Couldn't have said it better myself...

[Mock Turtle]

A religious explanation doesn't cancel out understanding how our minds work.
It just explains how we are so well designed, and why praying changes us our psyche.

Perhaps so, but there are often religious explanations when they are not really needed. The concept of 'evil', for example, when sheer horrible behaviour would suffice, and where such could probably be explained by various factors as to 'born with some issue' or 'environmental issues affecting such', or whatever else that might be appropriate. I think for many of us the religious explanations, although perhaps useful, are add-ons, and not particularly enlightening, particularly when we have our long history as a species to consider and what such entails.

 

[metis]

And in doing so, you acknowledge and celebrate your connection to others. This can be extended outward to include all creatures, and the planet itself -- and should be, because we are not only connected to it all, an intimate part of it all, we also ultimately depend on it all.

Exactly!

 

[Wildswanderer]

Perhaps so, but there are often religious explanations when they are not really needed. The concept of 'evil', for example, when sheer horrible behaviour would suffice, and where such could probably be explained by various factors as to 'born with some issue' or 'environmental issues affecting such', or whatever else that might be appropriate. I think for many of us the religious explanations, although perhaps useful, are add-ons, and not particularly enlightening, particularly when we have our long history as a species to consider and what such entails.

What is evil or horrible if we are just intelligent animals?
Nothing.

 

[Quagmire]

View attachment 67675

Whether he knows it or not the cartoonist is actually validating a basic premise of Christianity: that no one is good, and that we all need to be on a leash:

"There is none good. no not one"
Psalms 14:3
Romans 3:12

"He replied to him, “Why do you call Me good? There is One who is good"
Matthew 19:17-30 MEV

So pointing this out isn't much of an "Ah Hah!" moment. It's just echoing what Christianity is already saying.

IMO, most of us are on a leash anyway. I think the important point is "who's holding the other end"?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Whether he knows it or not the cartoonist is actually validating a basic premise of Christianity: that no one is good, and that we all need to be on a leash:

"There is none good. no not one"
Psalms 14:3
Romans 3:12

"He replied to him, “Why do you call Me good? There is One who is good"
Matthew 19:17-30 MEV

So pointing this out isn't much of an "Ah Hah!" moment. It's just echoing what Christianity is already saying.

IMO, most of us are on a leash anyway. I think the important point is "who's holding the other end"?

It is my own view that some study of human nature, a creature evolved to be both truly social (eusocial, as Edward O. WIlson has it in "The Social Conquest of the Earth"), but to retain the abiliity to act selfishly and default from that sociality. I think that explains human nature a heck of a lot better than ancient scripture.

I mean, I ask you, what is "bad" about a newborn baby? To lump that innocent in with "There is none good. No not one." seems profoundly silly to me.

 

[John D. Brey]

View attachment 67675

If you don't believe in hell you might be tempted to unleash it on others if it benefited you to do so.



John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you don't believe in hell you might be tempted to unleash it on others if it benefited you to do so.



John

Quite wrong, as usual. I have made it a lifetime practice not to hurt others when I can help it -- and when I've erred (I'm human), I have done my level best to make amends.

But "hell?" Maybe I do believe in hell in one sense -- because I've seen what we humans can create to PUNISH those we think don't believe as correctly as we do. Yes, our religions have created hells -- and unleashed them, too -- and mostly seem proud to have done so.

 

[Quagmire]

It is my own view that some study of human nature, a creature evolved to be both truly social (eusocial, as Edward O. WIlson has it in "The Social Conquest of the Earth"), but to retain the abiliity to act selfishly and default from that sociality. I think that explains human nature a heck of a lot better than ancient scripture.

I mean, I ask you, what is "bad" about a newborn baby? To lump that innocent in with "There is none good. No not one." seems profoundly silly to me.

The point isn't whether or not the Christian world view is valid, the point is that the cartoon isn't telling Christians anything they don't already believe.

It isn't the clever "Gotcha!" or Ah Hah!" moment the cartoonist intended it to be, and wouldn't seem so to anybody who actually understands Christianity or any of the other religions that talk about a hell.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The point isn't whether or not the Christian world view is valid, the point is that the cartoon isn't telling Christians anything they don't already believe.

It isn't the clever "Gotcha!" or Ah Hah!" moment the cartoonist intended it to be, and wouldn't seem so to anybody who actually understands Christianity or any of the other religions that talk about a hell.

Yes, but you see, since I'm not Christian (and frankly find much of it incredibly perplexing) the cartoon worked for me.

Didn't work for you? Okay -- that's the nature of humour.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes, but you see, since I'm not Christian (and frankly find much of it incredibly perplexing) the cartoon worked for me.

I'm not Christian either, I'm just fan of trying to understand something rather than looking for validation for misconceptions that I'm fond of.

