Philosophy Now Forum

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

You are correct Chaz.

It was just a general joke.

The pic was, like all the photos I use, from stock.

My intent was not meant to be a, my god is holier than thou joke.

I have enjoyed all the different perspectives that were displayed upon this thread.

My own opinion was changed a few times.

I appreciate that there are many different validates towards this topic and even toward the last pic & joke I used.


I want to thank everyone who participated.

It was a fun thread.


.

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:The assumption is YOURS. You have inferred what was not necessarily implied.
I am able to see the joke as an atheist because any religious nuttery calls into question God's existence.

Fair point and I agree that 'jokes' such as these are not necessary, given that 'god/s' do not exist and such behaviour is a cultural one and not a 'god' given one. But the point of them is apparently to make the point that there is a contradiction in the believers faith. A 'joke' that I think fails on a couple of counts, one that the religion in question, as you have pointed out, does not advocate such apparel, so its a cultural inheirtence and two that its pretty much pointless as where does logic and reason come into religious belief anyway? It also assumes a 'samness' in 'god/s' as wwhy should their 'god' not wish to take the lesser of two 'evils' as I thought the justification for such gear is to reduce inflaming the male passions and to protect the female from such inflament.

He doesn't.
Its generally a cultural requirement of certain of those who have embraced Islam.

chaz wyman wrote: WHO DOESN"T?

So bizarrely enough it was You that assumed the existence of a non existent entity, and not Bill, and probably not even the person who originally designed the image.

(though I accept the possibility that the joke could have been designed by a rabid Christian).