Hey, I laughed.

The mufti and the rabbi were probably just pissed that they couldn't eat such a delicious pig.

Accept our beliefs or we'll jam them down your throat at the blade of our glorious Christian Army!!

/help help we're being repressed

I'm tire of acceptance.
If everyone fought to the finish, the righteous would prevail.

In real life, the rabbi and mufti wouldn't even give the pig the time of day, and would be highly suspicious of the hedgehog.

The bishop would have invited the pig for Christmas dinner and taken the hedgehog bowling.

And where's the druid in this?

/Welsh druid, out back having a leek.

Bukharin: I'm tire of acceptance.

FIAL

/atheist

Nah, just kidding, it is portrays all religions as evil and bloodthirsty complete with a crazed Jew

So that's one intolerant book for atheists, and, what, 9000 for the religious?

Let me find a Jewish Children's book depicting atheists as raving lunatics. Er, wait, there aren't any.

King Something: FIAL

lol

Bukharin: King Something: FIAL

lol

Is this the first time you've ever heard of the term "FIAL?"

If so, then you
EPIC FAIL

The animals reach the conclusion that God would not be at home with any of the religions


Sounds more theistic than atheistic to me. But hey, whatever helps you cry yourself to sleep.

King Something: EPIC FAIL

w00t!

Bukharin: King Something: EPIC FAIL

w00t!

King Something
Cant argue there, especially with your well crafted point.
What was your point again?

Oh wait. I misspell something late on Saturday.
It all makes sense, I must be completely wrong now.
/you are a foole

WE ATHEISTS CAN FORCE BELIEFS TOO!!

Heh.

I seriously doubt many people would see the satire of the "organized" religions in the book. They'll just see red.

Needs more swindling, conniving, Christian baby-eating or well-poisoning for me to really consider it a "classical" portrayal of the evil Jew. Where's the bloody Jew talons or the horns? It's really hard to take offense when they don't use their "A-list" material.

Doggie McNugget: Let me find a Jewish Children's book depicting atheists as raving lunatics. Er, wait, there aren't any.

How about a Chick tract calling atheists idiots? Would that be close enough?

Doggie McNugget: Let me find a Jewish Children's book depicting atheists as raving lunatics. Er, wait, there aren't any.

This

"The three large religions of the world, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, are slurred in the book," the ministry wrote in a December memo. "The distinctive characteristics of each religion are made ridiculous."

Standard MO for atheists. Strawmen and Ridicule make up 99% of their comments in any forum. Consider this tread Exhibit A.

Wabash: How about a Chick tract calling atheists idiots? Would that be close enough?

Ah yes, me and my friend Jack were discussing about this the last time after the Minyan. We had davened with plenty of kavanah but then wondered, what could we do? Then, he suggested we write some more tracts and I said "Great idea! but let's eat some of that cholent first before these schnorrers eat all of it"

No

Doggie McNugget: Let me find a Jewish Children's book depicting atheists as raving lunatics. Er, wait, there aren't any.

I'm sure you could if you dug hard enough. I guarantee you I could easily find Christian and Muslim examples, probably just because they're so many more of them. Hell, I betcha the church my parents go to has some.

Tatsuma: Doggie McNugget: Let me find a Jewish Children's book depicting atheists as raving lunatics. Er, wait, there aren't any.

This

Have you seen the Discovery Channel documentary where the Christians were upset that people put too much stock into science and that they should open thier minds to other possibilities? It was funny mainly because any scientist worth his/her salt would welcome challenges to a theory.

Bevets: Consider this tread Exhibit A.

Yes, it's a bit of a re-tread, isn't it.

Bevets: "The three large religions of the world, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, are slurred in the book," the ministry wrote in a December memo. "The distinctive characteristics of each religion are made ridiculous."

Standard MO for atheists. Strawmen and Ridicule make up 99% of their comments in any forum. Consider this tread Exhibit A.

"Evolutionism is the tinfoil hate atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves"

Methinks it's just the standard MO for fundies of any stripe.

Bevets:
Standard MO for atheists. Strawmen and Ridicule make up 99% of their comments in any forum. Consider this tread Exhibit A.

I should know better, but what the hell. You can't define an entire group by one member than I can define Christianity by one member, let alone the tens of different flavors it comes in. Just because one person expresses his view a la Jerry Falwell style, does not mean all atheists are the same.

jpbreon: Have you seen the Discovery Channel documentary where the Christians were upset that people put too much stock into science and that they should open thier minds to other possibilities? It was funny mainly because any scientist worth his/her salt would welcome challenges to a theory.

No, I didn't...

I *do* somehow agree that some people REALLY put too much faith in science. There was this one guy arguing with me in a bar (actually, arguing at me since he was pretty much ranting and monologuing) and telling me that religions were stupid and did not reflect reality anyway, and that the string theory proved it.

The guy, obviously, wasn't a scientist. But he took that "junk science" aspect to it and man oh man did he run with it.

