Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[Spensed]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

well..if you insist

ok...everything's still there

Important to keep checking your facts.

 

[zoltanspawn]

That's a great example of doing a Richard Dawkins: talking about something outside his knowledge and expertise. But just as with Dawkins it doesn't mean the professor is not an expert in evolutionary biology, this doesn't mean Wallace isn't an expert in criminal investigation.

Oh, then maybe Warner Wallace ought to stick to...criminal investigation.

 

[Kulindahr]

You might want to follow your own advice. There's more to Middle East, Arab and Roman history, mythology and religion than Judaism.

You insist on dragging in irrelevancies. The topic was the apostles and their writings. Only Judaism applies there.

 

[Kulindahr]

But it raises questions about his methodology and sources, etc.

No, it doesn't, it merely shows he makes the very common mistake of acting as though since he has expertise in one thing he can talk about others. That Dawkins says many foolish and ignorant things about religion doesn't discredit in the least his statements about evolutionary biology, any more than the fact that a number of Hollywood stars say foolish and ignorant things about economics discredits them as actors, or the fact that one of my doctors believes the recently passed House bill on health care will mean more people will be able to afford his services discredits him as a physician.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

That the good don't fall ill is a notion that a few Republican "Christians" have touched on. One's man's fact-checking is another's faith-based proselytising.

So because some people have said something, assigning those things as a quote to someone who has not said any such thing is legitimate?

Pence is dangerous for liberty given some of his views, but he did not say what the image alleges. If the idea was to make fun of the GOP types who do think that, it should have been an image with correct attribution -- like an elephant drawn to resemble a dinosaur, with an appropriate label.

 

[Spensed]

You insist on dragging in irrelevancies. The topic was the apostles and their writings. Only Judaism applies there.

The topic was whether a religious figures was a God or just human. That uncertainty isn't limited to what you believe suits your religious preconceptions.

 

[Spensed]

No, it doesn't, it merely shows he makes the very common mistake of acting as though since he has expertise in one thing he can talk about others. That Dawkins says many foolish and ignorant things about religion doesn't discredit in the least his statements about evolutionary biology, any more than the fact that a number of Hollywood stars say foolish and ignorant things about economics discredits them as actors, or the fact that one of my doctors believes the recently passed House bill on health care will mean more people will be able to afford his services discredits him as a physician.

Well, it may or may not. If someone uses dubious sources and faulty logic in one area it raises questions about his judgment and how he reaches his conclusions. Use some common sense.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

So because some people have said something, assigning those things as a quote to someone who has not said any such thing is legitimate?

Pence is dangerous for liberty given some of his views, but he did not say what the image alleges. If the idea was to make fun of the GOP types who do think that, it should have been an image with correct attribution -- like an elephant drawn to resemble a dinosaur, with an appropriate label.

Poetic license. It's what Pence & his ilk do say. Fine to point out that the quote is inaccurate or incorrectly attributed. But the point of the picture and quote remains. As I keep on saying, humor has no truth requirements. Funny lies can sometimes point to truth. Pence pushes his religious agenda and is a healthcare hardliner. It's not that much of a stretch to associate the two in a comic observation.

 

[star-warrior]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

So because some people have said something, assigning those things as a quote to someone who has not said any such thing is legitimate?

I thought parodies were supposed to be part of the sphere of comedy. Apparently, so is fact checking

 

[Alistair]

No, it doesn't, it merely shows he makes the very common mistake of acting as though since he has expertise in one thing he can talk about others. That Dawkins says many foolish and ignorant things about religion doesn't discredit in the least his statements about evolutionary biology, any more than the fact that a number of Hollywood stars say foolish and ignorant things about economics discredits them as actors, or the fact that one of my doctors believes the recently passed House bill on health care will mean more people will be able to afford his services discredits him as a physician.

You should take your own criticisms here.

 

[Kulindahr]

The topic was whether a religious figures was a God or just human. That uncertainty isn't limited to what you believe suits your religious preconceptions.

No, it wasn't. The topic was the Gospels. They arise from Judaism.

Your constant wandering from the topic at hand indicates either an inability to focus or a deliberate tactic.

 

[Spensed]

^ Lordy, lordy. The thread is about funny anti-religious pictures, not just about Judaism and the Gospels. In a dialogue, one side doesn't get to control what is being discussed or what other people find amusing. Try it sometime.

