The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Quantumreading said:
I can't get over the fact of how butthurt Kulindahr is. Can't you give us one thread without your hilarious claims?
Click to expand...

I don't like ignorance, so I oppose it. I don't care if it's in religion, science, history, or politics. If you think that correcting ignorance is "hilarious", I feel sad for you.

As bankside said, get educated first.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
I don't like ignorance, so I oppose it. I don't care if it's in religion, science, history, or politics. If you think that correcting ignorance is "hilarious", I feel sad for you.

As bankside said, get educated first.
Click to expand...

I feel sad for people who believe I'm ignorant when they ignore common sense every day of their lives.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Quantumreading said:
I feel sad for people who believe I'm ignorant when they ignore common sense every day of their lives.
Click to expand...

Well, given that you just demonstrated that you pull opinions out of thin air that aren't connected to what you were responding to, I doubt you have much common sense to work with.

If you claim to be not ignorant, then please, without resorting to online research, give me two arguments for and two against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, comparing and contrasting them.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

johaninsc said:
I would take a guess and say at least all of mine...

there might be one exception..not really sure


I posted so many :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, you have, and some were real zingers.

I haven't counted the candidates for actually being blasphemous, after his assertion, but I doubt it was any more than the two before it.

Did you post the one with God playing with Adam's erection?
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

As good a time as any to ask Kuli his opinion....

....on this VERY simple question....

....who created God?


:corn:
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
You said something like the Bible is a mass of contradictions. That's false.
The only defense of your position on the Bible that's been made is Fundamentalist picking and choosing, refusing to read it as a whole book.

My "falsehoods" are called "reading the whole book" and using scholarship.
Click to expand...

Ha! Well, then elaborate your scholarship, because what you state there is just as good as saying the contrary.

A "whole book": the Old Testament is as different from the New as Judaism from Christianism, simply because the Old are the books of the Jewish Bible carrying the word of the god they don't even know exactly how to call, YHVH, and the New the Evangiles of the word of Christ the Son of God... you just take Matthew from chapter 5, when Jesus Christ says that He didn't come to ablosih, but to fulfill the law, and then he goes on referring to old laws and mending them with His Word. Keep comparing both schizophrenic parts: THAT'S reading "the whole book".

The "fundamentalist" position is taking "the whole" and dissolving the contradictions by sloppily referring to it all as "the whole". A general judgment always skips the details where the devil is hiding.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

belamo said:
Ha! Well, then elaborate your scholarship, because what you state there is just as good as saying the contrary.

A "whole book": the Old Testament is as different from the New as Judaism from Christianism, simply because the Old are the books of the Jewish Bible carrying the word of the god they don't even know exactly how to call, YHVH, and the New the Evangiles of the word of Christ the Son of God... you just take Matthew from chapter 5, when Jesus Christ says that He didn't come to ablosih, but to fulfill the law, and then he goes on referring to old laws and mending them with His Word. Keep comparing both schizophrenic parts: THAT'S reading "the whole book".

The "fundamentalist" position is taking "the whole" and dissolving the contradictions by sloppily referring to it all as "the whole". A general judgment always skips the details where the devil is hiding.
Click to expand...

Belamo, there is nothing internally illogical about that either; the contradiction disappears if you assert that the new testament really was intended to represent a revolution. A whole new order of things. You wouldn't expect continuity; indeed if you were mathematically minded you might call Jesus the Divine Asymptote. It's like asking in puzzlement why we never saw more pictures of Lenin with the Czars after about 1918.

Resolving that question does leave another thread to pull however: in christian mythology, why was the malevolent god of the old testament not overthrown by jesus or denounced as a fake? Was this not a proper revolution? Or, why was this God less about smiting and more about pragmatic happy forgiveness? Why didn't he just send another great flood to correct people's behaviour as in noah's day? Had God grown morally? Were we supposed to turn the other cheek towards god himself for the petty tyrannical rules he imposed on the peoples of the old testament? For the unjust punishments and tyranny between men done correctly in God's name? Forgive him for condoning genocide?

The answer to that one, as I understand it (and again it is at least internally coherent) is that the forgiveness and love of the new testament were a gift from god suited to the times. But also that the brutality and capriciousness of the old testament were a gift from god suited to the times. Happy birthday.

That does provide a coherent answer to the question. Phrased in the somewhat creepy religious language of shepherds and sheep, father and child: we give a baby knives and cudgels to play with on the first occasion, then after a sufficient period we give the baby another gift of bandages, salve, and teddy bears.

