Well, that is supposed to be the DISLIKE icon you posted in the previous blog entry.
No other animal bother about a lot of things, which doesn't mean these things don't exist. But if there was a benevolent entity, it would still be quite absurd to think that it would cheat in favor of one single type of life form in one single planet over a number of other planets so big that we can't even fathom.What evolution shows is not that there is no God, but that if there is one, it doesn't quite care which life form gets to the finish line, as long as it's the fittest.
I mean no ill will, SAM, but why did you write this particular cartoon, the [there is no god] one?
Why are you complaining? There is nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's one of my favorite.
Please look above, I did not complain. Thanks for your reply, but I was asking SAM a question, and only SAM. [There's nothing wrong with it], is your opinion. In my view, you are welcome to your opinion, but not everyone on the net is going to share your opinion. The reason(s) that I ask the question, about SAM's [there is no god] cartoon, is to ask for his reason for creating that cartoon. He is welcome to have his opinions, but please be aware of the fact: that not all religious people, and not all non-believer people, will agree with his cartoons and his opinions.
Did you ask why Charles Schulz wrote all those Bible-based Peanuts strips, or why Johnny Hart does all those Bible-based B.C. strips? Are you saying it's only problematic when someone doesn't say they agree with you? Or, is it that it's only problematic when someone says there isn't a God, but it's definitely not problematic when someone says there is?Define gullibility, and then tell us how "I believe in God" isn't that.
Uh, no, I did not ask why Schultz or Hart wrote their religion based strips, because their views seemed very clear, as in: they were very pro-Christian + very pro-religions + so I was not inspired to ask them what their views were, or what they were/were not promoting. I did not say that anything, or anyone, was problematic. In my own personal views, you are allowed to feel, or you seem to be suggesting, that believing in a god(s) is gullible, but please be open to the idea of people believing in god(s), or not, even if they disagree with your own personal view of having a belief, or not having a belief.
It's ok to believe there isn't a god but there needs to be a guiding set of principles to maintain our humanity with each other as well as to ourselves. The lack there of, is constantly in the news.
And how do you propose those principles come about? By people determining what actions are going to best serve the society while infringing as little as possible upon the rights of the individual. You don't need magic to do that. You just need people who are willing to think of something other than themselves for more than 5 minutes (which is more and more difficult to do these days).
I wrote this strip (and really this entire series, because I've become fascinated with the discussion of science vs. religion, fact vs. faith. The characters in the strip will go through the motions on one side or another of the debate but to me facilitating a discussion between the sides is what's important. No one can prove there is or isn't a god and I don't think it's necessarily science's mission to find out.
Nor does science seek to do such a thing. Science is a method of understanding the natural world. If people think their faith is threatened by that, their faith is pretty weak and should be reconsidered. Love your stuff, Tak. You ever catch The Atheist Experience? Hilarious stuff. More arguments from ignorance than you can shake a stick at.
Hi SAM, Thank you for your reply. it was very clear and insightful. The following are my views: your strip, [there is no god], had me very puzzled, and I wondered what you were trying to convey in it. In art + literature, there can be some very challenging + provoking [subtle art ideas], and not all of them are easily conveyable to all people. As an example, one novel's art has "Good is Dead", written on it. "Good is dead" is a subtle phrase to startle a lot of dyed-in-the-wool religious people, because they might read it too quickly, + think that it says "god is dead". That's a thing with art in the USA: "god is dead" is a real shocker + offensive to some stern, U.S. religious people. "good is dead" is not. I felt compelled to ask what your motives were in writing the [there is no god] comic, since I was not clear on what you were trying to do with that particular comic. Some things in the comic could be read as statements that a cartoonist is completely against religions, or against people believing in those religion's gods. I have some very religious friends, and if I discovered that you were taking a stand against people having religions, then I would feel that I couldn't share the comic with them, because of a possible stand against people having religions, in the comic. What I mean to say is: if your comic was going to start to have [let's outlaw all religions, or say that they are all false]-statements, then if I showed my friends "Secret Asian Man" comics, then I'd be wasting my time + really ticking those people off. Moreover, What I mean is: the strip has the title of, [there is no god], so does that title mean that SAM or Tak is telling the world that: all people should not believe in a god? Thanks to your reply, you are telling me that SAM + Tak are not trying tell the world that message. In the strip, [SAM + his friend] say to the water molecule, "we don't...can we go now?", so, are the two guys telling someone, that [all humans] do not believe in a god + do not care to believe in a god? Thanks to your reply, you have explained to me that Tak and [SAM and his friend], are not saying that. Once again, thank you for your reply. I've always liked your comics + the topics that they explore. I can't wait to see what you do with the rest of SAM + his friend's trip + their debates about science + religion. Have a Good Day, TR