A tiny group of gallant men (and “their women”) go underground to fight the evil gynocratic overlords. Is this the plot of a terrible dystopian potboiler from 1971, or a description of how most MRAs see themselves, and the world, today?
Turns out it’s both. I found this pic in the Blue Pill subreddit, and now I really, really want to read this book.
Here’s a book review from someone who did.
Why shouldn’t I tell him to shut up when his opinion is that everyone who disagrees with him is just not as logical as he is? That is itself rude, dismissive, insulting bullshit and it doesn’t deserve airtime or a polite, patient response.
And if you don’t understand the rudeness…you must not have spent very much time here.
I actually spend too much time here. I like David and I enjoy reading the comments, most of the time.
Perhaps I didn’t make my point clear. Anyway, this isn’t taking us anywhere.
I really don’t get that particular short story. Bits with Susan dwelling on having to identify her siblings was great though.
Gaiman took exception to the way Lewis handled Susan in the stories, and by extension Lewis’s view on God and humanity. There’s a key line:
“It’s true, Greta thinks, irrationally, in the darkness. She grew up. She carried on. She didn’t die…”
Yeah – we grow up. People who want us to remain in “a child-like innocence” our entire lives, and who beat us over the heads with a God-shaped club if we don’t conform, are just trying to control us. We grow up. We ask questions. We accept responsibility. And, yes, we take pleasure in the carnal ways of the world.
Susan is us. Lewis’s ideal Christians, the other children, had to be killed off before they became adults lest they too follow her down into the depravity of maturity.
Note the following:
“There are many possible explanations”
is answered with
“True enough. Christians are not allowed…”
Note that the notion of omnipotent god who is justified in torturing us for all eternity is assumed the standard religious experience and argument of all Christians.
Note further that the intention was to talk about one specific branch of Christianity, but that’s not what actually happened.
And since that’s not that what actually happened, that’s kind of an asshole thing. Someone directly stating that Christians are not allowed to follow their beliefs through to the logical conclusion and must as such “evade the issue” is, ipso facto, kind of an asshole thing to say.
That’s not what someone really wanted to say, I think, but that’s what was said. SO:
Notice this particular change is much more clear in the intention stance of talking about a specific branch of a specific metaphysical belief. This is not an asshole thing to say, it’s a statement of opinion on metaphysics. Are we clear on the difference? “Christians are not…” versus “This specific branch of Christianity holds it as a belief that…”.
Unfortunately, the second paragraph trips all that up and boils it back down to “religions promote hatred”. That’s an accident, I think, and I don’t think grumpyoldman really wnted that to be the case, but it happened, so here we are.
So, in the end, Christians are a illogical because they refuse to follow their beliefs to the ultimate conclusion and this results in them evading issues and not being rational. The latter is implied in evading issues. This does mean that having a discussion is pointless, because one side thinks the other is illogical, wrong and possessing of their beliefs from intellectual dishonesty.
What upsets people about the initial statement is the implied assumption that all Christians are illogical people on the run from the real world who evade issues of their faith by not thinking about them. Sort of an asshole thing to say.
There’s no reason to “argue back”, because there’s nothing to argue against. The stated discussion point is: “You are illogical and wrong, and you have not thought the conclusions of your faith through till the end, so you must not be very smart, or you must be avoiding and evading this fact of your own metaphysical construction”.
That’s not a discussion point, Ann, that’s an insult. I can say nothing to that because anything I say will is automatically countered by the notion that I am illogical non-thinker who is unable to properly examine the tenets of the faith I expouse to follow.
The argument against theodicy being the destructive seed of all religious thought because god is neither this or that good as an actual argument. There’s been some discussion of the topic for, oh, 2000 years or so? 3000? It’s kind of a brain puzzler.
My personal preference is the idea that gods, if we assume they exist, created us with free will, and that would also imply the capacities to do evil, since if there’s no choice it’s not free, so ultimately evil is a product of human machination and god is technically blameless.
But then what do I know, I don’t jump into discussions about religion with the basic thought that I’m unwelcome and an asshole and wrong. Everyone kind of just miscommunicated here.
And I don’t think Katz was very rude. I’m puzzled by the response, and puzzled enough that I took the time to write this out, so sorry if that gets on anyones nerves.
