The 'Funny (ha, ha)' side of religion

RikuoAmero

Worztron wrote: »

Can't say I blame God in that situation for high-tailing it out of there:p

robindch

Just a random observation, but years and years and years ago when this thread started, religious jokes were pretty tame. The only one that I remember causing any flap was the "Jesus on a Dog's Bum" one. Can't remember what year.

It's interesting to see now that people feel free to post whatever they want to and there's no noticeable response from the religious side at all. Makes me wonder whether there really is a causal relationship between internet usage and the decline of religion.

PopePalpatine

Now I'm curious about the sh*tstorm caused by the dog with the Jesus on its arse.

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Now I'm curious about the sh*tstorm caused by the dog with the Jesus on its arse.

Wasn't much of a crapstorm, but somebody complained and the image was removed. I think it was eventually reinstated, but there was talk of having some kind of community guidelines about what was and wasn't acceptable. In the end, I think it kind of ran into the sand and nothing ever happened. I'm sure the fossil record will supply if anybody's interested in going digging

Kivaro

robindch wrote: »

Makes me wonder whether there really is a causal relationship between internet usage and the decline of religion.

Of course there is, and I posted about it a while back.
With the Internet comes knowledge, and enlightenment.

While we have fun posting jokes and images on this thread, it also has another purpose; to highlight the ridiculous nature of the concept of religion and the obvious contradictions.

Worztron

obplayer

robindch wrote: »

Just a random observation, but years and years and years ago when this thread started, religious jokes were pretty tame. The only one that I remember causing any flap was the "Jesus on a Dog's Bum" one. Can't remember what year.

It's interesting to see now that people feel free to post whatever they want to and there's no noticeable response from the religious side at all. Makes me wonder whether there really is a causal relationship between internet usage and the decline of religion.

You wonder whether access to knowledge and information which has not been censored by your already brainwashed family and cultural group has any bearing on your belief in what, without brainwashing, is clearly at best nonsense and often actual insanity? You wonder? Why do you think people like Rick Santorum do not want teenagers to go to college? And now you have a college, of sorts, in your home! I think you already knew the answer when you posted this.
Hooray for the internet!!!

Worztron

The irony of using the word "indoctrinating" is clearly lost on that Santorum douche.

Calibos

robindch wrote: »

Just a random observation, but years and years and years ago when this thread started, religious jokes were pretty tame. The only one that I remember causing any flap was the "Jesus on a Dog's Bum" one. Can't remember what year.

It's interesting to see now that people feel free to post whatever they want to and there's no noticeable response from the religious side at all. Makes me wonder whether there really is a causal relationship between internet usage and the decline of religion.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Now I'm curious about the sh*tstorm caused by the dog with the Jesus on its arse.

robindch wrote: »

Wasn't much of a crapstorm, but somebody complained and the image was removed. I think it was eventually reinstated, but there was talk of having some kind of community guidelines about what was and wasn't acceptable. In the end, I think it kind of ran into the sand and nothing ever happened. I'm sure the fossil record will supply if anybody's interested in going digging

I had a vague recollection that it might have been me that posted that.

Twas indeed as it turns out.

Not much of a crapstorm to be fair.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52200971

Delirium

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czMOF0rnIU

robindch

Here's a yuletide present for a catholic in your life -- a Nun Doll, apparently from 1938:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NUN-DOLL-BY-JAYS-TRADITIONAL-DOLLS-OF-DUBLIN-IRELAND-1938-/221607761631?pt=US_Dolls&hash=item3398da16df

Marion Morrison

robindch wrote: »

Just a random observation, but years and years and years ago when this thread started, religious jokes were pretty tame. The only one that I remember causing any flap was the Jesus on a Dog's Bum one. Can't remember what year.

It's interesting to see now that people feel free to post whatever they want to and there's no noticeable response from the religious side at all. Makes me wonder whether there really is a causal relationship between internet usage and the decline of religion.

People get immune and acclimatised to it, it's just the norm now online, for it to be new and edgy, you have to up the anti.

