# Smarter than a 3rd. grader?



## blackcherry (Dec 7, 2007)

LITTLE GIRL ON A PLANE

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps.
Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don't know ********************?"

And then she went back to reading her book.


----------



## 489tad (Feb 26, 2010)

Nice! That one goes in the favorite box.


----------



## degoose (Mar 20, 2009)

The agnostic, dyslexic insomniac stayed up all night wondering if there really is a DOG…??


----------



## Greedo (Apr 18, 2010)

lol atheist bashing! the joke could be turned around and still work, though the end could be a little more dramatic, knowing what happened the last time a plane was filled with pissed off believers!


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

Therefore, God exists…??? I realize that theists have always had inherent difficulties in making their case, but I didn't realize it had gotten this bad. Was there an argument, or even a point, somewhere in that quip? I certainly laughed out loud.

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's not about making sense. It's about saying things that people like to hear. I'll never learn.


----------



## agallant (Jul 1, 2010)

Really guys? We have stooped to this new low? The race is on to see who will now be the first to post a black person joke. Why can't people just leave other peoples beliefs alone. 
-AG


----------



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

ah come on a little joke with no harm in at all ….....not even by the writer of them
...............and someone is ..... 
whats the matter with the world to day

not to start a fight here …........just to say let us take it for what it is a harmless joke 
to give some smiles on our faces 

best thoughts …. and have a great weekend with your beloved ones

Dennis


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

I have no problem with anybody's belief, it is their right and privilege. All I have to do is plane a piece of wood, add a little varnish and take a long look at the wonderous beauty and ask myself how anyone can disprove how this was created - can't be by accident !!!


----------



## FatherHooligan (Mar 27, 2008)

I don't think the little girls comments were to question the wisdom of being an athiest but more of an illustration of why should she waste her time debating with someone whom had not thought out their own position. We are inundated with instant 'experts' in the media all the time but I suspect they'd not pass the little girls test either.

I laughed out loud when I read this also!


----------



## MikeGo (Jul 19, 2011)

funny


----------



## IrreverentJack (Aug 13, 2010)

No soap radio. I get it!


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

This joke is a classic example of informal logical fallacy, a logical error in the argument's content. In other words the little girl incorrectly assumes that if A has no valid opinion on subject matter X, then A can not have valid opinion on subject matter Y, X not being a prerequisite or related to Y.
…
Albert Einstein: "How about theory of relativity" as he smiled smugly.
Little girl: "This could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"
Albert Einstein: "Hmmm, I have no idea."
Little girl: "Do you really feel qualified to discuss theory of relativity, when you don't know ********************?"
…
This chain of argumentation for a third grader is understandable.


----------



## EPJartisan (Nov 4, 2009)

Yep.. gotta love that they brought back a non-woodworking forum… coming from an Atheist that does knows his "********************" ... why a cow makes patties and a deer makes pellets and a horse clumps … and why this forum gets this "********************" as well … yay… sigh… I wish there was a way to only get notices of people projects not posts from this forum… instead since I don't want this "********************".. I gotta let people go from the buddy list… sigh.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

That little girl does not know much about animals. For example, deer eat very little grass. Anyone in deer territory with a lawn and a garden knows this all too well. According to this article, "grasses comprise only a very small part of the overall diet of the white-tailed deer, usually less than 10%."


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

My only suggestion is that the next time someone wants to interject what they believe to be a cleaver jab at a particular demographic, at least adjust the fallacy to accommodate the target audience. For example:

An atheist was seated next to Righteous Rachel at the Lie-Nielsen workshop on plane sharpening and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? These workshops go much quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow hand-tool enthusiast."

Righteous Rachel, who had just started using hand planes, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no tool God, or no perfect zero degree cutting angle, or no Stanley #1 smoothing plane really worth what collectors are willing to pay" as he smiled smugly.

"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. Black and Decker, DeWalt, and Porter-Cable have all shifted production to China and made a fortune as a result. Yet people are willing to pay premium prices for one brand and not the other simply because of product placement.
Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by Righteous Rachel's annoying precociousness and wanting to slap her silly, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea. Isn't there some G8 summit you should be attending instead of asking me these dumb-ass questions?"

To which Righteous Rachel replies, "What are you a communist? Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no tool God, no perfect zero degree cutting angle, or no Stanley #1 smoothing plane really worth what collectors are willing to pay, when you don't know ******************** about capitalism?"

And then she went back to reading her favorite Cato Institute hack.


----------



## BobTheFish (May 31, 2011)

For those defending the atheist, I think you miss the point: atheist, theist, or deist, they all assert a position upon the state of the person after death that they in no way can have knowledge on. It's more about asserting your beliefs (or nonbeliefs) without any real knowledge. We just like to assert that we know and we're correct. The little girl is just putting him in his place. the only reason it's really funny is because it's a 5 year old doing it.


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

I beg your pardon, all. Any atheist worth his/her salt will tell you straight up that we do NOT know what happens after we die. That is all. People making up claims otherwise are all suspect. "Smug"? Please, this only displays projection on the part of the person putting the little girl in as the final smug answer, the punch lie.

BobTheFish, the theist is one who ALSO doesn't know (but believes), but the little girl is pushing the theist position of salvation…who here can prove that to me?

To all: which is it going to be? The Egyptian, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian or Norse mythologies of salvation? To name a few? Not even all of these claim salvation!


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

BobTheFish, I agree with you that "atheist" in the story makes argument from ignorance (another logical fallacy, see my previous post) asserting that the statement is true (there is no God) because it cannot be proven false, thus shifting the burden of proof to others.

