But the scientist and the religious person are shown to be identical, and the first row showed that he could fly. I.e., the claim that he refused to prove was implied to be true, regardless of his refusal to prove it.
Let’s be generous and say it’s the same person. You’re saying that the attitude of this person is rational, let alone deserving of worship?
You seem to be under the impression that athiests are all the same in that they just don’t get that god actually exists.
Most of us don’t believe a compassionate, omnipotent, and omniscient exists. God, if it is everything the bible says, has murdered far more innocent people than the average athiest. Even if it exists, most of us still wouldn’t worship such a wretched disgusting thing.
It’s common for comics like this to reuse frames to reenforce that point that “everything else being the same” these two ways off responding to the first frame are fundamentally different. It’s not common to read the frames as all four of them happening in series.
I agree, If we read them the way you suggest the meaning is less clear. Is flying proof of religion? Nope! It’s proof that this person can fly. What it does do though is provide a case of potential “supernatural” that can be explored for more information. What if he flew using fairy dust … does that prove Catholicism?
Funny how fast you clutch your pearls as soon as an ounce of good faith was given to your argument that had so little relevancy to the point of the comic.
Acting offended doesn’t make you correct, it makes you hypocritical.
This has nothing to do with liking the comic or not. Stop moving the goal post. It’s about making bad faith arguments and then backtracking when people point you out on it.
Why do you think this level of aggression is justified? The guy isn’t being rude or unreasonable. Some of you are sounding totally unhinged in this thread.
It’s ‘aggression’ when atheists respond to a bad faith argument, and ‘not being rude or unreasonable’ when others pose the bad faith argument to begin with.
It is. It’s surprising to me how defensive people are getting over a comic. Flying is an obvious stand-in for the left character’s beliefs, so the people acting like you can’t treat it literally are just being intentionally obtuse. This thread feels like reddit all over again, and that’s not a good thing.
I love the irony of a subreddit against religion trying to collectively reinforce that there is only one true interpretation of a comic. And discrediting contrary viewpoints without addressing the underlying logic.
I mean, it’s a meme community reacting to a meme where both the inference and message are crystal clear - how many interpretations and how much logic can there actually be?
The greatest irony here is you pushing your view points into other people and calling anything you disagree with a logical fallacy. Not everything you don’t understand or disagree with is a logical fallacy.
Ending your sentence with a trite saying implying that people are odd for calling out your hypocrisy doesn’t make you sound wise, it makes you sound insufferable.
It was the scientist who proved he could fly. The religious person made the same claim but didn’t even try to prove it.
But the scientist and the religious person are shown to be identical, and the first row showed that he could fly. I.e., the claim that he refused to prove was implied to be true, regardless of his refusal to prove it.
You’re interpreting the artwork too literally. I think the creator was just trying to save themselves a bit of drawing time.
I think my interpretation is quite reasonble, given the presentation.
Let’s be generous and say it’s the same person. You’re saying that the attitude of this person is rational, let alone deserving of worship?
You seem to be under the impression that athiests are all the same in that they just don’t get that god actually exists.
Most of us don’t believe a compassionate, omnipotent, and omniscient exists. God, if it is everything the bible says, has murdered far more innocent people than the average athiest. Even if it exists, most of us still wouldn’t worship such a wretched disgusting thing.
Christ man all I did was point out that the comic’s internal logic was an awkward fit for its theme.
It’s common for comics like this to reuse frames to reenforce that point that “everything else being the same” these two ways off responding to the first frame are fundamentally different. It’s not common to read the frames as all four of them happening in series.
I agree, If we read them the way you suggest the meaning is less clear. Is flying proof of religion? Nope! It’s proof that this person can fly. What it does do though is provide a case of potential “supernatural” that can be explored for more information. What if he flew using fairy dust … does that prove Catholicism?
Funny how fast you clutch your pearls as soon as an ounce of good faith was given to your argument that had so little relevancy to the point of the comic.
Acting offended doesn’t make you correct, it makes you hypocritical.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. You can like the comic and I can not like the comic. That’s perfectly fine.
This has nothing to do with liking the comic or not. Stop moving the goal post. It’s about making bad faith arguments and then backtracking when people point you out on it.
Why do you think this level of aggression is justified? The guy isn’t being rude or unreasonable. Some of you are sounding totally unhinged in this thread.
deleted by creator
Nice try with the double standards.
It’s ‘aggression’ when atheists respond to a bad faith argument, and ‘not being rude or unreasonable’ when others pose the bad faith argument to begin with.
It is. It’s surprising to me how defensive people are getting over a comic. Flying is an obvious stand-in for the left character’s beliefs, so the people acting like you can’t treat it literally are just being intentionally obtuse. This thread feels like reddit all over again, and that’s not a good thing.
Agreed. I think it’s the upvote/downvote system. It’s an inherently flawed way to facilitate good faith discussions.
It’s a meme. If you’re expecting a dead on accurate reflection of reality, you’re looking at the wrong media format.
I love the irony of a subreddit against religion trying to collectively reinforce that there is only one true interpretation of a comic. And discrediting contrary viewpoints without addressing the underlying logic.
We’re an odd species, aren’t we?
I mean, it’s a meme community reacting to a meme where both the inference and message are crystal clear - how many interpretations and how much logic can there actually be?
At least two interpretations, per the above discussion.
The greatest irony here is you pushing your view points into other people and calling anything you disagree with a logical fallacy. Not everything you don’t understand or disagree with is a logical fallacy.
Ending your sentence with a trite saying implying that people are odd for calling out your hypocrisy doesn’t make you sound wise, it makes you sound insufferable.