Discussion (40)¬

  1. Dan says:

    One of the funniest, due to its ‘just subtle enough to miss at first glance’ wit. Well done. 🙂

  2. JayBee says:

    Oh how I love this one!

  3. Chris says:

    “Shit poet gets life”


  4. fontor says:

    I do believe you’re getting sharper, Author.

  5. T. Bear says:

    The title of M’s magazine is spot on, as well. Although terribly disrespectful of British school teachers. 40 lashes with a wet noodle for you!

  6. Timbo says:

    Classic, beautifully executed.

  7. Jonathan says:

    Mo has a point.. They should never have let Pol Pot win ‘Britain’s Got Talent.’

  8. Mehmet Genc says:


    Prophets are not to be joked and funned about.

    They are ALLAH’S (GOD FOR Christians) Most Loved and Precious People, Slaves and Creatures.

    Allah created and sent Them to be loved and followed, NOT to be funned about.

    If you want to learn and know about them, Read The Holy Qur’an (The Last Holy Book For Humanity sent after Jew’s Holy Book Tewrat and Cristians’ Injil (Bible)).

    Qur’an gives the most important and exact correct and true real information about them.

    Qur’an Tells how Holy They were, what They did for humanity and how we must Respect Them and musn’t make any any mistakes against Them.

    Also we must say ALEYHiSSELAM (PEACE AND MERCY OF ALLAH BE UPON HIM (THEM)) when we hear their names.

    If ordinary people are iron, aliminium, cooper, stone, wood, coal… etc., They are Gold, Pearl, Diamond… etc.

    Be careful about them!!!

  9. Ahmet Yasli says:

    Mehmet Genc – I’m Turkish as well, but I’m an atheist. This stuff might be “holy” for you, but it’s not for me (nor for my fellow atheists).

    Question is why do we need to be careful? If your God loves them so much, he can protect them as well.

    Also, do you not make fun of other religions time to time? Is is not wel-known to make fun of Hindus and cows in Turkey? Do you respect pre-Islamic Arabic idols such as Uzza?

    Also, I’m not going to say “PBUH” when I talk about the prophets, I find that totally stupid.

  10. Don says:

    If ordinary people are iron, aliminium, cooper, stone, wood, coal… etc., They are Gold, Pearl, Diamond… etc.

    So ordinary people are useful, functional and available to all, prophets are decorative bling for the ruling caste?

  11. Mythbuster says:

    He he… Brilliant.

    Mehmet Genc, nice try but your post is not as funny as the cartoon. It’s just sad.

  12. Mythbuster says:

    Oh, and just for the sake of information, Stalin studied at the Georgian Orthodox seminary in Tiflis (now Tbilisi). I’d say he learned a few nasty tricks before he dropped out.

  13. jONES. says:

    lol @ Don

    “prophets are decorative bling for the ruling caste”

  14. JohnnieCanuck says:

    I think Mehmet Genc is quite right.

    That is; that one should be very careful around anyone claiming to be a prophet. Typically we are talking delusions and hallucinations involving a powerful but invisible sky fairy. My invisible father figure can beat up yours, any day, so there! That sort of thing.

    You throw in a few followers, which are what makes the difference between a nut and a prophet, and things can get nasty quite easily. You just know someone is going to take offense in response to any expression of disbelief on your part, so be very careful, at least in their presence.

    I think that secretly they know they are ridiculous but can’t admit it to themselves, and that is why they get so upset when someone else points it out.

  15. Good to see Muslims commenting on this site. Show it to your friends. See what they think? The point is not about making fun of… whoever. It’s about, can you see the joke? I find some humour offensive, but it can still be very funny. I’d say to those Muslims out there who find Jesus & Mo offensive, if you can’t even see the joke then you’re missing something. Some of us enjoy a joke. I hope you can tolerate that. If you can see the joke too then we can laugh together like Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley. If the author here can make that happen then he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. As Aldous Huxlet wrote: “To see ourselves as others see us is a most salutary gift. Hardly less important is the capacity to see others as they see themselves.”

  16. al says:

    That was beautifully put Necessary Evil. Thank you

  17. Jaybee says:

    Ah finally! These pages should much more known… and muslims should check them more often!

  18. JohnnieCanuck says:

    Just for the record, I’d like to point out the fallacy in the ‘Atheists are evil, just look at Pol Pot, etc.’ religionist argument.

