http://churchofentropy.blogspot.com/

 

http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/file13/316122

 

http://www.jesusdressup.com/

 

http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail158.html

 

I just found this too, I wanna see it http://www.popetown.com/

 

I must say, I find the depiction of a prophet of a possibly non-existant deity in a comedic way to be incredibly disturbing & well worth retaliation in the form of burning effegies & pictures depicting the decapitation of the Danish Prime Minister, that is rational & not a ridiculous escalation at all.

 

I embrace all humanity & am accepting of other people's rights to believe what they want, as long as in doing so they are not forcing their beliefs on me, nor are they stopping my right as an agnostic to continue to question & criticise areas of those religions which I find disagreeable. I do not hate anyone on the grounds of religion but I take issue with anyone who uses any reason (including religion) to commit violence or the threat of violence on another human.

You are an agnostic, but your sig states you're a God.

 

:/

Yes, I am agnostic, which means I'm undecided (I actually am more of a humanist than a deist)

 

But no, my sig states that "'We' are gods at this kind of thing" which I think is a nice depiction of my view of people. Everyone is a god at something, "We" here are gods at posting on TehForum. I originally came up with the statement when I was being a pyromaniac at Reading Festival after some particularly potent hedonism.

Of course they have a right to be unhappy, even protest...

 

As did any Christians who were when Jerry Springer, The Opera was shown on telly.

 

It's when protest escalates that it becomes further reason for extremists from all sides to use as evidence for their means.

 

My personal view is that in a global framework, anyone who wishes to integrate & harmonise must accept that their beliefs will come under question or ridicule by both people who don't believe or don't understand & it is a sign of strength of faith & conviction to be able to stand up & answer or tolerate that questioning or critique.

 

How offensive would it be to depict all holy idols in a mass orgy situation?

http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/02/03/christian-group-targets-will-and-grace/

I'm sure the sales of Danish bacon and Carlsberg will be deeply affected.

and porn.

Little Britain Ripped Off Jesus-Nut Jack Chick!!!

(If you want to read it in context: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1004/1004_01.asp )

(You don't want to know the thought-process that got me from porn to Jack Chick...)

You think people are gods, but aren't decided whether god exists, thus you're not sure whether people exist, thus there's a chance that you don't exist and that I didn't post this.

 

Or something...

Yeh, why not?

 

anyway...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4676632.stm

 

I like Stewart Lee's comments best

Agnosticism (also known as "weak atheism") doesn't mean you're undecided, it means you don't believe any gods exist. You just don't think you can prove it. It's incompatible with deism, which is based on the existence of a creator god.

Umm I'd argue that it can also mean that it's a belief that it's impossile to prove that gods exist, but are open to the idea that they/it might.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life.

 

Variants

 

# Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods,) while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.

 

# Agnostic atheism—the view that God may or may not exist, but that his non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.

I'd disagree, and point out that Wikipedia entries on this sort of thing are just the opinion of the person who edited them most recently.

Right, but I was using Wiki to back up my previously assumed understanding of the term in the context in which I stated it, you are an obtuse bitch.

Yes, but the press DID want it to happen, clearly. When did you ever hear of the press actually trying to douse a flammable situation?

Nice run-on sentence.

 

[climbs tree]