Funny anti-religious Internet pics

[johaninsc]

[TopherGF]

[TopherGF]

[Kulindahr]

Naughty, naughty -- lying doesn't help the case.

Lincoln and Franklin were definitely not atheists -- not sure about some of the others.

[Kulindahr]

This is kinda fun --

[Kulindahr]

Too true:

[TopherGF]

[MoufOfKhaos]

[Kulindahr]

I find that this entire thread to be seriously Blasphemous, with the exception of a very few that display Romney, Santorum, and Palin, etc. All else is Blasphemy.

I can find only two, arguably three posts which can qualify as blasphemous. OTOH, there's a serious number that would be offensive to Roman Catholics, but being offensive doesn't make them blasphemous. There are also a number that are just plain ignorant and therefore stupid, but that doesn't make them blasphemous.

In between in numbers are some to which Christians should pay attention, because they carry a valid criticism.

[Kulindahr]

[Kulindahr]

[StarCrasher]

I find that this entire thread to be seriously Blasphemous, with the exception of a very few that display Romney, Santorum, and Palin, etc. All else is Blasphemy.

Blasphemy is a great thing.

Religions don't deserve to be respected. They're a collection of lies which hinder progress.

Don't agree? Well of course you don't. Just consider that everyone on this board should have been executed many times over by now as per the Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

[Kulindahr]

Blasphemy is a great thing.

Religions don't deserve to be respected. They're a collection of lies which hinder progress.

Don't agree? Well of course you don't. Just consider that everyone on this board should have been executed many times over by now as per the Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

Mikey, don't be bothered by this irrational statement of faith which ignores evidence and utilizes fallacious reasoning.

[StarCrasher]

[MoufOfKhaos]

Militant atheists are as bad as far-right deists.

Not as bad, but certainly as annoying.

[StarCrasher]

[StarCrasher]

Militant atheists are as bad as far-right deists.

Not as bad, but certainly as annoying.

Militant? LMAO.

[Darted]

This thread will upset many people. Awesome.

[StarCrasher]

Mikey, don't be bothered by this irrational statement of faith which ignores evidence and utilizes fallacious reasoning.

My statement is totally correct.

Read your Bible and stop conveniently picking and choosing what verses you follow. (Or do the smart thing and just reject it entirely.)

Overview of Leviticus 20:13:

This is almost identical to Leviticus 18:22. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam." However, it adds a compulsory death penalty to the participants. In various translation the passage has been translated:

ASV: (American Standard Version, 1901) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them."

ESV: (English Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

HNV: (Hebrew Names Version): "If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."

NASB: (New American Standard Bible): "'If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

Net Bible: "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves."

NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

NKJV: (New King James Version) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

NLT: (New Living Translation): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense."

RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Webster: (Noah Webster Version, 1833): "If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."

Young: (Robert Young Literal Translation, 1898) "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them."

[johaninsc]

[MoufOfKhaos]

Militant? LMAO.

Yes, do what you always do - shake your head, roll your eyes, laugh it off and pretend you're absolutely correct while thumbing your nose down claiming to be oh-so intellectual and superior.

If your head was anymore up your ass i'd swear you were a creationist, oblivious and yet so sure at the same time.

Kinda funny. At least funnier than some of the pics(though I think I laughed hardest at Topher's second one on this page).

[TopherGF]

[BENDERBOY]

[StarCrasher]

Yes, do what you always do - shake your head, roll your eyes, laugh it off and pretend you're absolutely correct while thumbing your nose down claiming to be oh-so intellectual and superior.

If your head was anymore up your ass i'd swear you were a creationist, oblivious and yet so sure at the same time.

Kinda funny. At least funnier than some of the pics(though I think I laughed hardest at Topher's second one on this page).

Derp, you and Hard-up should start a "StarCrasher annoys me but I always subscribe to his threads anyway" club.

You don't even know what the word "militant" means. The definition includes aggressive and extreme activism or other form combative activity to achieve an objective. The definition doesn't include posting an anti-religious thread on the Internet for some LOLs. I'm not even an atheist. I'm agnostic. But whatever you say, cupcake.

Oh and ...

[TopherGF]

[Kulindahr]

Wow -- if you didn't already, zoom in and read the fine print!

[Kulindahr]

Militant atheists are as bad as far-right deists.

Not as bad, but certainly as annoying.

Deists?

Deists are pretty easy-going types who tolerate most religions and agnostics, but aren't bothered terribly by atheists.

I think you mean "theists".

[tombastep]

Derp, you and Hard-up should start a "StarCrasher annoys me but I always subscribe to his threads anyway" club.

You don't even know what the word "militant" means. The definition includes aggressive and extreme activism or other form combative activity to achieve an objective. The definition doesn't include posting an anti-religious thread on the Internet for some LOLs. I'm not even an atheist. I'm agnostic. But whatever you say, cupcake.

Oh and ...

