• Hanover
    2.2k
    Plus, hardened nipples can put a women in a thight spot, but it's hard to imagine a female-equivalent to the daddy-gets-a-hard-one-dancing-with-his-daughter-at-her-prom scenario.Akanthinos

    Wtf? TMI. Really dude, that's not a thing. That's you. I just vomited in my mouth.
  • Michael
    4.8k
    Ahh, wait a second, I remember, first you Brits have pre-drinks... then you start the real drinking at around like 22:00-23:00 >:O >:O >:O . Never forget the warm-upAgustino

    We're a frugal lot. Drinks from Tesco are much cheaper than at the club.
  • Akanthinos
    267
    Wtf? TMI. Really dude, that's not a thing. That's you. I just vomited in my mouth.Hanover

    Lol. I have no kid, no worries. Anyway, that was a Degrassi thing, if I remember right.
  • TimeLine
    1.5k
    . Maybe Hanover could come with for cooking lessons from you? :DArguingWAristotleTiff

    Impossible, most of my recipes contain sugar and you well know Hanover and sugar are not compatible. When was it, sometime not too long ago at that child's party where he locked his gaze on the fairy bread, those delightful and buttery triangles sprinkled with a rainbow of sweet, edible goodness before moments later tackling a five year old boy like a quarterback, grabbing the plate of fairy bread and running off cackling deliriously only to be found several hours later lying naked on a tree. No, I think for the interest of public safety, we'll let him continue feasting on unpalatable processed foods.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    1.4k
    Twinkle Toes Hanover stuck, lying naked, in a tree? I know just who to call! (Y)
    I might be delayed a bit as I stand by the Fire Fighters and make sure that they get him safely out of the tree. I will be sure to casually remind them that a calendar of them at work, without their shirts on, would be a great revenue generator. 8-)
  • Bitter Crank
    4.3k
    There are calendars of fireMEN with a good deal less than their shirts on. The svelte fellow below is in the service d'incendie français.

    A good looking man can never be too naked.

    tumblr_p0loveXOeV1qfq2hfo1_540.jpg
  • Akanthinos
    267


    Bloody hell, my self image, man. Now I really gotta get that gym membership. >:o
  • Wosret
    3.1k


    Makes me feel better about myself, lol.
  • Sapientia
    4.3k
    To leave a scientific trail or change its original appearance would be to do precisely what the doctrine claims it doesn't do. So you cannot falsify something in this manner. You have to falsify based on the predictions it does make. I outlined before how something can MYSTICALLY - I have no clue what you mean by literarily - change while maintaining its appearance.Agustino

    I thought that we'd moved on from this. Forget the damn doctrine for a moment. For the purpose of my question, set aside what that part of it says. I'm talking about the real world. In the real world, that doesn't happen. There's no evidence, besides hearsay, that that has ever happened, so it is perfectly reasonable to question why you think that it happens. (And that the doctrine says so, again, is obviously not a good enough answer, as that just shifts the focus of the question on to why you think that the doctrine is right. You can't just assume that it is right, as that's not a shared assumption, and would beg the question).

    I suppose I didn't really need to use the term "literally". I only used it to emphasise that I'm talking about a real change taking place, and not a figurative, symbolic change. Your use of the term "mystically" is tantamount to an admission that you don't really have a clue how it supposedly works, but you have faith that it does. That's not a reasonable stance.

    Let me give you an example that second grade Mike will be able to understand. You're not feeling sexually excited and you look at an attractive girl, but you're not interested in her. After some time you get sexually excited, start feeling horny (sorry but I do have to speak at this level it seems to be understood) and you look at the same girl, who appears the same, and is physically the same, and suddenly you are attracted to her. She means something different to you than she did before. That's a transubstantiation - something maintains the same appearance, but changes its inner significance and meaning. It's not that hard to understand, but I really feel I have to speak at those mundane and philistine levels to make myself understood here. Many of the threads in the forums are also starting to become annoying because everyone speaks so vaguely and incoherently about things, which is part of the reason why I've been participating less in some threads.Agustino

    Yeah, that's not an example of transubstantiation. That's just feeling horny over some girl. That's an ordinary, common place occurrence, which can be explained. That's not an extraordinary and inexplicable event which would defy all current scientific knowledge. The two aren't comparable.

    That wasn't my answer. My answer was why should I expect a scientific basis for believing in the doctrine?Agustino

    Because science has proven itself to be considerably more reliable. Why shouldn't you have confidence in science over your doctrine?

    You're asking a stupid question, like me asking why are you still beating your wife? You have to think about what kind of questions you're asking and what presuppositions they make. So please, do some work here if you want to get somewhere to understand those issues on a deeper level.Agustino

    It's not a stupid question. We both have our presuppositions. I have no qualms about being open about mine. But you've been hesitant to be open about your reliance on faith over reason. I have confidence in science because it has a great track record. Its predictions have turned out correct, or have at least been of use and set us on the right track, ever adding to our knowledge about the world. The Bible, on the other hand, is just an old book, and if its passages are to be taken literally, then it has proven itself wrong with regards to important claims that it made about the world, perhaps most notably with regards to the Genesis creation myth. That's why Biblical literalism is stupid, and is only taken up by people who are themselves stupid, or who disregard how stupid it is as a matter of faith.

