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

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

Everyone in the story politely ignores the irony of what the priest has said; instead they focus in on the idea that he has stolen some of the magic from the kids.

I do like this bit though;
Give the man back his whisky FFS, and then everything will be alright again

I want to hear the foul mouthed tirade!!
The irony of Christians wanting to engage in magic. Megalolz.

DazMarz

ShooterSF wrote: »

CCCCCRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

Worztron

Worztron

MrPudding

Worztron wrote: »

I have that book. My sister bought it for me.

MrP

Michael OBrien

gaynorvader wrote: »

Rocks are atheist, as far as we know at any rate. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in a deity, so if one is incapable of belief, one is atheist. Granted, the word has been rather hijacked in recent years, much like feminism and literally.

I disagree, there are some assumptions in all such labels that cannot simply be dismissed. The 'ISM' part requires the ability to believe or disbelieve something. It generally goes as far as humans doing or not doing something.
Rocks don't count. Babies do, after a fashion, but its only worthwhile considering them atheist to counter the bull argument from the theist side that we are born believers in god, rather than having a tendency to attribute agency to nature indiscriminately.

Other animals count, possibly. Especially other primates and animals like dolphins and elephants that are known to be very intelligent with a high degree of empathy that even extends outside their species. But again its largely academic. The only species that matters in this discussion is ours.

The idea of saying rocks are ANYTHING in regard to a god or gods is pedantic and worthless. It muddies the waters of debate and should be discouraged if you want to engage in honest intelligent discourse.

Dades

Firmly and vocally in the babies are not atheists camp. No more than than they are vegans or pioneers. You have to at least be aware of what it is a label has you rejecting.

CramCycle

Dades wrote: »

Firmly and vocally in the babies are not atheists camp.

My baby is firmly in the belief that Mummy is God, alas, like many religious folk, I am afraid to stand and question these beliefs, in case I should be labelled a heretic and be cast aside by the creator :pac:

Worztron

Harika

Still now allowed to post links but Iron Sky has shown its latest teaser trailer, you find it in youtube under: "Iron Sky Presents: Jesus Attack!" also the comments on their facebook page are priceless.

Yawlboy

Harika wrote: »

Still now allowed to post links but Iron Sky has shown its latest teaser trailer, you find it in youtube under: "Iron Sky Presents: Jesus Attack!" also the comments on their facebook page are priceless.

or alternatively click here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057341411

gaynorvader

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I disagree, there are some assumptions in all such labels that cannot simply be dismissed. The 'ISM' part requires the ability to believe or disbelieve something. It generally goes as far as humans doing or not doing something.
Rocks don't count. Babies do, after a fashion, but its only worthwhile considering them atheist to counter the bull argument from the theist side that we are born believers in god, rather than having a tendency to attribute agency to nature indiscriminately.

Other animals count, possibly. Especially other primates and animals like dolphins and elephants that are known to be very intelligent with a high degree of empathy that even extends outside their species. But again its largely academic. The only species that matters in this discussion is ours.

The idea of saying rocks are ANYTHING in regard to a god or gods is pedantic and worthless. It muddies the waters of debate and should be discouraged if you want to engage in honest intelligent discourse.

I was trying to make the joke that the original poster was holding rocks and babies to be equivalent, in which case of course rocks would be atheist too. As far as we could tell anyway. Damn anti-social rocks never talk to me anymore.

Worztron

Worztron

Worztron

Worztron

Worztron

Michael OBrien

Dades wrote: »

Firmly and vocally in the babies are not atheists camp. No more than than they are vegans or pioneers. You have to at least be aware of what it is a label has you rejecting.

That would count if it was explicit atheism, not implicit atheism.
They cannot be vegans because they must drink animal milk (breast feeding) to pass on vital ingrediants including stuff that helps set up their immune system.
Pioneers is a religious label. You have to swear an oath to be one and believe that you are making a sacrifice for the sins of others, requiring you to know what Catholicism is first (I am not sure if other christians do it).

While I consider the lumping in of babies largely pointless (as explained in my previous post), your examples of other labels are however flawed. You might say they are born vegetarians perhaps.

Pherekydes

Michael OBrien wrote: »

They cannot be vegans because they must drink animal milk (breast feeding) ...

Babies who drink [their own] mother's breast milk are omnivorous?

AstraMonti

Michael OBrien

Pherekydes wrote: »

Babies who drink [their own] mother's breast milk are omnivorous?

Although your comment was light hearted I do wish to point out one thing.
All humans are omnivorous. That only addresses the capacity of digesting both plant and animal material not that they have to. This is why humans have the option of being a vegetarian.

Orion

Being gay isn't an option ... oh wait .. that's not what you meant

Orion

Worztron

bnt

Worztron

smacl

Delirium

Brian Shanahan

smacl wrote: »

Never realised it before now, mainly because of his job's requirements for wearing dresses, but Jorge Maria Bergoglio is fat. Not for him the way of poverty and hunger his bible extols.

Worztron