Funny, I always got the idea that most of these types of threads you start were to bait people.

[Kulindahr]

Actually, the answer is "the second".

[Hard-up1]

The thread actually has a sort of air to it reminiscent of bad religion: an orgy of the like-minded, celebrating their presumed superiority over the "other" that is so woefully inferior.

I never liked it in churches that did adopt that sort of self-contained smugness, and I don't find it any more respectable coming from the antagonists.

The difference is that I don't bother reading the posts that are solely designed to antagonize and engage in a sort of mutual masturbation of agreement.

To be honest, I don't associate with any another group than JUB that deliberately goes out of its way to be offensive for the sheer malicious pleasure of it. What a sad comment that is on the character of those who revel in it.

[StarCrasher]

Wow, that atheist guy in this cartoon is sure militant.

The word militant apparently has been recently re-defined to include anyone who disagrees.

[GiancarloC]

I find that this entire thread to be seriously Blasphemous, with the exception of a very few that display Romney, Santorum, and Palin, etc. All else is Blasphemy.

Awesome. That's the point. Religion needs to be exposed... in a funny way too.

[StarCrasher]

Funny, I always got the idea that most of these types of threads you start were to bait people.

Just how many "types of threads" like this have I started?

[Kulindahr]

My statement is totally correct.

Read your Bible and stop conveniently picking and choosing what verses you follow. (Or do the smart thing and just reject it entirely.)

Excellent example of picking and choosing.

See, there's a later section called "the Prophets", where God makes plain that justice and mercy are what count. Then there's a later section where God tells the church that all those old rules are gone; just don't kill people, be promiscuous, and a few other things.

So your statement is false, because it's based on a false generalization, and your defense is false, because it does exactly what you accuse me of.

If you're going to criticize something, at least get a cursory knowledge of what you're talking about. Being able to look up some verses and pounce using them just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.


BTW, you know that word translated "abomination"? It used to be rendered as "unclean". And God himself tells Peter (the alleged first pope) not to call unclean anything God has made.

I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the student.

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

how turn wata inta snow

_ ******** _

thankyou
$ awww da preturee $

[Kulindahr]

Yes, do what you always do - shake your head, roll your eyes, laugh it off and pretend you're absolutely correct while thumbing your nose down claiming to be oh-so intellectual and superior.

If your head was anymore up your ass i'd swear you were a creationist, oblivious and yet so sure at the same time.

Kinda funny. At least funnier than some of the pics(though I think I laughed hardest at Topher's second one on this page).

He is quite similar.

I sighed at Topher's second one. If Tebow and other Christians actually read their Bibles, they'd thank God just as much for getting sacked, for having to call a locksmith and pay $80 to get into the car after losing keys . . . and for not having enough money to put food on the table for their kids.

The only time special thanks are due is if you asked God for a specific thing and it happened.

To render the first relevant Bible verse into colloquial English, "He sends good things, and makes shit happen". The second: "He makes everything work for good, for those who love Him". So when shit happens, it's for the Christian's good -- and God should get praised.

I'll believe Tebow's piety is real when I see him on the field praising God for having gotten his face smeared in the mud and the ball knocked free to be recovered by the other team.

[tombastep]

Just how many "types of threads" like this have I started?

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372017

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372015

[Kulindahr]

Cute. But it implies that persecution depends on numbers, which isn't so.

THough I'm wondering what the artist meant by putting the grey figures in tidy rows.

[Kulindahr]

how turn wata inta snow

_ ******** _

thankyou
$ awww da preturee $

Priceless.

[StarCrasher]

Excellent example of picking and choosing.

See, there's a later section called "the Prophets", where God makes plain that justice and mercy are what count. Then there's a later section where God tells the church that all those old rules are gone; just don't kill people, be promiscuous, and a few other things.

So your statement is false, because it's based on a false generalization, and your defense is false, because it does exactly what you accuse me of.

If you're going to criticize something, at least get a cursory knowledge of what you're talking about. Being able to look up some verses and pounce using them just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.


BTW, you know that word translated "abomination"? It used to be rendered as "unclean". And God himself tells Peter (the alleged first pope) not to call unclean anything God has made.

I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the student.

You can argue it all you want, but those Bible verses say what they say, regardless of how they're translated. The evidence to the contrary you mention only helps support another argument I have against the Bible... all the damned contradictions.

Maybe you should be saving all this hot air for your fellow Christians, because it's not I who picks ANYTHING from the Bible. In case you haven't noticed, I reject it all. Sorry for being so militant, but every once in a while I like reminding Christians on message boards about some of the warped things their religion was originally about (that is, if they're willing to hear it.)

[bankside]

Kulindahr, in your mind, "pumpernickel" may be what most of us would commonly refer to as a bobsleigh, perhaps with some etymological precedent found in some long-forgotten dusty library, secreted away in another land. And perhaps you're happy to take the pumpernickel down the track at 150 km/h in a latex catsuit.