However, AtomJack is absolutely correct in the definition of atheist and the suspect claim. Adult character in the story is in fact a believer in nonexistence of God rather then atheist. This indicates that the story itself was written by a believer making projections.
In the broadest sense atheism is the ABSENCE of belief that a deity exists (although believers in nonexistence of God often casually included). Hence an atheist would not (or at least should not) fall victim to false dichotomy in which a third option is excluded (1. God exists, 2. God does not exist, 3. Unknown / can't be proven either way).
In science and jurisprudence the burden of proof lies upon a person making the claim, while argumentation from ignorance is indicative of religion. This gives away the narrator of the story.

Leaving aside the existential aspect, I personally think that the anecdote is shallow. It is essentially an elaborate form of juvenile "poop joke". Characters are introduced and the arguments exchanged. Listeners anticipate a closing statement that delivers the point. Instead, the narrative is interrupted by an irrelevant argument containing the word "poop" and everyone is laughing.
BTW, I do honestly laugh at "poop jokes". Coming from a child they are cute, age appropriate, and sincere.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Fire insurance, yes or no? Do you feel lucky, punk ? Do ya ? Would you like to add the poop rider to that policy today ?


----------



## DamnYankee (May 21, 2011)

where's the woodworking in this thread?


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

This is the Non-Shop Talk section, so be nice and don't tell anybody to burn in hell or nothing like that or they'll take it away again. ;=)


----------



## newbiewoodworker (Aug 29, 2010)

Definately forwarding this one along. That is some funny stuff.

Those who are getting offended: Its not about the religion perse its about people feeling over qualified to talk about matters we know nothing about. Besides its a joke.


----------



## DamnYankee (May 21, 2011)

Sorry…missed that in the header.


----------



## BobTheFish (May 31, 2011)

Viktor, Jack, an agnostic claims no knowledge of life after death, etc. an atheist asserts that there is no god.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

Emo Phillips is a believer:

I was in San Fransisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. So I thought I'd try to stall and detain him, long enough for me to put the film in. I said, "Don't jump!" and he turns… You've heard of the elephant man. He was kind of like that, he had a, well, you could say he had the head of a horse. And my heart went out to him. I said, "Why the long face?" 
He said, "'Cause all my life people have called me mean names like horses-head or Flicka or chess-piece or Trigger…" 
I said, "Well, don't worry about it, Ed. It can't be that bad." 
He said, "My girlfriend's suing me!" 
I said, "For palomino?" 
He said, "Why was I put on this Earth?" 
I said, "My friend, anywhere else you wouldn't stand a chance." 
He said, "Nobody loves me." 
I said, "God loves you, you silly ninny." 
He said, "How do you know there's a God?" 
I said, "Of course there's a God. Do you think that billions of years ago a bunch of molecules floating around at random could someday have had the sense of humor to make you look like that?" 
He said, "I do believe in God." 
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" 
He said, "A Christian." 
I said, "Me too. Protestant or Catholic?" 
He said, "Protestant." 
I said, "Me too! What franchise?" 
He says, "Baptist." 
I said, "Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" 
He says, "Northern Baptist." 
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" 
He says, "Northern Conservative Baptist." 
I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?" 
He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist." 
I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?" 
He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region." 
I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" 
He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." 
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over!


----------



## Maverick44spec (Aug 7, 2011)

Some people can't take a joke. Thats all it was. If you don't like it, don't read it. Complaining about it won't do anything but cause an argument and possibly make some enemys. Learn to laught at yourselves and don take stuff so personally.


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

Not quite Bob- the agnostic claims he can't tell whether there is a god. The atheistic doesn't believe there is a god. That's not the same as asserting there isn't one. This is a common error.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Wow.. I checked back on this topic because I had a feeling there was going to be a debate going on about using the four-letter word for excrement. I never dreamed that the joke would be perceived as belittling atheists.

The point of the joke, people, is the little girl's precociousness, and her ability to wisely render an adult speechless. It's the same joke when Viktor substituted Einstein for the atheist. I first heard it a long time ago, and don't even remember what the adult wanted to talk about in that version.

Now I have a question for Viktor:

You said : "In the broadest sense atheism is the ABSENCE of belief that a deity exists (although believers in nonexistence of God often casually included). Hence an atheist would not (or at least should not) fall victim to false dichotomy in which a third option is excluded (1. God exists, 2. God does not exist, 3. Unknown / can't be proven either way)."

I've always thought the absence of belief was agnosticism, and that atheism was belief in non-existence. If an atheist can just have an absence of belief, then what is an agnostic?

Oh, and for the record, I'm in the "just don't know" category.


----------



## BobTheFish (May 31, 2011)

Mmmmm… but jack, most atheists I have met have been straight up asserting the lack of god as fact. And typically they only target the ultra conservative fundamentalist branch of christianity… And if they feel like shooting fish out of THAT bucket a bit too challenging, they go for the young earthers. Personally, I don't know what's out there, but whatever's after this life, be it heaven, hell, a repeat experience on earth or the grand nothingness, I'm not too keen on it. But in my day to day life, I don't mind that Jesus guy, and feel he's got a lot right (but watch out for those Peter and Paul guys that are always latched on to him), and happily would devote his momentary prayers to Nemesis, the greek goddess of humility (actually she's the black winged balancer of fate, who brings down those whom think themselves like gods, or the overly favored by Fortune), because I think the world could probably use a bit more of her presence.


----------



## rance (Sep 30, 2009)

Last time I heard this, the butt of the joke was a politician. It was funny then, and this one is funny now.

Jeez folks, get over it already. And you wonder why Martin shut this forum down last time.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

If we are unable to laugh at our differences, we are sadly doomed.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

Charlie, to answer your question, think of it this way. Do you believe in winged, purple, elephants that dispense pixie dust every morning in order for the sun to rise?

I'm guessing you don't believe in such creatures. So why do you hold onto this belief in the non-existence of winged, purple, elephants dispensing pixie dust?

