This month’s raffle winner is Alan from Wisconsin. Congrats, Alan – you win a signed print of your choice.

Have you considered becoming a Patron of Jesus & Mo? Click the image below to see what it’s about. Rewards abound!


Discussion (55)¬

  1. Jazzlet says:

    Hoped the Barmaid would have an aposite comment on that travesty.

  2. Sparky_shark says:

    Sandals in the bin. Nothing like a prune-faced old bag to get the masses happy again in the face of on-going child abuse and general revolting behaviour. At least they can spend some money on a Mamma-T-Shirt and sticker set!

  3. wrinkel42 says:

    Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!

    Kurt Vonnegut

  4. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    The barmaid is not there to think
    She is there to serve people a drink
    Is every one nice?
    Or just for a price?
    In humanities chain she’s one link.

  5. 3handles says:

    Author – Topical and true to form. Many thanks. Barmaid spots the silliness of supposed saintliness. But I’m afraid her grammar might have its own little tumour (“were” has exposed itself a bit too readily). Perhaps it’s the revenge of the dead nun…

  6. Dennis Keane says:

    I wonder how often tumors disappear for the non-religious or even anti-theists. Would seem to negate any causation. Unless they were praying in secret – aha – checkmate atheists!!!

  7. Sheila says:

    Yes, it does seem like the true miracle is that so many people can believe this stuff. haha

    (There seems to be an extra “were” in the second panel.)

  8. Author says:

    Thanks for the heads-up re the grammar 3handles and Sheila. Fixed now (though it’ll take a while to filter through).

  9. richard says:

    Dear J&M,

    I would like to comment and discuss stuff on fhis site, but first I would like to know something about your policy:
    Do you allow ridiculing the widely held beliefs in the big bang and evolution as well? If not I would be highly dissapointed and will not comment.

    best regards, Richard

  10. Author says:

    Richard, of course! Knock yourself out.

  11. I bet the barmaid is holding back a little. I bet she despises Mommy Terry.

    (I bet she doesn’t call her a prune-faced old bag though, being clever enough to know that age and ugliness are beside the point.)

  12. Fr. Guido Sarducci says:

    In regard to the miracles, I understand that two of them were card tricks.

  13. pink squirrel says:

    she has performed one ‘miracle’ =convincing so many people she was a good/decent person

  14. pink squirrel says:

    You shall have no other Gods but me..
    Broken !

    2 You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it
    or worship it..
    broken !

    3 You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God..

    broken !

    In the medieval the preserved body parts of ‘saints’ were said to be curative – but doesn’t the person have to be a ‘saint first before the ‘miracle cure ‘ works?

    what will this ‘miracle power’ do to the various microbes and fauna now feeding on her remains?

  15. pink squirrel says:

    At the risk of overstretching my contribution
    Richard asks if its permitted to make fun of evolution and the initial expansion of the universe
    it clearly needs repeating – evolution is a FACT and the universe doesn’t care what you think of evolution, it remains a FACT
    it is not a question of evolution VS other theory
    it is a question of
    the THEORY OF evolution BY natural selection
    the THEORY OF evolution BY [other chosen concept]

    The same for the initial expansion – the theory explains the observed FACT that the universe is red shifted – if you can come up with a better explanation then the nobel prizes await

  16. pete says:

    typical, science, in various fields, has saved billions, not a peep from the religious

  17. Author, I had never thought of it quite this way before. The miracle of faith is that so many people believe it has validity. That’s the true miracle.

    Richard, feel free to mock our beliefs in evolution and the big bang theory. Mock away. But if your only reference in refuting these beliefs is to some ancient sacred book, you may reveal yourself to be a flaming idiot. In which case, flame on. We haven’t had a good chew toy on these threads for quite a while now.

  18. hotrats says:

    One more flog of the dead horse of intercessionary prayer, Catholicism’s unique contribution to the twilight world of medical chicanery, and an implacable fundfamentalist in the fight against women’s rights is worshipped as a paragon of her sex.

    ‘Motherfucker’ Theresa describes her legacy rather more accurately.

    Those interested in undoing some of the damage she wrought in Kolkota and elsewhere will find This secular organisation, founded by one of the sternest critics of her order, well worth supporting.

