└ Tags: ,

Discussion (31)¬

  1. Heh, “so?” was my first thought. “And” is better though – more passive-aggressive.

  2. Author says:

    I thought about “so?” – it’s less passive-aggressive, but it is pithier.

  3. OtterBe says:

    Prithee, why so pithy, Barmaid?

  4. Vel says:

    exactly. “And?” Sorry, these religions deserve to be revealed, ridiculed and reviled.

  5. DocAtheist says:

    I’m going to have to remember that:
    “And?” is such a polite way of saying, “So, what?”

  6. M27Holts says:

    So what? Aye excellent track by anti-nowhere league and covered by Metallica…very apt for religious whoppers…SO FUCKING WHAT….ok feel better now peeps…

  7. Succubus ov Satan says:

    personally, I give Abrahamic fuckwittery all the respect it and its deluded followers deserve

  8. kamicazeHighlander says:

    I’m sorry to say, but no religious sensitive would let you get away with “And?” Their response would invariably be, “And I’m a special snowflake with a divine imaginary friend so you have to respect my beliefs…. or else….”

  9. postdoggerel says:

    oh barmaid, or should I call you missy,
    your pithy remarks are so prissy.
    they’re acutely concise,
    not to mention precise,
    and leave jesus and mo in a tizzy.

  10. TheSwiv says:

    Properly laugh out loud!

  11. M27Holts says:

    Perhaps we could have guest bar keepers…..a quick hitch-slap would have j and m running up that hill…..

  12. mcalex says:

    For real passive-aggressive, throw in a ‘Yes, ‘ (in a tone of sincerest consideration) before the ‘and’.

  13. jb says:

    I like to distinguish between: 1) people who have deeply held beliefs, but who recognize that other people also have deeply held beliefs, and that it’s at least possible that their own deeply held beliefs might turn out to be wrong; and 2) people who think that anyone who does not share their deeply held beliefs must be either stupid or wicked, or maybe both. It’s only the latter who are a problem.

  14. M27Holts says:

    Any faith is a sign of mental instabillity…And….

  15. Donn says:

    “Deeply held beliefs” and “stupid” really refer to a different realm of ideas, than the subject of religion. We may say we “believe” things, when we’ve really arrived at these conclusions from real experience, however poorly interpreted, but religious faith is an entirely different matter. It is not “at least possible” for one of those faiths to turn out to correspond with objective reality, because they’re designed not to. If I tried to build a religion around observable facts about our sun, the awesome source of all life, it would be a dud, simply because it’s all true. Then I would be “stupid,” because my deeply held beliefs aren’t faith in nonsense.

  16. Laripu says:

    Ah Donn, Apollo will send you to Hades for that… better ask Zeus to protect you.

  17. M27Holts says:

    Big Cow – close…little cow – far away…

  18. Laripu says:

    Thanks to you M27Holts, I now know where that joke comes from.

    Feck! Drink!

  19. Son of Glenner says:

    Laripu: “Thanks to you …”

    Don’t hold it against M27Holts – I’m sure he must have some redeeming qualities!

  20. M27Holts says:

    Oy Glenner, no redemption for me…capische?

  21. M27Holts says:

    Or is it your highland propensity to hate everybody south of hadrians wall? I envisage you outside a crofters hut, with a whet stone, sharpening your claymore….haha

  22. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: You forgot to mention the porridge pot, the illicit whisky still, and the haggis trap.

  23. M27Holts says:

    Aye. Plus the kilt with no undercrackers on…

  24. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: In a platform for “profound philosophical discussion” like J&M, you should not stoop to logical fallacies like “No True Scotsman”, nor ridicule the sincerely held hygienic customs of millions of kilt-wearers.

  25. M27Holts says:

    Aye. It always pays to be profound if you are going commando and could get a splinter in your ball sack at any minute…

  26. Mockingbird says:

    M27 – “That would be a ecumenical question.”

  27. M27Holts says:

    Aye precisely. And when appraising an ecumenical answer . Parse the statement and replace “Faith” with “Delusion” hey presto…Paradigm Shift…

  28. Martin says:

    I’ve been wondering why this one today seemed familiar. And then I remembered…


  29. Laripu says:

    Faith isn’t delusion. Delusion doesn’t allow for doubt. If faith was delusion, the people who had faith wouldn’t ever have doubt. And yet we know that people who claim to have faith often also have doubts about their faith.

    Rather, what they call ‘faith’ is a collection of actions and utterances that must be trained, or coerced in the case of children. Behind all of that is the honest feeling that the stories aren’t true; and that healthy doubt that is a normal response to improbable stories.

    Faith isn’t delusion. It’s repetitively lying to yourself, until you get so good at it that it becomes automatic.

    A very few people who are religious believers do have delusions, but normal people recognize them as not being right in the head. It’s not uncommon for people to talk to a god in prayer, but if they hear a god talking to them we start to worry.

  30. Laripu says:

    Just to be clear, here’s what I mean. For people who aren’t crazy, faith is intellectual dishonesty. It’s a moral failure.

  31. Troubleshooter says:

    I get the feeling that J&M were a bit “pith-ed” at the barmaid!


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.