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

Links234

smellslikeshoes

NSFW Religious toys

pauldla

Sorry if it's a repost...!

evo2000

haha

Worztron

Worztron

AstraMonti

Thargor

Overheal

Worztron

looksee

Thargor wrote: »

Huh? Who mentioned hating? How much hate do you see on this forum? Indifference, mocking - yes - and even then towards the believers rather than the object of their belief. As the man says, you can't hate something that does not exist.

Thargor

It was more a "Lets laugh at this morons logic" kind of post, I dont actually agree with anything he says...

Cabaal

looksee wrote: »

Huh? Who mentioned hating? How much hate do you see on this forum? Indifference, mocking - yes - and even then towards the believers rather than the object of their belief. As the man says, you can't hate something that does not exist.

I agree,
I can't hate something that doesn't exist?

I can no more hate god then I can the easter bunny, its illogical to hate something that doesn't exist

I can only hate the crimes and hatred carried out in the name of religion, as these have a real physical impact on the world.

robindch

Ya see, the problem with all you goddamn atheists is that you're prostitutes!

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/sex-belongs-to-believers
http://americannewsx.com/hot-off-the-press/wing-nut-pastor-sex-belongs-to-christians-everyone-else-is-a-whore/

John Piper wrote:

Sex belongs to Christians. Because sex belongs to God. [...] If it is used by those who do not believe and know the truth, it is prostituted.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Ya see, the problem with all you goddamn atheists is that you're prostitutes!

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/sex-belongs-to-believers
http://americannewsx.com/hot-off-the-press/wing-nut-pastor-sex-belongs-to-christians-everyone-else-is-a-whore/

So women will pay me to have sex with me?
Why did nobody tell me this?

Feck, does that mean I can not be arrested by the Gardai as well?
:pac:

Wereghost

Thargor wrote: »

I'm not too fond of leprechauns, mischievous little caricatures that they are.

Also, hissable villains abound in fiction, so his premise is clearly wrong.

Worztron

Worztron

looksee

Worztron wrote: »

Hmmm, any Muslim traditional enough to wear, or have his wife wear, complete cover clothing is not going to be touching like that in a photograph - or be in a photograph. Posed!

Michael OBrien

looksee wrote: »

Hmmm, any Muslim traditional enough to wear, or have his wife wear, complete cover clothing is not going to be touching like that in a photograph - or be in a photograph. Posed!

Unless of course he is a hypocrite. He should also have his hair covered although he may be wearing something tiny on the top of his head and he should have a proper beard not a few days unshaven.

Yeah, photographs of living or dead people is forbidden in strict islam, never allowed in the home. It is seen as a form of fit'na (idol worship).

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

Hmmm, any Muslim traditional enough to wear, or have his wife wear, complete cover clothing is not going to be touching like that in a photograph - or be in a photograph. Posed!

Of course it's posed. Many of the jokes on this page don't refer to any real-world religious phenomenon, but to caricatures created for satirical purposes. Unless you can find a photograph which coincidentally illustrates your caricature, you have to create one.

You didn't think all the pictures you see in this forum are documentary photographs, did you?

Nodin

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course it's posed. Many of the jokes on this page don't refer to any real-world religious phenomenon, but to caricatures created for satirical purposes. Unless you can find a photograph which coincidentally illustrates your caricature, you have to create one.

You didn't think all the pictures you see in this forum are documentary photographs, did you?

photos can lie?

Lithium93_

:pac:

gctest50

looksee wrote: »

Hmmm, any Muslim traditional enough to wear, or have his wife wear, complete cover clothing is not going to be touching like that in a photograph - or be in a photograph. Posed!

polymorphic light eruption (PMLE)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2365156/Woman-severe-sun-allergy-wears-floor-length-dress-HIJAB-time-goes-outside-protect-skin.html

since ya made a piss-poor effort at killing it

Nodin wrote: »

photos can lie?

looksee

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course it's posed. Many of the jokes on this page don't refer to any real-world religious phenomenon, but to caricatures created for satirical purposes. Unless you can find a photograph which coincidentally illustrates your caricature, you have to create one.

You didn't think all the pictures you see in this forum are documentary photographs, did you?

Well no, most of the images are cartoon type pictures, but this is pretending to be a 'real' photograph. If it is staged then the humour is just not there, it is just a bit of feeble contrived mockery.

oscarBravo

looksee wrote: »

Well no, most of the images are cartoon type pictures, but this is pretending to be a 'real' photograph. If it is staged then the humour is just not there, it is just a bit of feeble contrived mockery.

I'm a bit lost - if it had been a cartoon representation of the same couple with the same caption, it would have been funny?

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

Well no, most of the images are cartoon type pictures, but this is pretending to be a 'real' photograph. If it is staged then the humour is just not there, it is just a bit of feeble contrived mockery.

Well, let's be honest. Staged or not, this is not an especially funny post. And, FWIW, some of the funniest ones use obviously staged photographs.

silverharp

Worztron

Cabaal

silverharp wrote: »

There's no Catholics either