If I weren’t already an Athiest I’d be having serious doubts about my religious beliefs. But rather than being a believer who says “I stand Converted”, I’d rather say “I think, therefore I’m not.”
But those holy books sure were great stories when they were written. You think in two thousand years people will be living by the Gospel according to Robert Jordan?
Not bad, though 4 frames aren’t enough for that story! Author needs to improve it! I mean, like baking one man from darker clay and making a few jokes about sons of Ham (Biblical source of Africans) and stuff…
JayBee and jONES: While I agree entirely that this site is fantastic, I think you seriously underestimate the ability of religious people to deflect criticism like this — a symptom of a wider underestimate of the difference between rational and religious thinking. We’re talking about a whole different system of thinking, not an everyday difference of opinion: it’s why JayBee’s use of the word “logical” doesn’t apply. When you have been brought up in that system, and shielded from all other ideas and ways of thinking, the behaviour being mocked is not weird. It is why so many people accuse atheists of hating God; it is not some rhetorical trick: due to their upbringing, and the limited set of ideas they have been exposed to, they are mentally incapable of visualising of a world without God, and therefore mentally incapable of understanding what an atheist is.
Joe D.,
You speak to cognitive dissonance, if it won’t fit neatly into your frame of reference, it just doesn’t exist. Have a look at what Scott Adams is doing in his daily Dilbert blog, like the one for Sept. 27, 2007:
This lack of ability to even visualize another’s point of view is the reason the world is in such a fine state, best summed up by a quote that I can’t exactly recall or give credit to, as I heard it much too long ago. It goes something like: Praise the man who seeks god, run from the man who says that he’s found god.
Me? I’m worried by anyone of any religion that must wear a certain style of clothing or a certain hair style, keep on some schedule of ritual observation that is not of his choice, or keep hair in one place or keep it absent in order to relate to some god.
I do speak of cognitive dissonance, but not only of cognitive dissonance — at least, not as I understand the concept. Cognitive dissonance, as I understand it, accounts for people rejecting new ideas because they are logically incompatable with existing ideas. I’m talking about people rejecting new ideas because they are incompatable with their way of thinking, in which logic plays little part. If your way of thinking is faith, you can not be convinced of any “fact” by those whose way of thinking is logic and reason (and vice versa).
I think this distinction is at the heart of the arguments over “new atheism”/”passionate atheism”/”Dawkins-Hitchinsism”/whatever it’s called today: the critics generally fail to realise that this isn’t about what people hold to be true, so much as how they think.
I dunno how a “passionate athiest” is supposed to think, but it’s probably a good thing that I’m at least some kind of athiest because I think i’d get blasted by a lightning bolt for just visiting this site otherwise… 😛
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
January 25, 2017
Is that a reference to Noah’s flood? I bet you could have similar fun with the tower or Babel.
This comic should convert any logical human being to an athesit…
on another hand, I love it! It’s classical!
If I weren’t already an Athiest I’d be having serious doubts about my religious beliefs. But rather than being a believer who says “I stand Converted”, I’d rather say “I think, therefore I’m not.”
But those holy books sure were great stories when they were written. You think in two thousand years people will be living by the Gospel according to Robert Jordan?
Not bad, though 4 frames aren’t enough for that story! Author needs to improve it! I mean, like baking one man from darker clay and making a few jokes about sons of Ham (Biblical source of Africans) and stuff…
Great work though.
~/o Dreidel dreidel dreidel, I made you out of clay ~/o
~/o Dreidel dreidel dreidel, with dreidel I shall play ~/o
Sorry. Watched way too much South Park and I sooo love Kyle. 🙂
Awesome!
Flush the evil clay people, hehe.
Right in the heart of abrahamic god-beliefs 😀
JayBee and jONES: While I agree entirely that this site is fantastic, I think you seriously underestimate the ability of religious people to deflect criticism like this — a symptom of a wider underestimate of the difference between rational and religious thinking. We’re talking about a whole different system of thinking, not an everyday difference of opinion: it’s why JayBee’s use of the word “logical” doesn’t apply. When you have been brought up in that system, and shielded from all other ideas and ways of thinking, the behaviour being mocked is not weird. It is why so many people accuse atheists of hating God; it is not some rhetorical trick: due to their upbringing, and the limited set of ideas they have been exposed to, they are mentally incapable of visualising of a world without God, and therefore mentally incapable of understanding what an atheist is.
Joe D.,
You speak to cognitive dissonance, if it won’t fit neatly into your frame of reference, it just doesn’t exist. Have a look at what Scott Adams is doing in his daily Dilbert blog, like the one for Sept. 27, 2007:
This lack of ability to even visualize another’s point of view is the reason the world is in such a fine state, best summed up by a quote that I can’t exactly recall or give credit to, as I heard it much too long ago. It goes something like: Praise the man who seeks god, run from the man who says that he’s found god.
Me? I’m worried by anyone of any religion that must wear a certain style of clothing or a certain hair style, keep on some schedule of ritual observation that is not of his choice, or keep hair in one place or keep it absent in order to relate to some god.
http://boskolives.wordpress.com/
I do speak of cognitive dissonance, but not only of cognitive dissonance — at least, not as I understand the concept. Cognitive dissonance, as I understand it, accounts for people rejecting new ideas because they are logically incompatable with existing ideas. I’m talking about people rejecting new ideas because they are incompatable with their way of thinking, in which logic plays little part. If your way of thinking is faith, you can not be convinced of any “fact” by those whose way of thinking is logic and reason (and vice versa).
I think this distinction is at the heart of the arguments over “new atheism”/”passionate atheism”/”Dawkins-Hitchinsism”/whatever it’s called today: the critics generally fail to realise that this isn’t about what people hold to be true, so much as how they think.
I dunno how a “passionate athiest” is supposed to think, but it’s probably a good thing that I’m at least some kind of athiest because I think i’d get blasted by a lightning bolt for just visiting this site otherwise… 😛
I *wish* this was a refetrence to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas Didymus…