    They weren’t inspired to do evil in order to spread their atheistic ideas or to enforce a particular tenet of their atheistic beliefs. Quite often, their focus was on destroying the previous regime and its religious power base. Their other choice would have been to co-opt the priests to their own benefit. Sometimes dictators don’t like to share power, would seem to be the real message.

  19. Hobbes says:

    Another tip of the hat to Don. Great insight!

    Surely this site must be getting threats, hate-posts, etc. from the radical Muslim automatons (little different from radical Christian automatons–though a bit more insane). I’d love to be able to read them and, perhaps, respond, even though I know their minds would be closed to logical arguments. It would still be a real hoot.

    –The unexamined belief is not worth believing–

  20. carolita says:

    I don’t trust God’s self-appointed henchmen. God, in any religion, is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I think God (or Allah, or Whichever Monotheistic Deity you worship), can bloody well take care of himself without the help of any helpful humans.

    They are being presumptuous, and will be punished by their Deity, if their Deity really exists, because their Deity would be insulted by their yappy behavior.

  21. fontor says:

    If I met anyone who claimed to be a prophet, I’d try to get them the psychiatric help they needed before they hurt themselves — or anyone foolish enough to believe them.

    Oh, and Stalin and Pol Pot have something else in common besides the atheism — they both breathed oxygen and ate food. Clearly this was the contributing factor to their crimes. So eating and breathing leads one to be a mass murderer. It certainly would have been better if the two of them had stopped both activities early on.

  22. tie says:

    Very nice one, subtle almost (or I’m thick)

    Had to point out the obvious that Stalin and Pol pot did not murder in the name of “lack of believe in god” they did what they did to bring forth communism, and after killed to stay in power as dictators, and who can “blame” a dictator to choose not to share power with the church? they are dictators after all.

    When religious zealots murder others, or kill themselves they do it BECAUSE and in the “NAME OF” their choice of bronze age mythology.

    BIG difference.

    wars directly inspired by religious scripture? many!
    wars in the name or rational scepticism? … can’t think of one.

    ps: Mehmet Genc, go fuck yourself. Freedom of speech is miles ahead of your imaginary god and your demands of “respect”.
    Respect is earned, not given at face value. And thinly veiled threats of violence do not give you any respect, in fact that automatically put you ahead on the insane-moron-we-must-laugh-at list.

  23. Hobbes says:

    Tie, I appreciate your comments, but have only one criticism. Respect, from the conservative point of view, may be given only when earned (which means that one disrespects everyone until individuals earn respect). This would be the same, in law, as one charged with a crime having to prove they are innocent.

    From the liberal point of view, to which I subscribe, respect is given outright unless and until one’s actions or words show that they do not deserve respect. This is the same, in law, of a person having been charged with a crime, but is considered innocent until the accuser proves he is guilty.

    –The unexamined belief is not worth believing–

  24. Dick M. says:

    The Book of Mormon is a more recent holy book than the Koran and there may be others more recent than the B of M.

  25. Rob says:

    I am afraid, Mehmet Genc, that we cannot read the Holy Q’ran, as you advise. Why? Because apparently God spoke Arabic (not trace of regional favouritism there!) and translations are not allowed because then it would not be the holy word. That, or translations would allow all to see that it is merely a historical document, subject to redactive analysis and, just like the bible, is riddled with inconsistencies. Once we see this it becomes clear that only the bowel-shatteringly ignorant or the totally insane could take it at face value.

  26. jONES. says:

    Right… Thou shalt not translate the holy book to unbelievers.

    However, if the unbelievers don’t start believing on their own, then thou shalt strap a bomb to your chest and….

  27. Brian says:

    When religious zealots murder others, or kill themselves they do it BECAUSE and in the “NAME OF” their choice of bronze age mythology.

    Well…I’m not sure this is 100% true. Generally, the zealots and nuts are led by big men of the tribe who are interested in the same things all Big Men are-power, wealth, babes, etc. Religion is merely a useful TOOL to get the foot soldiers and cannon fodder to do your bidding. Mindless patriotism and racism/tribalism can do the same thing, but religion seems uniquely useful (and thus evil).

  28. r00db00y says:

    I love it! I absolutely love it! The excuses! The hypocracy! The sermonising!

    Atheism is definitely developing a certain religious fervour.

    So, if this page is to be believed, no branch of existential science has ever been inconsistent, religious nuts do not eat food or breath and atheists only start killing because of their political beliefs, not their religious ones (which makes it completely justifiable).

