Dazey Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I'm with Len on this one, that's Joe Louis' fist. That is my favorite statue in the entire freaking state. Shows some respect Zoso, lol. Did you know who's fist that was?It's Len's buttplug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 On a side note, I have one dog named Louis and another named Leonard. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoSoRose Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I'm with Len on this one, that's Joe Louis' fist. That is my favorite statue in the entire freaking state. Shows some respect Zoso, lol. Did you know who's fist that was?Yeah I know its Joe Louis' fist, but I still think the statue is an eye sore. It'd be like a statue of Robert Plant's lips or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnold layne Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 All the more reason i should draw a cock on him then, no repercussions I mean, if one can get away with doing this to a painting of JesusThat's horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Joe Louis, the poor bastard. Fleeced by his country he served so admirable and then they build that hideous monument in his honour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 One thing I will say is that none of you can prove some sort of afterlife does not exist. You can mock organized religion all you want, it is a very flawed concept. Because it is a flawed concept does not mean that it has some validity or that it isn't based on something that COULD actually be a reality. The ability to disprove religion is just as weak as trying to prove it.Russell's teapot. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Satanism is an imaginary religion practiced by zitty smelly heavy metal nerds in order to look controversial. All religions are imaginary but otherwise you're pretty much correct. It is not imaginary if you believe in that religion. It is the only true reality if you have faith in said religion.Faith without evidence is meaningless.It would not be called 'faith' with cognitive evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Satanism is an imaginary religion practiced by zitty smelly heavy metal nerds in order to look controversial. All religions are imaginary but otherwise you're pretty much correct. It is not imaginary if you believe in that religion. It is the only true reality if you have faith in said religion.Faith without evidence is meaningless. It would not be called 'faith' with cognitive evidence. So it's bollocks by definition then. Thanks for clarifying. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luciusfunk Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 UNVEALEDVEALEDSix pages... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Satanism is an imaginary religion practiced by zitty smelly heavy metal nerds in order to look controversial. All religions are imaginary but otherwise you're pretty much correct. It is not imaginary if you believe in that religion. It is the only true reality if you have faith in said religion.Faith without evidence is meaningless. It would not be called 'faith' with cognitive evidence. So it's bollocks by definition then. Thanks for clarifying. You are dealing with relative positions here. It is only bollocks if you do not have faith in that particular creed. A religious person would think atheism is the 'bollocks' belief. PSTo put it another way, why would a person have faith in a religion that is 'bollocks'? To them you see it is not 'bollocks': it is reality. Edited July 29, 2015 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 By definition though, atheism is not a belief. It's the absence of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Well, ''the absence of belief'' is bollocks then if you want to get tongue tied on definitions. The point is, a Muslim thinks a Christian is speaking bollocks (or some bollocks); a Buddhist thinks all the Abrahamic religions are bollocks; a Jew thinks they are the chosen people, which simply has to be considered bollocks by anyone who isn't a Jew; similarly Shintoism virtually excludes the idea of ethnic and geographic plurality (If you are not Japanese and from the islands of Japan you simply do not exist). And all these religions think atheism is bollocks. And atheists think all religion is bollocks. All these people have the confidence and zeal of their respective positions. So where does that leave you? A lot of people who think his fellow man is speaking bollocks. The way out is to just except a plurality of belief structures and leave the 'bollocks' slur out of things - Eastern religions have been doing this for centuries. Edited July 29, 2015 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) And some things are objectively just bollocks (Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, God and any other supernatural being). By your logic, the tooth fairy might be real just because there exists a child who believes in it. Edited July 29, 2015 by Lithium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) And some things are objectively just bollocks (Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, God and any other supernatural being). By your logic, the tooth fairy might be real just because there exists a child who believes in it.Again, merely your opinion, not an opinion shared by millions of religious adherents. But a Catholic for instance may cite evidence of saints, relics and miracles. You are also making