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

so science isn't about disproving unverifiable claims but is about finding "math" that proves the "data" in the bible to be true?

Science is about taking your data set and making sense of it. Frequently that means finding a mathematical model for it. What the data set is, is irrelevant.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Ahh yes. Data. Apparently Kulindahr you missed this one earlier in the thread:
attachment.php

That doesn't even apply. The Bible is the data set given in the question I was answering.


Don't people actually pay attention to the discussion here? or are you all fundamentalists bound on snatching at the latest thing you see without investigating or keeping track of things?


Besides which, you ignore the fact that many of us came in through Intelligent Design, in the original sense of being led to believing in a Creator via science. What the Bible had to say about itself was irrelevant; such statements are to be expected from any body of literature claiming to be divine revelation.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics


Didn't I post that one already?

It's a good illustration of why friends and I walked out of our first "creation science" seminar. If you're going to do science, do science. It's possible for science to inform theology, but the reverse is only very rarely true... I have yet to find a religious text that purports to have any scientific insight.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

That doesn't even apply. The Bible is the data set given in the question I was answering.


Don't people actually pay attention to the discussion here? or are you all fundamentalists bound on snatching at the latest thing you see without investigating or keeping track of things?


Besides which, you ignore the fact that many of us came in through Intelligent Design, in the original sense of being led to believing in a Creator via science. What the Bible had to say about itself was irrelevant; such statements are to be expected from any body of literature claiming to be divine revelation.

Kulindahr, in every rational enterprise, the quality of the data is examined and held to scrutiny, refined, examined for outliers or "noise" and so on.

To be fair, you have done this far more than most people in the Christian tent by reading and comparing translations, contextual documents, etc. In that regard, you may feel that your blithe assertions about it being "data" are well-justified and probably most of the people who are astonished at your use of the word "data" have not pored over it in the same detail that you have.

Yet it still seems astonishing to me - I still have the impression you have not ever deeply considered competing and contrary data, for example from other religious traditions, which must be accounted for. And because I do suspect you of researcher bias; you see what your heart desires to be true in the data. The mathematical elegance of some intuitive idea can guide the researcher in an avenue of enquiry, but it cannot substitute for a researched conclusion supported by evidence. And that's where I base my critique.

In your review of contextual documents, as noted above, you will have seen that the ancient peoples of the middle east had developed every concept known to machiavelli, and suffered, in the aggregate, from every delusion and confusion that can plague any crowd in any period of history.

The bible may be data, but I don't think it is evidence of divinity. It clearly isn't necessarily evidence of divinity. The alternate hypotheses must be considered just as the data must be screened:
  • Could it not be a collection of well-intentioned observations about human nature, given a veneer of imagined divinity by those who were trying to harness "Appeal to authority" to reinforce their teachings
  • …combined with some confused and possibly delusional witnessing that would be explained in the modern era by conditions observable in a Functional MRI and resolved with the appropriate psychiatric treatment
  • …or an accurate historical record of people's widely-held misconceptions - the History of Being Wrong - in the same way that we can read accurate and compelling accounts of Phrenology and its uses.
  • …and, given the history of the established church, just some general tyrannical réalpolitique that served to enthral the population and keep them compliant and obedient to those overlords whose interests were thereby advanced.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

For theology, the Bible is data.

No, you weren't using any information at all -- you were invoking metaphysics.

"Unverified unproven information". Odd -- the question was what the Bible had to say about the Trinity. That presupposed that the Bible is the relevant data set. I showed what the Bible says, and further showed that it can be mathematically modeled.

No the problem is that no matter what the topic Kulindhar is never to be wrong no matter what he must say to get there.

In the end for most people it doesnt matter. Religion is junk. Anyone who believe is deceiving themselves. However that is not my problem it is theirs. What i dont understand is why someone who believes in no harm no foul freedom for ebbybody would jump into a humor thread and try to debate jokes?
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr, in every rational enterprise, the quality of the data is examined and held to scrutiny, refined, examined for outliers or "noise" and so on.