(I’m an atheist, by the way)
I’m with katz here. This isn’t the first time that she’s had to deal with smug atheists. So it’s no surprise that she would be upset at someone saying that she is illogical for having certain religious beliefs. Although GrumpyOldMan had a polite tone, he certainly wasn’t saying anything nice.
RE: katz
Among sapient fruit it is, of course, considered the ultimate abomination to put the lime in the coconut.
BLASPHEMER!
In the third one, among other things, C.S. Lewis decided to write a lesbian. It didn’t go well.
…D:
RE: Zolnier
I think there’s at least one story out there about a Martian Jesus, will have to look it up.
There MUST be. I refuse to believe with all the Christian fantasy books around that nobody came up with the idea of a Space Jesus.
Anti-theist?
Nah, I’m an anti-theist, in that if I ever had to accept that gods existed and were involved with my life, I would be FURIOUS with them and probably wish their destruction. Thus far, I think I’ve managed not to be an asscake. (Or would that make me an anti-deist? I forget what the actual term is, so maybe I’ve totally got it all wrong!)
I misunderstood at first why Katz was being rude (yeah, reading comprehension fail). Then I got it and agreed with her on that aspect. I suppose I just dislike her handling of things because I like to discuss things in a different way, even if someone says something -unintentionally I think- offensive. But I won’t impose my way of doing things again, even if it upsets me, so sorry about that.
Thanks, Fibinachi, always there with a well-reasoned and well-phrased explanation.
And I do want to apologize for sounding like I wanted all atheists to shut up, because that is not what I want at all. I would like this to be a place where everyone feels comfortable, regardless of their religious views or lack thereof, and, ideally, where everyone would feel comfortable talking about their religious views or lack thereof if they so choose.
Maybe smug atheist would work as a descriptive term? Because I’m right with Dawkins et al on the atheism and but still find the smugness annoying. Hopefully “smug” would make it clear that what’s being referenced is those who openly sneer at religious people as stupid/deluded/whatever. I’m also not fond of seeing anyone reference their religious beliefs or their atheism as a proof of moral or ethical superiority because a. it’s not hard to find examples of people with no apparent ethics at all on either side of the religion debate and b. it feels like a lazy way to try to win an argument.
Of course a simpler and clearer way to handle this might be for people to just call out the specific thing that they’re objecting to when religion is being criticized, for example in this case the implication that religious people are willfully delusional, which caused offense because hey, most people don’t like being called delusional liars. Ditto when people are complaining about sexism in atheist spaces and so on.
Smugtheists! Although then people might think we’re talking about smug theists.
On second thought, I have about as much fondness for smug theists as I do for smug atheists so maybe it still works.
We could also call them smugma.
…
I’ll show myself out.
” I don’t jump into discussions about religion with the basic thought that I’m unwelcome and an asshole and wrong. ”
Thanks for that. I thought I had read all the comments by Grumpy and Katz, including Katz’s slam against atheists, and tried to work out what was making her so angry, but *obviously* I was just trying to be offended.
I believe all religions are based on delusion, because they involve acceptance of a higher purpose/power which I simply cannot believe in. (This is what being an atheist means.) That doesn’t mean that religion is ipso facto bad, wrong, or evil, or unique in its basis in delusion. After all, we all get up in the morning with the delusion that there is some good reason to keep going and staying alive, when the world and the universe will be not be altered in any significant way if we don’t.
All that matters is how we let the delusions change how we operate. But if your argument is “there is no delusion”, that’s nonsensical. I spent the weekend at a resort and met a family where the father is dying from a brain tumour, while his wife and daughter watch. If there’s a higher power who thinks that forcing a ten year old girl endure the slow painful death of her beloved dad, then I’m an amoeba.
I really don’t care who’s right and who’s wrong in this. I don’t get up in the morning planning to crush the hopes and dreams of everyone who believes in a deity. What made me angry was Katz’s deciding for everyone else that Grumpy’s statements had no value and he had to shut up. That’s not a tone argument, it’s an objection to silencing.
Obviously most of you seem to be cool with that and I’m in a minority of one. I just don’t care about the theoretical issue enough to continue arguing about it, and I am too angry with the shit being slung for me not being a person of faith or not agreeing with Katz’s position to care if you care if I don’t. Once the discussion gets personal and laden with hate, I don’t want to hang around.
