Atheist Lolcats & Motivational Posterz
Offline 
Don't miss the LOLCat bible!
PREVIEW:
Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs
1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.
2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.
3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1
6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed teh skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.
Thank you so much for posting that link!!
I had never heard of LOLCat Bible!
I laughed my arse off (my favorite is Revelations)
"Inaction breeds doubt and fear. Action breeds confidence and courage.
If you want to conquer fear, do not sit home and think about it.
Go out and get busy."
~ Dale Carnegie, Author
are these fuckin' cats supposed to be foreign or what? trying to decypher what they're saying is giving me a headache.
"But when M. Proudhon admits that he understands nothing about the historical development of humanity--he admits this by using such high-sounding words as: Universal Reason, God, etc.--is he not implicitly and necessarily admitting that he is incapable of understanding economic development?"
--Karl Marx
LOL!
How many cats have you seen in 3rd grade English classes?
well, if we're required to suspend our belief so cats can talk or write or whatever the fuck they're doing, it's not a big stretch to give them decent english.
"But when M. Proudhon admits that he understands nothing about the historical development of humanity--he admits this by using such high-sounding words as: Universal Reason, God, etc.--is he not implicitly and necessarily admitting that he is incapable of understanding economic development?"
--Karl Marx
It's supposed to be funny. Guess it's kind of like British humor: either you like it, or you don't.
The bad english, grammar, spelling is part of the 'joke'. Also, the font that is used is part of the joke as well. I find some of them pretty freaking hilarious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolcat
i get it that it's part of the joke. it just gave me a headache.
aaaallll i'm sayin'...
Some are pretty bad, I do have to admit.
Remember, 2 more days until Caturday!!!
There is no such thing as "British Humor". Where the fuck did people get the idea that England has a monopoly on dry sarcasm?
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
i didn't pick up that these were "british humor" either, but come on, britain definitely has a distinct brand of humor. it's not just dry sarcasm. there's a lot of madcapness in there too. and some other certain savoir faire i can't put my finger on. maybe its the juxtaposition of somebody like graham chapman referencing blaise pascal while dressed as an old lady.
i mean, monty python, benny hill, fawlty towers, keeping up appearances, are you being served?, waiting for god, that's my boy, little britain, the vicar of dibley, as time goes by...who the hell else has shows like these? and even when the states does do over a show like the office, they turn it into something entirely different. i don't know why you say there's no such thing as "british humor." every culture has their own brand of humor. look at the japanese, for chrissakes.
"But when M. Proudhon admits that he understands nothing about the historical development of humanity--he admits this by using such high-sounding words as: Universal Reason, God, etc.--is he not implicitly and necessarily admitting that he is incapable of understanding economic development?"
--Karl Marx
Like Arrested Development, anything by the Coen bros., Spinal Tap (and almost every other Christopher Guest flick, and clearly the inspiration for the office), The Simpsons, Frasier, The Office (It's pretty popular here and it may be a spin off, but the only difference between the British and American versions in my opinion are the interpretations of the boss. There is more depth and breadth to the American cast, but they didn't call it quits after two seasons. They have to fill the time with something.), The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, South Park, The Venture Bros.? There's probably more but you get the point. Clearly there's some inspiration drawn from both sides of the pond but to declare it unique to one region is inaccurate at best.
As for the Japanese, that's called slapstick (Benny Hill, Three Stooges). One of their shows, Takeshi's Castle I think it was, was dubbed over with American announcers giving the color commentary full of awesomely bad NSFW puns and renamed Most Extreme Elimination Challenge. I thought it was fucking hilarious and I'm not the least bit Japanese. I don't even know anyone who is, but if you couple anatomy jokes with awkward, everyday schlubs biting it on various obstacle course you've got comedic gold. I defy you to watch it with a straight face. It may be that centuries of living a repressive society has stunted the growth of their funny bone, but again that doesn't make it uniquely Japanese.
My beef with the concept of "British Humor" is that it's the battle cry of snobby people who think they're in on a secret and other people "don't get it". Something is either funny or it's not, and most humor is universal.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
but my whole point was, it's not the individual elements. it's how they fit together. and these mixes are unique to cultures, both national and geographical. while they may both work in the mode of mockumentaries, christopher guest and ricky gervais do things differently because they grew up in different cultures. as for the two offices, if you really think it's only a matter of how the boss is interpreted, i think you didn't watch one of them closely enough. garreth and dwight are entirely different, for one. the chemistry between tim and dawn as opposed to jim and pam are also very different. the british version on the whole has a much darker feel (and so does season 1 of the american version, before it broke away more from the british; michael scott is much less sympathetic in season 1). i think this reflects the fact that british comedies tend to have darker undertones than american comedies.
it's hardly that simple. never mind the big differences between benny hill and the stooges. what about influences from kabuki?
i'm not the least bit british. i never said you had to be a member of a culture to appreciate that culture's humor.
well, A, i don't think anyone on this thread was being snobby about it, and B, there are plenty of universal motifs that make us laugh. but you cannot deny that every culture has its own interpretations of those motifs and, although in the globalized world the lines are blurring, the demarcations are still clearly recognizable. and some people just don't "get" some cultures' humor, just like they don't care for their food. there's nothing intrinsically elitist about that, and i think that's all anyone ever tried to say.