Agnostics will entertain the possibility of a deity but not commit one way or another because they have no way of knowing one way or the other. Atheists take the approach that there's nothing there to even entertain the possibility, not because they know there's nothing there but because there's no evidence or reason to consider the possibility in the first place. It's the same reason why you don't reserve judgement on the possibility that the above creature I described may exist but you just don't know. I'm assuming you're not an agnostic with regard to these creatures. At least I hope not because I just made them up 5 minutes ago.

And the mere mention of these creatures or that 90% of the population may believe they exist does not in any way require the non-believer to consider the possibility. The burden of proof is always on those making the claim, not those denying the claim. So prove to me that winged, purple, elephants dispensing pixie dust do not exist.

Borrowing from Don Hirschberg, calling atheism a belief is like calling bald a hair color.


----------



## agallant (Jul 1, 2010)

Am I the only one with a mother that gave the religion and politics discussion, you know when your mother tells you those are the two things you should not talk about with people because no one can agree and everyone leaves the conversation frustrated and offended.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

Regarding the joke defense. I really think you guys would be better off taking the atheist-jab route. Good jokes, even average jokes, make some sense. This one makes none. Viktor's counter example demonstrated that very well. IMHO it's LOL factor was due to its raw stupidity not it's humor. But to each his own, I guess…


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Pierce, I agree with your definitions of atheistic and agnostic 100%, but that is NOT the same as what Viktor was saying.

But I have to disagree with you about the joke making no sense. To me, it's funny with the atheist, and even more funny with Einstein.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

Pierce,
The question is, can your winged, purple, elephants coexist in a universe with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is definitely known to exist?


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

^ the question is, can my winged, purple elephants defeat your most holy noodliness? Oh, I think so. They have wings… and they're purple.

I find bentlyj's jokes funny because they make sense - there's irony there. But then I find Monty Python hilarious and many do not…

Edit: just noticed Chuck's Emo Phillips joke - classic!


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

You are probably right - purple is hard to beat.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

And to think that our devotion to this religion of science is so solid that only 40% of Americans believe in one of the most seminal scientific discoveries of our time - evolution. Of course, this is not at all surprising given that scientific literacy in this country is in the gutter and has been for some time.

cr1, you throw around the word "theory" as if you know what it means - you don't. You say, "gravity is still just a theory." Okay, which one? Which theory of gravity are you referring to? Are you even aware that the theoretical nature of gravity is still a relative unknown in science? In fact, our scientific understanding of the evolutionary process is far more robust than our understanding of gravity. Now which of the two do you think most people are more likely to take as scientifically unproblematic?

FYI - theory does NOT mean:

1. hypothesis
2. conjecture
3. speculation
4. uncorroborated facts
5. guessing
6. or any number of the myriad of misconceptions spewed forth by the Religious Right in this country.

Very simply put: a theory consists of a set of concepts expressed as propositions that provide a logical explanation of a particular phenomenon by means of proposing hypotheses that can be tested. These testable hypotheses are not identical with the theoretical propositions but are derived from the them and are either supported or unsupported through observational statements, i.e., the evidence brought to bear on the phenomenon in question.

Theories are essentially abstract models of the world around us that give us a way of organizing information and observations so we can understand phenomena beyond any particular instance of such phenomenal events. For example, I drop my pencil and it travels to the floor. A theory of pencil falling simply tries to explain why releasing a pencil from your fingers results in it falling to the floor. It also tries to account for those cases when the pencil doesn't fall to the floor.

Just a theory? Everything you do in daily life is theory dependent whether you recognize it or not. It's called predictive differentiation - look it up…

I now need to ask a real question about lever caps in the "Handplanes of your dreams" thread. Cheers!


----------



## gfadvm (Jan 13, 2011)

Bently and Rance - I knew there was a reason I liked you guys!!!


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

cr1, I can only respond to what is stated and what you stated is simply ill-informed. I'm sorry. I could sugar coat it and dance around the issue but I find that approach to be condescending.

I'm ill-informed on all sorts of things - woodworking being one of the chief things that I know very little about. But that's why I'm here - to learn. As a result, I ask questions and rely on the expertise of those who have done the years of hard work, gaining the requisite experience and knowledge and are qualified to give advice. I'm not qualified in this arena, so I listen and learn.

The nature of these type of "non-shop talk" discussions are quite a bit different, however, in that everyone thinks they're an expert on the subject du jour and a lot of nonsense is bandied about simply because everyone thinks that an opinion is an equal opportunity mitigator on whatever subject is under discussion. In other words, we think that simply having an opinion on something is enough for it to be unassailable, and to call someone out on their opinion is somehow rude as a result. So what we do is, in fact, dance around these issues and give the impression that we respect all opinions when in reality we don't.

It's actually quite apropos of this thread. We think of our opinions as religious beliefs, regardless of how informed or ill-informed they may be. They become sacred objects that are off limits because they consist of our personal beliefs, which apparently no one has a right to criticize - I strongly believe in X, Y, or Z and that's enough to protect it from all critical review. Why?! If you present an opinion as an expert commentary, then you need to be prepared to deal with it as such. If it's not intended in that way, then don't present it as such. Put it in the form of a question rather than declarative statement.

The irony in all of this is that the opposing camps of the Left and the Right take the same refuge. Yes, cr1, it is all religious if your starting and ending point is located on either one of these extreme camps. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing sacred, nothing is out of bounds, and I grow weary of those (on the Left and the Right) who automatically jump into this sacred refuge as soon as their nonsense is exposed and challenged.

I'm fully aware that most people strongly connect their views of the world with who they are personally and when those views are strongly rebutted they take it as a personal attack. Well, that's unfortunate, but it's also far too convenient of a way to avoid critique - the Left actually does this far more than Right and has perfected this crap into a science (no pun intended). I know. I deal with it on a daily basis.