Atheists Michael Schmidt-Salomon and illustrator Helge Nynckemake make children's book teaching acceptance of all beliefs and sharing. Nah, just kidding, it is portrays all religions as evil and bloodthirsty complete with a crazed Jew

But why criticize the people actually responsible when you can criticize the entire group, eh bigotmitter?

In order to show how blanket statements are wrong, you made a blanket statement, rather than take the known individuals to task! Good jorb - you are as foul and harmful as those you criticize!

Tatsuma: But he took that "junk science" aspect to it and man oh man did he run with it.

Did he run as fast and far as proponents of junk ancient literature?

Lionel Mandrake: But why criticize the people actually responsible when you can criticize the entire group, eh bigotmitter?

Atheists don't have feelings except depression and anger, silly, so we can make fun of their nihilists ass and it won't change their mood anyway

Tatsuma:
No, I didn't...

I *do* somehow agree that some people REALLY put too much faith in science. There was this one guy arguing with me in a bar (actually, arguing at me since he was pretty much ranting and monologuing) and telling me that religions were stupid and did not reflect reality anyway, and that the string theory proved it.

The guy, obviously, wasn't a scientist. But he took that "junk science" aspect to it and man oh man did he run with it.

Most scientists only deal with the provable. The scientific method is unbelievably useful. Can you observe it> Can you draw conclusions or hypothesize using your observations? What happens when you test your conclusions, observing the result?

You cannot observe God. So science leaves him/her/it be.

Lionel Mandrake: Tatsuma: But he took that "junk science" aspect to it and man oh man did he run with it.

Did he run as fast and far as proponents of junk ancient literature?

I've taken many physics classes, but I can honestly say that I seriously doubt a person with lay interests could understand string theory, much less apply it so. There are a lot of holes and unexplained complications with the theory.

Tatsuma: I *do* somehow agree that some people REALLY put too much faith in science

I think the problem is that people think "science" is whatever a scientist (or a person claiming to be a scientist) says. It's not. It's the application of the scientific method with known information. If all the devotees of "science" actually understood the scientific method, we'd be a lot better off.

jpbreon: You cannot observe God. So science leaves him/her/it be

Well, if you wanted to get technical anything which can't be observed is presumed not to exist in science. But its existence is not necessarily considered disproven.

Churchill2004:
Well, if you wanted to get technical anything which can't be observed is presumed not to exist in science. But its existence is not necessarily considered disproven.

The convention had to be changed, simply because things like axions and dark matter are believed to exist but are difficult to observe. There sis still so much we don't know or understand, and it's important to keep our minds open to the possibilities. Which is really why I love science, because so many scientists (not all) are willing to change their theories and ideas when new information becomes available.

This thread should end well.

jpbreon: The convention had to be changed, simply because things like axions and dark matter are believed to exist but are difficult to observe.

"Difficult to observe" /= unobserved.

Churchill2004: jpbreon: The convention had to be changed, simply because things like axions and dark matter are believed to exist but are difficult to observe.

"Difficult to observe" /= unobserved.

In the case of both listed above, they've never been observed. We see what we think is a result of their existence (such as the continued acceleration of galaxies) but you could also make that same claim to God, that you see the result of his actions.

Unfortunately I don't dabble too much in theoretical science, I am only a mechanical engineer so I'm more about the applications anyway. :)

Bevets is here.

Who summoned him?

jpbreon: In the case of both listed above, they've never been observed.

Their effects have. In science, that's the same thing.

jpbreon: but you could also make that same claim to God, that you see the result of his actions.

Except that you also have to then prove that God is the most likely explanation for the "actions". Your explanation also has to be internally consistent and disprovable. Every "God theory" has at least one of these flaws.

This thread led me to google "cholent crockpot" so it's worth it

/always looking for the crockpot goodness

Churchill2004:
Except that you also have to then prove that God is the most likely explanation for the "actions". Your explanation also has to be internally consistent and disprovable. Every "God theory" has at least one of these flaws.

Very true. However in the cases I listed we have only be able to come up with a most likely scenario that explains the things we've observed, and its very little. It's easy to see how some people could call it a bit of so-called faith when dealing with highly-advanced fields and theories like the ones found in astrophysics.

Bevets: "The three large religions of the world, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, are slurred in the book," the ministry wrote in a December memo. "The distinctive characteristics of each religion are made ridiculous."

Standard MO for atheists. Strawmen and Ridicule make up 99% of their comments in any forum. Consider this tread Exhibit A.

Its not uncommon for the sane to ridicule the mentally ill.

EPIC PHAILISTINE!

/Just wanted to write that.

itazurakko: /always looking for the crockpot goodness

The short ribs in red wine in this book are melt-in-your-mouth delicious. Everything else in it is really good too, or at least makes a good guide to liquid/meat/potato kind of ratios.

I'm not a big fan of cholent, though. Never made it.

/recipe threadjack

mamoru: Maybe because they ARE ridiculous?

図星...

lots of tight sphincters in here

Some atheists write books like these, and some Christians write Chick Tracts. There's people of all beliefs looking to pull themselves up by pulling others down and focusing on our differences.