There are an awful lot of good internally coherent answers for all these skeptical questions. It is only in looking, as we have learned is important, at the whole broad scope of the scholarship where it becomes possible to say….nooooo, I just don't think that's likely.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

belamo said:
Ha! Well, then elaborate your scholarship, because what you state there is just as good as saying the contrary.

A "whole book": the Old Testament is as different from the New as Judaism from Christianism, simply because the Old are the books of the Jewish Bible carrying the word of the god they don't even know exactly how to call, YHVH, and the New the Evangiles of the word of Christ the Son of God... you just take Matthew from chapter 5, when Jesus Christ says that He didn't come to ablosih, but to fulfill the law, and then he goes on referring to old laws and mending them with His Word. Keep comparing both schizophrenic parts: THAT'S reading "the whole book".

The "fundamentalist" position is taking "the whole" and dissolving the contradictions by sloppily referring to it all as "the whole". A general judgment always skips the details where the devil is hiding.
Click to expand...

So you throw out particle theory because sometimes a particle behaves like a wave and other times it behaves like a particle?

No -- you tackle the apparent contradiction to find the truth it hides.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
The question is wrong. It's like asking both "Who made water wet?" and "Who built the Alps?" The word "created" doesn't apply to God.
Click to expand...

It was Slartibartfast who built the fjords. I daresay he did the Alps too.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbNtlS69HhU[/ame]
(on topic video too!)
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

ChickenGuy said:
As good a time as any to ask Kuli his opinion....

....on this VERY simple question....

....who created God?


:corn:
Click to expand...

Carl Sagan asked that 30 years ago. He was wondering if the universe needs a creator, why wouldn't a god? And if a god doesn't need a creator, why would the universe?

Never been any answer other than crickets. Or "Hey! Look over there!" or "Because they aren't the same thing" followed by "In what way does a universe necessitate being created by a god while a god necessitates no such creator" followed by crickets or "Hey! Look over there!"
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
The question is wrong. It's like asking both "Who made water wet?" and "Who built the Alps?" The word "created" doesn't apply to God.
Click to expand...


Sorry Kuli but that's a lame answer, and you're deliberately avoiding even attempting to address it. [-X

"Who made water wet?"

No-one, BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS that a chemical process fused hydrogen and oxygen atoms to create a compound that remains in a liquid state at room temperature.

"Who built the Alps?"

No-one, BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS that the process of plate tectonics within the Earth's crust caused the African plate to push northwards into the Eurasian plate, thereby folding the crust and over millions of years creating the mountain range known as the Alps.

So, let's try again....

Who created God?

Or if you prefer the long winded question....

What was the process that led to the 'birth' or 'manifestation' of an omnipitent super-intelligence in the creation of our Universe, and where, when, and in what form did this 'being' or 'lifeform' originate?
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

bankside said:
Carl Sagan asked that 30 years ago. He was wondering if the universe needs a creator, why wouldn't a god? And if a god doesn't need a creator, why would the universe?

Never been any answer other than crickets. Or "Hey! Look over there!" or "Because they aren't the same thing" followed by "In what way does a universe necessitate being created by a god while a god necessitates no such creator" followed by crickets or "Hey! Look over there!"
Click to expand...

Because a Creator by definition has none in turn, else it isn't a creator, just an intermediary.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

ChickenGuy said:
Sorry Kuli but that's a lame answer, and you're deliberately avoiding even attempting to address it. [-X

"Who made water wet?"

No-one, BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS that a chemical process fused hydrogen and oxygen atoms to create a compound that remains in a liquid state at room temperature.

"Who built the Alps?"

No-one, BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS that the process of plate tectonics within the Earth's crust caused the African plate to push northwards into the Eurasian plate, thereby folding the crust and over millions of years creating the mountain range known as the Alps.

So, let's try again....

Who created God?

Or if you prefer the long winded question....

What was the process that led to the 'birth' or 'manifestation' of an omnipitent super-intelligence in the creation of our Universe, and where, when, and in what form did this 'being' or 'lifeform' originate?
Click to expand...

The inevitable shallow answers to the questions posed.

Nothing made water wet; it's inherent in being water. And nothing built the Alps; they were generated.

God was not created; that's part of the nature of being God -- God is generated, by Himself -- self-generating, as the answer to Moses concerning God's name reveals.

It's the materialists who insist it has to be turtles all the way down.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

so god doesn't need a creator to exist but the universe for some reason couldn't exist without a creator?

right....
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
Because a Creator by definition has none in turn, else it isn't a creator, just an intermediary.
Click to expand...

Another dodge! Yes, every atheist can imagine a god existing beyond time and without beginning. We're still waiting for an answer as to why those same attributes couldn't just apply to the universe itself. Still crickets from those with the theist hypothesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top