I'm sorry that you, and I'm sure many others here, find my approach condescending but I'm not forcing you or anyone else here to voice an opinion. But once you put it out there it's fair game and not unassailable. If you want your views to be treated like sacred objects, then don't reveal then in the public domain.

There's nothing more satisfying for me than someone demonstrating that I'm wrong. It means that I've learned something and there's nothing more valuable than that.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Never really thought of Left and Right as being defined by religious orientation. I thought that was the Liberal to Conservative scale in US politics, the Socialism (all government) to Anarchy (no government) scale universally.

I would suppose that the "religion scale" would be Right and Wrong (although impossible to empirically prove) ? lol Lets fight about it so the last man standing can be the Right for a few years (until he dies and finds out he may be Wrong).

It is true that the total understanding of gravity is still up for grabs. Something so strong, prevalent and right in our faces and still not understood. I won't be surprised if when they do it "opens" lots of other avenues just from the "equal and opposite" reactions and their manipulations.

I've wondered / never seen info on how strong (or how much weaker) would gravity be if the world stopped spinning for the test ? IOW what % is centrifugal and how much is "raw mass gravity" (for want of a better term)?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Hey David? Wouldn't centrifugal force tend to spin us *off* the planet? So if the earth stopped spinning, it seems like gravity would be stronger.

(I can't wait for Pierce to jump in, because I have no friggin' clue what I'm talking about here.)


----------



## rance (Sep 30, 2009)

@Charlie. And CF would be greater at the equator.

Oh, and all those solid rocket tests that countries have done over the years. There's a world committee to regulate which direction the rockets face so as to not disrupt the rotation of the earth.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Dayum, Charlie. That was at 2:00 am or something… j/k. I was thinking about how artificial gravity can be simulated in space by spinning whatever… so maybe not smarter than a 3rd grader. That's my excuse and I'm gonna stick with it. ;=)

On the worry of the rocket thrusts ad hoc effect (not falling, but pushing force)... maybe because of the inverse of this:

According to Newton's 3rd Law, the Earth itself experiences a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that which it exerts on a falling object. This means that the Earth also accelerates towards the object until they collide. Because the mass of the Earth is huge, however, the acceleration imparted to the Earth by this opposite force is negligible in comparison to the object's. If the object doesn't bounce after it has collided with the Earth, each of them then exerts a repulsive contact force on the other which effectively balances the attractive force of gravity and prevents further acceleration.

Just don't pee in the chip separator while it's on is all I really know !


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

David, regarding your advice about the chip separator, experiential knowledge is the best kind.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

cr1, I have nothing against you personally. I'm responding to your claims about science, which continue to demonstrate significant shortcomings in proportion to their scope. That's a slightly nicer way of saying you don't know what you're talking about with this particular topic. You're making such huge, grand, sweeping claims about "science" that they're almost guaranteed to fail as a result.

*The best argument for science is that it has a better success rate than waving a dead cat over one's head. But, a better success rate does not justify the level of unsupportable blind faith that so many people invest it with.*

Okay, do you see the semi-logical problem with this statement? Anything that has a better success rate is at least in one sense better supported than something that does not have a better success rate, correct? There's a level of circularity here, but we should at least recognize that given two methods, the one that is more successful has some basis other than blind faith to support its better success rate than the other method.

For example, I have a better success rate using sharp planing irons than when I use dull planing irons. Success in this context is defined by efficiently doing the job for which the tool was designed. Now I invest trust in sharp tools because they consistently demonstrate their success in efficiently doing the job for which they were intended. I'm not investing "unsupportable blind faith" in sharp planing irons. Why? Because their superiority over their dull counterparts can be demonstrated over and over again - they have a better success rate. There's no need for faith.

More importantly, I can find out why sharp tools work better than dull tools because there's a theoretical basis that explains this success. This theory can be tested and the success can be demonstrated thus supporting the theoretical explanation. I'll let you make the connection between this example and science. Suffice it to say, religious belief does not function in this way.

*And then there are pseudo scientists like David Suzuki…*

Really? So you're going to claim that David Suzuki is a fake, despite his degrees, professional training, and over forty years of scholarship? And the basis for your assessment is that Suzuki has somehow "lost [himself] to causes which have overwhelmed [his] ability to be impartial." To cut to the chase, I suspect your sweeping claim about Suzuki as a fraud is because you disagree with his positions on environmental issues, and therefore he must be a fake. And apparently you know his positions on environmental issues are NOT impartial because of your own impartial and expert understanding of these issues?

cr1, do you see the problem with your line of reasoning in any of this? It's an honest question. You've made a sweeping claim about the legitimacy of someone's credentials and then provided zero evidence to back up your claim. Can you provide us with any impartial evidence demonstrating that Suzuki is a "pseudo scientist" other than your disagreement with his environmental stances?

I so regret jumping into this, so I'll stop now. My apologies to everyone. cr1, you get the last word.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Hey, Charlie I meant to say somewhere sooner that I like your musical compositions and their recordings. Very nice indeed ! :=)

I opened another tab and let them play here in the shop one night. For the record, I DID NOT lay on the floor a la Perry Como and make up lyrics to your music ;=)


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

Rance,

There's a world committee to regulate which direction the rockets face so as to not disrupt the rotation of the earth

That is interesting. How about if everyone on the earth took a step to the east at the same time? I guess a step to the west would get things back to normal. I am particularly worried about world-wide simultaneous line dancing! We need another committee.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

To vaguely relate this to the OP, another grade-school student asked the question about centrifugal force and weight. The question and answer are here.

In summary, an object weighs about 0.3% more at a pole than at the equator as a result of the rotation of the earth. An object also weighs more at a pole because of the non-spherical shape of the earth. Since an object at a pole is closer to the center of the earth, its weight is about 0.2% greater than at the equator. This gives a total of 0.5% for the two effects combined.

