I’m not here. So this is an old one from four years ago.

Discussion (117)¬

  1. Peter Harris says:

    If Humanity was “intelligently” designed, it suggests a dumb, fallible bastard designed us.

  2. Tom says:

    One of the classics. Love this one.

  3. AgnosticDC says:

    Great response to the previous discussion, Author. Funny how you wrote it years ago, in response to solomon’s argument. I think you must be god, you phophesy!

  4. Timmyson says:

    So, only atheists who have studied theology are qualified to criticise religion? Love the comic, but I think this one’s a little off base.

  5. solomon says:

    Bravo!!!! Timmyson,,,,,,,Bravo!!!!

  6. solomon says:

    Peter Harris,

    If a dumb, fallible bastard happens to designed you, then you must be 1,000,000 or more times dumb & fallible bastard than your designer.


  7. Ketil W.Grevstad says:

    Have a drink on me. Cheers 🙂

    have a nice day author

  8. kiyaroru says:

    Did y’all know that solomon was banned from Pharyngula a couple of weeks ago?

  9. FreeFox says:

    @Timmyson: Can’t say I agree with you or Myers on this one. Of course anyone trying to force a religion on you without meeting that burden of proof is a silly git and should be ignored if they do it peacefully and locked up if they’re getting violent. But if you go and attack or make fun of anything, from some scientific theory to a philosophy or religion that hasn’t gone out of their way to bother you, well, yeah, you should better know what you are talking about.
    As for the courtier’s reply, of course the basic argument is correct enough, and again, for anyone trying to sell religion, or any other “wardrobe”, they do have to prove – or at least, find reasonable cause for belief in – the existance of the clothes, before anything further said about them becomes relevant. But I think Myers is going a bit easy on himself, when he says, for example, that “if you haven’t shown that Jesus even existed, it’s silly to be arguing about the color of his socks.”
    The indisputable fact aside that Jesus, like Brian, of course wore his Sandals without socks… anything else would be a fashion statement unworthy of a devine avatar… it is not silly to talk about the straw head Huckleberry Finn wore, or the silver Button Allan Breck gave to David Balfour, whether it was self-interest or compassion why Mareb Milton helped Ree Dolly, or what really happened in the youth of Donna in Scott Heim’s “We Disappear”, nor is it silly to speculate why the scorpion stings the frog carrying it across the river, or even whether the relationship between the seven dwarves and Snow White was quite as innocent as the Grimm text makes it out to be, or whether it is all that clear who was the perp in that fairy tale: Ever considered what it says about the prince that he got the hots for an unmoving girl? ^_^
    Even if there are never any answers than those we find within ourselves, and none of them are proveable in the least, there are more questions worth considering than only those that make our mobile phones smaller and our medicines work better. (Though I don’t want anyone to NOT make our medicines better. The mobile phones are negotiable.)

  10. Andrew Hall says:

    A simple joke that demonstrates the truism: Never assume you’ve reached the bottom of the barrel.

  11. Phillip Moon says:

    These panels make a very valid point. I’ve been in conversations like this one, and listening to someone make silly statements one after the other can drive one to distraction. Too many creationists come to this argument without an even basic understanding of science, much less evolution.

    As to religion. Every single one of the theistic/deistic/pantheistic religions have failed to demonstrate the existence of a god of any kind. That’s a real stopper right there. All the theology in the world doesn’t change that. Sure we can talk about angels dancing on pin heads, but that is an exercise in imaginative speculation in fiction until angels are also proven.

  12. MrGronk says:

    Philip, theology prides itself not on proving god’s existence, but on dreaming up clever excuses for why it can’t provide proof.

  13. HaggisForBrains says:

    @Timmyson – Thanks for the link. I’m in the UK, and currently when I download PZ it is two days behind. Right now I’m looking at “Another reason to dread the airport” as the latest blog available. Is anyone else in the UK having the same problem?

  14. Buzzard says:

    i love this site, keep up the good work. I get a kick out of the posts, as well. One thing that seems true throughout my life, is that the response by the the atheists are just as lame as what the religious folks posts. In reality neither can prove the existence or nonexistence of a divinity….bottom line….who gives a damn. Your not going to change anyone so let everyone have their belief and let well enough alone.

  15. Godbots will never get that it’s because we understand religion that we make fun of it.

  16. AegisLinnear says:

    @HaggisForBrains – not really, mate. How are you getting his posts – just visiting the site, or through RSS, or what? I just visit the site whenever, and it’s always bang up to date for me.

  17. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    The world would be somewhat bland
    If critics did understand.
    An unbeliever professing to know
    Really does blow
    For their brain hasn’t evolved from a gland.

  18. solomon says:


    Are you a busybody reporter or somewhat?

  19. Peter Harris says:


    I thought according to the Christian theology I was created “in god’s image”. So only as dumb, fallible and bastardlike as “He”, shurely?

