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

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); 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

There is nothing to tell us we should observe a distinction between these categories you propose of "natural" and "supernatural."
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

bankside said:
There is nothing to tell us we should observe a distinction between these categories you propose of "natural" and "supernatural."
Click to expand...

I suppose the "natural" and "supernatural" categories the farip refers to are at least somewhat traditional per religious and philosophical history.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

127-I-got-so-hammered.jpg
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

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

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.
Click to expand...

So now you're including the "If" proposition from the pic? You weren't doing that before.

I have no idea where you're getting the statement in your last paragraph.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

bankside said:
There is nothing to tell us we should observe a distinction between these categories you propose of "natural" and "supernatural."
Click to expand...

How can you say that with a straight face? That's like saying there's nothing to say we should observe a distinction between objects at rest and objects under acceleration.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
How can you say that with a straight face? That's like saying there's nothing to say we should observe a distinction between objects at rest and objects under acceleration.
Click to expand...

It would be the same if you had one tertium comparationis in the natural-supernatural dycotomy like gravity for the coupling objects-acceleration.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
So now you're including the "If" proposition from the pic? You weren't doing that before.

I have no idea where you're getting the statement in your last paragraph.
Click to expand...

The "if" has played its selfsame role throughout this conversation and has been included throughout. I don't know how you would assume its omission as it forms a plain, obvious and simple role in the original farip and all the successive discussion. Is there some reason you wish to divert things in this odd direction?

In any case, it appears you are now stuck defending the position which you find "quite sensible" that supernatural explanations--such as the creation of the universe by the supernatural christian god or the normally observed principals of biological life, death and, um, resurrection--ought to be subject to empirical results of repeatable experimentation. What a sensible idea that seems like...
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

bankside said:
There is nothing to tell us we should observe a distinction between these categories you propose of "natural" and "supernatural."
Click to expand...

I would also disagree with this in the sense that reasons are things, and they may be either good or bad. So yes, there are at least bad reasons for observing that distinction.

And possibly...some good reasons to talk more and improve on the problem and its interesting fruits.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

zoltanspawn said:
The "if" has played its selfsame role throughout this conversation and has been included throughout. I don't know how you would assume its omission as it forms a plain, obvious and simple role in the original farip and all the successive discussion. Is there some reason you wish to divert things in this odd direction?

In any case, it appears you are now stuck defending the position which you find "quite sensible" that supernatural explanations--such as the creation of the universe by the supernatural christian god or the normally observed principals of biological life, death and, um, resurrection--ought to be subject to empirical results of repeatable experimentation. What a sensible idea that seems like...
Click to expand...

You excluded the "if" at the start.

And now you're just inventing stuff about my position -- or you're just being a good example of the sloppy reading skills imparted by modern schools.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I suspect that Kulindahr maintains a distinction between "evidence" from the original picture* and "scientific yadda yadda" as you put it in your reply. I suspect we are stumbling here because, to Kulindahr, the metaphysical speculation written down by people hundreds of years ago counts as "evidence," thus he fails to perceive the contradiction in the same way you do.

(or indeed in the same way I do)

(or, indeed, in the same way I would suggest the original picture intended.)



*It took me forever to puzzle out what you meant by farip, but thank you; I've had my crossword puzzle for the day. :)
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
You excluded the "if" at the start.

And now you're just inventing stuff about my position -- or you're just being a good example of the sloppy reading skills imparted by modern schools.
Click to expand...

No, I did not, and no I am not. You are welcome to point out the particulars of my mischaracterization of your position or my sloppy reading skills. Mind you, my summary of your position is rather simple: that you find the farip to be "quite sensible"; in short, the farip states that supernatural explanations should be subject not just to reason, but also to the basic instruments of science.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

zoltanspawn said:
No, I did not, and no I am not. You are welcome to point out the particulars of my mischaracterization of your position or my sloppy reading skills. Mind you, my summary of your position is rather simple: that you find the farip to be "quite sensible"; in short, the farip states that supernatural explanations should be subject not just to reason, but also to the basic instruments of science.
Click to expand...

The issue was throwing out scientific explanations and replacing them with supernatural ones. When someone does that, what the pic stated is entirely reasonable.

But you're going far, far beyond that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top