@BronyHeresy  
There are peores dead that can be made look what happen to Chinese people in the WW2 whit Japan.

 
Life’s a laugh and deat’s a joke, it’s true

@SPi  
Pff, mods these days.

Wow. Tough Crowd.

@Blissey1  
That comment was made 3 years ago, dude. A reply was probably not warranted. That being said, I would like to say the following:
 
There is literally zero scientific evidence disproving the existence of leprechauns because the existence of leprechauns is literally impossible to prove or disprove.
 
There is literally zero scientific evidence disproving the existence of Equestria because the existence of Equestria is literally impossible to prove or disprove.
 
This is just a wonderful exercise of Russel’s Teapot; being unable to disprove something does not give it any credence whatsoever, the burden of proof lies entirely on one making the claim. God is not exempt from this, and there is little reason to treat him as any more likely or reasonable than leprechauns.
 
Additionally, you seem to be one of the many people who do not understand what the word agnostic means. I too, an am agnostic; I am also an atheist, and I bet you are too. Gnosticism is separate from belief; you are either gnostic or agnostic, and you are either an atheist or a theist. Whether or not you believe that we can know whether god exists or not does not establish your beliefs. An agnostic atheist does believe that we can prove or disprove a god, and does not believe in one. A gnostic theist does believe that a god can be proven,and does believe in one. You are not likely to find someone who isn’t one of those two, though many agnostic atheists may act as if they were gnostic, because there it is silly say that gods may exist while not extending that courtesy to leprechauns and any other fantasy creature just because they cannot be disproven.

@Nightweaver20xx  

 
Let me preface by saying that I’m agnostic and thus don’t have a horse in this race
 
But there is literally zero scientific evidence disproving the existence of God because the existence of God is literally impossible to prove or disprove

Damn, I’m late for the flame war ;-;

@AIDSROBOT
 
No, wrong. I cannot poperly express the lack of fucks I give over it being one religion or the other. If there are any images that show an actual religious figure getting brutalized or humiliated similar to that image on this site, let me know; they shouldn’t be here.
 
Shit that’s less “for funsies” and more “just to piss people off” is a ‘no’. I don’t care if it’s Mohamed, Budha, Christ or Tom Cruise. I’m not allowing content here that serves only the purpose of trolling or insulting. There are other sites dedicated to that, this isn’t one of them.

Hey, it’s your site, and it’s your prerogative to draw that line, but I don’t believe that it’s a coincidence that that line happened to be drawn on a picture that had muhammad in it.

There’s a pretty big fucking difference between a parody like this and having a fountain of shit spray all over Mohamed courtesy of an unrepentant mass murderer.

Wait, are you talking about the Niggerfaggot pic with Breivik and muhammad? I just assumed it never got posted in the first place, I didn’t know it got deleted. Can’t really say I’m surprised though considering the, ahem, caliber of the current administration.

Hey, Background Pony. Take your religious indignation somewhere else. If you don’t like it, filter it. Or pretend you didn’t see it. Don’t feel like you have to comment on what you find offensive…just ignore it and move on.

@Nightweaver20xx:  
And the removal of the pic by niggerfaggot is done for the exercise?

Because offending your religion is not against the law or any TOS as far as I can tell. Feel bad that your religion got bashed in a shitty piece of fanart? Go cry to your minister. Or priest. Or imam. Or whoever you go to to reinforce your illusion of self-importance and ultimate salvation in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

wow. they even did the inri. not many people do that.

Kick! Evasive maneuvers!  

oh boy…i tagging this “religion” so i can escape from the “blah,blah,blah” that will happen.

See, I am bothered by this, and not only because of I’m a practicing christian, but because there are very little situations where grabbing a religious figure and changing them for your fictional character of the month is meant for little more than parody.
 
And while I have goody good fun with parodies, I find myself wondering how is this sort of thing which is clearly going to offend christians when done unironically. And yes, you can have an unironic parody which no matter how much you didn’t intent to offends large swaths of people by their sheer nature.
 
Satire is specifically made to point out the illogical part of this whole affair, and it is made with the intent to not be taken seriously and does it best to attack the basis rather than the notions, while this picture and parodies in general do the reverse and unapologetically insult the people who believe in said notion.
 
Point being, why is this here and not remove under the offensive material rule?

Crucifixion is one of the most painful ways to die… What in Equestria did she do?