Now I understand why people from New England move to Florida in retirement.


----------



## Dusty56 (Apr 20, 2008)

At first I was LOL , then I read all of the comments and I am sad and frustrated that this "********************ty" joke has become a pissing contest instead : (
Lighten up folks and enjoy what time you have here on Earth, because in the end , nobody really knows 100% where we'll end our journeys : )
Peace and happiness to all !!


----------



## Dusty56 (Apr 20, 2008)

*ChuckV..*."Now I understand why people from New England move to Florida in retirement." 
HEY , I resemble that remark !! LOL


----------



## JGM0658 (Aug 16, 2011)

Wow…....one little joke…....


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Dusty56: You are right on the money. Enjoy life while you can!

Pierce: You are an extremely bright guy. You can obviously argue logic with the best of them. But if you go back and read the first few posts of this topic, trying to leave emotions out of it, I think you'll eventually see your original remark was needlessly defensive. Even if the joke *was* a swipe at atheism, the atheist in the joke deserved it. His remarks to the little girl indicated his own certainty of a position that cannot be proven. Would you not agree that some atheists do in fact swing too far in the direction of adamant belief in God's non-existence? Especially since there is no single textbook definition of "God", one could argue that God is* whatever* force, entity, or set of circumstances is responsible for the existence of the universe as we know it. Given such a broad definition, it would be difficult to argue *against* the existence of God.

The joke would have been equally pertinent (and funny, IMO) had the atheist instead been a preacher wanting to discuss heaven with the little girl. However, I have a very strong suspicion you would not have reacted as you did if that had been the case.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

Well if it's honesty we're after here, let's start at the beginning with the so-called joke. I find it difficult to believe that the intent of telling this "joke" and the "LOL" responses we're simply due to sharing a good laugh having nothing whatsoever to do with taking a jab at atheists. As agallant alluded to, the character of the joke is the same as that of racial jokes. Some folks find those types of jokes funny - I don't.

But regardless of all that, it's just a very poor joke. Take a look at the two jokes that Bently told. Those are good examples of what funny jokes are all about. There's irony, the punchline makes sense in the context of the joke and it doesn't depend on the "poop factor" to get a laugh.

When my son was little, he loved telling poop jokes. The funny part of him telling these jokes was not the jokes themselves but the fact that he got such a kick out of it and he thought they were funny.

By the way, I'm literally watching Austin Powers as I type this. I love Austin Powers and it's a perfect example of how "poop jokes" can be funny. It's not the joke itself but the context in which they're being delivered that's funny. Now imagine the little girl on the plane joke being told by a Baptist minister in the middle of a Sunday sermon to a fundamentalist congregation and the gasps from the congregants after the minister delivers the punchline. Now that's funny. If I was there, I'd be rolling on the floor peeing my pants.

Okay, so back to your questions, Charlie.

Defensive? Yes. Needlessly defensive? No, for the above reasons.

"Would _ agree that some atheists do in fact swing too far in the direction of adamant belief in God's non-existence?" Of course! Too many in fact. Arguments for the existence or non-existence of God are just boring and overwrought. Nothing really new has been said on this front since the scholastic period. Most of what animates atheists these days are issues of religion in the public sphere. If you read the literature of the past 15 to 20 years (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, et al.) very little is mentioned on the existence of God. It's just not worth the time.

With regard to defining God as a force, a set of circumstance or whatever, I think that's perfectly fine. I find the concept of monotheism to be logically untenable and vacuous, so anything is better than that. But that'll never fly with the rank and file.

And you're right, I probably wouldn't have reacted the way I did if the roles would have been reversed, but it still would have been a dumb joke and I would have sided with those who thought so._


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Okay, fair enough. Admittedly, humor is highly personal.

By the way, did you get a chance to watch Stephen Hawking on the Discovery Channel's Curiosity? The episode revolves around his argument against the existence of a creator God. Given his brilliance, I was really hoping for more. I have to say I found his ideas fascinating, but far from convincing in the final analysis.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

IMO, the real rub in this "joke" is that this "joke" is the very type of brainwashing that way too many of us were subjected to in our childhoods that was/is meant to instill selective religious beliefs into our root personalities. And for that very reason, I find it offensive to the core.

But then again, THAT is my opinion. I do not like propaganda in ANY form.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Here's an old joke my Grandmother told me. Lets see if I can make it palatable for everyone:

A little boy has a female dog. His Dad is a travelling salesman gone for 4 months at a time (he sells Festool, SawStop and Lie Nielsen). Just after the Dad leaves, the boy's dog gets in a family way. The Mom tells the boy that he MUST find a home for all the puppies before the Dad returns or she is afraid he will destroy them because he only tolerates the ABSOLUTE BEST things and these half-breed puppies (at best) are not that.

The puppies are born and all six make it to weaning. The following Sunday morning, the boy loads the puppies in his red Radio Flyer wagon and takes them to the sidewalk of the BELIEF #1 MEETING PLACE. As the people are going past to their MEETING, the little boy calls out, "BELIEF #1 puppies ! Only one dollar !" None sold before or after the MEETING. As the boy called out for the last time, an older gentleman of seriously obvious means (he had bubinga cuff links with purple heart inlays and a Philip Marcou baseball hat on his head) came by and stopped at the wagon. "What have you got there, son?", he asked the boy. "These are BELIEF #1 puppies, sir", said the boy. "They sure are some fine puppies", said the man without really looking as he continued on.