  20. HaggisForBrains says:

    @ AegisLinnear – I have Pharyngula on a tab in Google Chrome, and refresh it every morning. I just tried it just now, and realised, thanks to you, that I have been refreshing “page 2” each time without realising it :-o! now I’m back up to date – thanks for your help.

    @ Solomon – Is it true you’ve been banned from Pharyngula?

    @ Buzzard – “bottom line….who gives a damn” Well I do when theists try to tell us how to run our lives, and in some parts of the world have significant political clout to enforce their stupid ideas on us.

    @ Random Nina – Yes, and the more I learn about religion, particularly xtianity, the more fun it becomes.

    @ Peter H – Yes, that makes sense to me. I was going to quote “Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes” from the famous Oolon Colluphid, when I decided to Google it, and found this website: I’ve yet to study it but it looks interesting. Perhaps Solomon might have a look, and post a review (sorry, mustn’t feed the troll).

  21. solomon says:


    “@ Solomon – Is it true you’ve been banned from Pharyngula?”
    Nope! Nobody is able to ban me.
    I quit first.

    As for the article you posted I would like to comment only on one interesting subject of “nipples”. Every pert of our body that God creates is not wasted . It has its own function. If male mammals does not have nipples then theres a great chance that your mate won’t have it too. What a dissapointment it would be….
    Whaaaaa…..ka ka ka….

  22. solomon says:

    Peter Harris ,

    “I thought according to the Christian theology I was created “in god’s image”.”

    That revelation is just a clear blantant lie.
    If human have the image of God, then that will put God’s standards to shame.
    God is comparable to nothing.

  23. Author says:

    God is comparable to nothing.

    Solomon finally says something wise. Shame he doesn’t realise it.

  24. HaggisForBrains says:

    Author FTW 😉

  25. Jobrag says:

    “If male mammals does not have nipples then theres a great chance that your mate won’t have it too.”
    Solomon; If you did any biology at school you should seriously consider suing your teacher.

  26. solomon says:

    Dear Author,

    You seems to get the wrong meaning of my sayings.

  27. solomon says:


    If you don’t believe me, you can clarify this matter with Richard Dawkins.

  28. spoing says:

    @author – great riposte to solomon there.

    Actually that is a very good point. How much religious language would make MORE sense were we to replace with “nothing” wherever the word “God” is found.

    “Your nothing is the only nothing; there is no nothing but nothing” Kuran [2:163]

    “Make a joyful noise about nothing, all the Earth
    Worship nothing with gladness; come into its presence with singing.
    Know that the Lord is nothing.
    It is nothing who made us, and we belong to nothing;
    We are its people and the sheep of its pasture.
    Enter nothing with thanksgiving and with praise.
    Give thanks to nothing, bless its name.
    For nothing is good; its steadfast love endures forever,
    and its faithfulness to all generations.”

    Psalm 100

    Has kind of a ring to it, doesn’t it?

  29. Intelligent Designer says:

    Solomon, hubris mocks us from a high vantage point.

  30. Douglas Kirk says:


    I disagree with you there. Saying an atheist should know theology before mocking religion would be more comparable to saying Jesus and Mo should study the advanced theories in evolutionary biology before they can mock evolution. This is, of course, patently ridiculous.

    You don’t have to study it in depth, but you do have to know on a basic level what it is. This is more analogous to an atheist mocking religion and then getting confused who this “god” character is everyone keeps talking about.

  31. luciano tanto says:

    hola… / troppo cervellotica; se pasan de piolas; tres compliqué…

  32. @Buzzard I’m rather bemused by your statement that both the believers and the atheists are “lame”. (Such a descriptive word, that. So adult. Impressive eloquence there, lad.) A specific example of our “lameness” would be greatly appreciated. I find this quite a literate and intelligent crowd, except for the likes of our pet troll of course. If you have no specific examples, then you are just name calling, which hardly qualifies as intelligent or constructive conversation.
    There is a point to countering religion. If nobody calls bullshit, then the bullshit is accepted by default. We don’t need one more voice telling us to shut up because we won’t change anybody’s mind. Minds have been known to change. It’s rare, and may not be immediate, bit it does happen. It will never happen unless a few people point out how silly the ideas held by believers really are.
    The believers make enough noise, and inject their foolishness into every event, from earthquakes to the rescue of Chilean miners. They take it for granted that any nonsense they spout will be treated with respect. I’m very happy to hear atheists giving them the disrespect they deserve.
    Since when do we have to disprove anything? It seems to me that if they claim something exists, it’s up to them to prove it. It isn’t up to us to disprove it. After all, they can claim that ANYTHING exists. Unless they can provide some evidence, beyond their deeply held belief, they’re just another bunch of barking nutters.

