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

recedite

OK, but shouldn't we send missionaries out to these aliens just to tell them that they're going to hell. I mean, they could be walking around naked, and generally just enjoying themselves.
And not even feeling guilty about it.

robindch

A TV reporter interviews Sam Sotiropoulos, the Toronto school trustee who recently raved about something called "homosexism" and transgenderism as mental illness.

This guy needs to be on stage - stat - and I really become as famous as Ray Comfort and that blonde lady who talked with Dawkins about the creaTOR.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/09/09/3565154/watch-a-toronto-school-board-member-squirm-when-his-anti-lgbt-views-are-called-out/

Unmissable stuff.

TheChizler

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

In case you haven't noticed, those were from the Craig Brown spoof page in the funnies of Private Eye, which tends to satirise everybody famous.

Oh, and the people who say that Dawkins shouldn't be on twitter tend to have an agenda, viz. shutting atheists up for having the temerity to show up their religion to be baseless. And those who don't follow the agenda but do agree are being a bit naive.

I spent an election campaign following Gerry Adams' account, convinced it was a parody (his teddy occasionally tweeted), so nothing would surprise me!

I should have specified I was talking about his actual ones, which I didn't make clear at all. 140 characters generally isn't enough to make coherent arguments about the likes of aborting DS foetuses or sexism and elevators. Sticking to lectures, books, and articles I think gets the point across better. Though of course it does encourage debate.

TheChizler

This is something I've been meaning to post for months. It's been done before but I saw it IRL dammit! At least they've a sense of humour.

shruikan2553

wprathead wrote: »

Creationist Ken Ham calls to end space program because aliens are going to hell anyway



Honestly thought this was The Onion or Waterford Whispers

The fact that this man never managed to accidentally strangle himself with his trousers when putting them on in the morning must be proof there is some being watching over him.

smacl

oscarBravo wrote: »

That is quite possibly the single stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of stupidity.

Yeah, I mean its not like we don't know the aliens have already been and gone

AstraMonti

irish_goat

From YLYL thread.

Delirium

.

.

Worztron

Cabaal

https://twitter.com/hughlaurie/status/509781440415150080

Absoluvely

Cabaal wrote: »

Certainly without a doubt it would be the best model and best of all the Vatican support the German model, so its Officially "Pope Approved"



I'd say you'd quickly see Catholics drop down to 30-40% overnight if a church tax was introduced,

robindch

Worztron

Delirium

.

Turtwig

Did anybody else think that hand was something different for a moment?:o

kylith

wprathead wrote: »

Creationist Ken Ham calls to end space program because aliens are going to hell anyway

“You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe.
This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because
they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation,” he explained.
“Jesus did not become the ‘GodKlingon’ or the ‘GodMartian’! Only descendants of
Adam can be saved. God’s Son remains the ‘Godman’ as our Savior.”

Honestly thought this was The Onion or Waterford Whispers

So, God specifically made untold numbers of alien species so that they would not be saved and would burn in hell forever because of something that they never heard of that happened on a Podunk planet in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of an unremarkable galaxy? What a bastard.

Hotblack Desiato

Mostly harmless.

Worztron

Kivaro

Worztron

MrPudding

irish_goat wrote: »

From YLYL thread.

Rapture Cartoon

Vaguely related... Not sure what this will be like, but could be interesting:

http://www.sky.com/tv/show/the-leftovers

MrP

DazMarz

Wheh wheh wheh!!!

RikuoAmero

So I see other people here are posting cartoons and whatnot. I'll post this, because I find it absolutely hilarious, even as it causes me to facepalm in exasperation.
http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-an-Atheist-to-Become-Christian
It's basically a guide for Christians to use when talking to us atheists. Going through it, a few key sentences caught my eye.
"This means that you will have to back up and use secular reasoning to establish your theological ideas." Left out of course is any advice on what to do when secular reasoning inevitably fails to establish theological ideas or to support them.
However, this one takes the cake.
"Create reasons for your faith that have everything to do with personal experience. An atheist may want definite evidence, not just a rehearsal of your faith. You'll have to provide concrete facts and scientifically thought out arguments. Your beliefs based on faith, God's love and joy of worship (all immaterial things) are not evidence to the unbeliever. In fact, a reliance on faith is evidence that you aren't relying on facts. However, this will work in your favor as faith is, by its nature, non-corporeal (not material matters)."
So here we have stupid idea after stupid idea, and contradictions too. So after saying we don't want a rehearsal of your faith, whoever wrote this says to do just that. Not only that, but personal experience mean f*ck all as evidence, since they are by definition personal, not repeatable and could very well have been made up. I do love the last two sentences - how does prattling on about faith going to work in your favour to an atheist who relies on facts and evidence (and even worse, ADMITTING you are not relying on facts!)?

Then here comes this little gem.
"Be prepared to use reliable counter evidence...
If you don't know the answer to something, simply say that God is responsible for it. "I don't know" is many more times preferable than crediting the creator."
I am reading that right, aren't I? Did the writer forget to put the word don't before simply? I wouldn't be surprised if what is there is actually what they meant.

This part left me gobsmacked
"Avoid books written by atheists. They are biased against God, but instead try simply to present factual accounts.
Learn about geology and evolution and try to argue that verifiable physical reality is wrong."

Worztron

Links234

Brian Shanahan

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So I see other people here are posting cartoons and whatnot. I'll post this, because I find it absolutely hilarious, even as it causes me to facepalm in exasperation.
http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-an-Atheist-to-Become-Christian
It's basically a guide for Christians to use when talking to us atheists. Going through it, a few key sentences caught my eye.
"This means that you will have to back up and use secular reasoning to establish your theological ideas." Left out of course is any advice on what to do when secular reasoning inevitably fails to establish theological ideas or to support them.
However, this one takes the cake.
"Create reasons for your faith that have everything to do with personal experience. An atheist may want definite evidence, not just a rehearsal of your faith. You'll have to provide concrete facts and scientifically thought out arguments. Your beliefs based on faith, God's love and joy of worship (all immaterial things) are not evidence to the unbeliever. In fact, a reliance on faith is evidence that you aren't relying on facts. However, this will work in your favor as faith is, by its nature, non-corporeal (not material matters)."
So here we have stupid idea after stupid idea, and contradictions too. So after saying we don't want a rehearsal of your faith, whoever wrote this says to do just that. Not only that, but personal experience mean f*ck all as evidence, since they are by definition personal, not repeatable and could very well have been made up. I do love the last two sentences - how does prattling on about faith going to work in your favour to an atheist who relies on facts and evidence (and even worse, ADMITTING you are not relying on facts!)?

Then here comes this little gem.
"Be prepared to use reliable counter evidence...
If you don't know the answer to something, simply say that God is responsible for it. "I don't know" is many more times preferable than crediting the creator."
I am reading that right, aren't I? Did the writer forget to put the word don't before simply? I wouldn't be surprised if what is there is actually what they meant.

This part left me gobsmacked
"Avoid books written by atheists. They are biased against God, but instead try simply to present factual accounts.
Learn about geology and evolution and try to argue that verifiable physical reality is wrong."

Being reading through the page and I came across this:

Galapagos finches, turtles and lizards were still within their own kind, not new species, and they reverted to the usual appearance when taken from there as breeding stock

That's a totally new one on me, never heard this story before. It, needless to say, is so stupid that one Picard Facepalm is not enough, we need MORE:

Hotblack Desiato

RikuoAmero wrote: »

"Learn about geology and evolution and try to argue that verifiable physical reality is wrong."

That's the giveaway. You been Poed...

AstraMonti

Worztron