I like it when J and M are in the car – just another funny little quirk that mo’ appears not to be able to see over the steering wheel! And he doesn’t have a rear view mirror.
Bodach, I think Jesus’ Dad was a bit hacked off at Moses when he dropped (and broke) the first set of tablets for the Big 10 – they had to have another go with Moses sat on Sinai for 40 days hangin’ about.
Hmm. Seems to me, though I have no reason to believe the belief over any other belief, that a radical skeptic with bruises on his chin, would be a hypocrite.
If I believed I had no more reason to believe there was a log in my path than there was not, and I continued to walk into the log in my path, the subsequent bruise I received should have been the validation that the belief in the existence of the log was more justified than the belief that it did not exist. Thus, if I continue to believe there was no justification to believe the log was there, then I would be a hypocrite? Isn’t this objectivity over subjectivity?
Are we sure Moses is correct? Is there any reason to believe either way? (scream!)
The unexamined belief cannot be believed any more than the examined one?
I don’t think your use of “show me an x and I’ll show you a y” is being used correctly. The idea is that the x and y are the same (i.e. the x you showed me is the y I’ll show you). If your sceptic didn’t have bruises on their shins, then they aren’t necessarily a hypocrite. But I’ll cop to being a pedant…
Ok, its taken me three days of very low productivity (both at home and at work) but I have finally managed to read every comic. I also read around 95% of the comments and around 50% of the pages linked to by both the author and other readers (indeed I’ve also added a couple of new blogs to my daily internets).
Just wanted to say a big thank you. Firstly to the author, this is an exceptional comic that manages to be consistently both hilarious and thought provoking and I expect to be jonsing for another hit very soon. Also, thanks to all the other readers who’ve had such interesting debates and discussions in the comments section. Theology and ethics are two areas in which I have basically no formal education so it has been most enlightening, hopefully as I begin to learn more I’ll be able to start contributing to the discussion.
Now I have to go to bed. Tomorrow I might actually get some work done.
Reminds me of an elderly couple taking a sunday drive. The husband, hunched over the wheel, creeping along as I swear and rev my engine behind them. His wife, perhaps a little younger, but still a q-tip sitting stately at his side. Perhaps their grandkid is in town and sitting in the back, praying they arrive in once piece…
I think that is the correct usage. Moses is saying that a radical skeptic without bruises on his shins is clearly behaving in a matter that indicates that he does, in fact, believe that physical objects exist. If he believes that there is no reason to believe that physical objects do exist, then why does he avoid walking into them? The lack of bruises shows that he is NOT radically skeptical about *everything*. He does accept the evidence of his senses.
What does the fact that neither Jesus or Mo is wearing a seatbelt mean?
If Jesus knows that they are not going to crash, what happened to free will?
Is Mo serenely confident that Allah won’t call him till his time is up?
Is Moses wearing a belt I can’t tell.
Another thanks to Paper Hand. Answered my question as well.
However, it seems it would work both ways. If he had bruises on his shins, and still refuses to acknowledge the existence of solid objects, then wouldn’t he still be a hypocrite? Or would that make him just a liar?
I wonder if Mo can get a special discount on his petrol (gas) from his people in the Middle East? It is so expensive at present – though maybe Jesus can also conjure some up from water. Well if he can do wine then petrol should be a doddle.
I guess that means scientists are all skeptics, because they never can completely prove a theory. I guess in chemistry we should be learning skeptichiometry not stoichiometry then?
Anyway, I just discovered your comic and I like it. Excellent, another webcomic to read.
Ha ha ha! I just followed a link here from Pharyngula and I’ve been reading the whole archive. I love this one. Mo doesn’t need to see because Jesus is co – pilot.
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
May 17, 2007
I like it when J and M are in the car – just another funny little quirk that mo’ appears not to be able to see over the steering wheel! And he doesn’t have a rear view mirror.
<once was a radical skeptic
Why are they driving around in England? I mean I understand Mo but what about the other two?
And did those wheels in ancient times
Roll upon England’s bypass of Cheam?
And was the Holy Micra of God
Upon the M25 seen…?
umm.. maybe not..
Right hand drive car. Guinness in the pub.
Is it not possible that the sublime Author is British ?
Of course it’s England – I reckon they live in GODalming! (Warning: this gag may have a limited audience)
I love how Moses is such a hippie punk. He never asks about Jesus’ dad, though; was there a falling out?
SCHISM ALERT
Any fool knows they live in Jesus College, Cambridge.
Why do you think they are always reading books.
I hadn’t considered that (John).
Bodach, I think Jesus’ Dad was a bit hacked off at Moses when he dropped (and broke) the first set of tablets for the Big 10 – they had to have another go with Moses sat on Sinai for 40 days hangin’ about.
Hmm. Seems to me, though I have no reason to believe the belief over any other belief, that a radical skeptic with bruises on his chin, would be a hypocrite.
If I believed I had no more reason to believe there was a log in my path than there was not, and I continued to walk into the log in my path, the subsequent bruise I received should have been the validation that the belief in the existence of the log was more justified than the belief that it did not exist. Thus, if I continue to believe there was no justification to believe the log was there, then I would be a hypocrite? Isn’t this objectivity over subjectivity?
Are we sure Moses is correct? Is there any reason to believe either way? (scream!)
The unexamined belief cannot be believed any more than the examined one?
Ahh … we finally get to see what Mo does for a living. I wonder if he’s got the meter running.
Godalming was the home of the radio operator of the Titanic.
I don’t think your use of “show me an x and I’ll show you a y” is being used correctly. The idea is that the x and y are the same (i.e. the x you showed me is the y I’ll show you). If your sceptic didn’t have bruises on their shins, then they aren’t necessarily a hypocrite. But I’ll cop to being a pedant…
Ok, its taken me three days of very low productivity (both at home and at work) but I have finally managed to read every comic. I also read around 95% of the comments and around 50% of the pages linked to by both the author and other readers (indeed I’ve also added a couple of new blogs to my daily internets).
Just wanted to say a big thank you. Firstly to the author, this is an exceptional comic that manages to be consistently both hilarious and thought provoking and I expect to be jonsing for another hit very soon. Also, thanks to all the other readers who’ve had such interesting debates and discussions in the comments section. Theology and ethics are two areas in which I have basically no formal education so it has been most enlightening, hopefully as I begin to learn more I’ll be able to start contributing to the discussion.
Now I have to go to bed. Tomorrow I might actually get some work done.
Reminds me of an elderly couple taking a sunday drive. The husband, hunched over the wheel, creeping along as I swear and rev my engine behind them. His wife, perhaps a little younger, but still a q-tip sitting stately at his side. Perhaps their grandkid is in town and sitting in the back, praying they arrive in once piece…
No, this post doesn’t have a point.
I think that is the correct usage. Moses is saying that a radical skeptic without bruises on his shins is clearly behaving in a matter that indicates that he does, in fact, believe that physical objects exist. If he believes that there is no reason to believe that physical objects do exist, then why does he avoid walking into them? The lack of bruises shows that he is NOT radically skeptical about *everything*. He does accept the evidence of his senses.
That was directed towards the comment by Art two comments above mine.
What does the fact that neither Jesus or Mo is wearing a seatbelt mean?
If Jesus knows that they are not going to crash, what happened to free will?
Is Mo serenely confident that Allah won’t call him till his time is up?
Is Moses wearing a belt I can’t tell.
Paper Hand – Ah, yes, I can see that interpretation now that it is spelled out for me. Thanks.
Jobrag… Seat belts are unnecessary for this crew.
Each is his own air bag.
Another thanks to Paper Hand. Answered my question as well.
However, it seems it would work both ways. If he had bruises on his shins, and still refuses to acknowledge the existence of solid objects, then wouldn’t he still be a hypocrite? Or would that make him just a liar?
Hobbes,
He wouldn’t be a hypocrite – just wrong. He could claim not to believe the bruises exist.
I wonder if Mo can get a special discount on his petrol (gas) from his people in the Middle East? It is so expensive at present – though maybe Jesus can also conjure some up from water. Well if he can do wine then petrol should be a doddle.
Yeah, Jakob, I figured my last thought, that he would just be a liar, was correct.
I guess that means scientists are all skeptics, because they never can completely prove a theory. I guess in chemistry we should be learning skeptichiometry not stoichiometry then?
Anyway, I just discovered your comic and I like it. Excellent, another webcomic to read.
The usual mistake. Bumping into things and being bruised by them does not suddenly prove the theory false.
One can rely on their senses while still not believing them. They may just be the best thing to go on at the given time.
Ha ha ha! I just followed a link here from Pharyngula and I’ve been reading the whole archive. I love this one. Mo doesn’t need to see because Jesus is co – pilot.