Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

Okay folks. A simple suggestion, for those who wish to post pictures, memes, etc. that have, at their core, a religious, political or other "opinionated" position, how about we post them here and keep the "pics for sharing" thread along the lines of light humor and interesting pictures, the thing I for which I think it was originally intended.

You want to express an opinion through picture/meme/graph etc. fine. Do it here. Does this require discretion, reasonableness and some self-restraint? Yup. So this doesnt' get lost in the wash of this forum, perhaps it could be stickied.

Just a thought and attempt to let people voice their opinions and take argumentative positions w/out and have them discussed without imposing them on folks who really just aren't interested.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

It clearly states '[B]Pic for Sharing[/B]' not '[B]Pics that are devoid of contention[/B]'. [IMG]http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=examples+of+nanny+state&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=1RfUeORBDv_q0M&tbnid=jkqbt_JKiKVuEM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.activistpost.com%2F2012%2F05%2F18-examples-of-nanny-state-gone-wild.html&ei=EguRUYKOMIi29gTb6IGoDQ&bvm=bv.46340616,d.dmQ&psig=AFQjCNHyoj_GiEItO4dyLY5TtQUj5BRHIA&ust=1368546437389050[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/sharp-edges.jpg[/IMG]

The best way to crush an argument is to use indisputable evidence.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1008877]Okay folks. A simple suggestion, for those who wish to post pictures, memes, etc. that have, at their core, a religious, political or other "opinionated" position, how about we post them here and keep the "pics for sharing" thread along the lines of light humor and interesting pictures, the thing I for which I think it was originally intended. [/quote]

Great idea...getting sick of the atheists PREACHING through pictures.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=Monkeydad;1008882]Great idea...getting sick of the atheists PREACHING through pictures.[/quote]

Atheists don't preach, sweetie, we just correct childish misconceptions.

Thanks for playing though.....

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

Yup. You have accurately stated the other thread's title. However, at the same time, there is an entire forum set aside for non-football related "contention" that is separate and hidden from the general forum so that those who do not wish to "crush" arguments, enter into arguments or [I]even read about arguments[/I] can ignore them in their entirety. In that the "Pics for Sharing" thread is in the general "contention free zone" rather than the "contention zone", I would suggest that it is implied that the "Pics for Sharing" thread should be non-contentious.

You want to spout opinions through humorous one-liners fine. Just do it in the appropriate forum.

What are you afraid of? No one will stop you from spouting whatever kind of policitical or anti-religious hate/mockery/humor you want. It will just be in a place where it can be publicly debated w/out disrupting a thread never meant for debate/discussion.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1008885]Atheists don't preach, sweetie, we just correct childish misconceptions.

Thanks for playing though.....[/quote]

Still waiting for the science on how you prove and fully explain the existence of beauty in any painting to a person lacking sight.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

This is a man who makes his views known through his pictures, enjoy he truly is great.


[url=http://www.myinkblog.com/50-amazing-3d-chalk-sidewalk-art-images-from-julian-beever/]50 Amazing 3D Chalk Sidewalk Art Images from Julian Beever | MyInkBlog[/url]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1008887]Still waiting for the science on how you prove and fully explain the existence of beauty in any painting to a person lacking sight.[/quote]


Imagination.......

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1008887]Still waiting for the science on how you prove and fully explain the existence of beauty in any painting to a person lacking sight.[/quote]

Hit up Google, you'll find your answer.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

As some IT person implied in the other thread, I suck at google.

What am I searching for? I am asking you to articulate your position rather than have me guess at it.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1008892]What am I searching for? I am asking you to articulate your position rather than have me guess at it.[/quote]

You posed the question to suggest some sort of supernatural explanation for beauty in the hopes of shoring up the erosion of theism in the face of scientific reasoning. Am I close?