 

[Alistair]

^ Lordy, lordy. The thread is about funny anti-religious pictures, not just about Judaism and the Gospels. In a dialogue, one side doesn't get to control what is being discussed or what other people find amusing. Try it sometime.

You have to remember, this is from the guy crying censorship.....when he himself is trying to censor the whole picture thread

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Lordy, lordy. The thread is about funny anti-religious pictures, not just about Judaism and the Gospels. In a dialogue, one side doesn't get to control what is being discussed or what other people find amusing. Try it sometime.

Stop moving the goalposts. The discussion was about the Gospels. Dragging in the entire thread is ludicrous, kind of like answering the question "Do you have a dog?" by bringing out pictures of your children and talking about them.

 

[Kulindahr]

You have to remember, this is from the guy crying censorship.....when he himself is trying to censor the whole picture thread

Two lies. Nicely done.

 

[Spensed]

Stop moving the goalposts. The discussion was about the Gospels. Dragging in the entire thread is ludicrous, kind of like answering the question "Do you have a dog?" by bringing out pictures of your children and talking about them.

Tee hee. You think one side decides where the goalposts are. The issue under discussion was whether men claiming to be gods are gods or cult leading fantasists. And that isn't limited to the Gospels. Also amusing to see that you think referring to the thread topic is ludicrous. Little wonder you can't stick with what's relevant. Yea, I know everyone's a liar....

 

[Kulindahr]

Tee hee. You think one side decides where the goalposts are. The issue under discussion was whether men claiming to be gods are gods or cult leading fantasists. And that isn't limited to the Gospels. Also amusing to see that you think referring to the thread topic is ludicrous. Little wonder you can't stick with what's relevant. Yea, I know everyone's a liar....

I followed the thread back, and at least as far back as page 10 the discussion has been about the Gospels.

 

[star-warrior]

You have to remember, this is from the guy crying censorship.....when he himself is trying to censor the whole picture thread

Two lies. Nicely done.

Google provides the follow definition(s) of the word 'CENSOR'

censor
ˈsɛnsə/
noun
noun: censor; plural noun: censors

1.
an official who examines books, films, news, etc. that are about to be published and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
"the report was approved by the military censors"
synonyms: expurgator; examiner, inspector, editor
"the film censors"
Psychoanalysis
an aspect of the superego which is said to prevent certain ideas and memories from emerging into consciousness.
2.
(in ancient Rome) either of two magistrates who held censuses and supervised public morals.

verb
verb: censor; 3rd person present: censors; past tense: censored; past participle: censored; gerund or present participle: censoring

1.
examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
"the report had been censored ‘in the national interest’"
synonyms: cut, delete, delete parts of, redact, make cuts in, blue-pencil, unpublish; More
examine, inspect;
edit, make changes to;
make acceptable, expurgate, bowdlerize, sanitize;
informalclean up
"letters home from the front line were censored"

Origin
mid 16th century (in sense 2 of the noun): from Latin, from censere ‘assess’.

Only the mods here truly censor, so Kulindahr is right in the narrowest of senses. But it is censorship by proxy when someone requests that posts or pictures are removed for whatever purpose that the person who made that post report is concerned about.

 

[star-warrior]

If it interests folks to know, I've discovered something that will affect how you view the FARIP thread, and certain others too where the images are sourced.

Whilst in the Private Window view mode, none of the pictures which come from pbs.img that are posted in the threads can be viewed. They all have a broken image icon for me.

However, if you're not using the private viewing mode, all the pbs.img sourced images can be seen.

The only suggestion I can make if you're using a normal browser window is that you wipe the most recent history from your browser cache if you need to.

WRT web browsing:
If you're logged in via work's wireless internet, they have the means to know already what you're looking at, so you'd better do it via your own data. I suggest getting a mifi to provide you with a local wifi-hotspot. If you're using the internet at home (or any personal data package), the history you wipe off your computer is local. The data which your data provider has to channel to your connection is logged and so your data provider will know or have records of where you've been on the web. This is why in certain jurisdictions like the UK, the government is requiring all data providers to keep track of people's browsing habits, so even though you think you've removed the evidence of being on JUB, someone will always knows - your isp.

 

[Spensed]

I followed the thread back, and at least as far back as page 10 the discussion has been about the Gospels.

So what? The issue of god or charlatan isn't limited to the Gospels.