Remember that part of the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus said "Blessed are the sweetmakers, for they shall be called the bonbons of God?"
No? Then explain this:
 |
Made. Of. Win.
Or made of sugar, wheat flour, cocoa butter, non-fat milk, chocolate, refined palm kernel oil, lactose, milk fat, soy lecithin, PGPR (emulsifier), yeast, artificial flavor, salt, and sodium bicarbonate.
Either way, that’s awesome. If you don’t see it right away, look closely at the bite mark, or go to the original article and click the picture for a closeup.
So many jokes to make… the Shroud of Chewin’… As a bird that wandereth from her Nestlé, so is a man that wandereth from his place…
Or, maybe, just "Gimme a break!"
Tip o’ the chocolate-smudged wrapper to BABloggee Jimmy Erickson.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Naw, that’s Frank Zappa.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:21 am
That’s one of the better ones for sure.
It’s so Turinesque, I’d have expected it to come from a Photoshop Phriday or summat.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Wow! A Guy Fawkes mask in a kitkat! That is awesome.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Looks like one of the kings from a deck of playing cards to me.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Don’t believe it, it’s a twix!
April 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Wait, didn’t the bible have some negative things to say about yeast? Clearly this is Odin.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Jesus? It looks like Optimus Prime to me!
April 13th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Nah, not Optimus, just the Autobot symbol.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:35 am
A case could be made for its resemblance to Snidely Whiplash (sans top hat); it even has the chin dimple (for later versions of said villain).
April 13th, 2009 at 11:37 am
looks like a Sphinx with a ’stache to me.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Gotta say it!
Hey! Are you going to eat that?
*munch munch*
April 13th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Whoever it is, he doesn’t look happy.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I think He actually said “Blessed are the Cheesmakers”
April 13th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Hooray, “Bad ‘Astronomy’ ” is now officially a blog about mocking religion and Jenny McCarthy.
I’m not even the least bit religious, but on the internet – that sort of choir already has more preachers than it needs, don’t you think?
April 13th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Let me guess — the image was burned in by a supernatural energy release that coincided with the resurrection, right?
Or maybe the regurgitation…
April 13th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Mmm… sacrelicious!
April 13th, 2009 at 11:59 am
HB, I am not mocking religion. I am (gently) mocking a subset of people who think that every random coincidence is a sign from God.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Maybe each bite reveals a new diety. Or if you slice it in series and photograph it you get a little animation like parts of Peter Gabriel’s “Big Time”.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
@HB
Of the last five posts, two were about astronomy, one was about astronomy in the movies (and abuses thereof), one was a sci-fi post (kinda sort astronomy-related) and one was gentle ribbing of those who see signs of the divine in pareidoliac foodstuffs.
And as to the Jenny McCarthy posts, those fit in with the skeptical thinking aspect of the blog, and generally they call her out for her stance on vaccines and autism than mocking her as a person.
But, there are lovely little tags on every post, and the titles generally indicate what the post will be about, making it very easy and simple to avoid posts that are not specifically about astronomy.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
And who said the Dutch aren’t religious?
April 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
HB – I disagree. That choir cannot have too many preachers as long as the silliness against which they preach persists. Personally, I welcome the occasional sermon (to wear out your metaphor) from Reverend Plait.
As for the candy bar, if that wasn’t graphically manipulated, it’s the best bit of pareidolia I’ve ever seen. If it was, it’s still pretty good.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Is it just me, or does “Jesus in a Kit Kat” sound like something Penny from TBBT would say after dealing with Sheldon?
April 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
HB: there’s a very nice little link over in the right column called “Politics and Religion” posts. Try reading it, eh?
April 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I see the creepy Burger King guy from the advertisements…
April 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Choco-Jesus! Now with more crunch!
April 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
It looks to me like the Armenian guy who makes gyros and hummus at the mall.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Hmm, it first reminded me of the Guy Fawkes mask from the movie “V for Vendetta”.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Don’t think I’ve ever bitten into a food item and then scrutinized it for faces. Bugs, yes; signs, no. How do people find these things?
April 13th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
What a luxurious mane of hair.
It could be Jackie O with a mustache.
It also kind of looks like a cross-section of Juggernaut’s helmet.
@Peter- Right on about the BK mascot. Best one yet. If he was smiling it would be even better, but pretty good.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Christ, that looks tasty.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Usually these pareidolia posts aren’t quite to my liking (ask me about a year-ish US visit and seeing cockroaches for years afterwards), but I’m a faithful believer in chocolate… Yum!
April 13th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Phil,
While it’s possible this image is real in the sense that someone took this picture without manipulating it, the metadata in Photoshop says the original image was taken on 3/16 with a Canon EOS 400D Digital and then brought into Adobe Photoshop CS2 on a Machintosh as a TIFF and then saved out as a JPG on 4/10.
