Go 4 TLI

God-related (sort of) jokes

72 posts in this topic

A hysterical and historical event for Pastafarianism: its first miracle!

Glory to the pasta! Deliver the faithful from the temptations of the antipasta!!!

Ramen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Almighty Dumbo Inexplicably Emerging From the Void of Not-Being: A Theory of Existential First Cause"

allmightydumbo.jpg.xs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last post reminded me of this.:lol:

Western religions tend to imagine God as either a burning bush or Wilford Brimley with a beard and dreadlocks. In the East, you get a little more leeway: one God is a bare-breasted woman with six arms, another is a man with the head of an elephant. There is no doubt in my mind as to who has the better weed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That last post reminded me of this.:P 
Western religions tend to imagine God as either a burning bush or Wilford Brimley with a beard and dreadlocks. In the East, you get a little more leeway: one God is a bare-breasted woman with six arms, another is a man with the head of an elephant. There is no doubt in my mind as to who has the better weed.

Now that is very funny :lol:

Not sure if you have heard this one, probably already here. Anyway....

Modern version of the Birds & the Bees.....

Little boy goes to his father and asks "Daddy, how was I born?"

The father answers: "Well, son, I guess one day you will need to find out

anyway!

Your Mom and I first got together in a chat room on Yahoo.

Then I set up a date via e-mail with your Mom and we met at a cyber-cafe.

We sneaked into a secluded room, where your mother agreed to a download

from my hard drive.

As soon as I was ready to upload, we discovered that neither one of us had

used a firewall,

and since it was too late to hit the delete button, nine months later a

blessed little Pop-Up appeared and said:

"You've Got Male!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argumentum ad Orangutanum:

A method of reasoning where an argument is presented by an orangutan, which you then cannot argue with, because to argue with an orangutan doesn’t make any sense.

Example:

AO.png

You can’t argue with that, because it doesn’t make sense to argue with an orangutan. Therefore Argumentum ad Orangutanum is a form of valid reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argumentum ad Orangutanum [...]

Hi Lord Poppycock.

Hate to disagree with you, but Argumentum ad Orangutanum is certainly NOT a valid form of reasoning. I present the following as proof:

orangutan_2.jpg

You can't argue with that, because it's not possible to argue with an orangutan. Therefore, Argumentum ad Orangutanum is NOT a valid form of reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, taking Argumentum ad Orangutanum seriously results in logical contradictions.

Observe the following:

orangutan_3.jpg

orangutan_4.jpg

If Argumentum ad Orangutanum was a valid form of reasoning, the statements made by both these orangutans would be true. But this is impossible, as a contradiction would result.

Therefore Argumentum ad Orangutanum is self-defeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously it’s not the validity of Argumentum ad Orangutanum that you’ve disproved, but the Law of Non-Contradiction.

If two orangutans make contradicting assertions you can’t argue with either of them, because it's not possible to argue with orangutans. Therefor both assertions must be true and consequently contradictions must be possible; as you have encountered an existing one.

I submit the following as further proof:

Non-conO.png

You can't argue with that, because it's not possible to argue with an orangutan. Therefore, contradicting assertions made by orangutans disprove the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously it’s not the validity of Argumentum ad Orangutanum that you’ve disproved, but the Law of Non-Contradiction.

If two orangutans make contradicting assertions you can’t argue with either of them, because it's not possible to argue with orangutans.  Therefor both assertions must be true and consequently contradictions must be possible; as you have encountered an existing one. 

Other alternative explanations for what it means when two orangutans disagree with each other:

- One is not really an orangutan.

- It only appears to be a contradiction because we are dealing with phenomenal orangutans, rather than noumenal orangutans.

- We just need to wait for the Great Orangutan Dialectic ("G.O.D.") that will merge the Thesis and Antithesis into a new Synthesis.

- One of them is the Uber-Orangutan, whose Uber-logic is beyond the grasp of normal men. He is the product of the Will to Power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other alternative explanations for what it means when two orangutans disagree with each other:

- One is not really an orangutan.

- It only appears to be a contradiction because we are dealing with phenomenal orangutans, rather than noumenal orangutans.

- We just need to wait for the Great Orangutan Dialectic ("G.O.D.") that will merge the Thesis and Antithesis into a new Synthesis.

- One of them is the Uber-Orangutan, whose Uber-logic is beyond the grasp of normal men.  He is the product of the Will to Power.

:lol: That's great.

One of the greatest things about this jokes thread is all the clever things people come up with by themselves.

Bravo Ed!

Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously it’s not the validity of Argumentum ad Orangutanum that you’ve disproved [...]

How dare you...

My orangutans wear top hats, while yours do not. Therefore, I'm obviously right and you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Poppycock:

I concede your point about the Law of Non-Contradiction. I would be foolish to argue with an orangutan wearing not only a top hat, but also a monocle and bow-tie.

However, you have failed to address my argument in this post.

Furthermore, you have failed to respond to the excellent arguments made by Ed from OC.

Now, either YOU admit defeat or dishonesty, or answer these arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Lord Poppycock.

Hate to disagree with you, but Argumentum ad Orangutanum is certainly NOT a valid form of reasoning. I present the following as proof:

orangutan_2.jpg

You can't argue with that, because it's not possible to argue with an orangutan. Therefore, Argumentum ad Orangutanum is NOT a valid form of reasoning.

