Today’s Jesus and Mo strip is a “revival from 2007”, and is still relevant despite the mushbrains who cry that New Atheism is dead. However, at least one of the Divine Duo’s two gods is deceiving them!
Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ New Atheism
February 15, 2023 • 9:00 am
11 thoughts on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ New Atheism”
I’m confident that, in turn, Dawkins’s, Dennett’s, Harris’s, and (esp.) Hitchens’s withers remain unwrung by Jesus and Mo.
That was a great Hitchens riposte to William F. Buckley on “Firing Line” in 1984.
… and I’d call it, blind belief.
If someone thinks it’s impossible for them to be wrong about God because God exists, they’ve borrowed God’s infallibility. I don’t think the rules of theology allow Him to hand that out. Never answer the question “could you be mistaken?” with some version of “no, because God doesn’t make mistakes” if you want to crow to nonbelievers that belief in God promotes humility.
Jesus and Mo always get it wrong — and Jesus and Mo always gets it right.
The bartender in the upper right panel says it all.
Brilliant. But New Atheism is very much dead. Does someone still pay attention to a bunch of angry old white men bitching about metaphysics? Nope.
As I experienced it, New Atheism was a pushback against what was called Accomodationism:
Accomodationism: There’s no inherent conflict between science and religion.
New Atheism: There’s an inherent conflict between science and religion.
Accomodationism: People’s religious faith is fundamental to their identity and deserves special respect.
New Atheism: Religious faith isn’t an identity and deserves no special respect.
Accomodationism: The real problem with religion is the extremists.
New Atheism: Religion itself is formed in such a way that it leads to extremism.
Accomodationism: It is pointless and harmful to try to change the minds of the religious.
New Atheism: Trying to change the minds of the religious is a humanistic endeavor.
Stop bitchin’ bout New Atheism. The “movement” may be dead, but the ideas are still valid.
Great framing of New Atheism.
Pray tell, to what would you approvingly have anyone pay attention? The Thursday and Sunday NY Times “Styles” section?
As Dawkins once remarked, “Every dog has its fleas.”
You clearly haven’t read a thing they wrote and yet you’re aware of them. Dawkins belief that biological sex exists really roles you up, doesn’t it? You may as well go back to the supernatural.
Gus, you’re a bigot against old people, men, and white people. And you have no idea what you’re talking about. I banish you to Pharyngula, where you truly belong.