Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I can't stop laughing -- the "bronze age" claim is on top of the image of a text from the iron age.

Priceless.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

hmmmmm..

Definitely abuse. I know someone whose gardening material on facebook and youtube got restricted because people complained (inaccurately) that she was advocating marijuana use to minors. I don't know how their algorithms work, but they're obviously too easy to abuse.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Yes, the Spanish Inquisition of the 1500s was as barbarous as the governments of Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Somalia today. And your point is?

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

It justified apartheid as recently as 25 years ago, not just 75.

75 years ago it was used to justify making the jews 'disappear' from polite society.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Yes, the Spanish Inquisition of the 1500s was as barbarous as the governments of Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Somalia today. And your point is?

The German Inquisition was actually more barbarous than the Spanish -- the Spanish just got more bad press.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect: a stupid statement based on ignorance resulting from someone thinking they have expertise they don't.

 

[zoltanspawn]

This is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect: a stupid statement based on ignorance resulting from someone thinking they have expertise they don't.

That sure sounds like a sophisticated criticism.

Other than your disagreement with the statement itself, what leads you to believe the speaker lacks expertise or is otherwise incompetent?

 

[Kulindahr]

That sure sounds like a sophisticated criticism.

Other than your disagreement with the statement itself, what leads you to believe the speaker lacks expertise or is otherwise incompetent?

It's not "my disagreement", it's fact: the only clam the Bible makes about "where we came from" is "God made man". It doesn't take deep scholarship to find that out; ergo, the author either lacks expertise or competence or both.

 

[Alistair]

It's not "my disagreement", it's fact: the only clam the Bible makes about "where we came from" is "God made man". It doesn't take deep scholarship to find that out; ergo, the author either lacks expertise or competence or both.

You're just never going to get it

 

[johaninsc]

It's not "my disagreement", it's fact: the only clam the Bible makes about "where we came from" is "God made man". It doesn't take deep scholarship to find that out; ergo, the author either lacks expertise or competence or both.

clams aren't kosher, kuli

 

[Kulindahr]

clams aren't kosher, kuli

And according to the Bible that's irrelevant.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just wow.

According to the Bible, none of the top items have anything to do with morality.

As for the lower ones, to pick a few:

The Deuteronomy passage is actually a punishment for men who think rape is no big thing.

If the 2 John passage is about prejudice, then requiring teachers to have degrees in the fields they teach in is prejudice.

The 1 Timothy passage has nothing to do with misogyny -- though it appears to in English thanks to the prejudices of early translators who didn't know what to do with a Greek word that is extremely rare... and guessed in line with their prejudices (the word rendered "have authority" has since been found to mean "violently dominate", which makes sense in light of what has been found about the heresies Paul was writing about).

 

[Kulindahr]

If first-century Christian teachings, particularly the Didache ("Teachings of the Twelve") are taken seriously, Joel Osteen should be driven out of every church because he is a disciple of Hell. He's exactly what St. John Chrysostom was talking about when he said that the road to hell is paved with the bones of preachers.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're just never going to get it

What I get is that two sets of people regularly treat the Bible as though it was written last Tuesday in language just for them: fundamentalists, and atheists. And both, when they make pronouncements about the Bible, look like total fools.

 

[zoltanspawn]

It's not "my disagreement", it's fact: the only clam the Bible makes about "where we came from" is "God made man". It doesn't take deep scholarship to find that out; ergo, the author either lacks expertise or competence or both.

You're still only referencing the farip's statement itself.

Other than that, do you have any basis for questioning the speaker's competence?

Because if you don't, you haven't answered my question.

It looks very much like you're invoking rhetoric (Dunning-Kruger!) to make your opinion seem extra intelligent when it isn't.

 

[johaninsc]

clams aren't kosher, kuli

And according to the Bible that's irrelevant.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're still only referencing the farip's statement itself.

Other than that, do you have any basis for questioning the speaker's competence?

Because if you don't, you haven't answered my question.

It looks very much like you're invoking rhetoric (Dunning-Kruger!) to make your opinion seem extra intelligent when it isn't.

What, am I supposed to haul out a crystal ball and summon up something?

The only thing we have to go on is the author's statements, and the subject matter. Comparing the two, it's evident that he is either ignorant or incompetent or both. Thus, he's an example of Dunning-Kruger, because he ventured a claim about something for which he actually has no competence to speak on.

 

[zoltanspawn]

What, am I supposed to haul out a crystal ball and summon up something?

The only thing we have to go on is the author's statements, and the subject matter. Comparing the two, it's evident that he is either ignorant or incompetent or both. Thus, he's an example of Dunning-Kruger, because he ventured a claim about something for which he actually has no competence to speak on.

No, the only thing you had to go on was the author's statements. And from your crystal ball, you decided those statements made the speaker incompetent.

And then you tried to make your stupid opinion sound legitimate by appealing to the "Dunning-Kruger" effect.

Give us a break.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, the only thing you had to go on was the author's statements. And from your crystal ball, you decided those statements made the speaker incompetent.

And then you tried to make your stupid opinion sound legitimate by appealing to the "Dunning-Kruger" effect.

Give us a break.

No crystal ball needed, just the subject matter and the author's statements. And no opinion involved.

 

[johaninsc]

just bumping this up to keep it up near the pic thread and so that others can easily find it