  19. PetuniaCat says:

    Here’s an article from 2013 about Mother Theresa’s enthusiasm for the suffering of other people. That whole “being like Jesus on the cross” horrifying thing. Massively creepy. This is from academic researchers too. Nice to see it in a regular mainstream newspaper.

  20. plainsuch says:

    Ooh…Richard. Can I buy you a stiff drink?

  21. hotrats says:

    I do think warning Richard off any reference to scripture by richard is taking an unfair advantage; how else can he possibly justify his ostrigiform stance? It’s not as if the poor dear has libraries full of peer-reviewed hard science to fall back on. I’m happy to hear his best shot; as you say we could do with a fresh vict… er, debatee.

    If only these people would dispute gravity as fiercely as they dispute evolution; after all, it’s also ‘only a theory’ that effectively contradicts scripture. The proofs could be made very educational, for intractable hardliners.

  22. hotrats says:

    sorry for excess richarding, one tee many martoonis. My round!

  23. PetuniaCat says:

    Hey there, I left a comment with a nice link to an article on Mother Teresa’s love of (other people’s) suffering . Did that go missing?

  24. Hey, my wife and partner coined a word over the weekend and you all should be the first to hear it. When somebody corrects something you say, but the correction is wrong, you have been “incorrected”. Isn’t that a beautiful addition to the language. I’m sure it could come in handy in conversations with the Richards of this world. “Thank you for incorrectring me.”

  25. Chiefy says:

    Stealing that, DH. I have been incorrected many times.

  26. Deimos says:

    Oh dear pink squirrel has triggered my idiot bone, you see I’ve often looked at Charlie D’s evolution by natural selection and thought “but what about the obvious exceptions?”.
    Avocados, Sheffield United fans, giraffes and suchlike?
    Perhaps there is a parallel evolution by Unnatural selection which only exists to give a lesson in how it shouldn’t be done….
    It would certainly explain X factor and the daily mail.

  27. Author says:

    PetuniaCat – 1st time commenters are automatically put into moderation. You’re good to go now. Thanks for your comment.

  28. dr John de Wipper says:

    sorry to pedantly claim prior fame, for someone (gone anonymous) from my far past.
    At least, for the Dutch language.
    To correct (in the intended meaning), in Dutch is “verbeteren”, literally “give a better version of”. From way back when, in my family, the term for incorrectly correcting is “verslechteren”, ie, “give a worse version of”.
    I would be surprised if a similar strike of genius is not performed routinely, in many languages.

  29. mike sleep says:

    The big bang is not omnipotent,omniscient or nice. But it is seriously mysterious; involving meta-time and hyperspace. Where we cannot go.

  30. A Nix says:

    Very good, reminded me of this and the power of prayer!

    Keep up the good work!

  31. pink squirrel says:

    unnatural selection would be the only explanation for the daily mail – it certainly cant be intelligent design
    Evolution by avacodos, Sheffield united fans, Giraffes AND suchlike-
    suggests some sort of spontaneous generation would be involved
    Why Giraffees? have you discovered something Darwin missed?

  32. pink squirrel says:

    apologies to Deimos – I read your comment as:
    ‘the obvious exceptions to natural selection
    being the theory of evolution By Avocodo’s, shieffield, united fans, giraffe’s and suchlike.

  33. helenahandbasket says:

    Richard, ridiculing beliefs and people is fine. Most of us are stupid and deserve it. However, what you might want to do is attempt to ridicule the actual evidence for the big bang and evolution.
    A reasonable summary of the first would be
    1) Hubble’s Law (galaxies are moving away from one another at speeds proportional to their distance). This implies a compacted beginning (like watching an explosion in reverse)
    2) Heat remnants consistent with initial high temperatures (Penzias & Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize for discovering that the universe is 2.75 Kelvin, not 0. You can actually hear some of the remnant in a bit of TV static too)
    3) Have you ever heard Einstein’s comment that the only thing more abundant the hydrogen is stupidity? Well, abundance of light elements (Hydrogen and Helium) are consistent with their being thrown out in an initial explosion.
    What about evolution?
    Well, the strongest evidence for descent with common ancestry is, of course, genetics. Everything alive is related to everything else alive and we can see this directly.
    Other evidence like fossils, embryology and so on are great but we would be certain of descent from common ancestry on the grounds of genetics alone. But, what you probably mean is, what is the evidence for natural selection? Tom Wolfe recently made a fool of himself by confusing these two and claiming that there was no proper scientific support for the one (when he meant the latter).
    He was confused and wrong (as I am sure you are not). But just in case Mr Wolfe happens to be reading this the answers to his questions about natural selection are
    1) Of course you can see it. Nitty Nora (the nit nurse) has to come round each year to treat the kids anew. This is because this years nits are immune to last year’s poisons. They have evolved. Similar remarks pertain to MRSA. We have even seen lizards and elephants evolve in human time (stomach length and tusks respectively)
    2) It’s utterly falsifiable (a key principle of science). As J B S Haldane growled “rabbits in the paleolithic” would refute the theory.
    3) We can actually see the joins when it comes to so-called “missing links” Yunis & Prakash (1984) showed how the chromosomal difference between humans and chimps was the result of a fused telomere. Here is a link to a video demonstration of it by Ken Miller (head of the human genome project and staunch Catholic, not that this matters) There’s lots of other evidence there that you might enjoy too
    4) Animals and plants are geographically distributed in ways that imply they evolved. The most obvious examples are the ways that monotremes (like platypus) went down different routes than mammals at the time when Australia parted company with the other land masses. But other examples abound.
    5) The other alternative (intelligent design) needs to account for the poor design decisions (human eyes with blind spots, giraffe pharyngeal nerves that take huge detours etc) that make a designer not so much false as an under-achiever.

    That’s just a smattering. But, feel free to ridicule each and every bit. But be careful–we don;t believe in evolution because it says it anywhere (like a book) but because natures says it everywhere. Thus, you are jettisoning chemistry, physics, biology etc as well.
    The Big Bang Theory is well attested, but none of them are unfalsifiable theories. Good luck and happy ridiculing!

  34. pink squirrel says:

    we do know of one thing that is missing a link- Ma Teresa’s moral compass

  35. Ivan Fang says:

    I have a perfectly calculable alternative to “The Big Bang” and it doesn’t require any “miracles of faith.” It requires only an expanded perspective – using very Unicornion tools provided by Pink Squirrel.

    “It is not a question of evolution VS other theory…” Evolution itself remains a FACT.

    As noted, “red shift” has been proven to be factual; but why indeed do credible experts fragment opinion with argument as to the source of origin?

    The mighty universe, self-promulgating from an atom’s worth of mass & energy, referred to by many as “The Big Bang?”

    While others, myself included, provide here, the true origins of the expanding universe, and how it has become humanity and history’s time to provide not exceptions, but exacting propositional predicate logic & existential functions over this, the one and only universe.

    As a punctiliousness point of providing purposeful, yet pertinacious & pompous pontification pertaining to any percipient persons not oblivious of the parlor pachyderm, and instead, possessing a perspicacious, panoramic perspective permitting one’s axiom, their postulation, to serve as a premise for further reasoning and argument, I do hereby assert that any such substantive representations serve, in perpetuity; to perpetuate logic not only as an element of the primitive connectives, but with propositional predicate logic, we can stand back and observe the modus ponens and replace atomic statements and concede the need for primitive notions.

    No longer prostituting ourselves as pedantic whores, but rather, accept the role as the prominent pioneers who penetrated the puzzle of the physical universe, requiring only the proud Penis of Penultimate, provider of the power NOT for “The Big Bang.

    No, not for The Big Bang, but instead, by expanding the universe with *what always begins micronic*, and in finale, the culmination of all that exists; to multiply mass without end and to forever create energy beyond the infinity. That climactic moment which occurred did NOT occur after a mere “Bang.”

    It is that moment, the instant in time when simultaneously emerging from the Black Hole, yet ejecting billions more,

    An Event Horizon that can only function, from that moment forward, as the initiation point known forever after as… The Big Spurt.

  36. two cents' worth says:

    Ivan, I’ll play along 😉 . If this is “the one and only universe,” mustn’t the P of P be here somewhere? Why haven’t we noticed it? Is it too far away from Earth for our telescopes and other sensors to detect, or did it withdraw into another dimension of the universe that we cannot access? (Aren’t the dimensions that we can’t access supposed to be extremely small?) Is the P of P attached to any body (the Creator’s, perhaps), or is it a metaphor? What caused the P of P to spurt out our universe? Is it good for just one shot? That is, have there been Big Spurts before this one, and might there be Big Spurts after this one? What will trigger the next spurt? How many Ps of P are there? If there’s only one, is it considered infertile (because it hasn’t reproduced its kind), or fertile (because it produced us, among other things)? Does the epithet “of Penultimate” indicate that there is a P of Ultimate–and if so, which is greater, the Penultimate or the Ultimate? Is the P of P cosmological theory actually just another ploy to justify the subjugation of females and the glorification of males?

    All this has made me parched. I’m proceeding to the bar now for some Pimm’s, or maybe some Pálinka. Shall I get you something while you ponder my questions?

  37. Jim Baerg says:

    Minor correction: There were lots of rabbits in the paleolithic
    rabbits in the paleolithic -> rabbits in the PreCambrian
    What’s half a billion years between friends?

  38. HaggisForBrains says:

    helenahandbasket – another minor correction: “recurrent laryngeal nerve.

  39. LindaR says:

    Apart from the minor detail that the people with tumours were receiving medical treatment at the time, the husband and doctors of one woman have all said that she didn’t even have a tumour – she had a cyst caused by tuberculosis, and was cured of that. Details, details…
    Oh, and I doubt that we’ll see any more of richard. He didn’t get the answer from the author for which he was trolling, so he’s probably back with a bunch of bible-bashers wittering on about how we’re all going to hell…

  40. jb says:

    If you read what Richard actually wrote, he did not say that he rejected evolution or the Big Bang. He said that if it was the policy of the site to disallow criticism of such beliefs he would be disappointed and would not comment. Based on this, for all we know he could be Richard Dawkins, and the reason he hasn’t commented again is that he is waiting for a Young Earth Creationist to come along so he can pounce.

  41. HelenaHandbasketr says:

    Jim Berg. Egg all over my face! and I cant even pretend its the first time I’ve made that particular blunder! Oops. Still, lets see if any creationists pick up on it

  42. HelenaHandbasketr says:

    jb I did read what he wrote. And I invited him to ridicule the evidence. Jim has already (justifiably) ridiculed me for making a schoolgirl error! And that’s fine. But lets hear ridiculing of the evidence shall we?

  43. pink squirrel says:

    why should it necessarily be the ‘penultimate penis’ why cant it have been a cosmic female orgasm
    also why penultimate penis and not ultimate penis

  44. pink squirrel says:

    There were lots of rabbits in the palaeolithic
    not in England/UK, there were none until much later- the RB at least

    What’s half a billion years between friends?- no time at all for creationists

  45. LindaR says:

    pink squirrel, the Normans imported them.

  46. pink squirrel says:

    typical, science, in various fields, has saved billions, not a peep from the religious

    that’s just not true Pete – the pope has saved countless billions – as this Vatican video shows

  47. hotrats says:

    If Richard Dawkins really has set a young earth creationist trap here, I don’t think he’ll catch many.

  48. hotrats says:

    Some random thoughts:

    ‘The so-called Islamic State’, as the BBC are instructed to call it, is only ‘so-called’ because it’s not a state in anything but name. It is by self-definition, Islamic. But don’t be expecting the BBC to say ‘Islamic so-called State’ any time soon.

    If Abraham, father of monotheism, were alive today and behaved as he did in the bible, he would be serving an indefinite sentence in maximum security for attempted murder and delusional psychopathy.

    A cautionary note to any quavering, half-hearted atheists considering returning to the bosom of the Church; the penalty for apostasy under Atheism is intellectual suicide.

  49. Deimos says:

    Wasn’t akhenaton the first identified monotheist ?
    Incidentally my spelling of his name is from a very fragmented memory. Mine.

  50. pink squirrel says:

    Technically yes Ankh en Aten was the first , but Abraham is arguably the founder of the big three that are still extant [ ignoring any revivals by modern pagans as the continuity is lacking]

  51. Ivan Fang says:

    >>> Shall I get you something while you ponder my questions?


  52. postdoggerel says:

    hotrats, from my perch here, six years in the future, I have seen no trace of richard. Your characterizing him as strigiform was spot on; feathers adapted for silent flight.


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.