    Please, please, please….keep the magic rolling. This ‘toon has nothing on the comedic value of the posts it inspires.

  29. fontor says:

    Your reading comprehension needs some work. Perhaps by the time you become a r00dmaan.

  30. r00db00y says:

    Are you serious?!?!?
    Is he serious?!?!?!

  31. jONES. says:


    or maybe no…

    umm.. we’re not really sure, we’re kinda agnostic on the subject…

  32. TB says:

    Hey, I missed two another Turks! Damn.

    2 Exmuslims8me and that fellow Yasli), 1 Muslim nut(MehmetGenc), this website is improving!

  33. Jerrry w. says:

    I had heard it told as:

    “Respect one who seeks god….

    Run from one who says he found god…”

    I would only add, run faster and further from one

    who tells of speaking with god and getting an answer.

  34. Dour says:

    Although I agree that many folks base religious impressions off the most radical and minorities…as one who lives less than a mile from Fred Phelps and his “church”, you’d be surprised how many people actually support these “minorites” – hundreds here believe in much of his…er…”prayers”…and though hundreds does not equal the thousands that live here or the millions in America as a whole, these hundreds somehow still manage to convert others and raise their children to believe the same.

    So, point is, yes, basing off of minorities is a bit stupid, but these minorites manage to make a difference, good or bad, and they can’t be ignored (unfortunately).

  35. bipolar2 says:

    to JesMoh:

    You’ll find that Stalin (Iosef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili 1878-1953) a native of Georgia, spent his formative years in Orthodox schools and a theological seminary. His brutal home life and repressive schooling overseen by Russians led him finally to atheism and anarchism during his first year in seminary. During the siege of Lenningrad in 1941 (now St. Petersburg), Stalin softened his anti-religious views:

    “Whatever the reason, after his mysterious retreat, he began making his peace with God. Something happened which no historian has yet written about. On his orders many priests were brought back to the camps. In Leningrad, besieged by the Germans and gradually dying of hunger, the inhabitants were astounded, and uplifted, to see wonder-working icon Our Lady of Kazan brought out into the streets and borne in procession.” (See Wikipedia)

    Mass murderers, like George W. Bush, somehow reach levels of power which permit uninhibited play for their psycho-social pathologies.

    BTW — Islamic and xian critics of JesMoh: go f**k yourselves! God, Allah, Yawveh, and Ahura Mazda are as non-existent as, but morally inferior to, Batman.


  36. Teralek says:

    I kind of find this cartoon actually making a point for religious thought!

  37. fenchurch says:

    @Teralek: *gentle nudging* OK, so you’ve stated your thesis; let’s hear the support for an argument.

  38. notmyopinion says:

    Excellent cartoons… But I’m not sure tie had it right…

    Stalin (to pick one example) had an overall philosophy that included a preferred economic system, scientific materialism, and an ethic that allowed – even demanded – the use of extreme repression to bring about the goal of communism. It was the overall world view that allowed the evil (for lack of a better term) that he did.

    Richard Dawkins, though undoubtedly preachy, seems a much nicer man. And there are lots of ethical humanists just as skeptical of God as Stalin was.

    Torquemada had an overall world view that included theism, the understanding of christian scriptures taught by his politico-religious power structure (aka church) at the time, and an ethic that demanded that people should be forced (possibly “for their own good”, possibly regardless) to assent to his belief.

    From the evidence we have, Francis of Assisi, Mother Theresa and Jesus Christ seem to have had a more sympathetic and humane ethic. Many Christians and Muslims are kind, humane, and thinking people.

    Given the range of ethics adopted and followed by both Theists and Athiests, it is hard to argue that either position leads inevitably to repression and evil on one hand, or pwace and universal light on the other. Human nature allows us to muck up any system of belief – humanist or theistic. It also allows us to transcend purely selfish interests, and the desire for power and control.

    And is it just me, or does that nice Richard Dawkins chap sometimes fall into Mo and J’s trap of characterising all faith as dangerous, based on this sort of extreme example?

  39. Rogue11 says:

    That nice Richard Dawkins chap is correct; all religions are dangerous. Whenever a follower of some religion or dogma thinks they can superscede facts and evidence with a belief, and have said belief hold the same weight as evidence and repeated observation, that is dangerous and detrimental. Add to this the tendency for believers (theists) to try to supercede AT WILL, religion becomes disastrous to everyone in it’s path.

  40. then the lesser group Is that a bad group? In fact, the number of people who entered the group It cannot measure which group is the best.


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.