The following week, the boy again loaded the puppies into his wagon, but this time went to BELIEF #2 MEETING PLACE. The boy calls out "BELIEF #2 puppies ! Only one dollar !" again as the people go to their MEETING and later when they came out. A few people looked and he got his head patted and cheeks pinched, but no puppies were sold. Again, as he called out for the last time, the same older gentleman of decadent means came by and stopped at the wagon. "What have you got there, son?", he asked the boy. "These are BELIEF #2 puppies, sir", said the boy. "Aren't those the same puppies I saw last week that you were selling as BELIEF #1 puppies ?", asked the zillionaire. The little boy looked right at the man and said, "Oh, yes sir, but they got they eyes open now !".


----------



## JGM0658 (Aug 16, 2011)

Hahahahaha…ok let the bashing beguin….

*Do you know why blacks don't marry Mexicans?.......Because they are afraid their kids will be too lazy to steal…*

Let me just say, I am mexican and this was told to me by a black friend.

People, a joke is not the bible, it is just that, *A JOKE* No need to use applied reasoning, logic, or disect it like it was the bible. I swear, some of you people are wound too tight, it is a wonder you can do any woodwork. I am guessing some people will be afraid to post a joke on this forum for fear of being blasted….shame… :-(


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

The older BELIEF leader had been around for years and knew everyone in the entire town. He and a new young apprentice BELIEF leader were greeting the MEETING participants as they entered the MEETING PLACE. As the last ones entered, they each closed a door and turned to go inside. Most people were seated when the older BELIEF leader said to the younger man, "Is that Fannie Greene over there?", to which the younger BELIEF leader said, "No, that's just the light shining through the stained glass window".


----------



## mafe (Dec 10, 2009)

Laugh thank you!


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

This is classic and is not religious in any way. Enjoy


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

Some people here get the root meaning of the joke in the context of prejudice and/or indoctrination. I salute them. The rest may continue to wonder…or not…or revel in their indoctrinated ignorance. Pick your poison.


----------



## BobTheFish (May 31, 2011)

Blargh…

Well, to toss my two cents in, science is indeed the religion of the 20th and 21st century.

Science grew out of philosophy (already akin to religion, and the beginnings of philosophy are tied to religion, and in fact, science found a home originally in the religious colleges and schools of the world, though atheism's rampant overtaking of science has deemed that science and religion are enemies now. Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstien had no issues referencing a creator of some sort or other, and even in the 60's, in a book called "Religions of the US" published by either Time or Look Magazine, which did a survey on the religions of the country at the time, featured an interview with a physicist that had no issue with his understanding of subatomic particles and his faith, only reaffirming that the modern atheism, is in fact, truly modern.)

... But yes, science really took hold with philosophy and two philosophers in particular shaped the modern "scientific method" and the world it focuses on studying. Without Hobbesian materialism, the standpoint on the mind/body problem of Locke (which is based back on aristotle and plato's worlds of ideas and forms, if I remember correctly), that there simply was no either or to the situation, but that all things are based purely on material. In fact, man is not really a thinking beast according to Hobbes, but rather a creature that takes the course of action dictated by the strongest or most recent forces working on him. If man is tired, but all the sudden hungry, he will eat and then go to sleep, as those forces dictate, for example, (to paraphrase Leviathan if I remember correctly). In this scenario, he does away with the unseeable, the mind, and the concept of god as good or evil, the "trickster" of Descartes' torment, and simply has all to exist as is. (Berkeley, a religious man, took the alternate route, that everything is mind, and it all exists in god's mind, though nevertheless as full of holes as Hobbes' theory is to me, was laughed at and often stumbled over rocks in people's jokes that didn't really exist…)

The other philosopher that had such impact on the whole scientific community was Hume. I LOVE Hume. He's up there with Kirkegaard and Kant to me. His whole deal was about doubt. He looked at Locke and the other continental philosophers (he was on the Isles..) and wasn't very fond of their purely mental exercises, and hated their inductive reasoning over the less certain deductive methods. He also wasn't very fond of religion, but his was purely a position of doubt. He felt the christian beliefs were too certain about something there wasn't too much proof for, and attributed way too much to the invisible guy in the sky without any real way of proving it or knowing of it. As he got older in life he had less offense against the naturalistic religions, but still didn't care for the assumptions everybody seemed to make.

(you can check out his quotes on religion here: http://www.philosophyparadise.com/quotes/hume.html Rather than most atheistically bent sites on the web that will only post snippets of him denouncing religion as a whole, here you can see his case is that there's A LOT of religions, and they all make us do weird things, and all of them claim to be the one true right one… Which is absurd, but at the same time, religion is, as a whole, a VERY universal human trait.

He also believed in reason, surely, except on moralistic decisions, were he was quoted as saying:

"We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. As this opinion may appear somewhat extraordinary, it may not be improper to confirm it by some other considerations."

"Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason."

"Actions may be laudable or blameable; but they cannot be reasonable: Laudable or blameable, therefore, are not the same with reasonable or unreasonable. The merit and demerit of actions frequently contradict, and sometimes controul our natural propensities. But reason has no such influence. Moral distinctions, therefore, are not the offspring of reason. Reason is wholly inactive, and can never be the source of so active a principle as conscience, or a sense of morals."

