Funny anti-religious Internet pics

[Kulindahr]

A great example is the article on Wikipedia called "The Historical Jesus." It makes completely erroneous claims.

That article has been attacked for being too pro-Christian at the same time it's been attacked for being anti-Christian at the same time as it's accused of being too slanted toward one or another school of thought. I almost got involved in all that once, but decided not to and settled for correcting some grammar and phrasing. The problem is that it's such an emotionally charged subject that any balanced article is going to get flak from all sorts of directions.

[Harke the Boeotarch]

I want to make a huge poster of this to roll up and smack the religious who complain about strident atheists with so have something real to cry about...

Compared to A.C.Grayling the Jealous God from the Old Testament seems a lot less obnoxious.

[Kulindahr]

Yes. It was in fact the "Historicity of Jesus" article. I will, however, have to eat crow because most of what I took offense at is gone.

I do still question the veracity of some parts of the article.

There's a little overkill with the repetition of the notion that almost no scholars doubt the historicity of Jesus, but that is really stylistic, which is the article's main problem -- I think it's wordy and sloppy. If you look at the history page, there' been more than one 'battle' over content, one of which resulted in one of the contributors being censored.


But... we need a cartoon:

[belamo]

Rubbish. There are gobs of religious people who don't seek to gain any authority at all -- in fact there are entire branches of religions which deliberately seek to have no authority at all.

The driver of seeking authority is a mindset about the world, not religion. It can be found in religious, political, and any human realm.

Oh please don't try to me . Authority gos with anything pretwnding to give an absolute superior answer to everything, without accepting any sort of reasonable discussion.

[belamo]

No actual Christian would do such a thing. Besides that, the protections built in nowadays do an excellent job of dealing with such vandalism.

Though I did once repair an article some fundie dork had messed up, it was several years ago; new protections have been put in place.

No actual Christian would stir all the shit surrounding Christianism that we have been suffering for centuries.

[Nishin]

Rubbish. There are gobs of religious people who don't seek to gain any authority at all -- in fact there are entire branches of religions which deliberately seek to have no authority at all.

The driver of seeking authority is a mindset about the world, not religion. It can be found in religious, political, and any human realm.

..........

[HoodedRat]

No actual Christian would do such a thing.

As soon as you start using the 'no true Scotsman' argument you've clearly lost it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[bankside]

Kulindahr, I hate to go off topic but I'd like to hear your take on how many "actual christians" there are. Wikipedia says there are around 2 billion who call themselves that, but I think you would have to say far fewer.

On topix:

[Jacquemar]

..........

Wow... that is very wise. I need to get into Voltaire.

[belamo]

Wow... that is very wise. I need to get into Voltaire.

Right, but, as usual, he just skimmed the surface of matters: for example, today those who rule over you do not even bother to directly rule, and whenever they actually care about you at all, they use some sort of straw symbol as that entity that Voltaire refers to as untouchable, so that they always divert people's attention and outrage from themselves.

[looseliam]

Wow... that is very wise. I need to get into Voltaire.

It is said that on his deathbed, Voltaire was asked by a priest if he wished to renounce Satan to which he replied, "now is not the time for making new enemies."

[Kulindahr]

Oh please don't try to me . Authority gos with anything pretwnding to give an absolute superior answer to everything, without accepting any sort of reasonable discussion.

Since you don't want to live in reality, I'll leave you to your fantasies.

[Kulindahr]

Cute. But where's the guy who runs through cities flipping off buildings and vaulting trash bins and stuff? I like those!

As soon as you start using the 'no true Scotsman' argument you've clearly lost it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Then all of science has "clearly lost it", because they categorize things based on definitions all the time.

See, you're misapplying the No True Scotsman concept in a way that makes all knowledge invalid.

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, I hate to go off topic but I'd like to hear your take on how many "actual christians" there are. Wikipedia says there are around 2 billion who call themselves that, but I think you would have to say far fewer.