Have forgotten that I had already provided an orangutan asserting that Argumentum ad Orangutanum was a valid form of reasoning and that I have proven the existence of contradictions? You should be able to infer that my aforementioned orangutan and your orangutan (quoted above) are merely another instance of a contradiction which, as you have now conceded, can exist.

Other alternative explanations for what it means when two orangutans disagree with each other:

- One is not really an orangutan.

- It only appears to be a contradiction because we are dealing with phenomenal orangutans, rather than noumenal orangutans.

- We just need to wait for the Great Orangutan Dialectic ("G.O.D.") that will merge the Thesis and Antithesis into a new Synthesis.

- One of them is the Uber-Orangutan, whose Uber-logic is beyond the grasp of normal men.  He is the product of the Will to Power.

Although these, for the most part, are fairly good explanations they fail to address the unquoted portion of my same post. The argument of which rest on the existence of two real disagreeing orangutans and explains the situation fully.

The fact that the disagreeing orangutans have on top hats proves that they are in fact noumenal orangutans. I trust you wouldn’t dare question the intrinsic, other worldly, perfection of anything with a top hat on.

“Umber” as I understand the term means; above everything else. Both of the contradicting orangutans in question are clearly not umber as they have on only top hats and there exists orangutans with top hats, bow ties and monocles that are obviously “above” them.

As for the third argument; it’s nothing more than Hegelian nonsense. As proof of its invalidity I submit the following.

ProperIHNO.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

INVALID: n. One who is incapacitated by a chronic illness or disability.

Are you suggesting an argument from an invalid is automatically void? How un-P.C.! I shall report you at once as a mean-spirited, uncaring monster!!! :wacko:

Of course you are merely ducking the issue. Calling orangutans incapacitated will not spare you from their faultless reasoning! Fear the wrath of the Mighty Orange Ones!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
INVALID: n. One who is incapacitated by a chronic illness or disability.

But now the question must be answered: Are you, sir, an orangutan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But now the question must be answered: Are you, sir, an orangutan?

I simultaneously am and am not an orangutan. Such is the mighty power of the orangutan! We exist in a continuous state of becoming in which that which we will be is that which was not, and so both exist and do not exist as orangutans. To restrict us to one or the other state is to deny our true nature as transcendent entities.

So to ask whether I "am" or "am not" an orangutan just points out the limits of your feeble human logic. We are beyond such trivial concerns as contradictions. True logic embraces contradictions!

Ed from Orangutan County

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have forgotten [...]

Lord Poppycock:

Last night I was struck by a revelation. The Flying Spaghetti Monster came to me and told me the following:

You are all fools...

“Lord” Poppycock: “Argumentum Ad Orangutanum” is nonsense. It’s based on an obvious equivocation of the term “you can’t argue with that.” Of course you can’t argue with an orangutan, but that doesn’t mean that what the orangutan says is true.

Furthermore, you repeatedly beg the question and use “Argumentum Ad Orangutanum” in your attempts to prove it.

Patrick: Your first attempted refutation of “Argumentum Ad Orangutanum” is absurd. You use the very form of argument you attempt to refute in your attempt to refute it. Obviously a refutation of “Argumentum Ad Orangutanum” can’t use “Argumentum Ad Orangutanum” as its basis!

Your second attempt is better. “Argumentum Ad Orangutanum” does indeed reduce to logical contradictions. Such contradictions in fact cannot exist unless I, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, will it. I have not willed any such thing in regards to “Argumentum Ad Orangutanum.”

Both of you: The rest of your arguments are too absurd to warrant response. I will say only that top hats, monocles, and bow-ties do not give anyone, orangutans included, some sort of intrinsic value. Yes, it may look quite dashing, but put an ape in a suit and it is still a dirty ape. The only mode of dress which does have intrinsic values is, of course, full pirate regalia. But even full pirate regalia cannot contradict My Will.

I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Lord and Master of All, and I have spoken.

250px-Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Lord and Master of All, and I have spoken.

Your Lord and Master is in a dark place. I had him for dinner last night. With marinara sauce. Delicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last night I was struck by a revelation.

Ouch!
The Flying Spaghetti Monster came to me and told me the following:

We're supposed to listen to someone who listens to their food? Please! And everyone knows flying spaghetti is nothing special; just a strong throwing arm required.

But if we want to talk religion, nobody tops His High Holiness And Most Exalted Orangeness.

My God could, like, totally beat up your God. We're talking a giant primate against... pasta?

I laugh at you and your pitiful religion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   

There is no proof of the FSM therefore your entire post is absurd and I reject the totality of it.   

   

You don't have to believe in the FSM, but you cannot dismiss his arguments so easily. Unless you can refute them, the arguments in my post still stand.

Or are you going to just rely on Ad Hominem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Ouch! 

We're supposed to listen to someone who listens to their food?  Please!  And everyone knows flying spaghetti is nothing special; just a strong throwing arm required. 

 

But if we want to talk religion, nobody tops His High Holiness And Most Exalted Orangeness. 

 

My God could, like, totally beat up your God.  We're talking a giant primate against... pasta? 

 

I laugh at you and your pitiful religion! 

 

Obviously the Flying Spagetti Monster is the One True God, because after all, would you rather eat pasta or an orangutan? Spagetti is delicious, but I don't know about orangutans. I don't eat orangutans. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites