True and a, great example of an unnecessary comma.
“You prove, I can’t fly”,
From the languages I know, that comma completely changes the meaning of the phrase. But I’ve seen some examples in German using some very weird commas, so maybe it’s a language thing?
So in German the phrase would go like “You prove, that I can’t fly” so I’m guessing the author omitted ‘that’ for brevity
/end over analysis
I like how the guy hung himself.
Actually, the word you wanted to use was “hanged” 😎🤓🤓
My father used to say, “pictures are hung, people are hanged.”
“They said you was hung.” “And they was right.” Blazing Saddles
About half of humanity is hung.
A comma after the word hung would have covered, all bases.
Mid way through the 2 panels they guy said “oh i almost forgot to mention I can also come back to life”
Religious people even made up a special word so they wouldn’t have to think of themselves as gullible.
Faith
I think it was David Hume who had an interesting insight on faith. Basically faith is essential for everyone, because even before you are capable of knowing anything you must first have faith that it is possible to know things. While I do recognize that many religious people have got a lot of things backwards themselves, perhaps the most important issue at hand is that religion recognizes that it isn’t actually possible to know everything about existence (you can know OF God, but you can’t know ALL of God).
That’s a bit more charitable than I’m willing to be, but thank you for the comment.
I like to think of science as conservation of faith, an attempt to explain as much as possible while having faith in as few initial postulates as possible.
That’s not faith. That’s just pragmatism. A set of models which predict the observed world with the fewest number of theories will be the most easily understood and the most easily extended. However seeking simplicity does not mean that there is a simple answer.
I’m not refering to faith in the religious sense just faith in the sense of believing something that cannot be proven, in the case of science this is purely pragmatic such as faith that our senses provide a useably accurate picture of reality and that every other person isn’t lying to us. It is however still a form of faith.
I, a curious person and budding scientist, want to understand more of the world I observe. I make a starting assumption, that it’s possible to create a usefully predictive model.
I dream up a model, then I create a set of hypotheses to test the predictions of my model. If my predictions match my observations I say that I have created a useful model. Although you hear people talk about theories being proven, if you peel back what’s actually happening it’s just creating models. If over the course of all my efforts I never create a useful predictive model I may have disproved my starting assumption that modeling is possible. But we have ample evidence that it is.
Here’s an example of a model we know to be untrue (or more correctly incomplete) but which we still use: Newtonian Mechanics. NASA does not need to involve Relativity to send a probe to Mars and have it get there as planned. Because the space-time in which the probe operates is simple enough that Newtonian math is sufficient. But we also have a better model: General Relativity. We have not thrown out Newtonian because its still a useful model provided you know it’s limits. Newtonian assumes absolute time and Galilean Invariance. Both models assume the gravitational constant G doesn’t change. When/if they find evidence of that we’ll need new models.
The idea that the universe, or every other person is not lying to us as you said, is not faith. Just another assumption.
There’s no faith here. Just a process. The critical difference between this process and faith is that it MUST be constantly tested and discarded if it does not work.
I never bought into presuppositionalism. You can act like you know something with zero confidence or even the ability to know what confidence is.
A plant knows how to grow to light.
deleted by creator
What? Flying once doesn’t prove that he can fly. We need repeated testing
Flies
Hmm ok so maybe you can fly. Maybe it was a fluke.
Flies a bunch of times
We may have a hypothesis here.
Flies without fail a million times
Ok we are pretty certain you can fly, let’s call it a theory. But hey, we don’t know the full picture here, let’s leave the possibility open that you can’t fly and we just don’t understand things completely here.
And it might “just be a fluke” that some lock opened when LPL put a wave rake in it?
Sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of uncertainty. But I’m an undereducated dilletant, so I’m not sure I have a solid grasp on the fundamentals either.
deleted by creator
Just nitpicking here: science can never prove anything.
In the second panel the guy on the right acquires evidence that is consistent with the guy on the left having the ability to fly. The fact that he even asked for proof shows that he is not engaged in science here.
The fifth unshown panel the religious person smacks around a LGBT person.
Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary proof
Lucifer: In our non-canon continuation to this comic, the “I can fly!” guy is launched from a trebuchet over the Grand Canyon.
Since he can actually fly, this implies that his religious beliefs are true…
Edit: this is maybe the oddest set of comments I’ve caused a downvote rush over. I hope the irony is not lost that y’all are acting like a bunch of religious nuts over this comic.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Which religious beliefs are true?
This meme didn’t show any religious beliefs.
It shows the religious thought process.
Should’ve just reversed the bubbles/speakers in the second half.
