I swear, the Jesus and Mo artist and I really are philosophical confrères. Last week’s strip is one of the best, showing how the truth about theology is hilarious.
Jesus ‘n’ Mo tackle the Big Questions
August 24, 2011 • 5:08 am
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
What a coincidence! I was just having a discussion with a Muslim about whether or not proving humans and modern apes share a common ancestor would disprove the Quran; and his answer was along the lines of how science cannot answer the big questions.
I just sent it to him, his reply
>Lol!
At least he has a good sense of humour 🙂
Today’s comic about agnostics is very good also.
This kind of thing should be put on billboards and buses, instead of limp slogans like ‘good without God’
It’s even worse than that.
“Sophisticated” theologians don’t even attempt to answer the questions. They only pose them and claim that they’re the province of theology.
Well, sometimes they make an attempt. But, for some reason, they always seem to get bogged down in stories about talking animals and zombie snuff porn….
Cheers,
b&
This is actually an old issue, few years back, notice J’s face? But it does strike true .. I went to JM’s site to congratulate him (again).
I think that’s from December 2008. I remember putting it up on a bulletin board.
Wait, you mean the cartoon has been resurrected?
Praise Jesus!!!
FUNNY & INSIGHTFUL! One side presents facts backed up by evidence showing the audience that are modeling their lives on a delusion and the other side presents them with denial and malarky affirming that they are leading a life of ultimate truth and goodness. What side will most people in the audience embrace? Sometimes the truth hurts.
Q: “Why are we here?”
A1: “You’re not, quite. You’re only probably in that general vicinity.”
A2: “Your parents were not sufficiently careful about regular use of contraception.”
Q: “Who created the laws of mathematics and logic?”
A: “That’s a question for the math department, which is down the hall thataway.”
AMath: “Around here we usually use the ones made by Boole, Zermelo, and Fraenkel; but if you don’t like those laws, we have others you can play with instead.”
Q: “What is the purpose of…”
A: “‘Purpose’ involves a consequence for ordering of design choices; Engineering is down the hall in the other direction.”
Drat it; subscripts aren’t allowed.
“What is the purpose of beauty?”
Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that one before.
The doody runs deepity.
A few years ago I was asked to debate a local fundie who was writing letters to the editor promoting the teaching of creationism in our schools and making quite a stir. Despite (or because of) my youth and inexperience, I reluctantly agreed.
Luckily he was so over the top he hoisted himself by his own petard and many of my rejoinders lay unused in my prep notes. I had based many of my remarks on the rigors of the scientific method and the complete lack of evidence for faith based conclusions. After he made his final, banal, excruciatingly simplistic comments, I made my closing.
I had remembered a classic Sidney Harris cartoon and made two signs. Without a word, I taped one to the front of my lectern which read: “Science – Unanswered questions.” I walked to his lectern and taped one which read: “Religion – Unquestioned answers.” As I walked back, the audience broke into laughter and then applause. Even the moderator started laughing. I gave a wry smile and a shrug toward my opponent who simply walked off the stage.
At least there were no more letters after that.