beat

March 6th, 2008
└ Tags:

Discussion (21)¬

  1. Poor Richard says:
    March 6, 2008 at 8:23 am

    Author, how do you do it? This strip is just a — uh — a miracle!

  2. JohnnieCanuck says:
    March 6, 2008 at 8:47 am

    These strips are the truth, presented in endless forms, most wonderful.

  3. Mr Blackett says:
    March 6, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    I am totally stealing the barmaid’s comment from the third pane.

    I’ll be gentle with it.

  4. T.i.e. says:
    March 6, 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!

  5. Tie says:
    March 6, 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!

  6. Dick M. says:
    March 6, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    Ooo, this one is too good, by half or more.

  7. Uncle Roger says:
    March 7, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Very good. Between this and XKCD, I’ve done a lot of LOL’ing today. Thank you!

  8. Ayashi says:
    March 7, 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 😀

  9. Ish says:
    March 8, 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

  10. Poor Richard says:
    March 8, 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!

  11. Poor Richard says:
    March 8, 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.”

  12. Poor Richard says:
    March 9, 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.

  13. Kristian says:
    March 10, 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.

  14. Mags from UK says:
    March 10, 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.

  15. Han Fastolfe says:
    March 12, 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.

    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.

    Read it here (if you have the stomach):
    http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/ibrahim-lawson-responds-to-last-post.html

  16. yelinna says:
    March 28, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    I love Barmaid!!

  17. Gangster99 says:
    October 22, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    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. ,

  18. Tom says:
    March 4, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    Omnia vincit veritas – there is no dichotomy between truth and victory 🙂

  19. Gagan says:
    February 15, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    I am falling in love with the barmaid. Somebody help me.

  20. Acolyte of Sagan says:
    September 19, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    Sorry Gagan, there is no cure.

  21. Mikel says:
    May 17, 2024 at 3:06 pm

    Beat may also mean hit as in violence.

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly 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.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.