One-upmanship

one-upmanship

It seems that no single religion can claim exclusive rights for being the most ridiculous.

In many ways, the spoof religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is less ridiculous than either Islam or Christianity.


Comments

One-upmanship — 5 Comments

  1. Religious ridiculosity is my passion. Let me share some trivia with you:

    The Egyptian God Atum created mankind with this vulgar act:

    a. Hocking a Royal Loogie
    b. Heavenly Masturbation
    c. Godly nose-picking

    The answer is b. Atum masturbated mankind into existence. Way cooler than the whole Yahweh dirt story.

    Here’s another:

    Some Creationists explain the existence of fossils with the theory that God created the world with fossils in place, embedding the appearance of great age. This theory is known as what?

    a. The Omphalos Hypothesis
    b. Last Thursdayism
    c. Gobbledygoop

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

    Both a. and b. are correct. Last Thursdayism
    is a recent version of the 1857 Omphalos Hypothesis posed by Philip Henry Gosse,
    which states that the world was created recently with the built-in appearance of age.

    Goggledygoop,on the other hand, is incomprehensible hocus-pocus.

    And three’s the charm:

    The world was created on Sunday, September 12, 3928 BCE, according to 17th century minister John Lightfoot. How did he arrive at this date?

    a. Counting the begats in the Old Testament
    (Methusaleh begat Lamech…)
    b. Carbon dating
    c. Revelation from Gabriel the Archangel

    ***********************************************
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    a. Lightfoot counted the begats in the Old Testament. Vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Lightfoot also proved that
    man was created on Friday, 17 September 3928 BCE, at 9:13 a.m.

    I keep trying to stop collecting embarrasingly hysterical trivia about the world’s sacred traditions, but they just won’t quit being funny!

    Thanks for letting me share.

    Spiffy Galoot
    Theomicrist
    http://www.myspace.com/godishness

  2. What’s sad is that people who actually have the right to say that really are the vast minority. Good-blooded religion always seems to die within a century of its founders. Moral, tolerant folks have been vastly outnumbered by half-thought, mind-in-box, record-and-repeat zealots for well on two millennia now.

  3. I have patiently seen the comics displayed over here.you have in miscalcullated manner projected your inner thought in contrast to three monothiest religions.whileas; some of your bloggers do welcome debate which; essentially; is based on the philosiphy of religions and its counter arguments.but; i was surprised to find the philosiphy could have the substitue of mocking; when; it is believed that “disagreement” is the basis of argument to find the truth.now to remind you the quranic concept of heaven which is also present in other apostle books;there the existence is defined without any earthly pleasure or need; which; includes the concept of crude sex now easily availble with you.it also carries the definition of body and soul for which you have partial obervation negating the soul.i would like to quote the reputed scientist who was biologist Mr. cecil boyce Hamannas as under”WHERE THE MYSTERIES OF DIGESTION AND ASSIMILATION WERE SEEN AS EVIDENCE OF DIVINE INTERVENTION; THEY NOW ARE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF CHEMICAL REACTIONS; EACH REACTION UNDER THE CONTROL OF ENZYME. BUT DOES IT RULE GOD OUT OF HIS UNIVERSE?WHO DETERMINED THAT THESE REACTIONS SHOULD TAKE PLACE AND THAT THEY SHOULD SO EXACTLY CONTROLLED BY ENZYMES.?ONE GLANCE AT PRESENT DAY CHART OF VARIOUS CYCLIC REACTIONS AND THEIR INTERACTION WITH EACH OTHER RULES OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS WAS JUST A CHANCE RELATIONSHIP THAT HAPPENED TO WORK. PERHAPS HERE ; MORE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE; MAN IS LEARNING THAT GOD WORKS BY PRINCIPLES THAT HE ESTABLISHED WITH CREATION OF LIFE'{REFER EVIDENCE OF GOD IN AN EXPANDIND UNIVERSE P.221} could you react? when science is itself the basis of your argument to disprove the existence of GOD. yet; to rebut scientist believing in GOD on the argument of science could be problem for you to qualify them deranged as mock believers. since you have no GOD; let me pray to me own GOD to give you patience to understand the things in right perspective. thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *