Special thanks to today’s guest scriptwriter, Karl Giberson.

Discussion (27)¬

  1. Wow and right on. Nailed it again. But then I’m trying to negotiate that precarious and profound middle ground myself as I type this. So what do I know? I know I like Jesus and Mo.

  2. Daz says:

    So the most powerful christian in the world can equate my lack of belief with nazi-ism and claim that condoms spread AIDS to the detriment of millions, we can have 23 Bishops in the House of Lords, tax breaks for churches, creationism taught in schools, schools that differentiate pupil’s based on their parents’ religions, and all manner of other nonsense, but dare to point this out, or try to examine the veracity of religious claims, and you’re somehow being insensitive to their poor feelings? Pah!

  3. Daz says:

    Someone shoot me now. I did a grocer’s apostrophe!

  4. @Dax It’s okay. That’s not a capital offense.
    I just took a look at Author’s link. What a pile of crap. How can science accommodate religion? How can a philosophy that says we can know something just because we feel good about it, that wisdom can be revealed, be compatible with a philosophy that says nothing is known without experimental verification and evidence to support the theory. Why the hell should we even try to accommodate nonsense, superstition, woo woo, or religion in any of its many forms. Why? I can’t even see why we should be polite to those spouting such nonsense. There’s nothing polite about the concept of original sin, to take just one example.

  5. Occam's Machete says:

    I suspect PZ Myers is gonna like this one. Chris Mooney… not so much.

    Good! 🙂

  6. Andrew says:

    Excellent. Best one yet. Right on.
    But then again, I’m one of them “militant atheists”. Darn, never knew a pen could qualify as a weapon of mass destruction.
    In a tad of self-promotion here, last week I wrote a blog post on this very issue — Freethought Musing: Refusing to Accommodate Religion (or, Why to ‘Be a Dick’).

  7. I like the guy’s name. Giberson. Son of gibber.

  8. Ketil W.Grevstad says:

    hi. Jesus and mo, Have a drink on me 🙂

  9. NewEnglandBob says:

    Very good, but you didn’t supply enough Gibberish. People can actually understand this, as opposed to writings by Uncle Karl Gibberish.

  10. I’m with the fundamentally shitfaced! Rack up another one barmaid! And, if Mo only got his noodle halfway into Jesus I don’t see how that could possibly be considered sex.

  11. plortho says:

    Frankly, Giberson makes some cogent points on the value of shared beliefs as a foundation for discussion. I can be “accomodationist” in trying to understand someone whose faith was forced on them as a child, while rejecting their religion. A head-on “you’re wrong” approach tends to shut down real, productive debate. Better to ask someone to examine and justify their beliefs, to spark thought.

    I’ve seen kids turned on to science, who bring reasoning and evidence home to their fundie parents, with positive results. Not everyone can make an instantaneous shift in world view.

    If a person is able to transition from religious, to agnostic to atheist, and bring others along, more power to them. Or if they can function as a “gateway thinker” [thbbt], so be it.

    I do part ways with Giberson in the limiting way he brings in Freud; Polar opposition most definitey poses a threat in the real world, even if it has less of an affect on our way of thinking. We do need to call out encroachment on our rights as atheists.

    But, we can’t assume that every non-believer has already figured it out for themself, or that they won’t be open to “conversion”. Onward, rational trojan horses! There’s more than one way to skin a cat[holic]. yikes!

  12. trouish says:

    “A head-on “you’re wrong” approach tends to shut down real, productive debate.”
    Why the need for debate? Drink till you’re stupid or abstain. The only way it makes a difference to me is if you drive or operate heavy equipment when impaired.
    The same with religion. Think what you want but keep it out of science and the government. No need to debate, they can be as wrong as they want just make sure religion doesn’t encroach on these 2 areas. We’ve been too successful as a society with science and reason at the fore. Let’s not let them drag us back to the middle ages.

  13. Where’s the harm in that…I’m driving.


  14. JohnnieCanuck says:

    Clearly Mr. Giberson thinks of himself as a reasonable man. He writes quite reasonably, too. PhD. BioLogos Foundation. All very reasonable and intelligent.

    Except, that is, for the part about an invisible man in the sky that allows him to cling to warm and fuzzy feelings. That’s the unreasonable bit.

    He failed to consider the part where accommodationists feel threatened by atheists “precisely because they suggest that some of our beliefs might need correction.”

    Ethanol and Religion, poisoning people’s minds throughout history. I’m yet another apostate and ex-drinker and you know what they’re like. Can’t shut ’em up.

  15. Atheismo says:

    Great comic today!

    The linked article is bad enough but then the real crazy begins in the comments.

  16. John says:

    I LOVE Jesus and Mo, but this comic is my favourite yet: absolutely brilliant! Even without “Special thanks to today’s guest scriptwriter, Karl Giberson.”, it would be LOL funny, but with it? Hahahahahahahahahaha!

  17. David B says:

    Brilliant, even if something of a libel on the real pleasures of being moderately pissed.

    I like that state, though not when I am expecting to drive.

  18. Bribase says:

    Absolutely spot on!

  19. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    Did the supreme being of atheists ever change wine into water? Have met a few that could change grog into toilet water, not really the same thing.

  20. I’m starting to think that beleivers are “fear mongerers” while atheists are “calm mongerers”

    so, it’s no wonder us atheists get vilified, people respond more to the dramatic message.

    it’s just so not fun thinking for yourself and being responsible/accountable, when you can give into the feel good idea of magically knowing what you need to get get through the day

  21. Blamer .. says:

    If religion was a private matter, then there’d be no militant atheists.

    If atheism was a private matter, religious fundamentalists will continue indoctrinating, criminalising, and killing people in line with their metaphysical beliefs.

  22. Erik says:

    @trouish: And who should keep religion out of government? If the religious portion of the population votes for religious representatives (which they will as long as they find religion important) then religion will shape government. Short of heavy antidemocratic measures (banning of certain parties, free speech restrictions etc.), you can’t prevent it. If, however, the majority is unreligious or moderatly religious, then the effect of the religion-based votes is more marginal. This is what we ought to aim for.

  23. Unruly Simian says:

    @NBH – The great thing about atheism is that there is no need for a spiritual leader. Once again you seem to spread your ignorance of the issue onto a medium read by people who understand it thouroughly. You do however make me chuckle almost as much as the strip itself…..

  24. KSA says:

    From the linked article:
    “Why is it that people on middle ground always seem to be on the “other” team…?”

    Because that “middle ground” doesn’t really exist. Either science is real and magic an illusion built of old misunderstandings, or magic is real and science is an intricate illusion crafted by God.
    If there were a middle ground, it would be some waffling equivocation like “Maybe science is really discovering the mind of God,” or “Maybe God is the still-unfound Theory of Everything.” These devalue the pursuit of knowledge as redundant, and still contradict the teachings of most churches.
    The middle ground is seen as “other,” because it’s not enough on either side to be a worthy ally or a legitimate opponent.

  25. KSA says:

    “Supreme being” silliness aside, yes we can turn water into wine. We use an ancient genetic engineering technology called Vitis vinifera which processes water into an intermediate stage, and then use yeasts to refine that output into a finished product.
    Of course, charlatans and stage magicians can *appear* to do this in a different way, and be convincing enough to fool a bunch of drunks at a party.

  26. plortho says:

    [flogging a three-toed horse]:
    personally i view many “sciencey believers” as transitional forms… an ungainly, but inevitable step in evolution.

  27. Atheismo says:

    KSA: I can go one better; my lack of faith allows me to turn wine into urine.


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.