In other words, we can always give reasons to our actions (even when those actions are contradictory), but reason itself has nothing to do with why we act, or being moral…. Continuing on…)

More importantly though, he proceeded to point out that all that we know is based on prior experiences:

"We have no other notion of cause and effect, but that of certain objects, which have always conjoin'd together, and which in all past instances have been found inseparable. We cannot penetrate into the reason of the conjunction. We only observe the thing itself, and always find that from the constant conjunction the objects acquire an union in the imagination. "

But notice that bit about "we have no other notion of cause and effect" bit? He was saying that all we really see is what we see. "Tis evident that all reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on the relation of cause and effect, and that we can never infer the existence of one object from another, unless they be connected together, either mediately or immediately… Here is a billiard ball lying on the table, and another ball moving toward it with rapidity. They strike; and the ball which was formerly at rest now acquires a motion. This is as perfect an instance of the relation of cause and effect as any which we know, either by sensation or reflection. "

We really don't know that hitting a billiard ball is going to cause it to move. it may in fact, cause the billiard ball to stop. Or explode. Or grow wings and fly. And each time it happens, our reason causes us to be trained to expect it, but it nevertheless doesn't change the fact that our notions are based on previous experiences, and it may, in fact, grow those wings this time… In fact, another quote: "All knowledge degenerates into probability. " Anything's possible, probability based on previous observations only makes certain things more probably than others…

Now how does that all relate to science? well, science is the study of the observable (read material) world, and based upon those observations sets up theories and hypotheses that explain the most probable, reason oriented, tested course of actions something might take. But it's not the be all end all of explanations!

It also has NO PLACE in explaining away art or morality or anything else dealing with the emotions ("passions") that we also come equipped with. In fact, reason is the SLAVE of passion. There's more to us than reason/science dictates.

Additionally, science these days takes a deterministic approach to the world. Not only is everything related to cause and effect (and I love this one), but all things are knowable…. if you have enough time and a big enough computer/testing ground to work it all out… (which is the escape route both determinists and scientists take. "Well if I could calculate every particle in the universe, of COURSE I could tell you what the winning lottery numbers are on Monday, June 4th, 2012!!!" or "Well it's a problem of scale. I can't PROVE string theory, without a labratory about the size of the universe to test it out!!")

The problem with this is that it always changes. The world is now considered round, but before that it was flat 300 years ago and round about 2000 years before that with Erastothenes! Are we so positive now that the world is round and not say, in 200 more years that we'll be dead certain it's pear shaped (though I believe things are going pear shaped already)? Even if there were X number of facts in existence, and that composed the sum of all knowledge, there's no set way to say what we know is right is, in fact right. No heavenly clouds part and some creator steps down to tell us how she did it and the mechanics of it all. (and no, not saying god is a woman, just want to toss in a different idea than the male based god system for a moment) We're no more certain of the mechanics of the world now than we are when we first bumped our ancestral heads again the cave ceiling and wondered who put rocks there all the sudden.

And that's not going to ever change.


----------



## superstretch (Jan 10, 2011)

Discussing politics in a forum setting is one thing, but religion and such are another, so I'll abstain from that.

I loved bentlyj's jokes. I fit the demographic that could be offended by them the most, but neither I nor anyone I know in my circles actually would. Why? Well maybe we have thicker skins and can appreciate humor more  I actually found the "Jesus sinking" joke funnier than the OP.

Anyways, there are a couple people in this thread that need to chill out. The fact that someone mentioned unfriending someone over either the OP or comments is pretty lame. Obviously it was a nice project or wise piece of advice that brought you to the point of friending them in the first place. See the value in people, whether you agree with them or not. Lighten up and realize that a) it was a joke and b) most people don't care enough about what you believe to not tl;dr


----------



## BobTheFish (May 31, 2011)

Don't think I don't feel strongly about morality cr1.

What I feel is that reason has nothing to do with it. I can rationalize any act to be moral, but that doesn't mean it is.

Everyone sort of/kind of has internally a set of rules on how to behave morally (only exception is the morally defunct psychopathic person who, due to the illness they suffer, honestly CAN'T empathically understand their fellow men).

We all have some form of the golden rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

One of the reasons I love Kant, is due to his categorical imperative in the field of ethics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative )

Immanuel Kant also brought back god in the equation, though he wasn't very good at disproving Hume's points. That was more or less up to Soren Kierkegaard, to which his focus was on individuality, and how each individual's relationship with god was defined somewhat by the individual…

(and about here is where a lot of other things that started to slip over my head, and this is about where philosophy induced the desire to drink… But it was still better than Liebniz's monads (based off of I-Ching, and is a kinda sorta rudimentary binary theory), and the books on Quine and his quanta had footnotes a page or two long each, and I felt better about leaving the philosophy to my friend, whom went on to get a degree in it, where I did not, and, somehow, seem a bit more certain in life than my friend.)


----------



## longgone (May 5, 2009)

I like these old recycled jokes..keep em coming.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Three ethnic and/or religious minority members (hereafter to be referred to as ERMM1, 2 & 3), all of whom happened to be building contractors, died and went to heaven. St. Peter greeted them warmly, and proceeded to point out how fortuitous it was that they should all arrive at this very moment. It seems the pearly gates had fallen into disrepair, and were in dire need of some work. He showed them what was wrong with the gates, and instructed them to each prepare a bid for the cost of repairs.

After giving them some time to prepare their estimates, he called them back to his office to hear what they had to offer, so he could then go tell God Himself how much this was going to set Him back.

ERMM1 said "My price is $500." "I'll flatten out those sprung hinges, spray paint the gates, and they'll look as good as new."

St. Peter turned to ERMM2, who said "It's going to run $750." "Those hinges really need to be replaced, and I'm going to have to pay a laborer to scrape off all that peeling paint before we put a fresh coat on."

St. Peter nodded, thinking this all seemed pretty logical, and turned to ERMM3 for his quote. "My price is $2,500," he stated nonchalantly.

"$2,500???," St. Peter shouted in surprise. "That's outrageous!" "What are you going to do for $2,500?"

ERMM3 leaned over and whispered in St. Peter's ear, "$1,000 for me, $1,000 for you, and we'll get ERMM1 to do the work."


----------



## Dusty56 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Charlie* , thanks for bringing some humor back into this sidetracked / hijacked posting : )

*Blackcherry* , I took your joke as a joke and got a good chuckle out of it : ) Thank you !!


----------



## Racer2007 (Jan 13, 2011)

It all boils down to the fact that the little girl just wanted to read her book and not talk to the guy. Still funny though.