  33. HaggisForBrains says:

    To Author, and anyone based in Scotland, a heads-up for a rare chance to see the Great Bearded Cephalopod, PZ Myers, in Glasgow next Monday evening.

    See you there!

  34. I wonder how many beleivers would agree to have homosexual sex before they decide that they are heterosexual.

  35. kiyaroru says:

    I am not a busybody or a reporter but I am a somewhat.
    You were banned for “Stupidity, slagging. godbotting, oblivious wankery”.
    Whether you quit first is not relevant. You cannot go back.

  36. solomon says:


    “You were banned for “Stupidity, slagging. godbotting, oblivious wankery”.”

    Ahhh…… I don’t have to hear your unnecessary typical atheists rants.
    The fact is they can’t refute any of my statements.

    “You cannot go back”
    Who wants to go back to a group of people who will inherit !!HELL!!

  37. solomon says:

    Points to ponder.

    #1. Saying that God did not exist is like thinking the universe has an end. If the universe has an end, what lies beyond its end.Our reasoning will tell us theres no end, there should be something outside its boundary.Then again the question arise, for how far more it goes? Then the mind tells us, it will go on forever, its endless.How can endless be described?
    See the brain is a very weak instrument.It can’t even think what our minds tells us.The brain is allways searching for a certain limit.This analogy applies to the Atheists way of thinking,allways rely in the need of a solid proof, recognize by sight or can be measured by some outdated lousy tools.

    #2. The brain comes together with all of the other organs of our body. How can an internal party(organs) explain its own existence.Its existence should be told by some other external party ie. the Creator.Lets put it this way…A toy is manufactured in a factory. Will the toy have the authority to claim of its origin or the manufacturer?

  38. solomon says:

    With constant coaching I believe one day all the atheists will reconsider their beliefs.

  39. solomon says:

    “I have a simple analogy to brief you all. A carpenter delicately carved a beautiful wooden chair.Suddenly some dude came and tell him,”nobody build these chair”!!
    Would you think that dude might have escaped from some mental institution?”

  40. wright1 says:

    @spoing: what a great exercise! I’ll have to try it myself.

    @Buzzard: Darwin Harmless already gave you an excellent response as to why calling theists on their nonsense is worthwhile. I’ll only add that if some of them weren’t trying to ram their faith down everyone’s throat and inject it into secular law and government, then indeed most atheists would be content to live and let live.

    Problem is, that last isn’t good enough for some religious crazies. They want everyone to behave according to their particular sectarian view. Failing that, they would strip nonbelievers of their civil rights.

    Opposing these people, ridiculing their absurd beliefs, convincing more moderate theists not to tolerate such extreme behavior, seems essential to me.

  41. TRIALNERROR says:

    I like the way Author tracks these posts and just occasionally interposes with a pithy observation. Sort of reminds me of God.

  42. Jobrag says:

    It has just struck me that looking at pictures of Mohammad is haram, so Solomon is probably going to meet the rest of us in Hell, fuck me won’t even be able to avoid the annoying little @#$% in the pit.

  43. @Jobrag It’s okay, Solomon and you are both safe. Mo in this strip is a body double. One of Author’s best punch lines.

  44. Jobrag says:

    @Darwin Harmless; by Solomon’s paradigm I’m heading downwards for a lot more then looking at pictures of Mo.
    The big problem with oblivion is not being able to tell Solomon et al “I told you so”.

  45. Jobrag says:

    I’ve just found the “body double” strip brilliant, but how many thousands of hours could theologians spend debating whether pictures of Mo’s body double were haram or halal.

  46. solomon says:

    Theres no fatwa whatsoever stating looking at the prophet’s picture is haram coz’ theres no whatsoever image of the prophet was depicted during his lifetime to look at. See… God deliberately does not inspire any artist at that time to potray his image…so that nobody could mock on his image now or in future. Just brilliant…..

  47. solomon says:

    All the atheists will be sent to !!!HELL!!!.
    Unless you all repent.

  48. Jobrag says:

    So why was there all the fuss about the Danish Cartoons?

  49. Gab says:

    Of course Solomon, of course the Prophet has never been depicted. Here is another body double from the 14th century, for example:

    and here another one (in this picture you may also find Wally):

    And could you please define those vague concepts like ‘mock’, ‘hell’ and ‘repent’ and all the other samples of oxen fecal matter you have just mentioned?

  50. solomon says:

    They all can depict the prophets image according to their lousy imaginations but wont be able to capture the real true image of the prophet.
    Whaaa……ka ka ka

  51. Gab says:

    So, since you know this from the lofty heights of your superior theological wisdom, tell us: what is the true image of the Prophet?
    I think the reality tells you something different, namely, that you know precisely as much as any other terrestrial on the globe about “true image” and other fantasy-saga-like wordplays, i.e.: nothing.

