Funny anti-religious Internet pics

[StarCrasher]

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.

Oh yes they do. Most Christians don't even realize the Bible endorses sex slavery and capital punishment for girls who have sex before marriage. Studies have shown that atheists tend to actually know more about the Bible than Christians.

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.

Did you read the thread title? I called it "funny anti-religious Internet pics" and not "rational religious discussion" for a reason.

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

Wow, you are really clueless. The debate in that thread wasn't really about evolution. It went off-topic, and was about whether or not we can say for sure, given the evidence, that there's definitely only one god, as opposed to no gods, or multiple gods.

I guess I am supposed to be bothered by this.

If me correctly stating that evolution is a fact (and a theory) bothers you, most anything will.

[tombastep]

Did you read the thread title? I called it "funny anti-religious Internet pics" and not "rational religious discussion" for a reason.

Wow, you are really clueless. The debate in that thread wasn't really about evolution. It went off-topic, and was about whether or not we can say for sure, given the evidence, that there's definitely only one god, as opposed to no gods, or multiple gods.

If me correctly stating that evolution is a fact (and a theory) bothers you, most anything will.

Can you? Cause I wasn't specifically just talking about this thread. And I don't disagree with what the evolution being fact, just how it was said.

So before asking if I can read, maybe you should learn to.

[StarCrasher]

Can you? Cause I wasn't specifically just talking about this thread. And I don't disagree with what the evolution being fact, just how it was said.

So before asking if I can read, maybe you should learn to.

Brilliant. I can't read the very thread title, I, myself wrote. Another fail!

OK you've made your stupid points. Now stop derailing my thread, please. You accuse this of baiting and all you're doing is acting like there's bait to take. If this isn't your cup of tea don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

[tombastep]

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 should take your own advice. I am done now, I was bored anyway.

[StarCrasher]

[TopherGF]

[johaninsc]

[TopherGF]

[zoltanspawn]

Some people are bound to be hurt by some of the pics in this thread in exactly the same way some gay people are bound to be hurt by the anti-gay images the Phelps use.

Some of this borders on intentionally hurting people's feelings, just as the Phelps' signs are beyond the pale.

Criticism, satire and discussion in the realm of such a fractious and heartfelt topic is appropriate.

Ridicule is puerile and shitty.

The dead christians in the dumpster is perhaps a step beyond ridicule. It reminds me of other very controversial images that do little to make us understand one another.

[Kulindahr]

No, you don't, otherwise you would have known that militant atheism is so rare that it's barely even worth mentioning.

We have here on JUB what I'll call "intermittent militant atheism", which isn't quite random as sometimes it's set off by some egregiously stupid or barbaric thing some religious creature worthy of note has said or done. It might even be described as "bipolar II militant atheism", never getting terribly manic, but much of the time sinking into (visible) apathy.

[Kulindahr]

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.

This reminds me of a statement I heard from a professor of systematic theology, a statement found quite offensive by many who heard it at the time -- that anyone who cannot enjoy pointed satire about his or her faith lacks the capacity to be a good systematic theologian.

[Kulindahr]

Too many posts in a row without a cartoon....

[Kulindahr]

Oh yes they do. Most Christians don't even realize the Bible endorses sex slavery and capital punishment for girls who have sex before marriage.

No, it doesn't. Claims that it does are based on the pick-and-choose approach to the Bible, which is as asinine from atheists as from fundamentalists.

Wow, you are really clueless. The debate in that thread wasn't really about evolution. It went off-topic, and was about whether or not we can say for sure, given the evidence, that there's definitely only one god, as opposed to no gods, or multiple gods.

If me correctly stating that evolution is a fact (and a theory) bothers you, most anything will.

Wow, you are really clueless.

It wasn't you stating anything.

[Kulindahr]

Some people are bound to be hurt by some of the pics in this thread in exactly the same way some gay people are bound to be hurt by the anti-gay images the Phelps use.

Some of this borders on intentionally hurting people's feelings, just as the Phelps' signs are beyond the pale.

Criticism, satire and discussion in the realm of such a fractious and heartfelt topic is appropriate.

