Friday, May 23, 2008

Theist-Man vs. Atheist-Man

Today's Bizarro is brought to you by invisible superheroes in the sky.

Judging by the emails I got on this one, it appealed to theists and atheists alike, which doesn't surprise me. Psychology studies consistently show that in virtually any situation, people (think they) see what they want/expect to see in most cases.

An atheist I heard from liked this cartoon because he thought it was comparing praying to invisible superheroes in the sky to asking a Magic Eight Ball for advice
-- a Christian I heard from wanted to incorporate this cartoon in one of her lesson plans at church. I gathered her theme was about not treating God like a Magic Eight Ball.

However you look at it, humans are a superstitious species. It's what happens when you combine our form of inventive intelligence with evolution's tendancy to produce animals who see "something where there is nothing," as opposed to "nothing where there is something." For instance, it's much safer to see patterns and causes in everything than in nothing, that way you're more likely to mistake a shadow for a predator, rather than a predator for a shadow, which could prove fatal.

Just a theory, of course. It could be that an invisible superhero in the sky created everything in six days, and all we know of science is a cruel joke by His archenemy, Devil-Man.

I report, you decide.


Jeremy said...

Interesting theory. There is no doubt that humans are superstitious. It was one of the earliest forms of rationalising things that God didn't explain outright. Take John McCain for example:

According to his wife, that situation really happened.

I reject the notion that science and fossils, etc. were created by The Adversary (Satan in Hebrew). God created this world and scientists are merely studying it and how it works. They have made some strange conclusions like Evolution which have not been fully proven based on any fossil evidence. Others base it on the historical account laid down by the Bible written by Jewish people thousands of years ago as told to them by God.

Both are world-views and the evidence will be interpreted based on which one the scientist subscribes to.

Mel2 said...

I've thought about it and thought about it, and I can't figure out how the church lady would use this cartoon to support her views. Maybe to prove that god "trumps" plastic toys made in China? Okaaay.

Either way, I think it illustrates people's need to cede control of their fate over to something other, and presumably more powerful, than themselves. It is a lot of responsibility, after all.

Geoff W. said...

I took the Church Lady's intentions to show that no matter how much hope/faith one puts into a man-made object, its up to the Grand Ol' Diety to make it so.

John Radke said...

"They have made some strange conclusions like Evolution which have not been fully proven based on any fossil evidence."

'Scuse me, what? There is something known as the "fossil record", which contains quite a bit of fossil evidence, ALL OF WHICH supports the theory of evolution. There's certainly gaps, as any good scientist would freely admit. But just because our knowledge of evolution is incomplete does not mean it is not proven.

It most certainly IS proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's been proven by fossils (which, by the way, are only left behind under rare conditions, which explains the dearth thereof), genetics, comparative anatomy, biology, developmental biology, geographic distribution of species, physiology, disease theory...

But don't let that rational, evidence-based knowledgey stuff get in the way of your "worldview"!

HollyBerry said...

yea word, john. agreed. what i find most confusing is a faith-based theory can be believed whole-heartedly, yet, any notion of PROOF of something is completely thrown out the window because some of the pieces of the puzzle are missing. just because a couple pieces are missing doesn't mean you can't see the picture.. no? AND- how is it MORE believable to say god created earth in 6 days than it is to say that earth was an indirect result of the big bang? but of course, it is impossible and a waste of time to argue any theory.

and bizarro- at least you have the capacity to remain "fair and balanced"...

marine_explorer said...

I have to wonder what cruel joke put the fate of Earth's biosphere in the hands of "evolved" humans, who cannot seem to get past their own short term gains. After those millions of years, I would've hoped we were a little more advanced, or that perhaps a more deserving species came up with some better ideas?

Abstractions that serve to justify our "right to rule" seem rather pointless without an ability to live responsibly; perhaps it's time for the cosmos to shake that magic eight ball again?

Jeremy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeremy said...


I understand that you may not know the whole truth. I personally have only recently found out what most Evolutionists won't talk about in science class. Not only are there "gaps" as you put them, but here is the account of a man who worked for 27 years with the Smithsonian Institution as a field collector:

"Dr. Murray also sees a major obstacle for evolutionists in the fact that the fossil record contains no indication that one type of creature has turned into a completely different type. ‘There is not a single intermediate fossil ever found’, he says."

The full story is here:

I highly recommend browsing some of their articles there. They are all written by professionals in their field.

John Radke said...

Jeremy -

I understand that you're being condescending. Please go read more about evolution by those who study it. Understand the opposing viewpoint, and you might be surprised at the truth that comes to light.

All I'll say is that there's plenty of controversy, argument, and conflicting opinions within the scientific community with regards to evolutionary theory, but purposeful design is not one of them. Not since the 1880's, anyway.