Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[Spensed]

An example of the challenges to the certitude expressed in this thread:

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/evidence-for-jesus-is-weaker-than-you-might-think/

The point is that there can be no faith without doubt and, in a sense, that's one of the notions that funny "anti-religious" material conveys.

 

[Kulindahr]

you have no idea what my problem is, even making that suggestion isn't accurate or rational

Oh, stop with the pure bullshit. You said your problem was with people demanding respect for religion. I merely pointed out where that demand comes from -- rationally and accurately.

 

[Kulindahr]

One doesn't know for sure either way. More recent and/or better evidenced events can be verified in a way than the factual truth of an ancient story can't. Skepticism and uncertainly are the name of the game in those circumstances. Not blind faith that the originally asserted facts must be true.

Either making stuff up or another lie.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hearsay and testimony of what is in someone else's mind are not permitted by the rules of evidence. Yet they seem to be the basis of your beliefs and insistence that others can't find them amusing. As you can see from this forum, they do.

Stop lying -- there's no hearsay involved, and no mindreading. All I'm doing is applying the standard measures for anything else in history.

And stop lying -- the only one saying that no one can find my beliefs amusing is you. All I have sought is accuracy and rationbal thought.

And both members and mods have demonstrated that this forum grants special status to people who want to make fun of others' beliefs -- otherwise the arguments made nicely by several people here would have been heeded and the FARIP thread would be in Fun and Games.

 

[Kulindahr]

Look it up: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Definition of faith
plural faithsplay \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty lost faith in the company's president
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions acted in good faith
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof - clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith
on faith
: without question took everything he said on faith

I wasn't aware that Merriam-Webster qualified as a lexicon of ancient Greek. Citing it just shows you don't care about actual scholarship.

 

[Kulindahr]

You simply can't grasp that there is no requirement of accuracy and objectivity in humor. Jonathan Swift's satirical solution to the Irish famine was that they eat babies. Not a slur on babies or the Irish.

You equate race and religious belief, when they're plainly not the same. Race is immutable. Reasonable people can disagree about religious notions. As you can see, your pro-religious trolling here doesn't seem to be that effective.

No, the Code of Conduct equates race and religious belief. And the fact that a "cartoon" consisting of nothing other than claiming that all religion is "fake news" passes but a cartoon claiming that blacks and Asians were "fake humans" wouldn't demonstrates that. Your position boils down to the notion that some are more equal than others.

 

[Alistair]

Oh, stop with the pure bullshit. You said your problem was with people demanding respect for religion. I merely pointed out where that demand comes from -- rationally and accurately.

The only one spouting pure bullshit is you. Funny that the only one that agrees with you is you.

 

[Kulindahr]

An example of the challenges to the certitude expressed in this thread:

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/evidence-for-jesus-is-weaker-than-you-might-think/

The point is that there can be no faith without doubt and, in a sense, that's one of the notions that funny "anti-religious" material conveys.

This line:

"...the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Though most Christians assume that associates of Jesus wrote these texts, no objective biblical scholars think so."

disqualifies him. The only basis on which he can back his adjective "objective" is to declare that no Christian can be objective about the Gospels. But the same measure disqualifies him; he is most certainly an advocate of the opposite.

Besides that, his credentials are virtually non-existent -- bachelor's in history? seriously? I know he invokes compliments from Jesus Seminar members about his work, but they're a discredited bunch anyway -- they play the "historical-critical" method game and belong to the branch of it that discredits anything they can think of a reason to dismiss; that's a game I learned to play and you can really make anything mean anything you want.

"No faith without doubt"? You like invoking what a lot of Christians believe; in this case by that standard you've got a total fail -- and besides that it's just a straw man you're setting up.

 

[Kulindahr]

The only one spouting pure bullshit is you. Funny that the only one that agrees with you is you.

I cited your own words, and you call it bullshit. Fascinating.

 

[Alistair]

I cited your own words, and you call it bullshit. Fascinating.

What's fascinating is how you never respond or directly answer a post. Just misdirection and repeating the same argument. Typical religion tactics. I'm sure you'll answer that you have no idea what I'm talking about. I'll quote 60 of your posts if I need to.

 

[Spensed]

Either making stuff up or another lie.

No. Just disagreeing with you and giving you my impression of what your posts convey.

 

[Spensed]

Stop lying -- there's no hearsay involved, and no mindreading. All I'm doing is applying the standard measures for anything else in history.

And stop lying -- the only one saying that no one can find my beliefs amusing is you. All I have sought is accuracy and rationbal thought.

And both members and mods have demonstrated that this forum grants special status to people who want to make fun of others' beliefs -- otherwise the arguments made nicely by several people here would have been heeded and the FARIP thread would be in Fun and Games.

