Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[zoltanspawn]

... It no longer is....

Conversation evolves, takes turns. I believe everything talked about here began with a farip.

I don't think there's any conversation herein, this excepted, that does not directly concern the question of religion and its critics.

 

[Spensed]

If you want to pursue that, then we know little to nothing about any history before the printing press, because you can always say "I don't think the source is reliable". My point is that historians have methods for gauging reliability, and by those standards the Gospels are about the most reliable thing we have until the printing press.

All evidence is subject to the limitations of its source, provenance, chain of transmission and so on. You have provided nothing to show that what was transmitted was factually true in the first place.

 

[Spensed]

You retreat again to the same lie. Repeating your lie is not an argument that you're not lying.

Though in this post you do a double lie. Since you continually pretend not to know what they are, I've put them in red.

One can't testify what someone else knows. Little wonder you have such a loose grip on the rules of evidence.

 

[Spensed]

I'm not aware that any Mayan priests who invented the religion volunteered to be sacrifices, which is what your claim here would require.

To believe that hundreds of people with independent reports all lied is conspiracy-theory thinking.

Not really. If, say, the initial few made up or were mistaken about the resurrection story, the people those few repeated it to didn't lie. They just perpetuated the initial factual untruth. Ditto the later oral and written transmissions. I'm not saying that happened. Just that one doesn't know either way.

 

[Spensed]

The 'evangelicals' who push political involvement may not even be a majority of 'evangelicals'; they certainly aren't a majority of Christians, even in the United States.

As I said, yes, many Christians act against the beliefs of their churches and get involved in politics. But aberrant behavior is not a good standard for judging things -- if it were, we'd have to throw out geography because there are people who think the earth is flat.

And yes, I checked on what the dozen largest groups of Christians in the world believe about church and state, and those who believe in their separation are a serious majority.

BTW, changing the subject again is still fallacious. Your assertion was about Christians, and now you drag in Islam? Don't become a Rush Limbaugh!

Same difference as to the point in hand. Look where you want, you will find religion and politics inextricably linked.

 

[Spensed]

No, I stick to the point, as opposed to your continual wandering all over the place. I've out in brown the protions of your post above that have nothing to do with what they supposedly respond to.

Not everyone needs evidence to prop up their faith. Those, who do, need to deal with the unknown or concealed aspects of godhead. Just as science acknowledges that its available evidence has its limitations. The fact that you can't encompass those concepts with your evidence requirements doesn't make them irrelevant. It actually makes them more relevant. Glad to be of service.

 

[Spensed]

The baiting is by people who set out to insult religion and refuse to allow and discussion. All I'm interested in is people sticking to rational thinking and accuracy. And if you want your thread in Hot Topics, that's legitimate, because the forum says it's for discussion. Leaving it where it is shows hypocrisy on the part of those posting in it and the mods.

Humor need not have any respect for rational thinking or accuracy and cannot be silenced or controlled by pro-religious sensibilities.

Short of slurs and hate speech, anti-religious humor is appropriately permitted here and in most media at least in the US and many parts of the world.

 

[Kulindahr]

All evidence is subject to the limitations of its source, provenance, chain of transmission and so on. You have provided nothing to show that what was transmitted was factually true in the first place.

I've provided the assessment by the rules of historians. Showing that "something was factually true in the first place" is impossible for any event, even one just last week, because you can always follow your course here and claim a conspiracy.

 

[Kulindahr]

One can't testify what someone else knows.

So stop doing it.

Little wonder you have such a loose grip on the rules of evidence.

LOL

You spend a great deal of effort here to deny the rules of evidence, insisting instead on rules that mean there can be no evidence for anything at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not really. If, say, the initial few made up or were mistaken about the resurrection story, the people those few repeated it to didn't lie. They just perpetuated the initial factual untruth. Ditto the later oral and written transmissions. I'm not saying that happened. Just that one doesn't know either way.

Hundreds is not "few".

You're insisting on standards that do away with all knowledge -- you can always claim a conspiracy just like you're doing here.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not everyone needs evidence to prop up their faith. Those, who do, need to deal with the unknown or concealed aspects of godhead. Just as science acknowledges that its available evidence has its limitations. The fact that you can't encompass those concepts with your evidence requirements doesn't make them irrelevant. It actually makes them more relevant. Glad to be of service.

Faith without evidence is a contradiction in terms. Faith has to have something to trust in. "I have faith" doesn't mean anything unless there's an object of faith. By definition, faith "leans on" something, so a faith without anything to "prop it up" isn't faith, it's delusion.

Bringing in a false dichotomy between evidence and unknown aspects is just a way to confuse the issue. Having evidence doesn't mean everything is known.

 

[Kulindahr]

Humor need not have any respect for rational thinking or accuracy and cannot be silenced or controlled by pro-religious sensibilities.

Short of slurs and hate speech, anti-religious humor is appropriately permitted here and in most media at least in the US and many parts of the world.

No one is arguing for "pro-religious sensitivities", only for accuracy and objectivity. And again, if it's based on false claims, it's a slur, no different than making "humor" saying that we don't need to look for a missing link in human evolution because the blacks are here.

Besides which, there's no problem with anti-religious humor so long as it is subject to the nature of the forum. The FARIP thread, being in Hot Topics, ought to have discussion within the thread, or it's nothing but entertainment for the participants, and belongs in Fun and Games. The situation as it stands just shows hypocrisy on the part of the participants and the mods.

 

[Alistair]

No one is arguing for "pro-religious sensitivities", only for accuracy and objectivity. And again, if it's based on false claims, it's a slur, no different than making "humor" saying that we don't need to look for a missing link in human evolution because the blacks are here.

Besides which, there's no problem with anti-religious humor so long as it is subject to the nature of the forum. The FARIP thread, being in Hot Topics, ought to have discussion within the thread, or it's nothing but entertainment for the participants, and belongs in Fun and Games. The situation as it stands just shows hypocrisy on the part of the participants and the mods.

A bisexual or gay man that demands respect for religion on a gay discussion and porn website needs to learn the definition of hypocrisy.

 

[Kulindahr]

A bisexual or gay man that demands respect for religion on a gay discussion and porn website needs to learn the definition of hypocrisy.

Your problem is with the Code of Conduct; that's what demands respect for religion.

I'm merely demanding respect for accuracy and rational thought.

 

[Alistair]

Your problem is with the Code of Conduct; that's what demands respect for religion.

I'm merely demanding respect for accuracy and rational thought.

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

 

[Spensed]

...Showing that "something was factually true in the first place" is impossible for any event, even one just last week, because you can always follow your course here and claim a conspiracy.

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.

 

[Spensed]

You spend a great deal of effort here to deny the rules of evidence, insisting instead on rules that mean there can be no evidence for anything at all.

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.

 

[Spensed]

Hundreds is not "few".

You're insisting on standards that do away with all knowledge -- you can always claim a conspiracy just like you're doing here.

As I recall, Jesus post-resurrection appeared to his insider group. His appearance to a wider "hundreds" group is, I think, reported second hand by another believer. May have happened, but hardly convincing. Folk killed themselves thinking Jim Jones was their savior.

I'm not saying nothing can be proved, just that the usual evidence exceptions be applied. The available evidence simply isn't as dispositive as you choose to believe. That unfounded certainly is worth a funny picture or two.

 

[Spensed]

Faith without evidence is a contradiction in terms. Faith has to have something to trust in. "I have faith" doesn't mean anything unless there's an object of faith. By definition, faith "leans on" something, so a faith without anything to "prop it up" isn't faith, it's delusion.

Bringing in a false dichotomy between evidence and unknown aspects is just a way to confuse the issue. Having evidence doesn't mean everything is known.

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

 

[Spensed]

No one is arguing for "pro-religious sensitivities", only for accuracy and objectivity. And again, if it's based on false claims, it's a slur, no different than making "humor" saying that we don't need to look for a missing link in human evolution because the blacks are here.

Besides which, there's no problem with anti-religious humor so long as it is subject to the nature of the forum. The FARIP thread, being in Hot Topics, ought to have discussion within the thread, or it's nothing but entertainment for the participants, and belongs in Fun and Games. The situation as it stands just shows hypocrisy on the part of the participants and the mods.

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.