On topix:

I'm going to start with a rather scholarly distinction, between broad and narrow meanings: the broad meaning includes all that has a claim to some category, the narrow only those which fit a precise set of requirements. As an example, take the concept of "driver": in the broad definition, everyone who can get into a vehicle and manage to steer it along a course is a driver; in a narrow definition only those capable of handling most adverse conditions and dealing with on-road emergencies qualify. As another, "chess player": in the broad sense, anyone who knows how to move the pieces is a player; in the narrow sense only someone with a grasp of basic concepts of strategy makes the cut.

In the broad sense, anyone who claims to be a Christian is, because the term indicates followers of Christ, and anyone who says he's following has to be counted (this is the definition used by census-takers and pollsters). OTOH, in the narrow sense only those whose lives show significant characteristics of Christ to their neighbors (in the broad sense) count.

So, taking the narrow sense, that being what I mean in such comments as I made, I'd venture optimistically that five percent of those fitting the broad definition can be included in the narrow.

In a pastoral perspective, though, the narrow definition has to be adjusted to include all those making forward strides in showing those significant characteristics of Christ. These may appear to outsiders to be total losses, but consider someone who has been a thief, drug dealer, pimp, and murderer (with a lot more violence on the spectrum) who turns to Christ: if he changes so he's only stealing occasionally and has a GF who's also a prostitute, he's made some big strides. To all of us who don't know him, he won't appear as much of a Christian, definitely not in the narrow definition, but to those who know he's a testimony of how a life can change and keep changing. Including those, I'll expand my count to ten percent.

To some that may seem awfully pessimistic, but given the numbers who participate in hateful activities when the clear words of Christ condemn them, I don't think so. Some may be misled, but the words are there for them in the book, and there are ministers who expound those words clearly.

Of course many realize what they've really been doing when it gets close to the end, so it may be twenty or thirty percent or even more who die actual Christians -- but there's no way to gain data on that in the least, so it's outside the scope of even guessing.



Oh -- superb video; tragically quite true: many Christians run when faced with the real thing.

[Jacquemar]

It is said that on his deathbed, Voltaire was asked by a priest if he wished to renounce Satan to which he replied, "now is not the time for making new enemies."

ROFLAO That is unbelievably funny!

[star-warrior]

[Nishin]

^ LOL, internet knows it all

[belamo]

Since you don't want to live in reality, I'll leave you to your fantasies.

You, the unrepentant chicken weasel.

[belamo]

Then all of science has "clearly lost it", because they categorize things based on definitions all the time.

See, you're misapplying the No True Scotsman concept in a way that makes all knowledge invalid.

Oh and religion and self-proclaimed religious people are better by using categories they do not even care to define, so that they can "weasily" with wielding names with a vague sense, if any, of what they actually mean, and telling others do as they say but not as they do.

[belamo]

I'm going to start with a rather scholarly distinction, between broad and narrow meanings: the broad meaning includes all that has a claim to some category, the narrow only those which fit a precise set of requirements. As an example, take the concept of "driver": in the broad definition, everyone who can get into a vehicle and manage to steer it along a course is a driver; in a narrow definition only those capable of handling most adverse conditions and dealing with on-road emergencies qualify. As another, "chess player": in the broad sense, anyone who knows how to move the pieces is a player; in the narrow sense only someone with a grasp of basic concepts of strategy makes the cut.

In the broad sense, anyone who claims to be a Christian is, because the term indicates followers of Christ, and anyone who says he's following has to be counted (this is the definition used by census-takers and pollsters). OTOH, in the narrow sense only those whose lives show significant characteristics of Christ to their neighbors (in the broad sense) count.

So, taking the narrow sense, that being what I mean in such comments as I made, I'd venture optimistically that five percent of those fitting the broad definition can be included in the narrow.

In a pastoral perspective, though, the narrow definition has to be adjusted to include all those making forward strides in showing those significant characteristics of Christ. These may appear to outsiders to be total losses, but consider someone who has been a thief, drug dealer, pimp, and murderer (with a lot more violence on the spectrum) who turns to Christ: if he changes so he's only stealing occasionally and has a GF who's also a prostitute, he's made some big strides. To all of us who don't know him, he won't appear as much of a Christian, definitely not in the narrow definition, but to those who know he's a testimony of how a life can change and keep changing. Including those, I'll expand my count to ten percent.