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

Not even close. First and foremost, I am attempting to prove nothing. I am simply posing a question and making a scientifically veriafiable answer a precondition for providing you with scientific, peer reviewed proof that an infinite being exists. The question posed is an expansion on or corolary of the ancient kuan "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" and I pose the question simply b/c I believe the science to be similar to that for which you demand proof. I am hopeful that your answer would provide the blue-print for the science needed for finite beings to fully prove the existence of an infinite one.

To be clear, I have always contended and will always contend that humanity's understanding of God must conform to the scientific discoveries we make. In my opinion, however, the scientific method to understanding the universe is not the panacea[I] you appear [/I]to proclaim it to be.

From what I gather, you assert that anything currently unverified through the scientific method does not exist until such verification occurs. If this is not your opinion, please correct me. Inherent in your statement is the assertion that all things in existence can be proven through the scientific method. As such, it is your belief that science can prove the existence of "life, the universe and everything" (to paraphrase Mr. Adams) because that which cannot be proved does not exist. Since there is no way to prove that science can do so, however, your belief in this assertion is, by definition, an article of faith.

I fully accept science and the scientific method as valid tools (and in most cases the best and only tool we have) of understanding the great "I AM" of the universe. At the same time, however, I suggest that the existence of a thing is not determined by the ability to perceive it through humanity's five senses (or any enhancement to the same). To me, the truth of this assertion is found by the fact that things which can only be perceived through one of our senses do not "cease to exist" if our ability to perceive through that sense did not exist. For example, the color orange would exist if the entire world was sightless and no one could see it (or any other color). To fully understand "orange" you must have the physical sense of sight. Sure, it can be explained as an expression of light waves, but, ultimately, it's [I]tangible[/I] existence cannot be "proved" to a sightless person.

So, again I ask, please explain how to prove the existence beauty in a painting to a sightless person. I just want to see the math.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

11 posts and only one picture in a picture thread.
tsk tsk

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[IMG]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/joconde/joconde.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://pinkie.ponychan.net/chan/files/src/135512683597.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1008912]11 posts and only one picture in a picture thread.
tsk tsk[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JGNW450.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/D27O922.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

I LOL'd.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/bDtmpZb.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing and Debating
 

[IMG]http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/0/9/2/8/9/3/liberal-outrage-76363196010.jpeg#liberal%20outrage[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[IMG]http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/e2c/964/e9a/resized/the-most-interesting-man-in-the-world-meme-generator-i-m-not-always-a-liberal-atheist-cry-baby-but-when-i-am-it-s-usually-on-facebook-4d92dd.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[IMG]http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/6/2/4/1/4/9/liberal-77648690556.jpeg#liberal[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1008911]Not even close. First and foremost, I am attempting to prove nothing. [/quote]

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense etc...

[quote=JoeRedskin;1008911] "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" [/quote]

The absence of an observer does not alter the physical world or the resultant sound waves from episodic events.


[quote=JoeRedskin;1008911]...you assert that anything currently unverified through the scientific method does not exist until such verification occurs. If this is not your opinion, please correct me. [/quote]

If science has yet to find a way to 'measure' something, it will.

[quote=JoeRedskin;1008911]I fully accept science and the scientific method as valid tools (and in most cases the best and only tool we have) of understanding the great "I AM" of the universe. At the same time, however, I suggest that the existence of a thing is not determined by the ability to perceive it through humanity's five senses (or any enhancement to the same). [/quote]

That's odd. I do.

[quote=JoeRedskin;1008911]To me, the truth of this assertion is found by the fact that things which can only be perceived through one of our senses do not "cease to exist" if our ability to perceive through that sense did not exist. For example, the color orange would exist if the entire world was sightless and no one could see it (or any other color). To fully understand "orange" you must have the physical sense of sight. Sure, it can be explained as an expression of light waves, but, ultimately, it's [I]tangible[/I] existence cannot be "proved" to a sightless person. [/quote]

So if we could convert light waves to sound waves you'd agree that it'd be possible for the blind to 'hear' a color? It's already happening so this solution won't be far off.

[URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/02/converting-light-to-sound-in-cold-quantum-systems/"]Yay, science![/URL]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

How I picture RR:
[IMG]http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22000000/Kowalski-and-Science-penguins-of-madagascar-22013704-500-399.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

or maybe:

[IMG]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcuaNwPDJWyfmVI3R1uWjasdipp1rnXMKy1h1gae0XXF3yLqJC[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

and finally

[IMG]http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22300000/Respect-the-Science-for-Lt_Kowalski-penguins-of-madagascar-22383480-500-211.png[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

Good idea to keep this stuff out of the "fun" stuff

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/7Ecx6gN.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1008925]Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense etc...[/quote]

Ah yes, briliant logic.

[quote=RedskinRat;1008925]The absence of an observer does not alter the physical world or the resultant sound waves from episodic events.[/quote]

Agreed. Thus, observable or not, it existence is accepted as a given.

[quote=RedskinRat;1008925]If science has yet to find a way to 'measure' something, it will.[/quote]

Prove it.

[quote=RedskinRat;1008925]That's odd. I do.[/quote]

It is not odd. It is a acknowledgement of your absolute faith in science.

[quote=RedskinRat;1008925]So if we could convert light waves to sound waves you'd agree that it'd be possible for the blind to 'hear' a color? It's already happening so this solution won't be far off.[/quote]

And, likewise, you would admit they cannot see and, thus, would never perceive orange as a sighted person would. Further, there understanding of orange as anything other than a sound would be totally reliant on the statements of those they believe to have perceived orange as something other than sound.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rqlfax6.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=Mattyk;1008930]Good idea to keep this stuff out of the "fun" stuff

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/7Ecx6gN.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

Could you please sticky it so that folks this page doesn't get lost in the wash of this forum and, instead, is easily accessible to those who have the urge to post their rants in cutesy one liners.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[IMG]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/400720_10151581346532418_1249284880_n.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[IMG]http://atheismandme.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/reasonable.png[/IMG]

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1008931]Agreed. Thus, observable or not, it existence is accepted as a given.[/quote]

The tree can be seen before its collapse and afterwards. The resulting noise, through comparisons, can be estimated. At some point we have physical examples of the tree existing in both states.

If you want to wheel our another couple of deities for us to compare to the one your team refuses to produce to settle the argument, then go ahead.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

>>Still waiting for the science on how you prove and fully explain the existence of beauty in any painting to a person lacking sight.

LOT of assuming, eh?

it's also a bit silly forcing someone to prove something when you're answer is just going to to be "because i said so" or "god wills it" or whatever.

prove to me scientifically why life springs spontaneously from peanut butter.


I'm still waiting.


let's not force false and petty/silly arguments. how do you explain mozart to the deaf, dumb, and blind? i mean really. humans don't have an innate natural sense of magnetism (unlike birds), but that doesn't mean it's magic or doesn't exist, and there's plenty of evidence to prove it's existence and how it works. I don't know of many blind visual art critics, and i imagine there's a good reason for that.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

and joe, there are entire fields of study devoted to perception and brain logic, but you'd probably want to ask them or google a subject matter expert for specifics instead of asking random people on a football forum how beauty is perceived or judged or similar like it's some sort of i-win button.

generally non-observable effects aren't assumed to exist. dark matter has never been observed, but is assumed due to otherwise unexplainable (but existing) observable mass.


but i don't know, what are you beliefs? intelligent design? 7 days of creation? the 1000 year old history of earth?

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

MODS (not you, JR), could we please get a poll to see the god botherers Vs. smug elitist 'life-without-a-safety=net' types, please? Probably better if it's phrased 'Religious Vs. Non-Religious'.

I'll donate $20?

KTHANXBAI

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=That Guy;1008939]>>Still waiting for the science on how you prove and fully explain the existence of beauty in any painting to a person lacking sight.

LOT of assuming, eh?

it's also a bit silly forcing someone to prove something when you're answer is just going to to be "because i said so" or "god wills it" or whatever.

prove to me scientifically why life springs spontaneously from peanut butter.