  52. Unruly Simian says:

    @ Solomon – If what you say about the image of Mohamed is true why would any of the Muslims get worked up enough about it to want to kill? If Islam is so self confident why must you kill the non beleivers?

  53. HaggisForBrains says:

    “Whaaa……ka ka ka”

    I’d get that seen to before it develops into something serious if I were you.

  54. AgnosicDC says:

    Why not ask solomon why his beloved prophet buggered little girls? Or is this still an accepted practice in his “faith”? ( a quick Google shows this: as the #2 hit) solly, sorry you’re screwed trying to explain this one away… He was amusing at first, but now I skip past his garbage, it all says the same thing… See you all in !Hell!!! my fellow double-A’s!

  55. @HaggisForBrains I think there’s a T-shirt in “Whaaa……ka ka ka” Too funny.

  56. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Solomon (he of the high values and low i.q.) states “theres no whatsoever image of the prophet was depicted during his lifetime “.
    Of course not; his wife wasn’t allowed to take her crayons away from junior school, and goats aren’t renowned for their artistic ability!

  57. solomon says:

    Ah…..the atheists(Acolyte of Sagan)
    All they can do is only mocking without real substance to bring forth.

  58. solomon says:

    Well …theres a few characteristics of the prophet like the style of his hair, the build of his body etc. etc which I’am not goin to discuss it here. You can get it from various sites yourself but theres no portrait of him whatsoever.
    But if you see him in your dreams, that will be the true image of the prophet coz even satan could not portray his image.

  59. solomon says:

    Unruly Simian,

    “If what you say about the image of Mohamed is true why would any of the Muslims get worked up enough about it to want to kill? If Islam is so self confident why must you kill the non beleivers?”

    That is only just your own twisting words. Theres no truth at all in it. Believers don’t simply kill non believers or others without cause. Theres a whole lot of discipline in taking the life of others which I’am not goin’ to discuss here.

  60. Brother Daniel says:

    solomon: “Believers don’t simply kill non believers or others without cause.”

    The point is, many believers have pretty weird ideas about what constitutes a “cause”.

    “Theres a whole lot of discipline in taking the life of others which I’am not goin’ to discuss here.”

    Is that the voice of experience?

  61. steve oberski says:

    @solomon See the brain is a very weak instrument

    As amply demonstrated by our brain dead troll.

  62. Unruly Simian says:

    Wow Solomon you mean you didn’t hear the death threats of the Dutch cartoonist who depicted Mohamed wearing a bomb head wrap ? Or Molly Norris having to go in protective custody because of the fatwa put out for her death? If there is no image of Mohamed then noone should be upset if a non beleiver drew a cartoon of what he (according to you) does not look like.

  63. solomon says:

    Unruly Simian,
    That is only any normal human reaction when their masters or gods are mocked in such a manner. If youre a Hindu, would you jump into rage if someone fix a pair on sunglasses to you elephant god?
    But for the case of the Dutch cartoonist or Molly Norris, are both of them 6 feet under the ground now? Nope…Well the death treat is only a form of a stern warning or deterrent for those who deliberately try to mocked the masters of religionists for now and for the future.

  64. solomon says:

    steve oberski ,

    “As amply demonstrated by our brain dead troll.”

    Theres no fuss at all.
    Jellyfish can live without brains.
    Its living with sick hearts that is to be concern.

  65. Jobrag says:

    “But for the case of the Dutch cartoonist or Molly Norris, are both of them 6 feet under the ground now? Nope”

    But Theo Van Gogh

  66. solomon says:


    You can’t compare an individuals actions with that of the case above.
    Mohammed Bouyeri might have reacted on personal grounds.

  67. solomon says:

    Why does’nt “nature” design human just like a lump of immobile meat??

  68. Jobrag says:

    Nature doesn’t design anything, all that happens is that genes change and are successful and continue to reproduce or are unsuccessful and die out.
    A good example is the gene that causes sickle cell anemia. If a child gets this gene from both parents it gets sickle cell anemia and dies (unless treated).
    If a child gets the gene from one parent only the child has some resistance to malaria.
    A child without the gene has little resistance to malaria and will probably die young.
    Imagine a tribe that lives in an area that is malarial, most of the adults will have one sickle cell gene.
    The tribe then develops DDT and kills all of the mosquitoes.
    What happens now is that more of the people that have no sickle cell genes will survive and breed so the level of sickle cell anemia will fall off till eventually no sickle cell genes will remain.
    The tribe will have evolved into a slightly different type of human not because nature wanted them to but because the environment changed and the sickle cell gene was no longer an advantage.

  69. solomon says:


    Genes changes are the latter part of the story. The crucial argument if not nature create anything than what brings about the existence of humans or the genes that come with it?