Calling someone deluded for being religious and merely not agreeing with someone’s religious worldview are two very different things.
If you argue, in seriousness, that theodicy is something that Christians (as a group) avoid because Reasons, it will be hard for me to take you entirely seriously.
If you argue that some Christian apologetics on the topic of theodicy are intellectually questionable, that I can respect.
Also, regarding Martian Jesus, there’s Stranger in a Strange Land. But I think Case of Conscience is a better treatment.
I’ve read Lewis’s Space Trilogy. Best thing I can say for it is that it led me to Olaf Stapleton.
TL:DR – Just check Ally S. one sentence comment.
Look, we’re already going to have problems when it starts of like this. I don’t go into conversations with the mindset that I’m unwelcome, an asshole and wrong.
You can take that two ways.
You can assume I think that you think that we think that you are you are an asshole, unwelcome and wrong when entering this discussion because someone said something about religion.
That’ kind of a lot of chains of intentionality.
Or you can assume it means entering into a discussion where you are automatically the persecuted party who is an asshole, unwelcome and wrong is an odd thing to do, since it, like Grumpy’s statement, means you’ve already decided the opinion of your elected opposition.
For the record, I don’t want to offend you. I don’t think you are an asshole. I don’t think you’re unwelcome. I don’t think youre Wrong, somehow.
I think entering into a conversation where that’s taken as blase fact, and then literally daring someone else to bring their worst is kind of an odd thing to do.
I find that an odd thing to do. Because you’re not unwelcome for being who you are. But if you are specifically, as you say, an asshole atheist, then you are in fact not welcome. Because assholes are not welcome. And I shall now change my nomenclature to something else, and instead say smugtheist. If you are insufferably smug about your superiority you are not welcome. Are we clear now, Ann?
One could say the same of any idea one doesn’t believe in. Look at all the MRAs who like to think feminism is based on delusions. Seconding Ally here: calling someone deluded because you don’t share their beliefs is heading straight into asshat territory. To me, your wording sounds like the sort of “anyone with any non-atheist beliefs is delusional” notion, which is very asshattish indeed. It always reads as pretty ablelist to me, too, implying that the vast majority of people in the world have some sort of mental illness.
This all started with talking about predestination, a particular belief, not a general Christian one, and (inadvertently, I think) caused splash damage. I’m sorry that happened, partly because of the obvious reasons, partly because the original conversation was interesting (not often I get to snark at Calvin here).
WWTH, have people taken to writing “asshole atheist” without distinction? That’s a crappy or maybe lazy way to do it. I use Asshole Atheist (TM) the, idea being the same as using Nice Guy (TM) – does that way of writing it rub you the wrong way, too? If so I’ll drop it. No way do I want to conflate atheism with assholishness.
OMG the blockquote mammoth attacked Fibi! Bon-bons and scented fucking candles, stat!
That gave me a Red Dwarf moment and I’ve only seen about two episodes! 😀
Just make… it apple-scented candles.
[Faint pained noises]
No! NO THAT CHAIR IS TOO HARD. I can’t rest here. My buttocks cries out with the pain of oppression.
Cushions! Cushions for Fibi!
@ cloudiah
Yeah, I have about as much fondness for smug theists as I do for their atheist counterparts, so I don’t see why they shouldn’t be included in the “you’re being a pita, knock it off” category.
@ Ann
Can you not see how “you’re delusional” is a hostile statement unlikely to lead to productive discussion? It really is possible to be an atheist without being that snotty to religious people.
Ooh, I like smugma. I shall say it always in a Lister voice.
Can someone point out my slam against atheists? My delusions may be preventing me from seeing it.
I just dislike the term asshole atheist because it doesn’t make clear that it’s a specific type. When you say fundamentalist Christian or religious right anyone can tell it’s a specific subset of Christian
Asshole atheist just sounds like you think all atheists are assholes. Even New Atheist probably works because they’re usually the ones who act smug and pushy.
WWTH – don’t know if you saw my comment upthread, but does AssholeAtheist(TM) come across like it means all atheists, to you?
Smugma or smugism or smugists work really well. It’s about the attitude, not the specific belief (or lack of).