Wondy 33

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

Four pages from today's Wondy.

So, the sea monsters from the preview attack the island. The amazons fight back. Ares shows up.



WHUT. She won't kill Genocide, but she will kill Ares? She can kill Ares? Since when? He's the god of war. The whole point of him is that he outclasses her as much as Clark outclasses Jim Gordon.

They're on Thalarion at this point, and Zeus shows up and is all "be a wife and mother, and oh I killed Kane."





When WML does a better Polly than Gail, something is badly wrong with the universe.



... yeah.

On the plus side, I've had to cut back on luxuries recently and I've been waffling over what titles to cut, and this makes that decision easier at least..

Comments

[parsimonia.insanejournal.com]

This article (http://girl-wonder.org/webzine/article.php?id=9) discusses that problem a bit more, actually.

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

The article takes Secular Humanism as the only form of Atheism and does not consider how the Scientific Method, skepticism and observational skills can be applied to such beings and materials.

Ergo, I'm going to ignore it, and possibly mock it at a later date.

[parsimonia.insanejournal.com]

Uh, to quote the article: Atheism - the belief that all things have a scientific explanation; Real-world atheism is, at its core, the belief that the world is more or less the way it seems to be - that, for instance, if no evidence can be found for the existence of God it is because God does not in fact exist.

The author's definition of atheism is one that takes the scientific method and observation as intrinsic to its meaning, and actually makes no mention of Secular Humanism whatsoever.

Either way, the point of the article is that presenting atheism in the DCU pretty much sets up atheists to look foolish by default, and not so much about defining what atheism is or isn't.

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

Yeah, that definition of Atheism is extraordinarily narrow to the point where it's defining a square when it should be defining a rectangle.

The Article states to see the use of them, but then fails to do so itself or even speculate on how they would be used given the scenario Mr. Terrific is encountering.

Instead, the author uses an extremely simplisitic argument to further his conclusion without even attempting to look at how scientific analysis and observation would work in such a scenario.

The author does not even attempt a skeptical analysis of the dieties in question and simply assumes that All Myths Are True even though they are extremely contradictory especially in regards to origin stories and throwing into the fact that many of the laws of physics and nature operate in roughly similar ways to the ones that exist in the real world.

In short, no big picture.

[parsimonia.insanejournal.com]

The Article states to see the use of them, but then fails to do so itself or even speculate on how they would be used given the scenario Mr. Terrific is encountering.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your meaning here.

The author does not even attempt a skeptical analysis of the dieties in question and simply assumes that All Myths Are True even though they are extremely contradictory especially in regards to origin stories and throwing into the fact that many of the laws of physics and nature operate in roughly similar ways to the ones that exist in the real world.

The thing is, in the context of the DCU, those myths, gods and aliens and magic, they are true. Mr Terrific can't go around saying "you know you're not really flying, Superman, it's an optical illusion/it's all in your head." Superman is flying. But in the DCU there is a scientific explanation for it, and there could just as easily be scientific explanations for Zeus and Gog and the Spectre. It'll be Comic Book Science that wouldn't fully pass muster in the real world, but it would still be able to debunk the so-called fact that there are deities within that fictional universe.

The author is extending Mr Terrific's logic that what makes a god a god is how we view them. I mean, I could argue that God exists simply because the life of a person who believes in Him is affected by that belief, and if something can affect something or someone else, then it is real in some way or another, even if it isn't really real. My arguing that point does not conflict with my atheism in the slightest because it's all about perception. If someone else believes that God is real, then that is real for them. If someone in the DCU thinks that Superman is a heavenly angel, then that logic probably works for them, and as such it's true, even if other people would react with "LOLwhat, he's Kryptonian, dude."

Of course it's always possible to use scientific analysis to provide evidence as to why so-and-so isn't a god or why such-and-such isn't a mysterious form of magic. But for every person, the truth is relative. Two people can be looking at the exact same thing and they may interpret what their senses tell them completely differently from each other.

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure I understand your meaning here.

Even though it uses a very Secular Humanist/Skeptical definition of Atheism (no love for the Existentialists and Absurdists), his analysis shows not even the slightest use of the "pillars of Atheism" he ascribes to in describing the views of Mr. Terrific.

It would have been better argued if he stated that his definition of Atheism could not be found within Mr. Terrifics analysis of the situations he found himself in.

As for the rest, it appears you missed what I was saying entirely. What I am talking about is the difference between the observed phenomena and the stated conclusions. In other words: "The Gods Are Liars" is an option in play that people do not readily recognize.

Take the "Gog cannot hear people who do not believe in him." being taken as proof of his Godliness. There's another much simpler option that can just as readily explain the viewed results and via Occam's Razor, is more likely to occur: Gog is just ignoring him.

Frankly, I'd blame a writer over a non-existent character for failing to understand the philosophy he is writing about.

But for every person, the truth is relative.

...

And you want to argue about scientific analsys? Ya know, where Objective Truth is paramount?

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

Ghetto Edit: I'm pretty sure that both the author of the comic and the author of the article haven't actually listned to how Secular Humanist type atheists actually think about things.

Even if the premise that the DCU doesn't get Atheist thought (and to be fair, it doesn't), the author of the article makes the exact same mistakes as the writer(s?) he's decrying.

[parsimonia.insanejournal.com]

Again, I don't see what Secular Humanism has to do with anything at hand here.

Something that's very important to remember about atheism is that it isn't a religion or set of beliefs. The one thing that all atheists definitely have in common is their lack of belief in God/gods. You can be atheist and a Secular Humanist. One can be atheist and simultaneously be all sorts of other things, and have all sorts of beliefs that may or may not tie into one's atheism. But atheism is not interchangeable with those other aspects.

the author of the article makes the exact same mistakes as the writer(s?) he's decrying.

I do think that the author doesn't properly define atheism, but I don't see what mistake the author has made that the writer of the issue in question made.

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

Again, I don't see what Secular Humanism has to do with anything at hand here.

His definition of Atheism is closer to the philosophy held by Secularist at the very least. Secular Humanism being the most common form of Secular Philosophy.

Something that's very important to remember about atheism is that it isn't a religion or set of beliefs.

Of course. It's the absence of belief. It's the Zero of religion. The problem is that Atheists (Atheists who give a crap) also have a guiding moral philosophy as well. Which is, in effect, a set of "beliefs" usually ascribing to moral behavior or the meaning of existence.

And because of the nature of the article, the author is assuming that all Atheists are Secularists (Crowlian Satanists get no love, I tell ya!). Ergo, I'm clarifying on behalf of the author who is misinformed.

Finally Both Writer and Author clearly do not have an understanding of either skepticism, secularism or the Scientific Method. Otherwise, it would have been more heavily incorporated into their respective works.

As someone who's actually though about "How would science look at 'actual' dieties" long and hard, I do have an answer for that.