This could have been easily faked. To me, the facial features (nose, eyes, cheeks, mustache) look a little too smooth compared to the surrounding rough wafer material — as if someone used the clone tool with feathered edges to blend in the shroud face. Viewed at 800% magnification there is a very sharp straight line on the left side of the nose with dark pixels on one side and light on the other that looks like an editing artifact. It’s about a dozen pixels high at this low resolution. Personally I would like to see the original 10 megapixel image from the camera with a date stamp no later than 3/16 18:01:31.
Check for yourself. In Photoshop, click on “File,” “File Info,” then “Advanced.” Or download JPEGsnoop for free to scan the image for any anomalies. According to that program:
ASSESSMENT: Class 1 – Image is processed/edited
http://impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html
April 13th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Hey it does look a lot like that fake thing.. Shroud of Turin?
April 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Looks like the image in the Shroud of Turin.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
HB: “I’m not even the least bit religious, but on the internet – that sort of choir already has more preachers than it needs, don’t you think?”
Not even close. Not as long as the Religious Right are out there trying to subvert everything great about our country. When they shut up maybe the rest of us can relax…but not a moment sooner.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Justin– yeah, but then I do that with all my images as well to resize them and maybe drop the resolution to web compatibility. But even if it’s shopped, it’s well done and incredibly funny.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I apologize in advance: Chocolate Salty Jesus Balls! *Whew* Okay, I’m better now that I got it out…
April 13th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Phil, you should be getting paid (more) for posts like this. I just had to go out and buy some kit kats.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Looking at it more closely I am pretty certain someone combined shots…the face looks way too much like the Shroud of Turin to be coincidence, IMO.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Psaam 35:15 But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not:
35:16 With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.
35:17 Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.
35:18 I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: I will praise thee among much people.
35:19 Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.
35:20 For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.
35:21 Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said, Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Where did they find a Kit Kat with a picture of Joseph Stalin in it?
April 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I think it was “blessed are the cheese-makers” – but obviously it wasn’t meant to be specific, it was meant to refer to all manufacturers of dairy products – which, at a stretch, includes chocolate
April 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I thought it was Megatron. Apparently it’s one of the FSM’s jokes.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
[...] It is well known that Kit-Kat Chunkys are a gift from God. Nothing so wonderful could arise by accident. But if more proof were needed, and it isn’t, Phil has it. [...]
April 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Pareidolia = fun, using it to mock someone’s religion, not so much.
Meaningless protests to the contrary, that is EXACTLY what Phil has done with
the “sermon on the mount” rephrasing, no two ways about it (and others
here have done worse). It’s S*** like that that gives us atheists a
bad name. If you don’t agree, fine, just means you need an empathy gene
transplant…….And no, my humor gene works just fine, thank you very much.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Must have been a spoiled or expired kit-kat. As hard as that was to see, you would figure that the urge to continue eating the kit-katty goodness would have happened faster than recognizing the face of old man winter.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Coolstar, I agree with your argument to a point. Dissection of pareidolia is fine and sadly needed when talking about people that make pilgrimages to Mexico to see the Virgin Mary’s face of a billboard, but very different in this case. Most of the ones that crop up nowadays are bored people that happen to notice something quirky and they just put it on their blog with the rest of the useless info that clogs the internet.
But eventually people will figure out that making light of the bible doesn’t equate to making fun of Christians. When I laugh every time I hear about the time Jesus found a young ass, it isn’t because I want to disrespect Christians. It’s because it’s funny.
April 13th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“It’s S*** like that that gives us atheists a bad name.”
As opposed to telling me I’m going to burn in hell? For eternity? Yes, that’s much more reasonable.
Your humour gene might want to express itself a little more.
April 13th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
I haven’t seen Phil get down on religion or religious people in general, it just seems to be the crazy sorts he goes after. Which is fine with me. Anyway, it’s all in good fun.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
No so convincing Photoshopped image of the image on the Shroud of Turin. But then, many of the ingredients in the candy are fake, too.
“Credulous” and “Christian” are moving ever so closer together in meaning.
Who knew Bad Astronomy could expose so much Bad Theology?
April 13th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Major lolz! I actually work for Nestle, so you know I’m sending this around the office tomorrow.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I just want to know why every “male face” defaults to Jesus.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
That’s not Jesus. That’s Osama Bin Laden!
That candy is evil man!
April 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“Justin Olson Says:” (Photoshop advanced class)
…Are you kidding? Phil just learned how to make a circle, for Universe’s sake!
April 13th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Boingo beat me to it – obviously its Osama bin Laden – the beard is a dead give away!
@ Jack Mitcham :
Yep, indeedy – & also why every female face automatically becomes Mary too.
Of course, we don’t actually know what either Mary or Jesus looked like so how we can tell whether any face is theirs sure beats me.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
@ coolstar : (April 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm)
Pareidolia = fun, using it to mock someone’s religion, not so much.
Meaningless protests to the contrary, that is EXACTLY what Phil has done with the “sermon on the mount” rephrasing, no two ways about it (and others
here have done worse).
Your opinion only mate. I for one, disagree with you.
Yes, two ways ’bout it -maybe even three or five!
Besides mocking teh stupid Sky-fairy myths is not only good fun but intellectually healthy for all. Taking what is ridiculous unduly seriously when it deserves to be laughed at, OTOH, now that is kinda dumb.
It’s S*** like that that gives us atheists a
bad name.
“Us atheists?” You sure don’t sound like an atheist to me! Sure you’re not yet another too easily offended, hypocritical “Buy-bull” follower in disguise instead?
If you don’t agree, fine, just means you need an empathy gene
transplant…….And no, my humor gene works just fine, thank you very much.
I’d get a second – independent – opinion on that if I were you, dude.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
At first I had to agree this was a Photoshop job. I concluded this after downloading an original Turin image and aligning it with the Kit Kat image. It’s a pretty neat fit. Almost perfect in fact.
But then I thought, “Hang on!, God would surely create a perfect image!” So, rather than assume Photoshop this time, I just converted to Christianity.
Thanks Phil
April 14th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Humor can’t be traced to a single gene. Everyone knows it comes from a gland.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Coolstar–”Meaningless protests to the contrary…”
I take it that by this you mean anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?
. No.
Now you are doubly wrong. The way to deal with silly beliefs is any darn way I choose to. Mockery is just fine as a response to silly ideas, and you are free to mock, also. Now, however, I shall taunt you a second time. You are wrong. Those silly beliefs are wrong. And mockery is precisely the correct treatment. Beliefs that cannot stand up to mockery are not worth holding. A supposed deity that cannot defend itself is not worthy of reverence. And if you don’t like my choice of pink-and-green socks with sandals, feel free to mock.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Here’s a Shroud of Turin comparison: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xo2JRT2kaXA/SeRPwdWvadI/AAAAAAAAA1M/5TPuBWgouuA/s400/kitkatjezus.jpg
April 14th, 2009 at 5:14 am
It looks like the severed head of a non-believer. Praise Allah.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:41 am
To be honest, I’m getting quite tired of all this. Yes, people see what they want to in these types of objects. Does it mean anything? Of course not. Why do we have to see them all paraded here like some side show at a cheap carnival? Just accept the fact that this has gone on from the beginning of time and will until the end. Then forget it. It’s not worth writing about. I’d much rather see cool posts about astronomy. My three cents for what it’s worth…………….
April 14th, 2009 at 6:14 am
@American Voyager
Because Phil’s a fan of pareidolia and likes to share that with his readers?
April 14th, 2009 at 6:26 am
@AndyD: Well, THAT was intelligently designed …..
April 14th, 2009 at 7:00 am
“If you don’t agree, fine, just means you need an empathy gene
transplant…….And no, my humor gene works just fine, thank you very much.”
I don’t think if I got 2000 more empathy genes, that I would be able to empathize with believing something so incredibly dumb and backwards, to put it kindly.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:07 am
You are all ingrates and maroons, it is clearly Gimli, son of Gloin. LoReidolia FTW!
April 14th, 2009 at 8:28 am
This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from having seen quite a few shops in my time.
Ahem.
Jesus in supporting evil multinational corporation shocker!
April 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Yeah, you know. I think the main thing that turns many people off to becoming actively atheist (whatever that means) is the arrogant, snarky tone some of its adherents take when they’re talking about religious belief. It’s fine to say believing in a deity is illogical, baseless, etc. Those are bases for actual arguments. But the arrogant tone doesn’t add a thing to your arguments, and it’s almost as irritating to me as the tone a lot of religious people take when they tell me I’m going to Hell unless I get my ass into a church and start repenting for my sins. Honestly, it all ends up looking like a self-congratulatory circlejerk. I think I’d rather sit through a three-hour Sunday service than take more of that.
I’m not saying don’t fight the religious crazies, but when some atheists approach that fight they way they do, they’re really shooting themselves in the foot.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Hey, the moment I saw it, I saw a huge snarl (or a reaaaaally angry contorted face. Then I said: “Wait a minute. A Jesus cannot have a snarl/contortion!” With great difficulty, I turned the snarly upper lip into an (almost santa clausish) moustache, to make it a Jesus.
Pretty farfetched!
