Funny anti-religious Internet pics

[belamyi]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

.........

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

In “honor” of the new Saint John Paul II, patron saint and protector of pedophiles

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

^
My regard for Francis plummeted when I heard about that. He's made Rome look even more corrupt that [STRIKE]Pope Rat[/STRIKE] Benedict managed.

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

This.

...........

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Fallacious.
This imposition of Western dualism on ancient texts that knew no such concept is foolish.

- - - Updated - - -

Quite sensible.

 

[bankside]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Fallacious.
This imposition of Western dualism on ancient texts that knew no such concept is foolish.

Post-modernist hippy talk.

What is true is neither geographically nor temporally bounded.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Fallacious.
This imposition of Western dualism on ancient texts that knew no such concept is foolish.

- - - Updated - - -



Quite sensible.

I agree that requiring cogent, non-fallacious argument for the supernatural is quite sensible.

But of what use is it to apply repeatable experiments yielding peer reviewed empirical results to supernatural subjects?

 

[Jacquemar]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

^^ Well, every time someone conjures a spirit, it should make an appearance.

 

[aaggii]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I´m stealing this to make some people angry on FB

 

[star-warrior]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[star-warrior]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Pope John Paul II and Jimmy Saville

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I agree that requiring cogent, non-fallacious argument for the supernatural is quite sensible.

But of what use is it to apply repeatable experiments yielding peer reviewed empirical results to supernatural subjects?

That's not what it said.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

That's not what it said.

Do point out where I went astray.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Do point out where I went astray.

It said:

But you said:

I agree that requiring cogent, non-fallacious argument for the supernatural is quite sensible.

But of what use is it to apply repeatable experiments yielding peer reviewed empirical results to supernatural subjects?

You're not agreeing with it, you're claiming to agree with it but saying something completely different.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

It said:




But you said:



You're not agreeing with it, you're claiming to agree with it but saying something completely different.

No, actually, I'm agreeing with part of it and disagreeing with another part of it. That is, I agree that the supernatural is sensibly subject to rational inquiry, and not sensibly subject to scientific inquiry. "But" should have signified that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

No, actually, I'm agreeing with part of it and disagreeing with another part of it. That is, I agree that the supernatural is sensibly subject to rational inquiry, and not sensibly subject to scientific inquiry. "But" should have signified that.

You're not agreeing with any of it -- you're replacing it with an entirely different proposition.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

You're not agreeing with any of it -- you're replacing it with an entirely different proposition.

This is amazing news to me. I am reluctant to disagree with you, less you tell me I am not.

Let me try to break it down more slowly. Please compare what I'm about to say with what I initially said in post 2804 and point out any discrepancies.

Following the section that reads*: "if you post an attack...equal compelling and reasoned"

I agree that one should supply:

"cogent non-fallacious argumentation"

And disagree with the farip that it's sensible to require:

"evidence for your position with peer reviewed documentation(,) empirical results of repeatable experimenation"

The reason I put this forward is as a criticism of new atheism, if anyone cares; as requiring science for the supernatural seems to me like a narrowing of reasonable inquiry and a misapplication of a naturalist epistemology to a supernatural subject.

However, the reason I brought this criticism to your attention is because you seem to be advertising that the normal work of science should be similarly applied to supernatural phenomena...which, if that's the case, I'm eager to hear more about.

*(I apologize that I cannot selectively quote the section under discussion).