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.
NICE T-SHIRT(Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust). Others available, including NEW "street-safe" styles! Click the pic to see.
BRAND NEW! By popular demand - "Faith is...".
March 6th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Author, how do you do it? This strip is just a — uh — a miracle!
March 6th, 2008 at 8:47 am
These strips are the truth, presented in endless forms, most wonderful.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I am totally stealing the barmaid’s comment from the third pane.
I’ll be gentle with it.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
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!
March 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
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!
March 6th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Ooo, this one is too good, by half or more.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Very good. Between this and XKCD, I’ve done a lot of LOL’ing today. Thank you!
March 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
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
March 8th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Absolutely Brilliant!
Uncle Roger, I’m totally with you there, XKCD rocks.
Try the Daily Mash too although that is very British
March 8th, 2008 at 8:22 am
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!
March 8th, 2008 at 8:30 am
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.”
March 9th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Col. Leisure: I’ve never seen an atheian froth at the mouth. But we do clench our jaws a lot, trying to restrain ourselves.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
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.
March 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
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.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:22 am
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
March 28th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
I love Barmaid!!