OK, real talk for a second because this is going to be somewhat of an asshole thing to say, but I feel it is a valid thing to consider.
So, the belief that a big beardy man in the sky created the entire universe in a few days, focused his entire attention on a single world in the vast infinite, made every animal and plant on the planet be an unchanging constant that formed precisely in one form, created a species in his image, genocided that species a few times, and then made it so that all of humanity would be “saved” the day we nailed a random Jewish carpenter to a stick all because he was the son/Clone of said God, how is that any less weird than, say…
Chris Chans idiotic belief that all cartoons are real and that we’re going to merge realities with fucking toon town?
Regardless whether that creation story, or really any creation story is correct in the long run. Purely from the position of how fanciful and absurd any said story sounds, how can you judge one absurdity against another?
Obviously Chris Chans ongoing mental train wreck is an extreme example. But what about the first nation’s belief that the world came from a bending river? Or the Nordic belief of the realms of fire and ice smashing together and forming reality and earth being forged out of the body of a giant (which, ironically, is actually closer to the Big Bang and stellar planet formation than any other creation myth), or that one Hindu God ejaculating into the void and birthing the cosmos?
These are all, at their core, absurd. And none are more or less absurd than the others. And regardless of if you believe in them, you have to be able to admit that.
