Random Comic
prone

prone

A big tip of the hat to Greta Christina.

Flattr this for Jesus

Discussion (29)¬

  1. cass_m says:

    Perfect. Barmaid is so succinct:)

  2. Cafeeine says:

    Love it. Keep ‘em coming!

  3. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tom Chivers and others. Tom Chivers said: RT @JandMo: New comic: prone http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/07/02/prone/ [...]

  4. Sondra says:

    I read the last 2 panels over and over and over and laughed every time. Thanks!

  5. Eli says:

    I knew it! Barmaid is actually Greta Christina.

  6. jerry w says:

    Why did god create atheists?

    It had to be either christians or atheists, and god got first choice, you know, RHIP or something like that…..

  7. Ah yes, mysterious ways. Perfect answer. And nice to connect with Greta again. Clear thinker. Clear writer.

  8. nina says:

    Why indeed, J&M, why indeed…..

    Funny how it never occurs to the godbots that there would be no variation in people if their pet god was real – and if it was real and the whole “free will” excuse to explain variation – what kind of a jerk god would give free will and then punish you for using it?

  9. BBS says:

    So basicaly, Theism is just another Psychological Disfunction…

  10. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    Which came first, the atheist or the egg?

  11. Daz says:

    Wow, I’ve finally finished reading all the cartoons. It took a while, as I kept getting distracted by the many interesting links posted in the comments.

    Thanks, Author, for a great job, and thanks commenters too, for the links. I’ll happily buy any of you a Guinness, if we can find the Cock & Bull …

  12. daoloth says:

    I would be interested to know if anyone has analysed religiosity by profession, especially by disciplines within science.
    I would suspect that psychologists are probably the least represented, like magicians not falling for Uri Geller- because they can see how the trick is done- but would love to see this studied.

  13. jerry w says:

    @daoloth,
    I’d suppose proctologists would be high on the list of non-believers, considering that they must deal with assholes on a daily basis, though they’re not likely to find many that claim to be able to bend a fork…..

  14. oocares says:

    Is the barmaid dating anyone at the moment?

  15. daoloth says:

    @jw: I guess proctologists might be thought to have especially good hind sight…

  16. GuyveroZ says:

    @NBH
    The egg is an atheist

    @daoloth
    A pity they are always bringing in the rear

  17. jerry w says:

    @daoloth,
    If you can say a sad dentist looks “down in the mouth”, what can you say about a happy proctologist?

  18. John The Geologist says:

    Daoloth

    I always like your contributions to the J&M comments.

    That is an interesting question regarding religious beliefs within scientific disciplines. I have never seen any research on this but would be very interested if there was any (so if anyone can point to a paper that would be much appreciated).

    I do think that in asking the question you probably need to differentiate between wishy washy C.of.E type religionists and fundamentalists. My guess is that there are plenty of Protestants and Catholics (plus others) peppered throughout the general scientific community. Mainstream religion poses no real problems for most scientific disciplines (apart from maybe stem cell research and a few other contentious areas). For most religious faiths science poses no real problems.

    The problems do arise when confronted with fundamentalist religious beliefs – for example new earthers and so forth.

    I doubt if there are very many biblical literalists in fields such as all the different branches of physics, astronomy, geology and so forth. Fundamentalist views can distort individuals scientific views to an extreme extent. Dawkins mentions a well-known geologist who discovered happy clappy evangelicalism (to my shame his name deserts me). As his new found views were at odds with his scientific knowledge he gave up geology rather than goddism. To me that is a million times worse than religious indoctrination by parents and upbringing. How you can be a well-respected geologist and then suddenly assume the belief that the earth is 6000 years old is a complete mystery to me.

    It would be impossible to reconcile things like the age of the earth, the speed of light, the fossil record etc etc if you believe the universe was created six millennia ago. However the C.of.E/Vatican have no issues with this.

    I would still like to see any research though.

