, slightly plump and with a big bottom. Pretty much like Mrs. Stonyground in fact.

  37. JMo says:
    May 5, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    The really cool thing is; much like our personal beliefs in this deity/no deity, is that barmaid can be whatever we decide she is. In fact I think she is three feet tall with a flat head, etc. but thats just me.

  38. Beggars Belief says:
    May 5, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    Mike: it’s not the people I disrespect, it’s their religious beliefs. I respect them as human beings, with the right to think and do what they want (as long as it doesn’t harm anyone). However, they believe in bollocks and I have no respect for their choice to believe it. In exactly the same way I have no respect for Tories.

  39. jerry w says:
    May 5, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    JMo,
    Three feet tall, yes. Flat head, yes.
    As for the “etc.,” part: “And her father owns the bar. ”
    That would be the compete description as I remember it.

  40. DonR says:
    May 5, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    @Paper Hand & JonnieCanuck

    The busty and blonde was personal preference, it had nothing to do with the point I was making. Interesting that you both should focus on it so.

  41. Ophelia Benson says:
    May 7, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    “From the back seat our resident feminist came straight back with “The world and her husband!”. This girl also was heard to remark at the end of the song Summer the first time by Bobby Goldsborough “If he thinks that’s all it takes to make him a man he’s got another think coming as well”.”

    Blah blah blah.

    Have any of you entrenched members of the boys’ club considered the possibility that the barmaid is also a feminist? Have you considered the possibility that dear author is a feminist? You all certainly seem awfully confident that they’re not – that I’m the oddity around here and you’re all Normal.

    Well, fuck it; if it’s a boys’ club you can have it to yourselves.

  42. Tom says:
    March 25, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Sorry, Mrs. Supreme Censor 🙂

  43. fenchurch says:
    October 26, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    Barmaid, as a result of her location, employment, intelligence, and culture, is overweight, pasty-looking, and probably could use some cosmetic dentistry.

    The men projecting their fantasies on her are doing her a disservice. You all love her for her mind, but can’t reconcile a beautiful mind with an average face/body type.

  44. The+one+true+Anonymous says:
    February 3, 2015 at 4:39 am

    Religion is a side effect of a useful survival strategy. When humans lived in small groups and did not have written text and formal education, they had to build up knowledge of such things as what to do in drought, flood, storms, fires, which plants and animals are poisonous and so on. Protecting that information was important to survival, and information was more likely to survive a verbal hand down as part of mythology.

    Unfortunately this mechanism for protecting seemingly irrational information does not discriminate on the usefulness, so we get parasitic effects sich as devotion to religious dogma, political ideology and certain forms of patriotism, and a world full of the consequent unnecessary conflict.

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.