  70. @Solomon “That is only any normal human reaction when their masters or gods are mocked in such a manner.” You think that’s a normal human reaction? I’m sure glad you don’t live in my neighborhood. I hope. Only a childish idiot could think that mocking can justify threats of murder, attempted murder, and actual murder. Civilized people learn better in kindergarten.

  71. Jobrag says:

    It all started in the primeval ooze of an infant Earth
    Reproducing RNA from a mixture of chemicals puts us close to starting life from nothing.

  72. solomon says:


    Don’t try to bluff.
    Mix a few chemical & pooff! there you are…a beautiful nose….a complicated eye and a set of dick! “Clever”

  73. solomon says:

    Darwin Harmless ,

    Provoking or mocking is more disastrous than murder!!

  74. Jobrag says:

    Despite your light tone yes you understand it, from a few chemicals plus bursts of radiation they have started life in a laboratory, from that the rest follows, it takes a long long time to get to where we are but that is what happened.

  75. solomon says:

    Then ask the laboratory chap to create a simple blob of meat that walks on its belly.

  76. Jobrag says:

    Read my last post, from what they did in the laboratory to what you would recognise as life takes a long long time (millions of years). But what they did show in the lab is that there is no “magic” needed to start life just chemistry.

  77. solomon says:

    If you say so then I challenge you to create a simple blob of meat that walks on its belly.

  78. Kristian says:

    (Note: it’s my actual first name, not some silly confession-type pseudonym)

    I wondered how long it would take a preacher to show up on the J&M pages. Now we have one, who seems to have nothing better to do than to spout nonsense.

    Solomon: if you were to believe your eyes before your dogma (and use your evolution-given brains), we’d have more interesting discussions. But – like so many other weak souls, you’ll exhaust yourself and the patience of sentients with your preconceived rants.

    The idea of gods is unnecessary. It has been unnecessary in our modern world for just over 150 years.

    In comment to the last bit of nonsense: it would be a valid point to ask your sentient respondents to ‘create a blob of meat, etc’, if anyone had not provided easily understood mechanisms for how these things come about. The burden of evidence lies on the ones who do not provide those mechanisms. Like the ones that infer gods.

  79. @Solomon “Provoking or mocking is more disastrous than murder!!” Really? Does this mean you would rather be murdered than mocked? I think you have come to the wrong place then. We mock plenty. In fact, I’m mocking you right now. And I don’t think I’m alone. You are definitely one of the most mockable and remockable protohumanoids we’ve encountered in some time. Furthermore, I mock whatever it is you think is holy. I mock your prophets and your god. I mock your HELL!!. I mock your concept of repentance. If you think that justifies threatening me or attempting to murder me, the mocking only gets louder. I mock your impotence in the face of reason, your inability to stifle logical thinking with inane and infantile dogma. Consider yourself mocked.

  80. HaggisForBrains says:

    @ Kristian – I don’t mean to be rude about your name, but if it were me I would at least shorten it to Kris, but better still change it to something more suitable, like Charles or Richard 🙂

    @ DH – Way to mock, man! Mocker of the month!

  81. steve oberski says:

    @solomon If you say so then I challenge you to create a simple blob of meat that walks on its belly.

    This has already been done and you are the result.

    Not very impressive, is it ?

  82. solomon says:

    Ahhh…….the atheists temperament meter is boiling….Why? Coz they can’t prove at all what they are manipulating. They are just a bunch of condemned fools and big time !!LIARS!!.

  83. solomon says:


    Don’t just know how to spout lies. Now you yourself create a simple blob of meat that walks on its belly.

  84. Kristian says:

    Now, now, young solomon. You have a lot to learn.
    Read this: Given enough time in the primorial soup, any chemical component that it able to use simpler chemicals to produce copies of itself, will eventually use up all of those simpler substrate molecules, creating a competitive situation for its own decendant molecules. The descendants with ever-so-slightly better chemical properties for the necessary reactions will react faster and more efficient.
    There you have it:
    A complete setup for descent with modification & survival of the fittest.

    If it is necessary to add a god to explain “how did all this come about”, then by the same token, god also requires an explanation.
    If you disagree, then you cannot call yourself scientific, because you have different standards for one hypothesis (gods) and not for others (common sense).

    If with this clear and logical argument, I have turned you atheist, I say to you: go, and sin no more!

  85. Kristian says:

    @Haggis; where I live, the name is sufficiently common for me not to be taken for someone who believes dogma over his own eyes.

  86. Darwin Harmless, I do think that Solomon would rather be murdered than mocked – murdered he can be a manly martyr, but mocked, he’s just an unimportant little boy.

    I read some years ago that a survey of men and women, asking what each feared most from the other – the #1 answer from men of women was being laughed at and the #1 answer from women of men was being murdered.

    This was before the interest as it is today – about 1999, so I am not sure if I can find the survey, but I am going to look for it.

