└ Tags:

Discussion (21)¬

  1. mandrill says:

    What I want know is where are the riots, you can’t expect to publish this and not have a bunch of rioting moslems burning embassies and the like. I want riots! I demand riots!

  2. Mandrill, Mo is not a representation of the Holy Prophet, but a body double, as portrayed at The riots were prevented by the banning of the site in Pakistan. Jolly good thing too. Wouldn’t want more people getting killed unnecessarily.

  3. TB says:

    Pakistan sucks. Ass. Not being able to look at a website is truly the evil.

  4. TaoAndZen says:

    Ambros Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary has this excellent entry on faith: “FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”

    The notion that one should have faith in something or that “faith” is a good thing is the biggest fallacy in human society. Politicians abuse it most effectively.

    An item of faith cannot be considered to be knowledge: ref. Platonic tripartite definition of knowledge as “True Justified Beleif” (Theatatus).

  5. TB, India makes GoogleMaps rub out their defence sites. China stops its internet users accessing wikipedia. American neo-cons promote fundamentalist religion. I guess the whole world sucks in one way or another. It’s just a fact of life. That Pakistan censors Jesus and Mo can be justified in order to prevent the sorts of riot we saw after a Danish paper published a cartoon. The good people of Pakistan are being deprived of a good laugh and a chance to realise how DEEPLY wrong their religion is. But the undeniable existence of the Jesus and Mo cartoon strip provides hope that love can prevail. Have faith!

  6. mat says:

    excellent one… interesting to note that Mo is reading Sam Harris’ “Letter to a Christian Nation”, a hard (and deserved) criticism of cristian intolerance and ignorance, specifically in the USA.

  7. r00db00y says:

    Oh dear T&Z,

    So you have no faith that humanity will some day see the abuse of sprirituality through religion for what it is? If so then why leave comments on this board? If it’s a wasted cause then what’s the point in supporting it?

    Without parallel? All religions have parallel’s in (believe it or not) other religions, or do you not see the similarity between Karma and “do unto others as you would have done unto yourself”.

    That would mean (gasp, shock, horror) that Bierce is wrong yet, dogmatically, he is quoted here as “proof” of the invalidity of religion.

    Tell you something, when South Park bundled the atheists in with all the other blind faiths they hit the nail on the head.

  8. TaoAndZen says:

    Roodboy, I would like to answer your post but I don’t understand it. The grammar is clear but the meaning is non sequitur to what it claims to be remarking upon.

  9. MrGronk says:

    Hi folks, let’s sort out some terminology first. Faith, as I see it, is the mental process required to believe an assertion that is both unprovable AND impossible. There are plenty of assertions (string theory, alien life, my wife’s fidelity) which can’t be tested or falsified but which don’t don’t defy known natural law (okay, maybe not my wife’s fidelity). You don’t need “faith” to believe those particular assertions, but trust. Trust, being the product of reason and experience, is the diametrical opposite of faith, which actively vilifies rationality and respect for reality.
    Which means that no rational person ever needs faith in their lives, it’s just a destructive mental conjuring trick to make infantile superstition bearable to supposedly grown-up intellects.
    So Roodby, I myself have no “faith” in humanity’s better instincts. But I do, in my more optimistic moments, have a ton of trust.

  10. louis says:


    you misunderstand the bierce quotation and you misquote the person posting it.

    1. ‘ w/o parallel’ doesn’t mean ‘non-analagous’, nor is he referring to one religion vs others. he means ‘extraordinary or supernatural explanations’. in other words, his quote could be paraphrased as ‘faith is the believing in extraordinary things without having the evidence to do so by a person who has no knowledge of those things.’ not as pithy, but maybe clearer in meaning to 21st century speakers.

    2. tao and zen didn’t say this was proof of anything.

  11. opposablethumbs says:

    Found my way here today thanks to a couple of posters mentioning J&M on the Richard Dawkins website; just wanted to say how much I like it. Thank you. You have a very smart barmaid working here.


  12. Rezot says:

    Hasn’t the “Faiths Just Pretending” “Not Just pretending, pretending REALLY HARD” lin appeared in a Terry pratchett books sometime? Its familiar……

  13. jONES. says:

    Personally, I’m just going to PRETEND that christians, muslims and religious adherants everywhere are reading and learning from some of the insights on this website, even though I don’t BELIEVE it. (would be nice though).

    But I do have FAITH that somebody, somewhere has some idea what Roodbooy is talking about. We sure don’t. (Think ironic reversal with a sarcastic inflection.)

    Great site, keep it up. Cheers!

  14. Necessarily Evil, I would like to know how is Islam “DEEPLY wrong”? Please explain somebody?
    First, no I am not Islamic, but let me tell you that if you look to the core of the religions, almost all of them are pretty much the same and aren’t bad. It is the people who practice them that make them look “evil”.
    Some extreme Muslims make the religion Islam looks bad, but don’t forget there was a time when church burnt people alive for no other reason than contradiction the church.
    It’s all the same everywhere… it’s the people who make them look bad. Almost all the religions, in their true form intend good – not harm.

  15. Ben says:

    Yes and to continue Sachintha’s point there have been plenty of dictators who have made atheism look bad too.

  16. haha says:

    i am in love with these comics

  17. ALameIris says:

    ..i know this is way late. but, contrary to what jONES. believed..I’m totally reading all this stuff…and on here, I would be labeled a Christian..although I don’t prefer to affiliated with the religion because a lot of this stuff about their behavior is true. It’s disgraceful, regardless of religion.

  18. Sachal says:

    Actually, This website is NOT banned in Pakistan. I am in Pakistan, use to be a Muslim, and i am accessing it in Pakistan. I like sending some of the links to my friends and watch them boil 😛

  19. Bagpuss says:


    South Park was taking the p*ss….and guess what, those who were having the p*ss taken out of them don’t care…….

    To paraphrase Bill Hicks – “Hey, forgive me then…” – an anthema to those of (blind) faith…of any persuasion, yet a fundamental contradiction _ I could go on for ages……….

  20. Ziz says:

    Where does this idea that Abrahamic religions are inherently peaceful come from?
    Whenever I have read the bible, which I have done, and segments from the Torah and Koran, it is full of unspeakable cruelty, evil and violence, on a scale truly sickening and repugnant, and to practice these religions with any kind of accuracy would end up with incarceration, in most countries anyway.
    Those who think that Christ’s only message was peace and love are ill educated.
    Those who honestly practice the ‘word of god’ would be indistinguishable from very, very unpleasant fundamentalists.
    So why do the religious moderate and ignore these indubitable and unassailable commands?
    Because they are either impractical or unpleasant.
    Religious tolerance revolves around letting people inflict insanity on other people, respecting religious belief seems to revolve around religious people being offensive and then I am not allowed to call them out on it.


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.