Same old same old. You haven't addressed the substance of the points made to you. Your historical standards are selective and faith driven. Humor has no accuracy or rational thought requirement. The only person having a problem with the moderators is you. There's no reason why folk can't make fun of others' beliefs.

 

[Spensed]

I wasn't aware that Merriam-Webster qualified as a lexicon of ancient Greek. Citing it just shows you don't care about actual scholarship.

The Oxford English Dictionary includes a similar definition of faith, "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

Let's all ignore standard dictionary meanings and become great scholars. Teehee.

 

[Spensed]

No, the Code of Conduct equates race and religious belief. And the fact that a "cartoon" consisting of nothing other than claiming that all religion is "fake news" passes but a cartoon claiming that blacks and Asians were "fake humans" wouldn't demonstrates that. Your position boils down to the notion that some are more equal than others.

You appear to know as much as about the Code of Conduct as you do about standard dictionary meanings of words. The CofC provides, "Please do not use language that sounds like, stands for, hints at, abbreviates, or insinuates hate speech (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious slurs) or illegal activities." Listing things isn't the same as equating them, e.g. apples, cute guys, rainbows. A racial slur rises to the level of hate speech quickly because race is immutable. A sexual slur is wholly different. People can disagree. Ditto with what amounts to a religious slur. So yes the items in the list aren't equal. An ounce of faith neutral common sense would tell one that.

 

[Spensed]

This line:

"...the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Though most Christians assume that associates of Jesus wrote these texts, no objective biblical scholars think so."

disqualifies him. The only basis on which he can back his adjective "objective" is to declare that no Christian can be objective about the Gospels. But the same measure disqualifies him; he is most certainly an advocate of the opposite.

Besides that, his credentials are virtually non-existent -- bachelor's in history? seriously? I know he invokes compliments from Jesus Seminar members about his work, but they're a discredited bunch anyway -- they play the "historical-critical" method game and belong to the branch of it that discredits anything they can think of a reason to dismiss; that's a game I learned to play and you can really make anything mean anything you want.

"No faith without doubt"? You like invoking what a lot of Christians believe; in this case by that standard you've got a total fail -- and besides that it's just a straw man you're setting up.

Blustering certainty in disputed and/or unknown areas is one element, which the funny anti-religious pictures exploit. Thank you for continuing to provide the same element in narrative form.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Even worse, this is the long route from Cairo to Jerusalem. The coastal route via Gaza could be walked in four days in Roman times.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

- - - Updated - - -

I'm glad you included the nazis.

American christians often confuse them with the Bolsheviks and claim atheism inevitably would lead to nazism. Which is ironic, because those nazis were devout catholics and lutherans who learned their antisemitism in sunday school...

 

[Kulindahr]

Same old same old. You haven't addressed the substance of the points made to you. Your historical standards are selective and faith driven. Humor has no accuracy or rational thought requirement. The only person having a problem with the moderators is you. There's no reason why folk can't make fun of others' beliefs.

I've addressed the substance of everything thrown at me, using the historical standards applied in any university history course.

And if it's okay to make fun of someone's religion then you should have no problem with people making fun of others' race. Immutability is irrelevant; what matters is how personal something is to someone. If your approach to making fun of religion allows for lies and distortions, then you should dive in any time gays are equated with pedophiles and defend the people saying that.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Oxford English Dictionary includes a similar definition of faith, "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

Let's all ignore standard dictionary meanings and become great scholars. Teehee.

And when did the Oxford English Dictionary become a lexicon of Koine Greek?

Referencing modern dictionaries for the meaning of ancient Greek words is just a way of avoiding thinking, or of lying. It's as dishonest as claiming that "We'll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home" is a song line about turning people into homosexuals.

 

[Kulindahr]

You appear to know as much as about the Code of Conduct as you do about standard dictionary meanings of words. The CofC provides, "Please do not use language that sounds like, stands for, hints at, abbreviates, or insinuates hate speech (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious slurs) or illegal activities." Listing things isn't the same as equating them, e.g. apples, cute guys, rainbows. A racial slur rises to the level of hate speech quickly because race is immutable. A sexual slur is wholly different. People can disagree. Ditto with what amounts to a religious slur. So yes the items in the list aren't equal. An ounce of faith neutral common sense would tell one that.

Immutability is irrelevant to hate. All you're doing is playing with words to excuse one kind of hate speech. Claiming that something being a choice makes a difference is the same tactic as when cops insist someone should allow them to paw through their private dwelling and possessions if they have nothing to hide.

But your main point here is just a lie about the problem, which is allowing lies being used to insult people. That seems to be somehow allowed now; it goes in in Current Events and Politics as well.