Neyite

robindch wrote: »

Here's a yuletide present for a catholic in your life -- a Nun Doll, apparently from 1938:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NUN-DOLL-BY-JAYS-TRADITIONAL-DOLLS-OF-DUBLIN-IRELAND-1938-/221607761631?pt=US_Dolls&hash=item3398da16df

I think the first thing I'd have done with that as a kid is look up her skirt.

yeppydeppy

I still want to look up it's skirt!:pac:

Mr. CooL ICE

Item condition:Used

That bit makes me feel uneasy for some strange reason

Worztron

sliabh

Bible system updates. Change log from v1 to the recent 6.0 release: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/bible-system-updates

Worztron

Calibos

Marion Morrison wrote: »

People get immune and acclimatised to it, it's just the norm now online, for it to be new and edgy, you have to up the anti.

Worztron

e_e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bntfUA6TmLs

obplayer

Richard Dawkins Dies, Then Turns God Into An Atheist

Worztron

RikuoAmero

So there's a debate going on about God's existence in the christianity thread, with yours truly and other people. A christian gives me this link http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/ to support his argument, and reading through it, I found arguments that work, on the surface, as long as you don't take the time and effort to actually think about them.
However, I found this little gem, that caused me to facepalm. It is something so OBVIOUSLY wrong that I have to come to the conclusion that the guy who gave me that link didn't read it all the way through
"One can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him."
Really? The only things that are ever perceived are those things that actually exist? I suppose the person who wrote this had no knowledge whatsoever of hallucinogenic drugs.

Vivisectus

Hey, if that argument holds, screw Christinaity. I am off to worship Thor, who is also real by the same logic, and has a cool hat with wings on.

PopePalpatine

That sounds a lot like antiskeptic and his belief being based off of "God chooses the best form of evidence".

Brian Shanahan

RikuoAmero wrote: »

"One can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him."
Really? The only things that are ever perceived are those things that actually exist? I suppose the person who wrote this had no knowledge whatsoever of hallucinogenic drugs.

So the superhero dog that my mother created for me out of her imagination and my favourite stuffed toy as a boy (slept with him nightly until I was ten) Doggy Woggy is real?

Cool!

RikuoAmero

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So the superhero dog that my mother created for me out of her imagination and my favourite stuffed toy as a boy (slept with him nightly until I was ten) Doggy Woggy is real?

Cool!

Exactly. What is even more hilarious is that website actually acknowledges the problem of there being many different people from different religions claiming different religious experiences...but doesn't offer any way at all as to determine which claim is true. Obviously being a christian website, they'd default to believing the christian claim over that of a hindu claim, but they don't say why. They're careful enough not to reveal in plain text their bias.

Brian Shanahan

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Exactly. What is even more hilarious is that website actually acknowledges the problem of there being many different people from different religions claiming different religious experiences...but doesn't offer any way at all as to determine which claim is true. Obviously being a christian website, they'd default to believing the christian claim over that of a hindu claim, but they don't say why. They're careful enough not to reveal in plain text their bias.

Actually reading their who's who section of the website, it is clear what brand of christianity they come from, the fundamentalist, literalist, luddite wing of christianity:

Of the modern authors, two stand out: Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne. Plantinga’s work, particularly on reformed epistemology, has done much to galvanise contemporary Christian philosophy; Swinburne’s contribution over the years was monumental.
William Lane Craig has also made waves with his championing of the kalam cosmological argument, and his talent not only as a philosopher but also as a public debater. John Hick has been a great source of controversy; though he remains a theist, he advocates religious pluralism.

Any site that depends on the likes of Swinbourn, Plantinga and Craig for their arguments in favour of religion is either a fundamentalist religious grouping unwilling and unable to engage with available evidence or supply their own, or a poe. Though unlike most sites which rely on such laughably bad "experts" to defend their cause, from a brief reading of their "Arguments for Atheism" section, they are willing to at least concede that there are a) valid arguments against god, and b) there are problems with their conception of god.


So kudos for them, at least they are being honest and even about the whole thing. This site may actually be worth a read.

Orion

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That sounds a lot like antiskeptic and his belief being based off of "God chooses the best form of evidence".

It's not a new thing. Aquinas' five proofs are similar - circular logic containing leaps of faith (if you'll excuse the pun).

e.g. Argument from Motion.
Nothing causes itself to move. Everything moves. Something caused the first thing to move. That something is the first mover which must be god.

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm