Comments on: must

By: machigai

machigai — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 04:35:15 +0000

I just got northierthanthou’s joke.

By: northierthanthou

northierthanthou — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:36:33 +0000

No bacon! …and no dancing!

By: Acolyte of Sagan

Acolyte of Sagan — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:14:52 +0000

“Poor Richard says:
November 8, 2011 at 5:27 pm
I don’t see why an infinite number of primates typing infinitely would produce an infinite string of gibberish”

Poor Richard has obviously never seen ‘Hollyoaks’. Lucky Poor Richard!

By: Poor Richard

Poor Richard — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:27:27 +0000

I don’t see why an infinite number of primates typing infinitely would produce an infinite string of gibberish.

Some writers seem to think they are god. This usually turns out to be a nervous condition.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:14:36 +0000

You shouldn’t even allow them to get away with “the universe began to exist”, it is claiming categorical absolute certainty when we don’t have it (they like doing that, don’t they?) Yes the universe started from something smaller than an acorn with all the matter condensed and then it had a rapid “inflation” and so you could say that it “began to exist”…but any cosmologist who claims that we “know” that it “came from nothing” is claiming to know more than we do. That little acorn could be eternal for all we know.
It could also have been born from a previous universe, which would then be like saying your parents are “god” because you “began to exist” (they might have shouted “oh god oh god while they were making you but that doesn’t make them actually “God”, does it?) and claiming the universe began to exist FROM NOTHING is like claiming you are the result of a virgin birth!
There is a beautiful fractal geometry of stupidity about the Kalam Cosmological Argument which allows you to shine the light of reason on one aspect (say, P1) and invalidate it, but then, for arguments sake, allow them that point and then go on to show how it is false anyway — in some other way!
And the most amazing thing is that sophisticated theists think this is their modern-day “trump card”! Hilarious if it wasn’t so sad and pathetic.

And if they dispute all of the above, you tell them that is is a non sequitor — where is “god” in the argument? All the hard work needs to be done to get from “cause” to “god” and yet they think a fait accompli!

The barmaid seems to be allowing them the free pass from cause to god and just pointing out that it is just a deist god and they still have all the work to prove their specific god with his “no bacon” rules. Why even allow them that free pass? Let them squirm in their barstool as you point out every problem along the way!

By: mike

mike — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:47:39 +0000

sorry for the typo “prooves”, makes it look like I’ve just been to the Cock & Bull myself! 🙂

By: mike

mike — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:44:11 +0000

quantum mechanics prooves the first premise false, subatomic particles exist on a level of probablility and do not have a “cause”. Funny how they take what they want from modern physics (“P2: the universe began to exist (ie. Big Bang) but then ignore it for P1 in order to get the answer they THINK is going to get them to “god”).
Even if we ignore the problem with the premise, the entire argument is a logical fallacy, known as the Fallacy of Composition, which is to assume that a set must NECESSARILY have the identical properties and characteristics of the members of that set. A brick wall is a set and the members of the set are the bricks: yes the wall is made of mud, gravel, etc. but it is NOT the same weight and length as an individual brick!
We didn’t conclude that the universe began to exist because we saw that there are things in it which begin to exist. We concluded it from all our observations specific to cosmology. Equally, we can’t conclude that it had a cause because things within it that begin to exist have a cause because that may not apply to the set…which it doesn’t because causation requires time and the BB is the beginning of TIME, as someone has already pointed out here.
Of course, it’s much easier to cut to the chase and answer the dingbats the way our trusty lusty barmaid has, and will save you a lot of bother!

By: Rob Clack

Rob Clack — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:00:17 +0000

It’s late,so I probably haven’t looked properly. How do I see older cartoons without having to Back through all the ones I’ve already read? I want to read them all, of course!
Thanks
Rob

By: Sondra

Sondra — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:35:53 +0000

@FreeFox, these particular versions of Jesus and Mo have expressed their opinion that the missionary position is the only acceptable one. If Mo is in drag, can he be other than a bottom with the only person he ‘sleeps’ with?

By: Peakcrew

Peakcrew — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:19:59 +0000

@xznofile – I don’t see that either, but I *am* using a fairly tightly screwed down version of Firefox (note: not FreeFox!)

By: HaggisForBrains

HaggisForBrains — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:28:47 +0000

@xznofile – not me.

By: xznofile

xznofile — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:22:49 +0000

every time I go to your site, an additional secure page opens to facebook I was going to include the url here but it might include a virus or something. I’ll send you a link if you contact me through my email. 🙂 does any one else have this problem?

By: Peakcrew

Peakcrew — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:58:35 +0000

@Cuttlefish – very, very good! I’ve saved it for future reference!

By: Author

Author — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 07:32:37 +0000

@Cuttlefish Fantastic!

By: Cuttlefish

Cuttlefish — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:17:21 +0000

Brilliant comic, as always. My version– http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2011/10/06/therefore-jesus/

By: FreeFox

FreeFox — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:58:27 +0000

@Sondra: Not certain I understand your deduction… you mean, someone taking on a feminine role in a queer relationship is automatically a bottom? Or all women are bottoms? Or m2f TVs are? Or only tops favour femminine TVs? Or would that just be Christian tops? Or what is the connection between Mo’s drag and Jesus’s dominance? ^_^

(On an unrelated note: Would Jesus, had he really lived, been the first Christian… or had he just been a somewhat heretic jewish Rabbi who caused the whole mess?)

By: Sondra

Sondra — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 03:47:20 +0000

…cover your damn hair… …the women are required to cover their hair… …Mo’s hair is covered… …Jesus is a top???

By: Author

Author — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:43:05 +0000

@xznofile What do you mean?

By: xznofile

xznofile — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:36:09 +0000

how come your links open an additional link to facebook too?

By: new name

new name — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 06:16:12 +0000

with “or gay sex” on the back