  87. solomon says:

    Theres no point blurting your chemical lies here. Prove it by making a simple blob of meat walks on its belly.
    Whaaa…. ka…ka…ka…Stupid atheists…

  88. kiyaroru says:

    solomon isn’t fun anymore.
    It’s just creepy.

  89. Jobrag says:

    Yesterday I thought I saw just a chink of light as the door of reason started to open, but you’ve pulled it shut again. What you don’t, actually what you refuse, to understand, is that the chemical nature of life isn’t a lie but a verifiable truth, the experiment that produced RNA can be repeated by anyone with the right equipment and education.
    Before you retreat back into your safe medieval world answer one question, why did your God create this,

  90. @random ntrygg Too true. And I’ve also read that most people would rather die than be embarrassed. What could be more embarrassing than having your basic understanding of EVERYTHING refuted, and discovering that EVERYTHING you have lived for and done for years and years has been foolish and childish nonsense and a complete waste of time. Cognitive dissonance theory says that the more a person has invested in a belief, the tighter they will hang on to it despite all evidence or reason. Most Christians have a huge investment in their beliefs, not even counting the money that hits the collection plate – coloring everything from their sexuality to their social life, rituals, ceremonies, and values. No wonder they feel so lost when they consider giving it all up. And for what? For a belief in “nothing”. No cause? Not being important or the center of everything? No meaning? No structure? No answers? We atheists have a hard sell on our hands convincing believers that we can be happy, productive members of society without the life belt they cling to in fear and panic. Tough sell to a tough crowd heavily invested in their own version of reality.
    By the way, many people DO die each year because they don’t want to be embarrassed. Get a colonoscopy, folks, especially if you are over fifty or have colon cancer in your family. One out of every fifteen westerners will get colorectal cancer, one of the most curable cancers there is, and many will die from it because they didn’t want to be embarrassed.

  91. Daoloth says:

    @DH. Or, you could find it exciting. Like the majority of western intellectual types I believed in evolution but just did not think that it had anything interesting to say about human beings. This was largely due to the effective interference run by people like Steven Jay Gould in muddying the waters about the application of evolutionary biology to humans.
    The religious lot are just more up front about being scared by the implications. Not all of them are ignorant dolts like our friend here (who is probably a troll who we should all stop feeding)–Alistair MCGrath is quite smart for example. Read Alas Poor Darwin ( and you will see some very smart people saying some very very dumb things for sophisticated reasons. It was that book that made me realise that people were very very scared by the implications of evolution.

  92. Author says:

    @kiyaroru – I agree. Solomon has been banned for being dull and abusive.

  93. @Daoloth Yes, of course. And I find it incredibly exciting, which is why being told that we believe in “nothing” and have no purpose without the sky faerie is so annoying. I think it is this excitement that we need to sell, plus the freedom from the fear of demons, spirits, ghosts, angels, and an afterlife of eternal punishment. Living your life afraid of the imaginary monster under your bed is a heavy price to pay for belief. Atheism is so liberating by comparison. Every day there are marvels to marvel at, discoveries to make, connections to find, and none of them are based on a completely silly premise.
    @Author I have been pretty abusive myself toward Solomon and his ilk, and occasionally something of a comment hog. I do hope you will give me a warning if I cross any lines, because I really enjoy the company on this forum. But some people do draw abuse to themselves, especially when they advocate murder as an appropriate response to ridicule. Thanks for directing Solomon to the door. I thought you gave him far more of a run than he deserved. I can’t think of a comment of his that even deserved a response. But “Whaaa…. ka…ka…ka…” will stick with me for some time. Got to hand him that one at least. I’m serious about getting that T-shirt.

  94. Daoloth says:

    @DH. Richard Dawkins gets loads of correspondents asking him why he bothers to get up in the morning. The gulf separating the religious from the atheist really fascinates me. I often get asked how I can believe that “this is all that there is” (I love that “all”!). I have started referring people to that pale blue dot referenced earlier.
    That works to some degree but there are many who simply cannot believe that morality can exist without fear of the magic sky fairy to give a spanking to wrong doers.
    Some of them are wackos who you really would not want to have any power over you or anyone else (I’m sure you can name plenty) but some seem to be perfectly nice folk (e.g. Karen Armstrong)

  95. Daoloth says:

    Oh yes–a wise man once said:
    “Never try to teach a pig to sing. You won’t succeed–and you will annoy the pig.”
    Whaaa…. ka…ka…ka…

  96. @Daoloth Yes, some of my best friends are absolute evolution denying fundies. Other than that they are really nice people. Your pig line reminded me of this one: When you wrestle in the mud with a pig, after a while you realize that the pig is enjoying it.
    Sometimes I’m sure the fundies feel validated when we argue with them and they can drive us crazy with their total refusal to connect the dots. This also fits with the cognitive dissonance theory – refuting a belief with arguments and evidence will only solidify it in the mind of the believer. Don’t know what the answer is, but silent tolerance isn’t it, and that’s for sure. I think maybe mocking works, at least for the spectators.

