Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[dpnice]

The difference between "looking like" and "thinking".

But, of course, the problem with religion is that they are about "believing".

So amusing religious pictures are attacking the "believing" rather than the "believer". An amusing anti-muslim thread would be the reverse?

 

[belamyi]

So amusing religious pictures are attacking the "believing" rather than the "believer". An amusing anti-muslim thread would be the reverse?

Not "rather": that's what they do. The problem is that common people identify so closely the thing, act or institution and the person, that you are bound to lose when trying to merely reason with them.

Reverse of what: anti-Muslim would be anti-people... it's the anti-Islam that would be anti-religious.

So say that the anti-religious means "anti-religious people" is like saying that fighting cancer is fighting cancer-stricken people.

It is most offensive against all religions to consider "anti-religious" as "anti-Christian": you don't need specific threads when you already have one covering all religions.

 

[pat grimshaw]

...If I started a thread with amusing stereotypes of blacks, trans or Muslims would it be allowed? ...

1. The thread would be moved.

2. You would receive an 'infraction'.

3. The thread would disappear.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Religions, like any human enterprise, are fallible and therefore worthy of criticism.

The criticisms of religion in the FARIP thread are not religious slurs ("you're a dirty K**e" "he's a filthy Christian") but reflections on religious ideas.

Construing those criticisms, however comic/stupid, as personal attacks is ridiculous.

I think it's a much fairer comparison to imagine a "funny anti-libertarian pictures" thread than a "funny anti-black pictures" thread.

 

[belamyi]

Religions, like any human enterprise, are fallible and therefore worthy of criticism.

You don't get it: God created religion, not man!

Next thing you'll say, the Holy Book was not transmitted, inspired diretly by God, but merely penned down, even translated from a mortal language, by men.

 

[belamyi]

 

[belamyi]

 

[belamyi]

 

[johaninsc]

bumping the thread..

 

[Jacquemar]

I've known it for years...

"God Admits Stealing Idea for Messiah from Zoroastrianism"

https://www.theonion.com/god-admits...AvfJKtkygS4NRveNHCtQkQZpBvbLodcGODYRrQFaOpO18

 

[johaninsc]

bumping the thread again..

 

[johaninsc]

 

[belamyi]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Of course that it is a belief: wording it in a sneaky Chinese way (I strongly do not love you at all/I hate you) can not conceal the fact that an atheist is someone who believes in the non-existence of God.

Actually, negating something logically supposes the belief on it, and the fact that you adhere to it or not is secondary; it's like with calm and stormy passions: you do not need to read Hume to realize that you can be coldy passionate in a certain belief or attitude.

The purest, true atheist would be the one not even actually having a concept of divinity to oppose to, who would have been born, live and see other people die like animals and plants rot away, and believes that there is no more in life, nothing beyond, without making such a damn fuss about it.

 

[johaninsc]

bumping the thread again

 

[belamyi]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Every concept "addresses", is related to, multiple topics: and, even when one finds it is not clearly so, since self-professed "Christians" consider certain topics are indissolubly related according to their worldview, the negation of even at least one of them, for example that God exists according to atheism, entails everything that supposes a negation of every other element on their worldview, for example, creation... sorry... Creation.

 

[johaninsc]

bumping the discussion thread aaaaaagain

 

[belamyi]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

That last part about the library is just the typical irrational rabid response to other irrational rabid course of events: once you have established some heinous facts, you just keep adding and adding and adding on, and then they all pass for the same true, established, "facts": basically because there was not such a big library left in Rome at that time, leaving aside that the name "Julian library" is not the proper name of any historical library, much less one that would hold all that quantity of written works.

 

[belamyi]

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

^ OK boomer.

 

[belamyi]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

^ OK boomer: tell me more about that "Julian library"