Pics For Sharing & Debating

[JoeRedskin]

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.

[RedskinRat]

It clearly states 'Pic for Sharing' not 'Pics that are devoid of contention'.



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

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

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

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

Thanks for playing though.....

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

Thanks for playing though.....

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

[Giantone]

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


50 Amazing 3D Chalk Sidewalk Art Images from Julian Beever | MyInkBlog

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

Imagination.......

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

Hit up Google, you'll find your answer.

[JoeRedskin]

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 even read about arguments 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.

[JoeRedskin]

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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

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?

[JoeRedskin]

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 you appear 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 tangible 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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Not even close. First and foremost, I am attempting to prove nothing.

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense etc...

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

"If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"

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

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...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.

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

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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).

That's odd. I do.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 tangible existence cannot be "proved" to a sightless person.

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.

Yay, science!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense etc...

Ah yes, briliant logic.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

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

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

Prove it.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That's odd. I do.

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

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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.

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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

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.