Ridicule is puerile and shitty.

The dead christians in the dumpster is perhaps a step beyond ridicule. It reminds me of other very controversial images that do little to make us understand one another.

Many of the cartoons also serve the same way the Phelps' signs do: to show how base and bigoted the person holding them up is.


BTW, I cracked up at the dead Christians one, because I recognized the name on the dumpster as a business name, and saw the pic as satire on how the English language puts words together with unintended meanings.

[StarCrasher]

Some people are bound to be hurt by some of the pics in this thread in exactly the same way some gay people are bound to be hurt by the anti-gay images the Phelps use.

Some of this borders on intentionally hurting people's feelings, just as the Phelps' signs are beyond the pale.

Criticism, satire and discussion in the realm of such a fractious and heartfelt topic is appropriate.

Ridicule is puerile and shitty.

The dead christians in the dumpster is perhaps a step beyond ridicule. It reminds me of other very controversial images that do little to make us understand one another.

No, being gay, black, white, red-headed, short, ugly, sick, etc., are things which we do not choose. They are neither right nor wrong. They just are.

Religion, on the other hand, is a choice to believe in incorrect information. If people insisted on running around arguing that 2 + 2 = 5 and 10/2 is 3, despite being given ample evidence to the contrary, I'd make fun of them too.

[Kulindahr]

This one I love because creationists don't realize that they're reading a hard book:

[StarCrasher]

Wow, you are really clueless.

It wasn't you stating anything.

You're confused and maybe need to read the conversation from the beginning. He posted a quote of me stating that evolution was fact and not only just a theory. I correctly referred to that as a statement. Now you're telling me I didn't state that? If I didn't, then he had no point to begin with.

[johaninsc]

I thought this one was interesting




after going back and reading the thread again
..I imagine that someone here wants me burned at the stake

[Kulindahr]

You're confused and maybe need to read the conversation from the beginning. He posted a quote of me stating that evolution was fact and not only just a theory. I correctly referred to that as a statement. Now you're telling me I didn't state that? If I didn't, then he had no point to begin with.

No, I didn't tell you that you didn't state that.

And like I used to do with my college remedial reading comprehension students, I'm going to let you figure it out.

It isn't about you stating anything.

[belamo]

That was a pope with a sense of humor.

No wonder: Catholicism is a riot... but of course then there's Mormonism, and Shiism, and Haredism...

[belamo]

No, it doesn't. Claims that it does are based on the pick-and-choose approach to the Bible, which is as asinine from atheists as from fundamentalists.

This one I love because creationists don't realize that they're reading a hard book:

Kul, the Bible, like the Qur'an, is a mess of contradictory statements, and the problem with it is that they are not supposed to be just any other book, but a block of truths... that contradict each other. They books made by men about what God reportedly said "word by word".

It's the old problem of the letter and the spirit, and that's how theology and discussion about morals has been going on for centuries: you "pick-and-choose" one part of the book and forget about the rest that denies it. In the case of Islam that is accounted for as further proof of the Wisdom of the Almighty: but that looks at the real mystery in the religion credo. It's true that they are both hard books exposing a bigger problem than the squaring of the circle.

[chrisw87]

well, I've enjoyed giggling at some silly pictures in this thread. While I am a christian I can see the funny side, but being a public arena I expected there to be drama.

This thread needs more fuzzy kittehs though.

[MoufOfKhaos]

[chrisw87]

^^ someone gets it, and this is not a spiderman thread now, but a kitteh thread.

[hotatlboi]

what's depressing? the chart or the fact that people are using it to imply the ridiculous belief that Christianity caused the dark ages?

(which, obviously, ignores the fact that the idea of the "dark ages" itself is just a myth)

I think there is some legitimate dispute as to what extent Christianity played in the dark ages, however the idea is not a myth.

Most modern historians no longer refer to it with that term, as it is a bit simplistic, but the basic idea that the level of advancement civilization saw in ancient Rome seriously regressed over the next several centuries is completely accurate.

