The new Jesus and Mo strip, called “proved”, came with the email note, “Maybe god is theologically impossible, too.” Below the strip itself appears this: “God plays a similarly convincing trick.”
There’s some deep theology here (lol). But the “problem of evil” also shows that God is theologically impossible in Abrahamic religious frameworks.
In the first panel, Mo is sampling Verbal Klint/Keyser Söze from The Usual Suspects (who was, in turn, sampling Charles Baudelaire).
And then, like that…[blows across empty hand]…he’s gone.
Wasn’t there something about a fist when you open your hand?
Spoiler alert!
As usual, the duo is oblivious to their hypocrisy. On a totally unrelated note, Richard Dawkins mentions PCC by name during Sean Carroll’s most recent podcast on his website at about the 70 minute mark. Praise Him!
It’s an interesting interview:
Richard Dawkins on Flight and Other Evolutionary Achievements
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2022/05/02/195-richard-dawkins-on-flight-and-other-evolutionary-achievements/
I’ve been saying for years that where the abortion debate [sic] goes wrong on both sides is:
– on the anti-abortion side (I can’t call them pro-life) you’re NEVER going to convince a Christian that life doesn’t begin after conception–they believe a human is a human from the first second
– on the Women’s Rights side, calling it an individual woman’s choice doesn’t mean anything to a Christian–you’ve got to either get them to believe the science of what life is (good luck), or somehow figure a way to get them to believe a soul is put into a fetus at a certain point during the 9 months.
I KNOW that’s a ‘duh’ statement, but instead of screaming to religious people about women’s rights, we should be saying “it’s NOT a human until X.”
It won’t work, but it’s a far better argument to use with people who believe in The Big Old White Guy in the Sky.
At least some of them may think a bit.
In a previous life i did carry out abortions. I do not rate the anti-abortion crusaders’ motives highly
They are often first in line to demand abortion when their daughter fell inconveniently pregnant or when they equally inconveniently impregnated the house help. Because their case is different, of course it is.
I’m not sure what their motives are, but reducing the number of abortions is not one of them. As repeated often, if that were the case they would be on the barricades for ways that actually work: good sexual education and easy access to contraception. They do not, Hence we are justified in concluding that reducing the nr of abortions is not their driving motive.
Thanks for reminding us of these things. Always seemed like the anti-abortion people were a Trumpish cult even before Trump went political. I’m sure a few think they are fighting for the unborn but most are just paying their club membership dues.
Did you get your metaphors mixed or something?
The difficult thing would be convincing even a particularly stupid Christian that life begins at conception, because that would mean that eggs (and/ or sperm) are dead.
Were you thinking of “ensoulment”, rather than “life”? Then the difficult thing comes in convincing evidence-believers (the non-religious) that “souls” exist, and there you’re at least fighting alongside reality, not against it.