Didn't work for you? Okay -- that's the nature of humour.

Humors only funny if it's true, or if the audience doesn't know the difference.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Humors only funny if it's true, or if the audience doesn't know the difference.

Pretty presumptuous of you to suppose that you can decide what someone else finds funny. And humour is, after all, what the hearer supposes it to be.

 

[Quagmire]

Pretty presumptuous of you to suppose that you can decide what someone else finds funny.

Where did I do that?

And humour is, after all, what the hearer supposes it to be.

Not sure what that sentence means. Could you rephrase?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Where did I do that?

You said, "humor's only funny if it's true."

I think that what somebody found funny is funny to them -- and "funny" is 100% subjective.

Not sure what that sentence means. Could you rephrase?

What that sentence means is what I just explained above. "Funny" is subjective. Like art, or the taste of brussels sprouts and liver.

There used to be a restaurant in cottage country in Ontario, along Highway 60 -- a place I used to go to when I was camping and couldn't wait to be served a real meal. They had a menu that included lots of good food -- and they had a "Children's Menu," which contained quite a nice array of food kids would like at prices from $4.00 to $6.00. The last item on the children's menu was "Liver and Broccoli -- $39.99."

I found that funny. Do you? Why, or why not?

 

[Quagmire]

You said, "humor's only funny if it's true."

Good point.
I should have said, "This kind of humor is only funny if it's true . . ."

It's basically an editorial carton making presumptions about religious people, ie., that they consider themselves "good".

It only works logically to whatever extent those presumptions are accurate.

This kind of cartoon is in the same genre as political cartoons: it's meant to point out a contradiction or an absurdity (something that contradicts logic) that's none-the-less widely held, and enough so to make the commentary relevant.

Otherwise it's based on a strawman and it's just propaganda. It may still appeal to people, but it's not going to appeal to much other than their prejudices.

I think that what somebody found funny is funny to them -- and "funny" is 100% subjective.

Well, that could be true (I'm sure some people find stop signs funny) but a cartoon like this isn't actually meant to be funny as in "Ha Ha", it's meant to be a clever commentary on a situation that actually exists in the real world, and that's less subjective.

If all or even most people who follow a religion that believes in a hell went around claiming to be "good" the cartoon would be relevant, and while I'm perfectly aware that some religious people do just that, I find them to be a minority, and it's a minority that IMO doesn't really understand their own religion.

Basically, IMO the cartoon is a strawman.

What that sentence means is what I just explained above. "Funny" is subjective. Like art, or the taste of brussels sprouts and liver.

*answered above*

There used to be a restaurant in cottage country in Ontario, along Highway 60 -- a place I used to go to when I was camping and couldn't wait to be served a real meal. They had a menu that included lots of good food -- and they had a "Children's Menu," which contained quite a nice array of food kids would like at prices from $4.00 to $6.00. The last item on the children's menu was "Liver and Broccoli -- $39.99."

I found that funny. Do you? Why, or why not?

I find it clever. Sounds to me like the restaurant owner was trying to make his place popular with kids.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This kind of cartoon is in the same genre as political cartoons: it's meant to point out a contradiction or an absurdity (something that contradicts logic) that's none-the-less widely held, and enough so to make the commentary relevant.

Otherwise it's based on a strawman and it's just propaganda. It may still appeal to people, but it's not going to appeal to much other than their prejudices.

And that sort of humour is a perfectly acceptable -- and often quite effective -- means of communication.

That's all you need to know.

 

[Quagmire]

And that sort of humour is a perfectly acceptable -- and often quite effective -- means of communication.

Propaganda you mean?

That's all you need to know.

You mean it's all you're willing to consider.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Propaganda you mean?



You mean it's all you're willing to consider.

Those were really quite uninformed and ill-considered responses to what I said. I suspect we have little common ground across which we can dialogue.

 

[Quagmire]

Those were really quite uninformed and ill-considered responses to what I said.

I disagree. I'm guessing I spent more time considering your responses than you did.

I suspect we have little common ground across which we can dialogue.

Because I'm interested in being fair, and you're interested in . . . Well, I guess that's your business.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I disagree. I'm guessing I spent more time considering your responses than you did.

Because I'm interested in being fair, and you're interested in . . . Well, I guess that's your business.

Guess what you like, and I generally give a great deal of thought to my responses. But tell me, what do you mean by "being fair" in this context (which was a cartoon discussing a social issue)?

 

[Quagmire]

Guess what you like, and I generally give a great deal of thought to my responses. But tell me, what do you mean by "being fair" in this context (which was a cartoon discussing a social issue)?

I've already explained that. If you missed it, explaining it again probably won't do any good, but I'll probably give it a go later anyway (busy ATM).