But when you begin speaking with the larger public, it is helpful to at least acknowledge that a different meaning is not only top-of-mind for many people, but also not without foundation.

To most people, particularly gay people, "christianity" is defined by a more expansive track record than just the theology of a few inoffensive thinkers who might happen to share your creed. Christianity is as christianity does, and it has not always been a pretty picture.

[MoufOfKhaos]

Deists?

Deists are pretty easy-going types who tolerate most religions and agnostics, but aren't bothered terribly by atheists.

I think you mean "theists".

Yes. That one.

Since Crash did exactly what he always does(act superior, try to give me a lesson on the meaning of the terminology I used against him, then lowered himself to using "net language" in an effort to try and "insult" someone), no response needed to his bullshit. If I thought atheists were supposed to be a group, i'd be offended by his existence... thank hell that's not the case.

Oh, and university boy, I do know what militant means.

Damn. Guess that qualifies as a response to him. Ah well, never said I was perfect.

[tombastep]

You can argue it all you want, but those Bible verses say what they say, regardless of how they're translated. The evidence to the contrary you mention only helps support another argument I have against the Bible... all the damned contradictions.

Maybe you should be saving all this hot air for your fellow Christians, because it's not I who picks ANYTHING from the Bible. In case you haven't noticed, I reject it all. Sorry for being so militant, but every once in a while I like reminding Christians on message boards about some of the warped things their religion was originally about (that is, if they're willing to hear it.)

Oh, I guess I didn't even need to post links since you just admitted to it.

[StarCrasher]

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372017

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372015

That's it?

Obviously, your problem is that you just don't agree with me. Almost any thread anyone posts is designed to be read and receive responses. Some are more controversial and/or offensive than others. Members have a choice which ones they read and respond to. Sometimes a debate ensues with willing participants. If you can't handle opposing views, and don't have the self-control to refrain from participating, then maybe the Internet isn't for you.

You and anyone else can feel free to put me on ignore and unsubscribe to any of my threads you think I've somehow baited you in. If I never hear from you again I won't be bothered in the least.

Now like I tried telling Hard-up in that evolution thread, make like a tree and leaf.

[bankside]

Cute. But it implies that persecution depends on numbers, which isn't so.

THough I'm wondering what the artist meant by putting the grey figures in tidy rows.

If I had a penny for every time you've mentioned "mob rule" or "tyranny of the majority" under the rubric of "things to be guarded against" I would have all the remaining pennies before they're withdrawn from circulation.

[StarCrasher]

Oh, I guess I didn't even need to post links since you just admitted to it.

I didn't admit to starting "bait" threads. I admitted to "reminding Christians on message boards about some of the warped things their religion was originally about." I don't even need to start my own thread for that. I can just join a religious debate in another person's thread, like I've been known to do from time to time.

One of the links you posted was to an anti-gun thread anyway. The other was about an interesting scientific discovery which led to a debate that wasn't really on-topic and that I couldn't have possibly predicted. So... FAIL.

[tombastep]

I didn't admit to starting "bait" threads. I admitted to "reminding Christians on message boards about some of the warped things their religion was originally about." I don't even need to start my own thread for that. I can just join a religious debate in another person's thread, like I've been known to do from time to time.

One of the links you posted was to an anti-gun thread anyway. The other was about an interesting scientific discovery which led to a debate that wasn't really on-topic and that I couldn't have possibly predicted. So... FAIL.

Anyone who is religious on here is someone I would say wouldn't need 'reminding' on what their religion was originally about. Most of the people on here who consider themselves religious or spiritual have always come off pretty intelligent to me.

Whether I agree with you or not isn't the issue, cause regardless the way you go about making the threads isn't anyway to start any rational discussion.

Evolution is fact. It's no longer just a theory. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

I am sure with a comment like that you couldn't predict that the thread was going to turn out the way it did.

If I never hear from you again I won't be bothered in the least.

I guess I am supposed to be bothered by this.

[StarCrasher]

Oh, and university boy, I do know what militant means.

No, you don't, otherwise you would have known that militant atheism is so rare that it's barely even worth mentioning. You don't even know the difference between theism and deism, nor do you even seem to know the difference between agnosticism and atheism. If you knew what agnosticism was then you wouldn't be accusing me of thinking I have the answers to everything (ex. godless universe) just because I ridicule the myths, fables, and faulty logic of organized religion.

Ah well, never said I was perfect.

We would never have believed you anyway.

[bankside]

Satire is both intellectually challenging and culturally delightful. It has been a necessary part of civilization for centuries if not millennia.

Designed to provoke, inspire, challenge, or simply amuse, it does not require the approval of those whose sense of humour cannot manage it. It's a damn funny thread with no requirement of inspiring a rational discussion. Though I daresay it lends itself to it.

[tombastep]

Yeah, it definitely has to do with me not being able to manage satire.