To some that may seem awfully pessimistic, but given the numbers who participate in hateful activities when the clear words of Christ condemn them, I don't think so. Some may be misled, but the words are there for them in the book, and there are ministers who expound those words clearly.

Of course many realize what they've really been doing when it gets close to the end, so it may be twenty or thirty percent or even more who die actual Christians -- but there's no way to gain data on that in the least, so it's outside the scope of even guessing.



Oh -- superb video; tragically quite true: many Christians run when faced with the real thing.

Kul, the fallacy is not about broad and narrow meanings, it is about the assumed use of any of those to avoid the actual points in the discussion. It is not about whether you use this or that sense, it is about your throwing any of those handy ready-made expressions to weasel away from the discussion, and typing a lengthy spiel does not make you appear any more reasonable if you are diverting the discussion from the reasonable course: you are just writing for people who would get lost in the lines and get only the sense that you have developed something reasonable and clever.



Yes, I know you are more articulate and make more sense than her, but your trick is that you pretend that what you wrote is relevant and has anything to do with your previous "true Scotsman" one-liner.


Even if it had not been your intention, your "true Christian" appeal was a perfectly fine example of the "true Scotsman" fallacy. Now you can go to the "correction of names" doctrine for the concept behind that lengthy post, if you want.

And least, in that case you took more pains that just dismiss someone by seeing your own reflection in his supposed "fantasies".

[star-warrior]

Since you don't want to live in reality, I'll leave you to your fantasies.

How ironic.




Yeah the spelling's off, isn't it?

[Jacquemar]

This needs to be printed in every newspaper and posted on every church door in the country.

[looseliam]

I love a bit of transubstantiation humour =]

[bort138]

[star-warrior]

I <3 Family Guy

[bort138]

[belamo]

That's a very good one too, one of those that made up for all the bad ones that there may be.

[star-warrior]

- - - Updated - - -

[star-warrior]

[Jacquemar]

A funny quotation from a novel I'm reading:

"But, Mr. Chillingworth, I cannot and will not renounce the sublime truths of Scripture. They may be incomprehensible; they may be inconsistent; and some of them may look ridiculous; but still they are sacred and sublime, and I will not renounce them although my reason may not accord with them, because they are the laws of Heaven."

[Jacquemar]

Woah! Do I ever agree with that!

[bort138]

[star-warrior]

[star-warrior]

[star-warrior]

[Jacquemar]

^^ Awww... what about submission to Mothra, the Jesus of Japanese Kaiju?

[belamo]

Oh, damn, until NOW I couldn't read that tag thing as "zilla" after "God". It seemed odd that quoting the original quote would be anti-religious itself... which in fact it is, as all the fervent wackos who take God as an excuse to behave as crazy as a bunch of hipster fags high on speed in a foam party in the late 1990s.
Ok, I need some sleep... and maybe work more on the ADD thing or whatever that is.

[bort138]

[Saybrooke]

LMBO!!!! XD I'm crying right now!!!

[star-warrior]

[Saybrooke]

^^^ Me me me!!!

- - - Updated - - -

^^^ Me me me!!!

- - - Updated - - -

^^^ Me me me!!!

[alwayready]

Well since thats a word for someone who is smart enough to not beleive in an imaginary man in the sky i thank you from everyone on here

[Kulindahr]

..........

The Republican Party?

[Kulindahr]

Hardly a cartoon; definitely profound.

[Kulindahr]

Falwell was an obscenity. He believed Jesus came to make him rich.

[Kulindahr]

Didn't work out so well...

That stupid bumper sticker is covered in the Bible -- and God doesn't say nice things about it.

[Kulindahr]

Actually, it's something else, something the Bible warns against strongly.

People really should get their information straight before they publish ignorance.

[Kulindahr]

Lines six and nine are false.

The sad thing is that to maintain #9, one must think as moronically as the worst fundamentalist.

[Kulindahr]

The real irony is that the claim made rests on a faith-based position.

[Kulindahr]

- - - Updated - - -

Now THOSE are funny!