[belamo]

I think there is some legitimate dispute as to what extent Christianity played in the dark ages, however the idea is not a myth.

Most modern historians no longer refer to it with that term, as it is a bit simplistic, but the basic idea that the level of advancement civilization saw in ancient Rome seriously regressed over the next several centuries is completely accurate.

After the collapse of the political system of the Ancient West (i.e. the Roman Empire: the Neoroman empire of Constantinople was as Roman Empire as Charlemagne's or Zarist Russia), there was nothing left but the Church, that had already been parasiting the Empire, but that was as clueless as it was helpless to take over, and since it had also opposed everything in the old system, science and healthy habits of every kind included, (just like young punks oppose systematically everything coming from old from their elder ones), all that the Church had left was the pompous, airy sayings of the sort "be patient and endure everything in the name of...", just like the leaders of communist Russia asked their people to follow the communist "vows" of labor and poverty while they looted the whole country.

[Kulindahr]

Kul, the Bible, like the Qur'an, is a mess of contradictory statements, and the problem with it is that they are not supposed to be just any other book, but a block of truths... that contradict each other. They books made by men about what God reportedly said "word by word".

It's the old problem of the letter and the spirit, and that's how theology and discussion about morals has been going on for centuries: you "pick-and-choose" one part of the book and forget about the rest that denies it. In the case of Islam that is accounted for as further proof of the Wisdom of the Almighty: but that looks at the real mystery in the religion credo. It's true that they are both hard books exposing a bigger problem than the squaring of the circle.

If that makes you feel better to believe it, go ahead, but those items aren't true.

Anyone who picks and chooses isn't doing theology. That's one reason I will have little to do with churches where the preacher/pastor/priest decides what to preach on every Sunday; give me the ones with systems for reading and preaching the whole Bible (except maybe the 'begats', which don't tell anyone much of anything), whether it's a one-, two-, or three-year system (three gives better coverage with shorter readings to work with).

[Kulindahr]

well, I've enjoyed giggling at some silly pictures in this thread. While I am a christian I can see the funny side, but being a public arena I expected there to be drama.

This thread needs more fuzzy kittehs though.

The label's not quite right. "Jesus cat rules physics", or "Physics obeys Jesus cat" would be better.

But where are the nearly-drowning twelve disciple cats?

[belamo]

If that makes you feel better to believe it, go ahead, but those items aren't true.

If repeating that makes you feel better, you are free to believe for the sake of your own peace if mind, but you know that what you say is simply not true.

Anyone who picks and chooses isn't doing theology. That's one reason I will have little to do with churches where the preacher/pastor/priest decides what to preach on every Sunday; give me the ones with systems for reading and preaching the whole Bible (except maybe the 'begats', which don't tell anyone much of anything), whether it's a one-, two-, or three-year system (three gives better coverage with shorter readings to work with).

What has religion got to do with theology. No, seriously: theology is about discussion, religion is about prevalence (like with cancer) in the name of absolute indisputable truth; that's why Liberation theology and the like are considered filthy dissidents and heresies.
Religion is organized and vertical: it's not about people's feelings or the search of truth, is about the spreading of and commitment to, by the force if necessary, of an ideology leaded by a few to cynically parasite people's minds and bodies as much people as possible.

If you want to read the "whole Bible", you just need to learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

[Kulindahr]

After the collapse of the political system of the Ancient West (i.e. the Roman Empire: the Neoroman empire of Constantinople was as Roman Empire as Charlemagne's or Zarist Russia), there was nothing left but the Church, that had already been parasiting the Empire, but that was as clueless as it was helpless to take over, and since it had also opposed everything in the old system, science and healthy habits of every kind included, (just like young punks oppose systematically everything coming from old from their elder ones), all that the Church had left was the pompous, airy sayings of the sort "be patient and endure everything in the name of...", just like the leaders of communist Russia asked their people to follow the communist "vows" of labor and poverty while they looted the whole country.

Talk about revisionism....

Where do you get that "the Church... had ... opposed everything in the old system, science and healthy habits of every time included"? I've taken three different courses that covered the collapse of Rome, and never ran into any indication of that.