the common mistake of pertaining all religion to the supernatural; there is obviously a deep historic (human) element to many religions. Genesis aside, The Bible for instance is largely a documentary written by humans, setting forth the deeds of humans, and compiled/translated by humans. Edited July 29, 2015 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) And some things are objectively just bollocks (Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, God and any other supernatural being). By your logic, the tooth fairy might be real just because there exists a child who believes in it.Again, merely your opinion, not an opinion shared by millions of religious adherents. But a Catholic for instance may cite evidence of saints, relics and miracles. You are also making the common mistake of pertaining all religion to the supernatural; there is obviously a deep historic (human) element to many religions. Genesis aside, The Bible for instance is largely a documentary written by humans, setting forth the deeds of humans, and compiled/translated by humans. No, he or she may not, because concrete scientific evidence of miracles do not exist. I am aware that there is a human element to religion - I thought it was obvious that I've been speaking about the supernatural aspect of religion whenever I've criticized it. Edited July 29, 2015 by Lithium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) To ask for ''concrete scientific evidence'' of religion is to ask the wrong things of religion since religion is built upon antiquity of tradition and faith. It seems to fulfill other human requirements than strict objective evidence does. It is actually difficult to put received religion under objective anaysle since, so much of religion's strength and appeal rests upon a faith that is not empirical (e.g. an afterlife) and mysticism. (This is probably why deism never gained much credence outside a bunch of elite philosophers.) Religion actually rationalises faith as part of its philosophy. Jesus for example was denied by Judas. He had to convince his own disciples as to his status as the son of god and was repudiated by the Sanhedrin and executed for heresy. To have the faith in him today, as the 'messiah', underpins the faith required of the Christian man throughout the ages. There is even a disciple for a person of weak faith: 'Doubting Thomas'. Calvinism goes one step further since it presupposes that only the predestined 'elect' would have the conviction of true faith, a lack of zealotry being a symbol of idolatry. Edited July 29, 2015 by DieselDaisy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 To ask for ''concrete scientific evidence'' of religion is to ask the wrong things of religion since religion is built upon antiquity of tradition and faith. It seems to fulfill other human requirements than strict objective evidence does. It is actually difficult to put received religion under objective anaysle since, so much of religion's strength and appeal rests upon a faith that is not empirical (e.g. an afterlife) and mysticism. (This is probably why deism never gained much credence outside a bunch of elite philosophers.)I don't think it's the wrong thing to ask when entire societies are based on it and important world leaders let it influence their decisions. It can probably be a great comfort to people in certain situations, but the negative side of religion far outweighs the positive side. The supernatural aspect of religion is difficult to put under objective analysis for the same reason why it's difficult to put unicorns and leprechauns under objective analysis - it doesn't exist.Religion actually rationalises faith as part of its philosophy. Jesus for example was denied by Judas. He had to convince his own disciples as to his status as the son of god and was repudiated by the Sanhedrin and executed for heresy. To have the faith in him today, as the 'messiah', underpins the faith required of the Christian man throughout the ages. There is even a disciple for a person of weak faith: 'Doubting Thomas'. Calvinism goes one step further since it presupposes that only the predestined 'elect' would have the conviction of true faith, a lack of zealotry being a symbol of idolatry.cool story bro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) I'm with Len on this one, that's Joe Louis' fist. That is my favorite statue in the entire freaking state. Shows some respect Zoso, lol. Did you know who's fist that was? Yeah I know its Joe Louis' fist, but I still think the statue is an eye sore. It'd be like a statue of Robert Plant's lips or something No cuz Robert Plant is nowhere near on the level of historical importance as Joe Louis, he is not worth the bateria gathered around the base of Joes pubes, one made a load of racket for a bunch of greasers in the 70s, when Joe Louis threw his hands the whole world stopped and watched/listened. Quite literally one of the greatest Americans ever born, I'd come to your town literally just to see that fuckin' fist and bask in its glory and in the knowledge that, finally, Joes getting some kinda love in that country, Joe Louis was a fuckin' Prince...so you show some fuckin' respect Armenian boy or I'll get my mate Michael to tell your bird about what you do to My Little Ponys when shes off for the weekend, you foul pervert Edited July 29, 2015 by Len B'stard 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I agree with Len about Joe Louis vs Robert Plant, and I LOVE Led Zeppelin. But man for man, Plant is nowhere near Louis' league. Even if you take the accomplishments of Led Zeppelin and give them all to Plant, and compare Zeppelin to Louis, if still say Joe Louis was more important historically, even over mighty Zeppelin. Sure its a bit of an apples and oranges debate, but honestly only the Beatles MIGHT be on Joe's level historically. His fight against Max Schmeling right before world war 2 is arguably the greatest sporting event in history. Even as great as Ali was, his fights didn't carry the historical importance that Louis vs Schmeling had. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoSoRose Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) I'm with Len on this one, that's Joe Louis' fist. That is my favorite statue in the entire freaking state. Shows some respect Zoso, lol. Did you know who's fist that was? Yeah I know its Joe Louis' fist, but I still think the statue is an eye sore. It'd be like a statue of Robert Plant's lips or something No cuz Robert Plant is nowhere near on the level of historical importance as Joe Louis, he is not worth the bateria gathered around the base of Joes pubes, one made a load of racket for a bunch of greasers in the 70s, when Joe Louis threw his hands the whole world stopped and watched/listened. Quite literally one of the greatest Americans ever born, I'd come to your town literally just to see that fuckin' fist and bask in its glory and in the knowledge that, finally, Joes getting some kinda love in that country, Joe Louis was a fuckin' Prince...so you show some fuckin' respect Armenian boy or I'll get my mate Michael to tell your bird about what you do to My Little Ponys when shes off for the weekend, you foul pervert I agree with Len about Joe Louis vs Robert Plant, and I LOVE Led Zeppelin. But man for man, Plant is nowhere near Louis' league. Even if you take the accomplishments of Led Zeppelin and give them all to Plant, and compare Zeppelin to Louis, if still say Joe Louis was more important historically, even over mighty Zeppelin. Sure its a bit of an apples and oranges debate, but honestly only the Beatles MIGHT be on Joe's level historically. His fight against Max Schmeling right before world war 2 is arguably the greatest sporting event in history. Even as great as Ali was, his fights didn't carry the historical importance that Louis vs Schmeling had.First of all, I'm copying Len's response because I just pissed myselfSecond of all, my comment had nothing to do with fame or importance. Its just like, Joe is famous for boxing so they made a fist statue. Robert Plant is famous for singing so it'd be like someone making a statue of his mouth or something.Idk, I just think the fist looks fucking stupid. They should have made a cooler statue. Like the Howe statue at the Joe is really neat. Something like that with Joe throwing a punch would have been awesome. Edited July 30, 2015 by ZoSoRose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Well if you believed in them they would exist or at least you would believe they existed. There is a huge difference between "they exist" and "you believe they exist" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 It's basically saying that if you live in Detroit you're asking to get fisted by a big black meathook. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 One thing I will say is that none of you can prove some sort of afterlife does not exist. You can mock organized religion all you want, it is a very flawed concept. Because it is a flawed concept does not mean that it has some validity or that it isn't based on something that COULD actually be a reality. The ability to disprove religion is just as weak as trying to prove it.Just a few quicm comments:- Inorganized religion is a flawed concept, too - Yes, ghosts, unicorns, flying fairies and gods COULD actually be a reality, but with ZERO evidence of support and the fact that their existence would be a radical violation of the laws of nature, you are irrational if you believe in any of them.- There is a fundamental problem with having to prove the absence of something's existence. Proving that some exists, on the other hand, is a more trivial thing. This has to do with the fact that existsing things tend to influence the world, which can be measured and quantified, serving as proof for its existence and only ONE such instance of documentation woudl suffice, whereas something that doesn't exist can only be proven to not exist by poiting out the absence of any such interferences, and you then need TOTAL documentation to succeed. In addition, the burden of proof always lies on whoever asserts something exists. Lastly, and most importantly, the fact that we can establish that there is no supporting evidence in favor of godly existsnce, combined with the understanding that such a supernatural entity would be the first of its kind to be discovered, and hence be extremely rare, if not 100 % proof, is a very strong case against godly existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 To ask for ''concrete scientific evidence'' of religion is to ask the wrong things of religionBut that is actually what you need to do if you want to prove that somethign exists outside of peoples' minds. And if you can't do that, then you acknowledge that it is all just mass fantasies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I do find that religions are constantly concerned with proving that their gods exist.Or... ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.