April 14th, 2009 at 10:09 am
@fff: There is a fine line between snark and arrogance on the one hand, and humorous mockery on the other. The fact that many people are not always able to mock humorously, and therefore degenerate into arrogant snark is unfortunate, but inevitable. As the green-pink socked, sandal wearing dude points out above, it is OK to mock religion and the religious. I would go so far as to say it is our civic duty! For when the religious are no longer allowed to be mocked, we’re not so far away from burning effigees and worse. Just look at the reaction to the Danish Mohammed cartoons.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am
That’s not Jebus.. It’s Optimus Prime
April 14th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
@Pieter, I wasn’t really referring to the mockery of people who see Jesus in Kit Kat bars or grilled cheese sandwiches (maybe I should have said so initially.) I mock those people myself. It’s more about the tone some of the people in here take about religious belief and tradition in general. I don’t care personally; I can take mockery just fine, but mockery doesn’t add anything to the debate is what I’m saying.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:29 am
I think a case can be made that mockery of superstition works well as part of a well-rounded program of mental fitness, including insightful discussion and skillful debate.
Discussion and debate do a fine job on their own, but with the addition of sincere mockery, the task of easing stupidity’s grip on the throat of twenty-first century life is much more merrily accomplished.
Without the mockery, some uncertainty might remain as to how at least some thinking people view superstition. I don’t mean we all view it in the same way, but should there be any doubt that it can be regarded as silly? If you think superstition deserves respect, please tell me why.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:13 am
@ jasonB : (April 14th, 2009 at 5:14 am)
It looks like the severed head of a non-believer. Praise Allah.
Well yeah, but it is a shrunken head too …
Do Muslim warriors shrink their enemies heads like that? Don’t think so.
Shrunken severed heads – now where is that done?
South Pacific islands somewhere maybe?
Aha! The Vanuatuan or Papuan gods were right after all!
April 15th, 2009 at 1:14 am
@ John Swindle : Well said & seconded by me.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:54 am
I think that argument would be worth having if any examples of arrogance was in evidence. But I don’t think I have ever been shown such, merely protests against mocking.
On the other side the arrogance of a church goes much deeper than trying blackmailing innocent victims. A church lives on its arrogant assumption that it is the only valid religion out of tens of thousands that have been thought up, or could be thought up.
This special pleading of religion is usually furthered by fundamentalists that claim that atheism is a belief, so another exercise in arrogance.
And then that isn’t enough they may start to refer to their religious texts in all seriousness, which is about as arrogant that a person can be. [Well, actually it is so ridiculous, that it is self-mocking. But the very idea that such a text is of any relevance whatsoever for a non-believer is supremely arrogant.]
So to this day I have found all of the arrogance to be on the other side. Except possibly Hitchens, which is so annoyingly perfectly self-confident that it is bordering on arrogance.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Well, fine, if you prefer to simply mock religious sorts that’s your call. The debate over God is an important one, and anyone should be able to take some mockery without getting offended anyway (unless they’re sorely lacking in a sense of humor, which is definitely the case sometimes.) To me, the true fight is against religious extremism and the fundamentalist political agenda, both in the United States and abroad.
I remember reading some story here about how some guy with cancer went to see the Pope and touched his rosary, and then his cancer cleared up later. Maybe I’m getting the details wrong, but we hear about this sort of thing all the time. Sure, it’s a silly notion that the Pope’s rosary somehow saved this devout Catholic from his ailment. But then people were talking about the guy “fondling” the rosary and so on. That’s the sort of thing I mean. It’s not enough to point out where many of the religious go wrong in their logic, you’ve got to talk to them or about them as though they were children or imbeciles. Again, it’s your call, but don’t expect anything to come of it other than feeling a sense of superiority.
As for religious texts, they most certainly are relevant for everyone. What better way to argue with a Christian who believes in the death penalty or holy war than firing Bible quotes at him?
April 15th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I can think of many, considering the Bible explicitly endorses both of these.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:58 am
It also argues against both of them. The great thing about the Bible is that it constantly contradicts itself.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
@ fff:
Not for everyone. But the debate over constraints in freedom of religion, say by way of manufactured controversies about science to push sectarian agenda, is important for all.
I would prefer a reference instead of an anecdote.
That only speaks to its irrelevancy.
Sure, I get apologetics, and having read a lot of especially abrahamic texts I could certainly do it. Not without moral problems though, since such selection is tantamount to lying, even beside the fact that the texts are factually meaningless so of no relevancy for understanding anything outside religion itself. [And quite frankly, it would be utterly boring anyway.]
I prefer to use a model of god, say creationism, to expose its irrelevancy or harm for facts.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I found four of these on Easter.
I ate them.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:00 am
[...] it looks nothing at all like Jesus to me, certainly less than the Kit Kat of yore. I see Doug Henning. Or maybe Karen [...]
November 30th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
[...] the article at Discover Magazine Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Give me a [...]