Forum:Is a religion joke does funny..?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 03:15, January 2, 2007 by Tompkins (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Is a religion joke does funny..?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2663 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Only asking. Is a joke about religion like this http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Buddha, or http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Islam, or http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Jesus is funny? Even there is an article about http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Ass_and_Nipple_Slips and http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Jihad%E2%98%85Mart

Is it really so funny? Personally I don't like those kind of article. It's like.. not respecting your religion.

Thanks. Vanisher Jett 11:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Try internal links using These: [[See?]] And yes, some people think these are actually funny, don't ask me why when they don't care for half the stuff on my user page, but guys around here have a weird sense of humor. Mr. Briggs Inc. 11:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?
I quite like our religion articles. Nothing we write will ever be as ridiculous and far-fetched as the stuff people actually believe, though. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The religion stuff is hilarious. Unless it's about mine. Then I torch shit up. Which is odd, 'cause I'm pretty sure I'm an atheist. Ahh, I remember atheist Sunday school as a kid. A lady, dressed in regular clothes, would read from the phonebook to us, telling us how we go to nowhere no matter what we do and that we should be nice to people because mean people suck. Then we'd have cookies and a nap. Good times.
Unless by "not respecting...religion" you mean "my religion is not open to criticism" (which is what it normally means), then I say, "Lighten up". By which I mean "get bent". Not to be disrespectful, or anything...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm so glad my deities of choice have a sense of humour.... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

Is it really so funny? ... Does the Pope shit in the woods? --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 15:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Only if a tree is nearby to hear it fall. --no, yuo Tanks-12px chat 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Me think religion joke are being very funny good times! --User:Nintendorulez 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The answer is only MY religion jokes are funny. Read them. They are classics (if I do say so myself): Fundagelical Christianity and Paradise Inc., St. Augustine and New Age Psychology. Oh, and there are some other OK articles on religion. Sort of. I guess. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now it's on! Forums are Solid Gold not a place American Fundie Magazine for page Freedom of speech whoring! I bet we could fill a whole page just of religion pages and its spinoffs...Fundagelical Christianity is the bestest, by the way. The rest are heresy, and you'll burn for them. Burn, I say!--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, huh? Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Confused by the forum title? It's an anagram for "Good Skinnier, fine jealousy".--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I no am confused by title, am thinking it make very much sense. You be not understanding forum title? --User:Nintendorulez 22:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I though it was an anagram for "Lo! Eerie, junky gonad fission." --The Acceptable Thinking cap small Cainad Sacred Chao (Fnord) 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
We need a translator for these types of situations. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If we can laugh about some of the greatest disasters of our time, then we can laugh at religions. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 23:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes they overlap...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, there's a great idea for a really bad-taste article - The Greatest Disasters of Our Time, with all the major disasters graded on how great they were. I'd start on it right away if I didn't have a soul. Spang talk 01:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Lucky for you I'm all for bad taste, so I have started the article. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 01:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

An actual answer to the original question

Well, Vanisher Jett, you have every right to your opinion about what is funny, but so does everyone else. Uncyclopedia is very mild compared to many other places on the internet, so I don't think the articles you've mentioned are really offensive. Religion, like any other institution, is easy to make fun of. If you were suggesting that the articles be rewritten, then you are probably out of luck. Any time somebody has felt offended and tried to delete or rewrite a page, the vote is almost always in favor of keeping the article the way it was. Nothing is respected on Uncyclopedia except a good joke. Cheers. --The Acceptable Thinking cap small Cainad Sacred Chao (Fnord) 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, your explanation <airquotes>makes sense</airquotes>, but I still prefer the ones above as they, too, obey their own internal logic.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I know about self-generated internal logic, but I thought it would be proper to teach that concept to VJ in a more considerate manner. No point in scaring away newbies, other than for fun, which gets boring after a while. --The Acceptable Thinking cap small Cainad Sacred Chao (Fnord) 02:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"Kudos!" I say. I'm going to have to try being less incoherent just to keep up with this "helpfulness" concept you've forwarded. I have attempted to use your system for explaining things to people (a la this), but this is one of the first times that I've seen it in this place you Earthmen call "forums". Whether I've succeeded or not is a matter of debate, probably one taking place on a forum somewhere.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
As a Christian I am offended by the Christian articles, yet I do see the humor in them. Since almost every religion known, unknown, and imaginary, etc are made fun of here, we treat them all the same. I must admit I added to some Jesii articles, the God article, and some of the other Christian articles to make them funnier, and I hope that God has a very good sense of humor, or I'll be in Hell for writing articles making fun of holy things. Yet I know that I won't be in Hell alone for writing articles that make fun of holy things, that most of you will keep me company and then we can start our own Wiki in Hell to make fun of things in Hell. Some troll named Wikipedia is Good made the same argument as Vanisher Jett here and then went on a rampage blanking and vandalizing the religious articles. Look even if something is offensive, it still can be funny. Many people found "Laugh-In" offensive, and that 1960's 1970's humor show was tame next to today's standards like Dave Chappelle, etc. I guess Uncyclopedia can make the same argument as Dave Chappelle that we are using stereotypes in humor to help break stereotypes and make the humor so offensive that it is no longer believable and thus breaks all of the bigotry out there by mocking it like "All In The Family" was designed to mock bigots like Archie Bunker by making him look like a fool or an ass, and while Archie Bunker was making bigoted and racist remarks, he did it so over the top that it make him sound silly, and thus discredited real bigots and racists out there. So laugh at the articles next time, laugh, laugh or you'll go insane. All of the articles here and even the talk pages are meant in some forum of humor, so if you are not laughing at them either you don't get the joke or it was poorly written and needs a rewrite. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Quite simply

If it makes you laugh, it must be funny--Witt, Union leader of Union member UNion Entertain me* 04:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Is a religion joke does funny..?" is the happiest little laugh making phrase I've ever read. 72px-Sig.GIF 20:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Me are not understanding why you mock this maker of forum. He are being make very good funny! --User:Nintendorulez 00:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No no, it is not bad grammar but good grammar, you see much like Debbie does Dallas, it is really a sexual metaphor. The poster of this forum topic was asking if a religion joke does funny, which is the same as asking if a religion joke has sex with funny. We need new articles like Debbie does Uncyclopedia and A Religion Joke does Funny and reference Fuck Uncyclopedia which also talks about sexual metaphors. Uncyclopedia, we have sex with funny here. We are not just being funny here, but we have sex with funny, and even our religion jokes have sex with funny. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects