cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/71446600
cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/comicstrips@lemmy.world/p/2378938/you-know-japheth-maybe-this-wasn-t-such-a-good-idea
“You know, Japheth… maybe this wasn’t such a great idea.”
This appears to be by Rusty Epstein. More:
https://www.google.com/search?q=comics+by+someone+who+signs+"Rusty"&udm=2
They didn’t know that when they were writing the scary bible story.
I dont think it was sub species, probably more-so conforms to the (of the likeness of their own seed) precept in genesis. Also atheist saying Christians don’t believe in evolution, well, clearly we were right about evolution and phylogenetics in the first place.
Also pretty sure it says animals not generae
If you squint hard enough, the beginning of Genesis describes solar system evolution followed by biological evolution. Some animals are out of order, but it’s kinda close.
The Garden of Eden’s curse is humans growing big brains from the Tree of Knowledge. We could no longer swing through the trees eating fruit and the occasional howler monkey. We had to toil for our food (agriculture). Then our big brains made childbirth painful and difficult. Women are relegated to a patriarchal society where some apes have a matriarchal or co-leadership society.
Cherry on top is that now we must wear clothes because we now know we’re naked and find that shameful, an alien concept to animals who didn’t eat the fruit. All of our curses are a direct result of evolving high intelligence. :)
Of all the origin myths, which are about as likely as Discworld, the beginning of Genesis is perfectly sensible.
SPOILER: It quickly goes bugfuck. A man God calls righteous offers his daughters to the mob as rape bait, then later those same daughters raping dad.
One son becoming, living and active word of god, you shall not worship a graven image. Jesus calls the jews liars and frauds, large rebuke of moses and his law…yeah that take is pretty accurate
Um, you’re getting quite far away from Genisys there. I wasn’t talking about Christianity as a whole.
I dont think it was sub species
So you’re saying it was dom species? 🤔
There’s an estimated 0.9 to 2 million beetle species out there. Even if we’re just going off of the 400,000 that we know about that’s a lot. The young earth creationist might say that they just brought 2 of beetle kind with them. You would need an absurd amount of speciation events to get to where we are today in like a couple thousand years.
Religious stories are such nonsense. It’s good we make fun of them.
You get to heaven. You find out its all true. Wat do
Heaven, you mean that gated community where I’d have insufferable neighbors like you? No thanks, sign me up for reincarnation
Oh look, someone still thinks Pascal’s Wager holds water
It was more for fun, didnt mean to upset the militant atheists, but why doesnt it?
Who’s upset? I’m tired of this common reaction to any kind of calm and measured comments about religion. Pretending that the person is a really angry “militant atheist”. Like I’m foaming at the mouth over here because I pointed out that Pascal’s Wager is dumb.
Anyway, to answer your question, pick one:
Because it ignores the existence of every other god except the one you decide to hedge your bets by believing. The whole idea is so Christian-centric, but that’s just one of literally thousands of gods that millions of people believe in.
To add to that, in many of those religions, choosing the wrong god, is actually worse than atheism.
Or because an omniscient god would know that your claimed belief is inauthentic. You’re not going to trick an omniscient god into thinking you actually believe if you don’t.
Or because Pascal’s claim that there’s “nothing to lose” is bullshit because adhering to a religion requires real costs like lifestyle changes, major time commitments, and often tithing of a % of all of your income. That’s quite a lot to lose.
If that’s not enough, here is an interesting analysis of it from a game theory pov: https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2019/09/23/flaws-in-the-logic-of-pascals-wager/
In every religion you ignore every other religion, so that point is bollocks. Everyone faces the roulette wheel.
In some religions all you have to do is repent at the last minute. So just choose one of those if youre going pascals wager, no need to devoutly practise from birth.
How do you know you cant trick god? On like page 10 of the Christian bible god says “whoops not like that” and smiles everyone.
Sorry to have made you type all that, i dont even believe in any of this stuff, but I feel weirdly called out having -xx in double digits and baby accounts piling on.
In every religion you ignore every other religion, so that point is bollocks.
How does that negate my point? If anything, it supports my point. Pascal’s Wager is specifically about Christianity. That’s like literally my point.
Everyone faces the roulette wheel
No. Only people who think they are going to be subjected to eternal punishment for not believing. I’ve got no religion roulette wheel in my life because I’ve never been given a single good reason to believe I’m facing eternal punishment.
In some religions all you have to do is repent at the last minute.
Only if you choose the correct god. You’ve got a 1 in several thousand chance of being correct. Good luck I guess.
And finally:
How do you know you cant trick god?
Because literally the definition of the word “omniscient”. If you can trick your god into thinking your beliefs are genuine, when in reality you’re just hedging your bets, then they’re not omniscient.
No need to apologize, this is for anyone who happens to read this, not just you.
Theres a chance i just dont understand the fallacy.
How does that negate my point? If anything, it supports my point
It would be better to write down anything on the exam than leave the question blank?
No. Only people who think they are going to be subjected to eternal punishment for not believing.
That’s exactly the concept thats being discussed though? That’s not a point against pascals wager thats just straight atheism.
Only if you choose the correct god.
Yeah. Like on roulette, only if you choose the right number.
Because literally the definition of the word “omniscient”
He might not be. You’ll be familiar with the classic refutal where “he cant be omniscient AND omnipotent AND benevolent”. If god exists then he must fall short of at least one of those.
I really might be misunderstanding here, but i dont feel like I’ve seen any solid proof other than a firm belief that there’s no god.
I would ask the lord above what the fuck he was thinking when the Holocaust happened tbh
How about babies who die from terminal illnesses?
It can’t all be true. They conflict each other and disagree with themselves.
But going with the question, I’d ask Jesus why he threw a temper tantrum and cursed a fig tree.
So he could speak in a proverb so his those that are not his children would not understand
Or more clearly, he is using rhetoric and the truth does not live in you
So he could speak in a proverb so his those that are not his children would not understand
Care to explain this a little more? Jesus was gatekeeping his message? Is this the claim you’re making?
If so, you’ve got an extreme misunderstanding of what Jesus’ alleged message was.
He literally cursed the tree. He didn’t need to do that. He chose to do that. Why did he choose that and not something else?
More clearly, why would you want your followers to write in your holy book that you threw a temper tantrum?
Or is this another one of those mysteries of God that can’t be explained and are embarrassing, so you just say it’s ineffable?
No it’s just a case of you using fallacy because you can’t comprehend rhetoric
Which fallacy? There’s a bunch of them.
I understand rhetorical statements. Are you saying he didn’t really curse the tree but instead just said he did?
Bask in the knowledge that I did something right.
Laugh and chill will all my cool buddies that didn’t need the threat of eternal Damnation to live good lives while here on earth.
It all being true is inherently contradictory, and also contradictory with me going to heaven, but assuming I do somehow get there, I’d punch god
Does it really matter? At that point I’m already dead. While I’m here, I’d rather stick to my own set of worldly beliefs. Stop pushing your delusion on others.
K
Not to mention bacteria.
Is the bacteria also limited to two for boat accesa? Did they have to rip out the bacteria living inside other living things before anybody could get on the boat?
Fish? Underwater mammals?
I don’t see how a flood would kill them
A global flood would change salinity to be intolerable for many (most?) species of fish and mammal.
Yes, exactly. That was my point.
(Though in reality, a flood as large as is claimed would definitely have wiped out many underwater animal habitats. Would completely fucked up all of the underwater ecology).
Plants?
I mean yeah? Why the question? Both can be true.
An Entomologist’s wet dream
Probably nightmare considering there’s only two of each species. Many hive based species would go extinct and the Entomologist wouldn’t be able to stop it.
The ark that launched a thousand comics.