Not a lot of technology from Rome was lost. The problem was that the integration of that technology was lost, the application to a widespread system. The Church was instrumental in preserving a great deal of it; the problem was that they weren't interested in spreading it around or restoring it where it had been lost. The part of the Church that preserved it, and even advanced it, was the monastic arm -- but for a long time they tended to keep it, including their innovations, to themselves. Overall, the technology level only dipped briefly after Rome collapsed; what dipped was the universality of the availability of the technology. But that's historically true any time an empire collapses, of technology not directly available to individuals: what takes organization gets lost.

[Kulindahr]

THis old classic is still good:

[Kulindahr]

If repeating that makes you feel better, you are free to believe for the sake of your own peace if mind, but you know that what you say is simply not true.

So you're reaffirming your clinging to falsehoods?

What has religion got to do with theology. No, seriously: theology is about discussion, religion is about prevalence (like with cancer) in the name of absolute indisputable truth; that's why Liberation theology and the like are considered filthy dissidents and heresies.
Religion is organized and vertical: it's not about people's feelings or the search of truth, is about the spreading of and commitment to, by the force if necessary, of an ideology leaded by a few to cynically parasite people's minds and bodies as much people as possible.

No, Liberation Theology is considered heretical because it tends to start with premises other than the Bible.

Theology is the examination of the teaching of religion. Religion with theology is claptrap.

If you want to read the "whole Bible", you just need to learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

And have you?

That's another reason I have little to do with the kind of churches I mentioned: their idea of "using" Greek and Hebrew is to read their English, look at what some guide says the Hebrew or Greek mean, and stir that into what they were going to say anyway; I was taught that you're not using Greek and Hebrew until you're consulting contemporary sources in those languages, not just looking at the original and referring to your English translation.

It's so much more fun that way, anyway -- there are rather profound things in those original languages that no one has ever translated and published. Though it's rather anticlimactic to take a facsimile of a recently uncovered ancient document and start working on it only to realize it's a servant's task list for the day -- insightful for daily life at the time, but disappointing.

[Kulindahr]

This is just twisted:

[MoufOfKhaos]

[Kulindahr]

More kittehness:

[Kulindahr]

This one shows a sad truth: Christians came in and stole the Intelligent Design concept:




Our Intelligent Design bunch in college had people who had come to various faiths, including agnosticism and deism, because of science, and reference to holy books as authoritative was forbidden.

[StarCrasher]

[Kulindahr]

I'm not sure what this is making fun of, but it's hilarious:







House Republicans?

[Kulindahr]

Priceless!


I got the mental image of God turning to the driver and asking, "Was that as good for you as it was for Me?"

[StarCrasher]

No, I didn't tell you that you didn't state that.

And like I used to do with my college remedial reading comprehension students, I'm going to let you figure it out.

It isn't about you stating anything.

You'd better follow your own teachings and get reading, bro. If it wasn't about me stating anything, then tombastep had no point to begin with, since his entire argument revolved around the alleged "baiting" that particular statement he quoted of mine was designed to do.

[StarCrasher]

Actually, the answer is "the second".

No, the Bible clearly states that slavery is OK (depending on who it is) and male homosexuality is not.

[belamo]

Talk about revisionism....

Where do you get that "the Church... had ... opposed everything in the old system, science and healthy habits of every time included"? I've taken three different courses that covered the collapse of Rome, and never ran into any indication of that.

Not a lot of technology from Rome was lost. The problem was that the integration of that technology was lost, the application to a widespread system. The Church was instrumental in preserving a great deal of it; the problem was that they weren't interested in spreading it around or restoring it where it had been lost. The part of the Church that preserved it, and even advanced it, was the monastic arm -- but for a long time they tended to keep it, including their innovations, to themselves. Overall, the technology level only dipped briefly after Rome collapsed; what dipped was the universality of the availability of the technology. But that's historically true any time an empire collapses, of technology not directly available to individuals: what takes organization gets lost.

"Never ran into any indication of" book burning, closing of centers of learning, demonization of anything related with the body care, like baths, or even codemnation of mere nudity? And you talk about revisionism...

There is a myth about the Church preserving and even "advancing" learning: the church was as closed in itself as could be, taking its authoritative syllabus of fairy tales as their only guide in all the rich and challenging world that they tried to deny (as far as the bellies and even lower parts of their proud and righteous leaders allowed) and only took a couple (virtually literally a couple) of Latin authors manipulated so that they could serve the purpose of teaching rhetoric without the danger of being set as an example of pagan "values". Whatever was recovered and "advanced" came from either foregin peoples (like the Greek or Arabic-speaking world) or from those whom they considered heretics and devils. When they couldn't fight the reality of Creation any more, the "C"hurch just followed that trend and tide, as keeps doing it today, admitting and adhering what once fervently opposed in the past because not fitting in the procustean bed of the "S"criptures.

What we understand as "technology" in society is precisely the general usage and availability of it that gives it some purpose: otherwise it is not technology, just an item of luxury or a mere oddity. Rome had been sinking from the IIIth century under its own weight (as we have the privilege of witnessing since a few decades in our own civilization), but the bully and narrow-minded intolerance of the Christian churches of the era didn't help precisely in the opposite direction, let alone in sustaining anything that might have been left after the demise.

Some interesting data about those myths relating the transition from Late Antiquity to... what came after can be found in Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization: I said "data", not "brilliant book".

[bankside]

Yes, belamo. I've heard the same argument recently also. "But the church existed during the enlightenment! Therefore it was responsible for it!"

Similarly the Politburo existed during the time of Solidarność. Surely we don't assume the politburo is responsible for that. It makes no more sense to give credit to the church for the advances of the enlightenment than it does to give credit to Louis XVI for masterminding the French Revolution.

[belamo]

So you're reaffirming your clinging to falsehoods?

What are falsehoods ONLY according to the falsehoods to which you cling is what I propose to discuss... but you seem too afraid to get away from your own falsehoods. The "preservation and revival of learning" did not come through the Catholic church but through the Greek heretic Christian or Arab pagans miscreants: we had it IN SPITE of the Catholic church, but that the church actually preserved and "advanced" even a small amount of that heritage is a lie repeated so many times that too many people accept it as a matter of faith without caring to examine the truth of it, and they consider that you are the liar if you deny and attack them for telling simply the truth that is there for anyone to read and understand. I wrote above what was actually that supposed "preservation" and "fostering".

No, Liberation Theology is considered heretical because it tends to start with premises other than the Bible.

Theology is the examination of the teaching of religion. Religion with theology is claptrap.

No, Liberation Theology is considered heretical because it tends to show that Catholic "truths" and dogmas are NOT Bible-based.

And have you?

That's another reason I have little to do with the kind of churches I mentioned: their idea of "using" Greek and Hebrew is to read their English, look at what some guide says the Hebrew or Greek mean, and stir that into what they were going to say anyway; I was taught that you're not using Greek and Hebrew until you're consulting contemporary sources in those languages, not just looking at the original and referring to your English translation.

It's so much more fun that way, anyway -- there are rather profound things in those original languages that no one has ever translated and published. Though it's rather anticlimactic to take a facsimile of a recently uncovered ancient document and start working on it only to realize it's a servant's task list for the day -- insightful for daily life at the time, but disappointing.

Finished the Greek part, starting over on it, and using my Easter vacation period to start the Hebrew part and test what are my profitings from the Hebrew handbooks I have been cramming the past few months. So far I have only gathered a few "interesting" points in translation here and there across the bibliography I use as a translator and translating geek.
Get back on me for next Christmas (provided we are still around) if you ever are actually interested in my progress with all that.

Religion is a claptrap in itself, whether alone or on the rocks.

[belamo]

Yes, belamo. I've heard the same argument recently also. "But the church existed during the enlightenment! Therefore it was responsible for it!"

Similarly the Politburo existed during the time of Solidarność. Surely we don't assume the politburo is responsible for that. It makes no more sense to give credit to the church for the advances of the enlightenment than it does to give credit to Louis XVI for masterminding the French Revolution.

If Reagan, Blessed John Paul II and the fly on the horse's head were responsible for the demise of communism and the race of the carriage then...

[bort138]

[Kulindahr]

You'd better follow your own teachings and get reading, bro. If it wasn't about me stating anything, then tombastep had no point to begin with, since his entire argument revolved around the alleged "baiting" that particular statement he quoted of mine was designed to do.

Fail on reading comprehension.

He did have a point.
He linked to two other of your threads to show it.

Try again.

[Kulindahr]

No, the Bible clearly states that slavery is OK (depending on who it is) and male homosexuality is not.

Go hang out with the other fundamentalists. If you don't know how to read a whole book, it's not worth the effort of trying to communicate with you. YUou insist on doing the very thing that you deride in others: pick and choose.

When you've done as Belamy recommends -- learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, so you can actually read the thing -- get back to me.

[MikeyLove]

Okay, for the sake of argument....How would you explain away the fact that there is a very large boat lodged high up in the crevices of Mt Ararat in Modern day Turkey, and that it very much fits the measurements as in the Book of Genesis?

[Kulindahr]

"Never ran into any indication of" book burning, closing of centers of learning, demonization of anything related with the body care, like baths, or even codemnation of mere nudity? And you talk about revisionism...

There is a myth about the Church preserving and even "advancing" learning: the church was as closed in itself as could be, taking its authoritative syllabus of fairy tales as their only guide in all the rich and challenging world that they tried to deny (as far as the bellies and even lower parts of their proud and righteous leaders allowed) and only took a couple (virtually literally a couple) of Latin authors manipulated so that they could serve the purpose of teaching rhetoric without the danger of being set as an example of pagan "values". Whatever was recovered and "advanced" came from either foregin peoples (like the Greek or Arabic-speaking world) or from those whom they considered heretics and devils. When they couldn't fight the reality of Creation any more, the "C"hurch just followed that trend and tide, as keeps doing it today, admitting and adhering what once fervently opposed in the past because not fitting in the procustean bed of the "S"criptures.

What we understand as "technology" in society is precisely the general usage and availability of it that gives it some purpose: otherwise it is not technology, just an item of luxury or a mere oddity. Rome had been sinking from the IIIth century under its own weight (as we have the privilege of witnessing since a few decades in our own civilization), but the bully and narrow-minded intolerance of the Christian churches of the era didn't help precisely in the opposite direction, let alone in sustaining anything that might have been left after the demise.

Some interesting data about those myths relating the transition from Late Antiquity to... what came after can be found in Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization: I said "data", not "brilliant book".

So you jump five or six centuries later to describe what happened when Rome came apart? That's really sloppy procedure.

You're also making the error of treating the Church as a monolithic entity with a modern sort of control over all its parts. That's far, far from the truth. As the middle ages progressed, monasteries, often not even under the control of anyone but their own Father General (or whoever), did as they darned well pleased. The monks didn't appreciate hard labor more than anyone else, and so they pursued innovation and invention. Especially by the time you reference, when burnings of heretics was going on, the level of their creativity had gotten quite impressive.

BTW, the Church had all that authority precisely because at the time of one of the last sackings of Rome a very wealthy Christian stepped forward and used up his own fortune trying to keep things running. The pope took over the program, and ended up effectively as king of a great deal of Italy. Until the Franks showed up, he was pretty much the heaviest secular power in the old Western Empire; it was his authority backed with actual armies that established his "spiritual" power (along with some tidily forged documents).

And whether or not something is technology has nothing to do with how widely it's available. If some monk in northern Scotland had come up with radio to talk with some other monk in Ireland, it would have been technology even if no one knew anything about it. It wouldn't have benefited anyone, is the only trouble, and that's where the myth of a technological slump in the "Dark Ages" comes from: the technology was still around and even improving, but only isolated communities had it for use.

they should really be called the "Dim Ages", both because the technology that could have lifted some of the dark wasn't spread around to do so, and because the authorities who made people afraid to spread it around were pretty dim in their policies.