And the cupcake vs bird argument was stating that the watchmaker’s argument comes from: you see a watch in a forest, and notice it must be designed due to its complexity; since lifeforms are ALSO complex, we are designed too [by a god]! The author says that choosing complexity as the defining quality for “being designed” is a logical fallacy, because arbitrarily you could choose “color” to mean an item is “tasty”. Thus- cupcake vs bird.

I know I restated what the author wrote, but eh… Good comic by the way!

The guy in the white room? What did he do to deserve that horrible and long drawn out death?

It seems to me it demonstrates that if the cartoons authour was God we’d all be in a hell of a lot of trouble.

… & are kids really so dumb they’ll confuse a cupcake with a bird? Not likely! If naught else that shows in what utter contempt athiests hold the intellect of the normal people – & how they’d like to toy with ‘em if they could..

The moral I take from it :

When people play God – things go horribly wrong.
When God plays God – all ends right..

I don’t have anything against fairness, and in all fairness those people did need toothpaste.

As for the rest of the commentary, congratulations; it is again a prime example of obtuseness.

The Dr. Noodle Improbability was great but doesn’t it aid creationism’s ideas? ie, something that improbable must have been caused by a divine being…

It was a bit aimless above and beyond portraying small probabilities/large number ideas. But assuming everything being equal, an observation that seems improbable reveals that there is in all likelihood an underlying process responsible. Say, big bang responsible for the observable universe as opposed to a massive vacuum fluctuation.

@ Nathan Myers:

In fairness, they don’t really need toothpaste yet (unless they live on Hispaniola).

Eh, why a nitpick, why the obtuseness, and why at the surface a contrafactual statement? IIRC the paleontological evidence is that human populations dental statuses takes a nosedive when they adopt agriculture. Also, albeit bacterial phylogeny is a mess there is definitive signs of coevolution between Streptococcus mutans and its current host, signifying some shared history.

[As major religions correlate with agriculture I think the comic portrayed not only a realistic background but a likely one. Not that the details would detract from the message or the LOL.]

I’m convinced that some parent in the far past got tired of answering a child’s questions and said the equivalent of “God did it” or perhaps “Don’t do that, or God will get you”, and the rest is elaboration and CYA, followed by power games.

Dennis

“I thought I implied that. Ah well.”

I had realized that, but anthropomorphism implies ‘nice’ human atributes to animals/gods/inanimate objects.

I was just explaining what I think is the underlining causes of war.

Sorry to hear that, mate. Have you tried compression bandages for your knees?

“it was Man who created ‘God’ in his image”

I thought I implied that. Ah well.

Furthermore, ‘God’ did not create Man in his ‘image’; it was Man who created ‘God’ in his image — which is why his ‘God’ has the same intolerances and prejudices as the man who created him, and the reason for all the bloody religious conflict in the World. (I just had to get that word “bloody” in there!)

Given the state of my knees these days, I’m not sure I’d label any of their designers “intelligent.” Getting around on built-in wheels now, that’d be the ticket!

Hmm. Yeah, that too, I guess. It is kinda habit forming.

Because some people just can’t let go of that emotional security blanket called ‘faith’ — during adolescence, they simply replaced ‘Santa’ with ‘God’!

How do you get another person who has more power than you do to look favorably on you and perhaps grant your requests? You do things that you think will sway their opinion your way.

In the same way, deity-worshippers, consciously or not, assume that said deity is just like people around them, and therefore susceptible to being swayed by such actions.

At least, that’s my take on it at the moment.

Like… er… ‘Intelligent Design’?

“That’s because those bloody creationists’ can’t even agree amongst themselves”

Creationism doesn’t need to mention a specific God to be valid…uh, unless someone mentions the wrong God, in which case they clearly are mixing theology with science.

Proper creationism just deals generally with the concept of Yahwe…er…that is, some “unnamed” creative force.

Um. You know.

I’m curious about the motivation to worship. What drives people to worship god(s)? I’d think you could sustain a pefectly good belief system populated by all kinds of gods without requiring people to worship them…

Prof. Richard Dawkins gives a good explanation in his article Viruses of the Mind or “memes” for short.

Er, it’s a long read!

I love the watchmaker argument. But I’m pretty sure hardcore creationists just won’t get the point of it.

That’s because those bloody creationists’ can’t even agree amongst themselves on what the hell is Creationism!

I like the fact that the rock in the Meteorite seems to be named after the villanous archaeologist from Lost Ark.

I suspect the motivation to worship would have something to do with two factors:

1) If I prostrate myself before ye, will ye please not smite me?

2) If I get others to prostrate themselves before ye, will ye look the other way whilst I pinch their wallets?

Now, I’m not talking about celebrating a god’s beneficence, i.e., singing hymns of thanks that the crop came in. I’m talking about the need to prostrate yourself, sometimes literally, admit your innate evilness and corruption and lavish the god with praise in hopes that it will forgive you.

Why do we do that?