August 14th, 2006
Jesus & Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.
Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net
Hosted by the amazing NearlyFreeSpeech.NET
Protected by the mighty CloudFlare
Yep, my sentiments exactly!
Awesome, you rule!!
[…] From Jesus and Mo […]
I love your strip; I wish I remember how I heard of it. The eps since you got back have been truly excellent. I side with the barmaid but, what is so good, is that Jesus and even Mo are rather sweet and sympathetic.
A true athiest is perfectly sure that their knowledge of there being no higher power. A true believer in a faith has a similar certanty of there being a higher power. I think that atheism and false religon are simply the certainty of God but misdirected.
See Souldier, there ya go putting words in atheists mouths again… now I as an atheist can’t rule out the possibility that there’s a god. I just think it’s incredibly unlikely. I mean really totally incredibly unlikely.
Tim, by definition, that makes you an Agnostic, not an Atheist, yes?
Agnostic- one who does not know.
Atheist- one who does not believe in theos (deities).
An agnostic professes that they do not know whether or not there is a god.
An atheist denies the existance of a god.
Saying that one does not believe in a God, but one is open to evidence to the contrary, makes one an atheist to my mind.
Saying that one cannot be convinced by evidence, is closed minded and unscientific.
Since I happen to believe that there will be no evidence that I cannot demostrate to be the result of flawed methology or experimental confounds, it really makes no difference though.
I agree with tim… it is extremely unlikely that there is a god… u can’t disprove that there is a god just as u can’t disprove the flying spaghetti monster or the juju at the bottom of the sea or the flying teapot in outer space.
Most agnostics live their lives as if there were no gods. From a practical point of view they are atheists.
Tim and LQ are representatives of most who call themselves atheists. They allow that in the unlikely chance that a god should manifest itself with real evidence of its existence, then belief would be necessary.
From this perspective, I find it curious to watch debates between agnostics and atheists as to which is right.
For some, it is that the label atheist is too unpleasant, given all the efforts to demonise it by the religious.
I think it depends on what you mean by atheism:
Absence of belief in any God.
Belief in the absence of any Gods.
I would certainly classify my own views under the first heading. I have some problems with the second, though it seems a more plausible thing to believe than any of the alternatives. Maybe I’m on the atheist side of agnosticism, maybe I’m on the agnostic side of atheism. Does it really matter?
I do feel, however, that if there is a supreme being out there, and if He gives a damn about whether I believe in Him or not, He’d have DONE something about it by now.
And no, getting Himself nailed to a tree 2000 years ago doesn’t count.
In the unlikely event that anyone reads this I felt I should add my two cents:
Atheist: A person who lacks a belief in god.
Agnostic: an atheist who lacks balls/ovaries/gonads.
TO A strong atheist, or a naturalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) there is no new evidence, however compelling, that will come along to show that 2 + 2 = 5.
Agnostics say that a God might not exist.
Atheists say that a God does not exist.
I say that a God cannot exist.
Nothing is immune to scientific enquiry. If God is outside the realm of scientific study, then God is irrelevant. If a superhuman entity is amenable to study, I wouldn’t call that particular being a God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism The question of falsifiability also remains. Some non-theists continue to have that primitive image of a bearded male human in their heads, and they cannot shake it away. By failing to actively consider the definition and origins of God, they close themselves to scientific thought and go with the popular, politically correct view of agnosticism or doubtful atheism.
Anyway, a great comic that is very much needed. I now have another 150 excellent URIs to silence cheerfully deluded people wherever I go.
I’m not sure why some people here think that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.
I like to use words like “Aleprechaunist” (one who does not believe in leprechauns) to make the point. I don’t believe in leprechauns, because there’s no evidence of them. Sure, maybe they’re just REALLY good at hiding, and they don’t like to be seen. Or maybe they’re invisible. But, until and unless I see actual evidence for their existence, I remain an aleprechaunist, just as I remain an atheist until and unless I see evidence for the existence of some kind of god(s), by whatever definition one chooses to use. (Unlike Jafet, I would be willing to use the term “god” for a superhuman being who, never the less, is part of the physical universe, after all, the term is used for beings of limited power in many polytheistic religions)
What about igtheism: You tell me what you mean by ‘God’, and I’ll tell you whether or not I believe in it.
I haven’t read all the posts here but I wished to respond to people who are telling Tim he is agnostic. I would suggest that you read Richard Dawkins excellent book The God Delusion, where Dawkins lays out the different degrees of atheism. Dawkins Himself feels that most aheists should accept that a God may exists, however unlikely. Like any good scientist we should be aware that we can only ever prove that something is 99.9% correct. Even in a situation where you are sure you are right you can still be wrong.
Tim, right on man. Stick with your own beliefs no matter what others think.
I’ve always liked the Spinoza philosophy that ‘God’ and ‘the Universe’ don’t have a creator/creation relationship, but are just two words for the same thing.
Theism is active belief.
Atheism is lack of active belief, not active disbelief.
Gnosticism is surety of your statement.
Agnosticism is lack of total surety in your statement.
I am, for all intents and purposes, an agnostic atheist, I cannot ‘know’, as such, but as burden of proof is on those who make a claim or statement, and no proof has ever been forthcoming, and the fact that deities are all around bloody unlikely, I do not believe.
However, when the deity in question is posited to have traits that when combined are contrary in nature, an oxymoron, if you will, I will say with utter certainty, and ‘gnosticism’ that it cannot exist, in as much as a married bachelor cannot exist.
Unfortunately for the Religions of Abraham, this includes the ‘god’ of all three.
The world behaves as though natural laws and phenomena exist without (requiring) the intervention of the supernatural.
No gods required.
Despite having finite knowledge, one can rely on existing evidence to fearlessly live a life free of worship of a non-manifesting useless deity.
Even if one existed, and the character of that deity was in any way accurate to ancient text portrayals, then that deity is not worthy of worship anyway.
Maybe some of the cool Hindu or Greek ones that work with humans instead of trolling them all the time (well, you do have Zeus with his bestiality-disguised date rapes– but we always knew he was a douche).
I used to be a dyslexic, agnostic insomniac; I’d lay awake all night wondering if there really is a Dog.