----------



## BobTheFish (May 31, 2011)

Meh.. I'm not going to apologize for completely derailing it. I figured some people wanted to spout their beliefs, and since it IS something I've had an interest in and studied at least a little bit, I'd completely derail it. Glad that charlie could redirect it though…

I kinda remember using this one to try and pick up a girl at a coffee shop (and was mildly successful at it…):

Jesus and the devil were arguing over which one of them was the better computer programmer. 
"I am!" Jesus shouted. 
"No, I am!" the devil countered. 
"I am!" 
"I am!" 
"Me!" 
"No, me!" 
"EEEEEEENOUGH!" God bellowed, and the whole universe disappeared into darkness. When the lights came back on, two computers were sitting in front of them. 
God said "Now, whoever makes the best computer program in twenty minutes wins." 
Jesus and the devil both sat down, typing and clicking furiously. This went on for about 15 minutes, but then there was a power failure, and everything went dark. When everything came back up again, the computer screens were both blank. 
The devil tried in vain to get back everything he had lost. He came up empty-handed. 
Jesus pressed one key and it all came back. 
The devil looked at him in astonishment. "No way! How did you do that?!" 
Jesus turned to him and smiled, and said "Everybody knows Jesus saves."

Ok, maybe it was more about tone of voice and confidence than won her over, but it's still a favorite of mine.


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

Bob the Fish, until you admit/realize that science is not a religion, you can live in your little world. I'm not even going to get into the morality debate, as you have got it all figured out.


----------



## Greedo (Apr 18, 2010)

*Bob,* now thats a funny one i can laugh with.
the original joke is understandable, though a tad too childish and cheap for me to find funny.
the roles and characters are interchangeable and could easily be replaced by any other ethnic, religious, racial, etc… group you wanted to attack. so it comes over like a quick cheap shot at a certain group aimed to ridicule it. there is nothing situational about it, no self derision like christians laughing with themselves.
i remember getting into trouble here for posting a joke i heard on the national radio involving priests and kids if you know what i mean… it broke loose a little storm from people who didn't appreciate jokes about a negative aspect of their religion.
and so far the only religious jokes i have seen posted in this thread are either quite innocent or either putting the religion in good light. someone please post one that makes fun of religion, i won't risk myself at it anymore!


----------



## JGM0658 (Aug 16, 2011)

"someone please post one that makes fun of religion"

Ok…

So there is a priest and 2 nuns playing golf, the nuns hit their tee shots fairly well and when the priest hits his shot he screams…damn slice! The nuns looks to each other and say nothing and continue playing. In the next hole same thing, the priest hits a slice and screams again, damn slice!...and so it goes for a while until the nuns get tired and tell the priest, "look father we don't mind playing with you, but we are getting tired of the cursing."

To this the priest replies "Sisters, I am really sorry, you are absolutely right, I apologize and may God strike me with a lightning bolt if I curse again"......

Next hole….same thing the priest hits a slice and screams damn slice! No sooner are the words uttered than big black thunder storm clouds roll in, a deafening thunder is heard and a massive bolt of lightning strikes the nuns…..and then a voice from above is heard…. "DAMN SLICE".....


----------



## BarneyTomB (Jul 5, 2011)

A true atheist wouldn't care if someone else believes in God when they don't. They would be smug in the fact that they are right and everyone else is wrong. The only time they raise a fuss of any sort is when they're not sure and they think by yelling the loudest they'll convince themselves they are right. Because an atheist knows he will never ever convince a true believer that they are wrong.


----------



## BarneyTomB (Jul 5, 2011)

Okay, here's an old one.
Question: What's white, greasy, and sandy?
Answer: Seagulls and Trailer trash fighting for french fries at the beach.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Jimmy Carter and Sir Elton John somehow arrive in heaven on the same day. In orientation, they are told that the only reward in heaven is the privilege to wear and use wings and the only punishment is the taking away of said privilege. Further, the only thing that can possibly occur to receive that punishment is to have "errant mortal thoughts".

So the two leave the orientation and are trying out their new wings when Marilyn Monroe flutters by. Jimmy Carter's wings immediately detach and drop to his feet. Surprised and embarrassed, he instinctively bends over to grab them. At that point, Sir Elton's wings detach as well.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

David …. oooohhhh…..


----------



## Dusty56 (Apr 20, 2008)

I didn't even need to read the punch line , David !! LOL


----------



## BobTheFish (May 31, 2011)

Atom Jack, The fanaticism behind science as a be all end all answer is what makes it so much like a religion. If I swapped out your words "science" for "Christianity" and "religion" for "make believe story", it would read like this:

" until you admit/realize that Christianity is not a make believe story, you can live in your little world. I'm not even going to get into the morality debate, as you have got it all figured out."

Sound familiar?

Two sides of fanatics claiming to have the be all end all answers to everything… and both are equally foolish.

Ooooog… an anti-religion joke eh?

We'll start out with a gross one:

A little nine year old girl was in church with her mother when she started feeling ill.

"Mommy" she said "Can we leave now?"

"No" her mother replied.

"Well, I think I have to throw up!"

"Then go out the front door and around to the back of the church and throw up behind a bush."

In about two minutes the little girl returned to her seat.

"Did you throw up?" her mother asked.

"Yes" the little girl replied.

"Well, how could you have gone all the way to the back of the church and return so quickly?"

"I didn't have to go out of the church, Mommy" the little girl replied, "They have a box next to the front door that says 'for the sick'."

And a dirty one:

Two nuns cycling down a cobbled street. The first one says "I've never come
this way before"; the second one replies "Must be the cobbles"

And then just an off color one:

Q. What's the difference between Jesus and a painting?
A. It takes only one nail to hang a painting.


----------

