ahaha, so true… Creationism is just like that, they know the truth, they just do not know yet how to beat the evidence into working with it. 🙂
I’m truly impressed by the quality of the strips, and how quickly they come out.
It’s funny how, generaly speaking, atheists, though their researchs, end up knowing more about religions than religious people.
It seems like some, like autor here, know more about religious people better than they do about themselves 😀
Ayashi: I have an impression that religiious people, especially fundamentalists in all religions, don’t read anything. I have yet to meet a Christian literalist in the USA who seems to have read the Old Testament. They are perplexed when you mention god’s murderous habits and weird moral preferences. Don’t even mention that Adam and Eve and all their progeny get the death sentence simply for wanting to know a little bit of what daddy knows. And don’t get started on Revelation–that multi-orbed many-horned goat is going to be real trouble. When one of my funkie fundie friends says “God loves you,” it’s all I can do not to ask, “Where does it say that? Does he love me like he did Daniel?”
I do *like* barmaid’s comment in panel 3. It’s just not at all a common approach to debate. Certainly not in the semi-anonymous debates between believers and non-believers on the interweb.
Debate has never been as good intentioned as Barmaid seems to say. First one side puts their case, then the other, then the floor is open for informed argument (we hope) after which the issue is voted on and a decision as to whose side wins is made. It means we may have to pretend to believe in something we don’t agree with… Hey ho, thats politics for you.
Mo’s remark that the purpose of having a debate is to win was, I believe, inspired by this little gem from Ibrahim Lawson, who’s debate with Philosopher Stephen Law has been appearing on Law’s blog for the last few months.
But let’s not forget, the purpose of having an argument is to win; it’s only you rationalists who insist on the use of reason exclusively, and, like good catholics, have declared all other forms of argument heretical.
Such an approach would entail different avenues of regional cooperation, including fulfilling immediate needs in terms of rec- onciliation initiatives, awareness building of the role of youth-serving NGOs, and nurturing existing national youth institutions and networks. ,
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
October 6, 2009
Author, how do you do it? This strip is just a — uh — a miracle!
These strips are the truth, presented in endless forms, most wonderful.
I am totally stealing the barmaid’s comment from the third pane.
I’ll be gentle with it.
ahaha, so true… Creationism is just like that, they know the truth, they just do not know yet how to beat the evidence into working with it. 🙂
I’m truly impressed by the quality of the strips, and how quickly they come out.
More please, that’s the truth!
ahaha, so true… Creationism is just like that, they know the truth, they just do not know yet how to beat the evidence into working with it. 🙂
I’m truly impressed by the quality of the strips, and how quickly they come out.
More please, that’s the truth!
Ooo, this one is too good, by half or more.
Very good. Between this and XKCD, I’ve done a lot of LOL’ing today. Thank you!
ROFL(copter)
It’s funny how, generaly speaking, atheists, though their researchs, end up knowing more about religions than religious people.
It seems like some, like autor here, know more about religious people better than they do about themselves 😀
Absolutely Brilliant!
Uncle Roger, I’m totally with you there, XKCD rocks.
Try the Daily Mash too although that is very British
Ayashi: I have an impression that religiious people, especially fundamentalists in all religions, don’t read anything. I have yet to meet a Christian literalist in the USA who seems to have read the Old Testament. They are perplexed when you mention god’s murderous habits and weird moral preferences. Don’t even mention that Adam and Eve and all their progeny get the death sentence simply for wanting to know a little bit of what daddy knows. And don’t get started on Revelation–that multi-orbed many-horned goat is going to be real trouble. When one of my funkie fundie friends says “God loves you,” it’s all I can do not to ask, “Where does it say that? Does he love me like he did Daniel?”
Watch out, kids!
rOOdbOOy: check out my response to you of March 6 — two or three strips back thataway. Bloody fun, I’m having; hope you are too.
Hey, I just got my printer working — I said a prayer, sacrificed a goat, and sent blessings to hp. But mainly I followed directions.
As PR says, “When all else fails, read the little paper there that came with that thing.”
Col. Leisure: I’ve never seen an atheian froth at the mouth. But we do clench our jaws a lot, trying to restrain ourselves.
I do *like* barmaid’s comment in panel 3. It’s just not at all a common approach to debate. Certainly not in the semi-anonymous debates between believers and non-believers on the interweb.
Debate has never been as good intentioned as Barmaid seems to say. First one side puts their case, then the other, then the floor is open for informed argument (we hope) after which the issue is voted on and a decision as to whose side wins is made. It means we may have to pretend to believe in something we don’t agree with… Hey ho, thats politics for you.
Mo’s remark that the purpose of having a debate is to win was, I believe, inspired by this little gem from Ibrahim Lawson, who’s debate with Philosopher Stephen Law has been appearing on Law’s blog for the last few months.
Read it here (if you have the stomach):
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/ibrahim-lawson-responds-to-last-post.html
I love Barmaid!!
Such an approach would entail different avenues of regional cooperation, including fulfilling immediate needs in terms of rec- onciliation initiatives, awareness building of the role of youth-serving NGOs, and nurturing existing national youth institutions and networks. ,
Omnia vincit veritas – there is no dichotomy between truth and victory 🙂
I am falling in love with the barmaid. Somebody help me.
Sorry Gagan, there is no cure.
Beat may also mean hit as in violence.