To be fair, you have done this far more than most people in the Christian tent by reading and comparing translations, contextual documents, etc. In that regard, you may feel that your blithe assertions about it being "data" are well-justified and probably most of the people who are astonished at your use of the word "data" have not pored over it in the same detail that you have.

Yet it still seems astonishing to me - I still have the impression you have not ever deeply considered competing and contrary data, for example from other religious traditions, which must be accounted for. And because I do suspect you of researcher bias; you see what your heart desires to be true in the data. The mathematical elegance of some intuitive idea can guide the researcher in an avenue of enquiry, but it cannot substitute for a researched conclusion supported by evidence. And that's where I base my critique.

In your review of contextual documents, as noted above, you will have seen that the ancient peoples of the middle east had developed every concept known to machiavelli, and suffered, in the aggregate, from every delusion and confusion that can plague any crowd in any period of history.

The bible may be data, but I don't think it is evidence of divinity. It clearly isn't necessarily evidence of divinity. The alternate hypotheses must be considered just as the data must be screened:
  • Could it not be a collection of well-intentioned observations about human nature, given a veneer of imagined divinity by those who were trying to harness "Appeal to authority" to reinforce their teachings
  • …combined with some confused and possibly delusional witnessing that would be explained in the modern era by conditions observable in a Functional MRI and resolved with the appropriate psychiatric treatment
  • …or an accurate historical record of people's widely-held misconceptions - the History of Being Wrong - in the same way that we can read accurate and compelling accounts of Phrenology and its uses.
  • …and, given the history of the established church, just some general tyrannical réalpolitique that served to enthral the population and keep them compliant and obedient to those overlords whose interests were thereby advanced.

And what does any of that have to do with a question of what the Bible says about something?

If someone asked, "What does Marx say about art?" introducing opinions of famous artists would be irrelevant -- the only relevant data would be found in statements by Marx.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

No the problem is that no matter what the topic Kulindhar is never to be wrong no matter what he must say to get there.

Making crap up because your irrationality on another topic was pointed out doesn't work.

In the end for most people it doesnt matter. Religion is junk. Anyone who believe is deceiving themselves. However that is not my problem it is theirs.

Not too aware of the world around you, huh?

What i dont understand is why someone who believes in no harm no foul freedom for ebbybody would jump into a humor thread and try to debate jokes?

Maybe you should read the thread again. All I did was comment on ignorance.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Well, at least I as a Catholic, am not required to believe in a literal 6- 24/hr days of creation. I am allowed to see that both Evolution and Creation are compatible, as the Church sees it that way too.

But you do have to put up with a certain degree of silliness . . .


images



moral+responsibility.jpg
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Well, at least I as a Catholic, am not required to believe in a literal 6- 24/hr days of creation. I am allowed to see that both Evolution and Creation are compatible, as the Church sees it that way too.

Just so you know, you're actually allowed to believe things that the church doesn't agree with too...
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • tumblr_m1yyu92rF91qlh1nvo1_1280.jpg
    tumblr_m1yyu92rF91qlh1nvo1_1280.jpg
    28.5 KB · Views: 456
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Just so you know, you're actually allowed to believe things that the church doesn't agree with too...

...and who is allowing that....the Easter Bunny? LOL:badgrin:

Church tradition, and even a few papal bulls, actually. For starters, you don't have to believe anything that isn't set as dogma; second, you can even question dogma if it goes strongly against your conscience.

For example, I know Roman Catholics who refuse to acknowledge papal infallibility, because the decision was rigged by the pope at the time, and their consciences won't allow them to accept a teaching accomplished by politics orchestrated by the man the decision benefited.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Surely this is the limit:
inflatable-love-doll.jpg


Buckets of fuck butter.

obamakrishna.jpg

This one makes me lol.

vishnuonion.jpg


wicked2.jpg
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Demotivational-pictures-zombie-jesus.jpg


e5f6f7de-803d-4f4e-9e3f-f289c5d03a84.jpg
 
Back
Top