  97. HaggisForBrains says:

    @ Author and everyone else – in case you doubt the decision to ban Solomon, have a look at what he did to this thread of PZ’s:

    @ Kristian – I understand, a bit like Christopher in the UK.

    @DH – you’ll get no complaint from me about being a comment hog. At least you always have something interesting or provocative to add to the discussion, unlike the trolls.

    @Daolath – Agreed. There is so much to explore and wonder at, and the more we explore and learn, the more wonderful it becomes. There have been some amazing science programmes recently on UK TV, some of which Mrs Brains and I are still catching up on. Michael Mosley’s “Inside the Human Body” was brilliant, and we still have to watch “The Cell”, and “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace”. None of these programmes would be possible if the godbots had had their way.

  98. Author says:

    @DH – You have nothing to worry about.

    “Whaaa…ka…ka…ka” is a pretty good impression of the sound a peacock makes when it’s taking a dump, which is quite appropriate.

  99. Daoloth says:

    @Haggis. I followed your link.
    Bloody hell.
    They put up with a vast deluge of solomoronism before he was finally booted for “Stupidity, slagging. godbotting, oblivious wankery” in the words of PZ.
    Still–I pursued the “argument” (you can tell I should be working on something else that I am putting off, can’t you?) and I have come to the following conclusion:
    What we are dealing with is little more than infantile essentialism. Time and again solomoron and his buddy-in-stupid Shiloh (I think–I can’t be bothered to go back and check the spelling) want “transitional fossils” or “evidence that a frog can turn into a cow” or how a “GOLDEN PLANET can just come into existence..BANG! Stupid atheists”. Etc. In other words they have categories in their (ahem!) brains and the boundaries of these categories are totally non-porous.
    Children are like this. They want a word–the word defines the thing and then that thing has an essence which cannot change–or can only change in accordance with some very simple rules (e.g. get bigger). Now these categories aren’t innate in kids, exactly–but they do seem to emerge naturally in most children–some think that a boy can grow into being mummy for example–but this goes at about age 4/5 when they get a sense of gender fixedness–and woe betide anyone who appears to step outside of those categories later on! When I teach young kids about evolution I always use cetaceans as examples because it blows their minds that these are not fish (I know, I know) and that the evidence that they were once on land is so compelling. They have no particular emotional or moral investment in whales being fish, so this particualr bit of “your innate categories are garbage” potential assault on this childish way of thinking slips in under radar.
    Back to solomoron et al–science comes along and says that his categories are largely rubbish–E.g. Humans are apes, whales aren’t fish, there are things inbetween a boy and a girl, etc etc. but he is emotionally and morally invested in these categories.
    What do you think? I don’t know if this helps in getting through to them–or even if its worth trying to educate him? Does it suggest any strategies? I think that we were shooting way over his head, something like the ladybird book of biology is needed.

  100. MrGronk says:

    Believers definitely have a framing issue when they ask “How can we be MERE matter?” Obviously, if matter is all there is, and capable of marvels such as self-replication and consciousness, then it’s ludicrous to call it “mere”.
    Whaa ka ka ka etc

  101. gk4c4 says:

    This thread has become one of the most lively thread on religion, PZ Myers’ is another (more famous).

    Reflecting the last decades or so, there has been a lot of progress on rational thinkers – thanks to people like Myers, Dawkins, Coyne, and dear Author J&M.

    Verily, darkness cannot stand light!!

  102. Kristian says:

    I guess we’ll never know what this “wha ka ka”-stuff means. I’m guessing it’s supposed to mean “I’ve made a point that you cannot possibly refute”, but reading the preceeding comments I’m forced to conclude otherwise. I stress I can live with the uncertainty.
    Anyway, it’s a solomonic(!) decision to exclude the cretin(!) from the forum. Discussing with fundies does make you feel like: barmaid in the above comic / you’re wrestling with a pig / you’re teaching that same pig to sing.

    The forum is more relaxing and has a higher signal-to-noise ratio if nutcases who don’t want to discuss but just repeat themselves are excluded.
    Thank you, Author. May Allah, the most magnificent, peace be upon him, reward you with scores of beautiful houris in the hereafter.

  103. HaggisForBrains says:

    @ Kristian – “Thank you, Author. May Allah, the most magnificent, peace be upon him, reward you with scores of beautiful houris in the hereafter.”

    Seconded, as long as it isn’t as a result of martyrdom. Save a couple of perfect white grapes for me.

