While the cartoon is cheeky and witty, it is entirely unsubstantiated and functions like propaganda: to make the opponent look stupid without ever having to resort to reasoning, and to make one's own camp feel superior.

It also makes two logical errors. First is that it assumes something like the following argument.

1) only things that are either self-evident (true by definition) of empirically verifiable are true.
2) God is neither.
3) Therefore God is not true. (doesnt exist)

Besides premise two being debatable (since that is what the ontological argument seeks to address) premise 1 also seems false because it cannot stand up to its own standard. Is premise 1 self-evidently true or true by definition? No. Is there a lab test that has empirically verified it as true? No. So the premise is reflexively self-refuting.

Another problem is that this cartoon can be reversed. From experience, many atheists who deny God's existence, when their own worldview is scrutinized by their own skepticism become flustered and simply shout louder and throw in insults to try and bully their case. Your previous guest interview Courtenay Werleman is a prime example during my debates with him. (He has actually chided me for using logic too much... not much of an "apostle of reason" I guess.)

The cartoon also assumes that all things are proven in the same way. While the theist is portrayed as an overbearing monster, he is actually accurate in one way. The atheist demands that there must be naturalistic proof for God's existence and that is the only kind of proof that is acceptable. (Ironically logical proofs are excluded for this case alone). Yet this betrays a faith based belief in the worldview of the naturalist: that only scientific proofs are valid (which itself is not a scientific claim but an epistemic one that CANNOT itself be verified by a scientific proof). Its seems perfectly logical that a non-naturalistic statement, such as God exists, would require a different kind of proof than the claim, "there is a box of crackers in the pantry," or "I have a baseball."

I grew up in a small polygamist compound in Montana and had not realized until your post how deeply entrenched the belief still is in the Mormon Church. Of course you are correct with regards to God's plan for men and women in the afterlife within the church. As an adult I had a heated discussion with my mother about how sexist God is and that was one of the reasons I could not buy into her religion. If in fact God is a "just" God, he would not treat women and men differently, and he would not be bias toward race, religion or color. But then again, I don't really think of God as a man!

If you like stick figure stuff, I think you may enjoy this one too: http://www.flascience.org/wp/?page_id=1066 (I was the proud submitter of one, and I also drew one for my wife (she had her hand in a cast at the time and was feeling lazy).