You Can’t Give an Inch…

I think friendly atheists do feel this way about more aggressive ones from time to time…

Appeaser

(Thanks to Maria for the image!)


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

  • Mriana

    :lol: ROFLMBO! Now that one gave me a laugh. I’m not totally without humour.

  • Syckls

    Actually, I would have to say that this comic is also slanderous. It, much like the protestor’s sign, makes an insulting blanket implication about a certain group of people on par with anything Jack Chick has come up with. Although some theists are morons, and some “aggressive” atheists make such slanderous statements, both statements when applied to all members of either group are slanderous. I realize that this is the view of only some “friendly” atheists, or else I too would be committing a hasty generalization, but this does not excuse the comic for the individual message that it portrays. Maybe I’m taking it too seriously, but I can find few issues more serious in the atheist community than this continued backbiting over “friendly” or “aggressive” tactics.

  • Mriana

    Yeah, well… sometimes we just have to laugh at ourselves too and I bet you the “friendly” atheists and the “aggressive” atheists do look like that sometimes. Trust me, I should know. I’ve had a few go arounds with some militant atheists and it would not surprise me one bit if we came off looking exactly like that. :lol: If you can’t laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?

  • Richard Wade

    Actually, I would have to say that this comic is also slanderous. It, much like the protestor’s sign, makes an insulting blanket implication about a certain group of people on par with anything Jack Chick has come up with.

    I don’t see that in this cartoon. I see it as making fun of a tactic, not a group of people who may or may not use such a tactic, and who may or may not even be definable as a group. And to be clear, I mean the tactic of calling the other atheist an “appeaser,” not the tactic of calling theists “morons,” which is a separate issue. I was once dismissed as an “appeaser” by someone because of statements I had made about keeping dialogue positive and constructive if possible. I remember that person as an individual, not as a member of some kind of sub-group of atheists.

    Hopefully we won’t descend into as distinctly divided camps as are the theists. I can’t imagine being asked, “Well which kind of atheist are you, friendly or aggressive?” That’s ridiculous. My answer would only be determined by whether or not the person asking was larger than me and whether or or not they were armed.

  • http://religiouscomics.net Jeff

    I was more offended by the seemingly constant pre-occupation of some atheists for putting people down because of poor spelling.

    It is posible for someone to spel baddly but stil be abel to think cleerly about importent isues.

  • Maria

    I agree with Mriana and Richard. It’s the tactic that’s being made fun of. This black and white thinking that some people have that either you’ve got to act like RRS all the time, or you’re an “appeaser” has got to stop. There’s a HUGE gray area depending on the situations. Let’s leave the black and white thinking to the religious.

  • http://atheismandcoffee.blogspot.com overcaffein8d

    you should send that to Larry Moran over at the Sandwalk

  • Syckls

    Y’know, when I made my criticism, I neglected to realize that groups espousing much the same position as the aggressive atheist in the comic exist and are quite prominent, like RRS. I redact my previous statement and now interpret this comic as an entirely justified criticism of a group of atheists that, in the tradition of FSTDT, I consider “secular fundies”.

  • Renacier

    Jeff- My view is this: If someone can’t be bothered to look something up in a dictionary , how can I assume they’re willing to put forth the effort to verify a piece of evidence they’re given?

    As for aggressive atheists, I come across two kinds. Some are just sick and tired of taking all the guff and have adopted a ‘no more Mr Nice Guy’ method. Does it work? Is if hurtful to ‘the cause’? I don’t know; time will tell.
    The others are just using atheism as an excuse, similar to the way many religious people use their beliefs as an excuse to justify their jack-assery. This latter group includes teenager trying to freak out their parents, the douche that hacked Crosswalk.com, and the guy who got fired from Wal-Mart for not dressing as Santa. These people may or may not believe in a god, but they are not rationalists or freethinkers or part of the solution.

  • stogoe

    Sometimes, mockery is the best tool for the job.

    Especially when that job involves dealing with tools.

  • http://merkdorp.blogspot.com J. J. Ramsey

    Hey, my little cartoon has gotten around. Cool. :)

    Thanks for the compliments, guys.

  • Adrienne

    I hate it when I see people pointing out others’ spelling mistakes. Regardless of what ‘side’ they’re arguing on, it always makes me think they don’t have a ‘real’ argument to make, so they grasp at whatever little thing they can find.

    Although I could never be an aggressive atheist myself – it’s just not in my nature at all – I do think those who take that stance are doing all atheists a service. At the very least they’re keeping the aggressive Christians (somewhat) busy.

  • http://barefootbum.blogspot.com The Barefoot BUm

    The anti-appeasement atheist writers such as Shalini, or P.Z. Myers (and, although I hesitate to compare myself to the giants) tend to criticize as appeasers those who single out Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. as problematic.

    One must conclude, then, that you see Dawkins, etc. as illiterate morons.

    I don’t find the comic that funny. I see it as an attack on your critics at least as vitriolic and ridiculously reductionist as what you criticize in others, and exposes your own hypocrisy.

  • Maria

    The anti-appeasement atheist writers such as Shalini, or P.Z. Myers (and, although I hesitate to compare myself to the giants) tend to criticize as appeasers those who single out Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. as problematic.

    Not always. They also tend to see anyone who doesn’t agree with their tactics as appeasers-it’s black and white, either you do things our way or you’re an “appeaser”, nevermind what you actually do say or do. That’s especially evident in Shalini’s blog. You can like and applaud Dawkins et. all without always agreeing with some of the above bloggers. They are not one in the same. Just b/c this cartoon was put up, I’d say that’s a long way from saying Dawkins et. al are illiterate morons. Stop jumping to conclusions and chill out.

  • Mriana

    I hardly think Dawkins et al are illiterate morons. They are very intelligent, but I don’t always agree with them. I don’t always agree with everyone. I have my own mind and I use it. Ironically, sometimes I {gulp} agree with Christians. The thing is, sometimes people go to extremes to get their point across and I’ve never been one for extremes. If I’m not in trouble with one side, I’m in trouble with the other because I don’t discriminate on who call concerning behaviours. If I feel the behaviour is inappropriate, I say so.

  • Erin

    I happened to stuble upon your website, and want to let all atheist as well as christians and any other religions, that I am praying for you daily. May you find God in your life and peace in your heart.

  • http://merkdorp.blogspot.com J. J. Ramsey

    Barefoot Bum: “One must conclude, then, that you see Dawkins, etc. as illiterate morons.”

    No, not illiterate and moronic, just sloppy and simplistic. Not the same thing.

  • Maria

    I hardly think Dawkins et al are illiterate morons. They are very intelligent, but I don’t always agree with them. I don’t always agree with everyone. I have my own mind and I use it. Ironically, sometimes I {gulp} agree with Christians. The thing is, sometimes people go to extremes to get their point across and I’ve never been one for extremes. If I’m not in trouble with one side, I’m in trouble with the other because I don’t discriminate on who call concerning behaviours. If I feel the behaviour is inappropriate, I say so.

    ditto. that describes me pretty well too. I’ll also add that I’m glad the “4 horsemen” as they are called wrote their books, I think books like that were long overdue.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X