  19. Stonyground says:

    There are some stats quoted in the God delusion that demonstrate that the more intelligent and educated someone is, the less likely they are to be religious. Dawkins states that there are a tiny minority of high achieving scientists who are regarded with baffled bemusement by their peers. These folk seem to be able to separate their scientific knowledge from their religious beliefs by building a kind of partition in their brain.

  20. Oh my god, (or some similar entity of appropriate divine awesomeness) , this site is a breath of fresh air! Thanks!

  21. nina says:

    I read something that had engineers as more religious than scientists – and the softer the science, the more the beleif.

    for engineers, it’s because they prefer an orderly and controlled world

  22. mikeh007 says:

    Nina, with all respect, that is complete twaddle. I am an engineer and the instinct for seeking to comprehend what really goes on in the world (science) and apply it creatively (engineering) fits entirely naturally with the rationalist (atheist) perspective. To put it another way, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with some perspective on the universe (viz scientists & engineers) that the very idea of a deity is almost too silly even to discuss. Partly in consequence of that, I have considerable trouble believing the oft-repeated claim that there are significant numbers of scientists who believe in a god. I just can’t imagine how any serious scientist or engineer could do, and still do his work. (I have to mention though, that in one of those three notable interviews with major religious leaders which John Humpries (R4 Today) did a few years ago, even Archbish Rowan Williams himself sounded like he didn’t believe in a god…. )

  23. mikeh007 says:

    By the way – may I just share with all, a brilliant comedian I have only just discovered .. sadly a couple of years after he passed away. Mr George Carlin – on why religion is bulls**t: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

  24. Babu says:

    Nice Post! Love It

  25. author says:

    @mikeh007, nina – Not to denigrate the fine discipline of engineering, but the Salem Hypothesis states

    In any Evolution vs. Creation debate, a person who claims scientific credentials and sides with Creation will most likely have an Engineering degree.

    It does not mean that engineers tend to be creationists, of course.

  26. I don’t understand the rift between the two (science and God). The more we learn by science, the more we know that God was a really good designer with a great flair for beauty and aesthetics. The former does not negate the possibility of the latter. My brother, with a Masters in Theoretical Physics, Mechanical Engineering and now a P.E. has unbounded faith in God and can easily reconcile God and evolution. For myself, I am what I like to call a Heretical Christian.

  27. Yes, the argument from pareidolia that people see intent- teleology and design when there are only teleonomy- no planned outcomes and patterns, these two note in effect. Scientists are indeed exploring this argument about agency- intent.
    Now the weight of science is that there is no intent as teleonomy rules. To posit teleological God rather than putting Him in charge, compatibility, contradicts natural selection and other natural causes! And furthermore , no intent applies to other arguments- no intent behind the Big Bang and thus no Primary Cause, no intent behind miracles and no intent in history to save Jewry [ the Shoa denies that intent!].
    Since He thus cannot be the Primary Cause, the Grand Designer and the Master of History, He cannot have those referents, making the case for ignosticism.
    Then for the sake of factual meaningfulness, He is uselessly redundant, contrary to Alister Earl McGrAth, as a Primary Explantion-Cause as the Ockham so notes. The combined ignostic-Ockham notes that either He adds nothing or else He means nothing factually, even if otherwise meaningful -like Santa, the spirit of Christmans gift -giving. And no more useful than that celestial tea cup1
    He can do no more for us than a rabbit’s foot. Indeed, the supernatural and its twin superstition make what Paulo Kurtz calls ” The Transcendental Temptation,” a must read book.
    Peruse the blogs Strato of Ga. here at WordPress and Carneades.aimoo.com .

  28. No, the two aren’t compatible for science reveals no intent behind natural phenomena and thus divine intent would contradict natural selection and other natural causes- the atelic or teleonomic argument!

  29. melior says:

    As is written in the Book of Bokonon:

    “Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly
    Man got to wonder: Why, why, why

    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land,
    Man got to tell himself that he understand”
    – Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a safe place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.