  104. Daoloth says:

    @Kristian. Not to pull the PC, bullying, try-to-make-you-feel-bad-about-having-a-dick, bullcrap or anything…but…you a making a big assumption here ain’t ya?
    Maybe author is one of the female persuasion–and will therefore be rewarded according to Q’ran (Surat Zumar, 34) “They shall have whatever they wish with their lord”.
    Some helpful commentators have pointed out that “She will be rewarded for looking after her family, cooking, cleaning etc; if done with an sincere intention for God/Allah.” (e.g. So-that’s all ok then.
    So-how about it author–what’s on your magic sky-daddy wish list (without giving away too many identifying details, of course).

  105. Kristian says:

    @Haggis; martyrdom for Author would be unbearable. But seeing how far too many believers will resort to violence in response to percieved mockery (thx for the lucid comment above, Dao), you’d be right to fear for his/her safety.

    @Daoloth; ok – scores of efficient domestic servants, then. A female believer who’s even comtemplating the male equivalent of houris (can’t be bothered googling it), will of course never make it to heaven.

    By now, I almost feel like unchecking the “I am not a spammer”… :-/

  106. Author says:

    @Daoloth – I’ll be happy in the afterlife as long as it has broadband.

  107. Jobrag says:

    There is a joke somewhere, in the fact that Anne Widdicombe is a self proclaimed virgin.

  108. HaggisForBrains says:

    “the fact that Anne Widdicombe is a self proclaimed virgin.”

    Whaaa…ka… ka… ka

    Curls into foetal postion.

  109. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    “Jobrag says:
    June 5, 2011 at 12:30 pm
    There is a joke somewhere, in the fact that Anne Widdicombe is a self proclaimed virgin.”

    Yup, there sure is.
    Anne Widdicombe and Susan Boyle are to share this years Nobel Peace Prize for their services to combatting terrorism; now that Muslim men know what virgins really look like, they suddenly ain’t so keen to earn 72 of ’em!

    “Kristian says:
    June 5, 2011 at 10:52 am
    I guess we’ll never know what this “wha ka ka”-stuff means.”

    Ironically, considering that the Pearly Gates’ self-appointed doorman is so dismissive of evolution, his battle-cry of “Whaaa…ka…ka” seems remarkably similar to the ‘fear-cry’ of chimps.

  110. steve oberski says:

    @Acolyte of Sagan “Whaaa…ka…ka” seems remarkably similar to the ‘fear-cry’ of chimps.

    What a horrible thing to say about chimps.

  111. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    @ Steve Oberski; Your right and I apologise profusely to any and all primate(s) ofended by my ill-considered association with the non-intelligent species that is Solomon the Deluded.

  112. @Acolyte of Sagan Come come. Now we’re sounding childish. I’m sure Solomon can tie his shoe laces or ask a policeman for directions home. That’s more than any ape can do. Just barely. Let’s keep things in perspective. 🙂

  113. @Acolyte of Sagan Okay, he can probably ask a policeman for directions home. He just won’t understand the answer.

  114. steve oberski says:

    So if solomon exists, why are there still monkeys ?

  115. FreeFox says:

    @Daoloth, Re: Essentialism

    I suppose you are correct about the basic fallacy of peeps like Solomon, though I am not certain that the problem is their inability to understand, or even their investedness in any particular “essential” element of their worldview. I still think he, like others, sound more like simple trolls… they don’t change their position or respond to arguments because that’s not the “fun” they are after. They just want to be contrary.

    As for the “essentialism” itself, I think that is a sin or folly far more widespread (outside the group of little children and blatant trolls) than one would like to think. And not even just in regard to such nigh-unshakeables like gender, or nationalism, or social class snobbism, but in a lot of “that is just how it is” beliefs. Humans like to create boxes to place concepts into and get upset when told that the concepts don’t really fit into the boxes… neither wholly into any of them, nor even at all in only one.
    Even much of scepticism – meant to be a form of thinking as lable-free as possible – tends to slip back into putting all forms of religion, all believers, all forms of what-appears-to-be-pseudo-science into similar boxes for easier dismissal. Of course, anyone worth the lable sceptic itself, tends to be in the end convinceable by solid arguments and evidence (that’s how science grows and develops, after all) but the basic mental inertia and the self-back-slapping smugness of this mental saftey blankedt is often still there, much more than should be expected.

  116. alimon72 says:

    This is the most hilarious comic strip ever!!!! I stumbled upon this and it made my day! I am complete!

  117. Anonnynonnymous says:

    Farewell to a troll named solomon
    who’s been here quite a while
    couldn’t quite make us all swallow him
    he was full of bile ( he was full of bile )

    He thought we thought a finger’s click
    had bought this world about-
    Not depth of time nor fractal rhyme
    He was seen politely out ( seen politely out )…..

    etc to the tune of the Gilligan’s Island theme
    (I may be here all week)


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.