"But when M. Proudhon admits that he understands nothing about the historical development of humanity--he admits this by using such high-sounding words as: Universal Reason, God, etc.--is he not implicitly and necessarily admitting that he is incapable of understanding economic development?"
--Karl Marx
I couldn't disagree more with you regarding stylistic similarities between Gervais and Guest. I do agree that the Gervais' Office is darker than Carrell's, but I still maintain that much of that difference comes from the fact that the American version has been running for longer, which allows for a little more variety of characters and deeper exploration of said characters. You're right about British sitcoms being more cynical. Americans like their happy endings. (That's what she said.)
Gameshows in which people humiliate themselves on national television definitely falls under slapstick, and doesn't look anything like kabuki to me. To be fair I don't know much about kabuki, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve giant foam boulders or kiddie pools filled with baby alligators.
I know. I was just being a dick.
I don't think anyone did either. I just hate that term and want it to die. I don't know about where you're from, but here in Seattle (a hipster Mecca) it's almost always said with the haughty attitude of a modern art afficianado, and therefore not a term I care for.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
I know this is supposed to be funny, but you do realize how innacurate it is, right?
Because it left out the Branch Davidians?
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
Because it's not an accurate definition of Occam's Razor?
Vote McCain, he brought back Czechoslovakia and will veto beer. The Real McCain
occam's razor isn't even accurate. his name was william of "ockham." so there.
actually, i'm a firm believer in popular use makes it so (in the area of language, that is). still, i've often wondered why people started spelling it "occam."
"But when M. Proudhon admits that he understands nothing about the historical development of humanity--he admits this by using such high-sounding words as: Universal Reason, God, etc.--is he not implicitly and necessarily admitting that he is incapable of understanding economic development?"
--Karl Marx
Because there is no such thing as modern atheism and early atheism?
It's just atheism, it's that simple. Every human is an atheist at birth, they have to later be infected with the thousands of different belief systems that we've made up along the way.
He's not the man he wants you to think he is. Go to The Real John McCain to learn about the double talk express. View these videos about John McCain to learn about the flip-flopping double talker.
oooh, i know why! the east-west schism in the church is not what is traditionally referred to as the "great schism." the great schism was the split in the western church in the fourteenth century between the pope and anti-pope(s). recently it seems like it's in vogue to call the east-west schism the "great schism": even wikipedia gives the western schism only secondary claim to this term, but i strongly contest that. in most of the old ecclesiastical histories i've read, many of them from the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the western schism is the "great schism." i believe hans kung even uses the same terminology, if my memory serves me well.
other than that, i don't know what the problem is...
"But when M. Proudhon admits that he understands nothing about the historical development of humanity--he admits this by using such high-sounding words as: Universal Reason, God, etc.--is he not implicitly and necessarily admitting that he is incapable of understanding economic development?"
--Karl Marx
Help us out, here. Which part is inaccurate?
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Perhaps there are several more branches that were ommitted?
§§That fact that I cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing called god is inconsequential and nugatory because nonexistence cannot be proven of anything.§§
At least another 500 branches of Christianity have been left out.
He's not the man he wants you to think he is. Go to The Real John McCain to learn about the double talk express. View these videos about John McCain to learn about the flip-flopping double talker.
Okay, none of you are even close.
It's prepostrous to suggest that there has only been one branch of atheism throughout history. Like I said, I know it's just a funny poster, but sometimes I get the feeling that people are starting to believe it.
Oh crap, does each rejected god get their own branch of atheism ?
And the A-Thori-sts rejected the claims of the "there is no such thing as Isis" branch until the great reformation of 1012, when Randy Pan the goat boy suggested that all of the made-up fear mongering, superstition be assigned jointly under one branch. And the term, "bullshit" was coined.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Nope.
But there are divisions such as strong and weak atheism, to name just a few out of many.
i think everybody agrees there are theoretical differences within the atheist community. the point of the poster is that these theoretical differences don't tend to spawn different organizations which are often violently hostile to one another. on the other hand, the theoretical differences within christianity segued into the realm of human history, causing wars, persecutions, and a lot of very nasty verbal mudslinging. if this ever happens between atheistic organizations, it's doubtful it will ever be big and embarrassing enough to make it into the history books.
also, unlike christianity, atheism does not trace its roots back to a single "founder" nor does any atheistic organization claim to be the sole possessor of a founder's legacy or the sole possessor of a correct interpretation of atheism. in fact, atheism cannot have multiple interpretations since it's a negative. it might have multiple applications but that's it.
so, in a nutshell, there are no branching lines from atheism in the poster because nobody ever bore down hard enough on the pencil to leave a lasting impression. christianity, on the other hand, carved its branching lines into the skin of history with a fucking dagger. you ain't never washin' off that shit.
"But when M. Proudhon admits that he understands nothing about the historical development of humanity--he admits this by using such high-sounding words as: Universal Reason, God, etc.--is he not implicitly and necessarily admitting that he is incapable of understanding economic development?"
--Karl Marx
This is why I was hesitant to follow up. The mental gymnastics that Christians do is rivalled (and perhaps surpassed) only by atheists who deeply wish that their ideology includes no blood trails.