    Make some effort to follow attentively the thread of the discussion, and don't strawman. I'm not avoiding answering you, I'm questioning the presuppositions that you make when trying to question me. If you don't put the work in, then you're wasting my time, and I'm currently busy, so it gets tiring to respond and repeat the same things over and over again.Agustino

    No, I think that it's you who is failing to get it. For example, a prominent failure on your part is your reoccurring error of mistaking my focus on external errors (something that the Bible gets wrong about the external world) to be about internal errors (something that contradicts the Bible's own message). I have tried to clarify this for you, but based on your replies, it seems that you still aren't getting it. You just keep repeating that the doctrine says this and does not say that, as if that matters.
  • Akanthinos
    267


    Well we can't all be that perfect, or at least, not without effort, Mister-Million-Dollard-Glutes-Muscles. :P
  • Wosret
    3.1k


    Is lordosis really hot on a dude?
  • Akanthinos
    267


    Of course! After all, it's a prime trait for selection!

    "As such, lordosis in the human spine is considered one of the primary physiological adaptations of the human skeleton that allows for human gait to be as energetically efficient as it is."

    -wiki
  • Wosret
    3.1k
    Lordosis is excessive curvature. Which is clear, which is also a feminine trait. Likely means he feels pretty. Females do it ever so slightly when they're interested, and men do the opposite, tucking the pelvis forward when they are, ever so slightly. Which is why excess tends to go in those directions for either sex.

    That's just the most clear and obvious thing, that should be easily seen by everyone, I notice other things which would be less obvious, and more controversial.
  • Wosret
    3.1k
    In yoga, they say that the hips are like a bowl, when you balance it properly, and don't spill out anywhere, the upper body above the hips is entirely weightless. The middle, or neutral being ideal.
  • Agustino
    8.7k
    I'm talking about the real world.Sapientia
    Yeah me too, I wasn't talking about dreamland.

    There's no evidence, besides hearsay, that that has ever happened, so it is perfectly reasonable to question why you think that it happens.Sapientia
    What would you expect to happen if the doctrine was true? You must know what predictions the doctrine makes to judge if they do or do not happen.

    And please don't tell me some idiotic thing like I expect a literal change. No - I want you to tell me exactly what you would expect. If it's a literal change, you have to tell me, for example, I expect that in the wine there will be found blood, or something of that sort.

    Yeah, that's not an example of transubstantiation. That's just feeling horny over some girl. That's an ordinary, common place occurrence, which can be explained. That's not an extraordinary and inexplicable event which would defy all current scientific knowledge. The two aren't comparable.Sapientia
    Yes, by analogy they certainly are comparable. You said you were mystified how something can remain physically the same and yet literarily change. I just gave you an example - a common one as you say - where that happens. So then you're not really so mystified about how something can remain the same physically and yet literarily change.

    Because science has proven itself to be considerably more reliable. Why shouldn't you have confidence in science over your doctrine?Sapientia
    :s - the doctrine doesn't contradict any scientific predictions, so why is it the doctrine vs science? :s

    I have confidence in science because it has a great track record.Sapientia
    Yeah me too. I have confidence in science when dealing with physical & quantifiable matters.

    Its predictions have turned out correct, or have at least been of use and set us on the right track, ever adding to our knowledge about the world.Sapientia
    Its predictions have turned out correctly indeed. But only in a limited domain. And that's the domain which studies the behaviour of physical matter, where things can be studied quantitatively. So if we're dealing with a domain where we need a qualitative study, and not a quantitative one (such as spirituality), then science is of little use. The same way that a hammer is great for hittin' the nails, but crap for cutting the tree. You are being entirely irrational and laughable if you're telling me I should use science in a spiritual matter because science has great results in an entirely different domain.

    No, I think that it's you who is failing to get it. For example, a prominent failure on your part is your reoccurring error of mistaking my focus on external errors (something that the Bible gets wrong about the external world) to be about internal errors (something that contradicts the Bible's own message). I have tried to clarify this for you, but based on your replies, it seems that you still aren't getting it. You just keep repeating that the doctrine says this and does not say that, as if that matters.Sapientia
    Were we discussing the Bible? That's news to me.
  • Agustino
    8.7k
    Really, I think we need to advance beyond these kindergarten New Atheist objections. That's exactly the kind of thing that makes New Atheism entirely laughable. I'm not saying that you can't be a smart atheist, but for certain you can't be a smart New Atheist :P
  • Akanthinos
    267
    Lordosis is excessive curvature.Wosret

    No. Lordosis is normal inward curvature. You mean hyperlordosis. Lordosis is one of the reasons why human mouvement is more efficient than the gait-based mouvement of other primates.
  • Wosret
    3.1k
    "Lordosis is defined as an excessive inward curve of the spine. It differs from the spine's normal curves at the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions, which are, to a degree, either kyphotic (near the neck) or lordotic (closer to the low back)"

    https://www.spineuniverse.com/conditions/spinal-disorders/closer-look-lordosis
  • Agustino
    8.7k

    Question for you two:

    Reveal
    Who here suffers from Peyronie's Disease?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.