I'm still waiting.


let's not force false and petty/silly arguments. how do you explain mozart to the deaf, dumb, and blind? i mean really. humans don't have an innate natural sense of magnetism (unlike birds), but that doesn't mean it's magic or doesn't exist, and there's plenty of evidence to prove it's existence and how it works. I don't know of many blind visual art critics, and i imagine there's a good reason for that.[/quote]

First, since I don't believe life comes from peanut butter, I guess I won't try to prove it. Secondly, whether you believe it or not, my answer would never be "b/c God says so". I may quote the Bible or philosophers as support for a rhetorical point, but, to me, "because" has never been an acceptable response to any thoughtful question.

The point of [I]my[/I] question was very simply to point out that a thing's existence is not tied to [I]our[/I] ability to perceive the thing. Our own quest for knowledge is constantly demonstrating that things exist beyond what we could perceive yesterday.

Did magnetism exist prior to our ability to describe through the scientific method? Of course it did, it's existence was not tied to our perception/ discover/description of it.

You, Rat and Matty may be right, all things in existence may be perceivable through the scientific method. Given our finiteness, I doubt that to be true - even as we enhance our ability to perceive, we "see" more things we assumed didn't exist yesterdays. You apparently believe all things are discoverable to finite minds. More power to you. I respect your faith in the scientific method.

I can't prove God exists through finite means and would be rightly mocked if I asserted that I could. Likewise, I have yet to see proof that science will provide an explanation for everything in existence. To be clear, I am not saying that "Since you can't prove God doesn't exist, he must therefore exist." Rather, even as science opens more doors and brings more questions, the purpose of it all - if there is one - appears to me to beyond science's ken.

As to my beliefs, essentially, it is my belief that the truth of universe - the Judeo/Christian's "Great I Am" of the universe - exists beyond our finite perception. In turn, all religion is just humanity's limited and flawed attempt to understand that which we cannot perceive. If you really want to discuss my beliefs, how I came to them and what their limits are, I am happy to discuss them at length outside the public forum. To be certain, however, I do not believe in "intelligent design[,] 7 days of creation[, or] the 1000 year old history of earth".

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=That Guy;1008940]and joe, there are entire fields of study devoted to perception and brain logic, but you'd probably want to ask them or google a subject matter expert for specifics instead of asking random people on a football forum how beauty is perceived or judged or similar like it's some sort of i-win button.

generally non-observable effects aren't assumed to exist. dark matter has never been observed, but is assumed due to otherwise unexplainable (but existing) observable mass.


but i don't know, what are you beliefs? intelligent design? 7 days of creation? the 1000 year old history of earth?[/quote]

It is not and was not intended as an "I win" button. In that you see it as such, you are truly missing the point. Rather, it was intended to demonstrate the rhetorical point that a thing's existence is not tied to the ability to perceive it.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1008949]I respect your faith in the scientific method.
[/quote]

I would say that the differences we're laboring under are largely semantic, you feel our belief in scientific method is 'faith'. I would assert that, due to the peer review and scientific method, it's a solid, proven process for all things.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1008954]I would say that the differences we're laboring under are largely semantic, you feel our belief in scientific method is 'faith'. I would assert that, due to the peer review and scientific method, it's a solid, proven process for all things.[/quote]

I agree that the scientific method [I]is[/I] a "a solid, proven [I]process[/I]". When something is proven through legitimate peer reviewed scientific process, I do not dispute its existence. The belief, however, that "all things" [I]are discoverable[/I] through that process is an act of faith.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1008925]...

If science has yet to find a way to 'measure' something, it will.



...[/quote]
RR, here is where your statement of faith in seed form. From that simple statement, all the rest of your trust in science flows.

Re: Pics For Sharing & Debating
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1008958]RR, here is where your statement of faith in seed form. From that simple statement, all the rest of your trust in science flows.[/quote]

CRR, please look at the scientific method and see if it's a progressive or recessive activity?

Why would anyone think that we will discover less or regress on what we are currently able to explain?