How come Atheists are against anti blasphemy laws but are OK with bashing other .....

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 7:06pm

Sarky wrote: »

Isn't it worrying how many people are sure that it's their imaginary friend making them a better person?

If you're a good person then that's YOUR doing. Take credit for your own accomplishments ffs.

Ah but then how can they blame Satan when they are being a bad person?

joseph brand · 02-03-2012 7:08pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

. . . . the fossils talked about are scarce and it would be one of those things you'd really have to see to believe, though it did make for interesting reading all the same.

See to believe? Where and when did you see god?

Here's a photo of a fossil I have:

Not as rare as you think.

robindch · 02-03-2012 7:10pm

Sarky wrote: »

Isn't it worrying how many people are sure that it's their imaginary friend making them a better person?

Well, if you believe that your deity is the source of moral order, then you are forced (mostly willingly, it seems) into accepting that view.

And likewise, since it's Satan who's tempting you into doing bad things, then you don't really need to accept any responsibility for those things either:

"Wasn't me guv wot did it. T'was that hornéd gent right there."

And the best part is that by assuming one is able to tell good from bad, one is assuming the right to sit in judgement of god.

You just couldn't make up this shit, only somebody obviously a bit dim, did.

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 7:11pm

joseph brand wrote: »

See to believe? Where and when did you see god?

Here's a photo of a fossil I have:

Not as rare as you think.

I used to have one of those but some godless b**tard stole it (you know who you are!!!) - I have never had a god stolen. Possibly because I have never had one....

Galvasean · 02-03-2012 7:28pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

No he didn't. I'm already a good person, I don't need to pretend a deity exists to better myself either.

Imagine people being good without having to be threatened or cajoled into doing so...

Amtmann · 02-03-2012 7:41pm

philologos wrote: »

I think it is obnoxious. I have no problem with an atheist criticising my faith. I can handle criticism. I do think that if I show an atheist respect, that it should be expected in civilised discussion that they show me respect as a person. There is a difference between criticism and ridicule.

I fully agree that you are entitled to respect and I am always respectful to theists I talk to.

However, it is difficult to have a discussion about religion with theists without ridiculing the belief, for the simple reason that the belief is almost invariably ridiculous. The ridiculousness of theistic beliefs is a big part of the reason that I am an atheist.

MrPudding · 02-03-2012 7:42pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Imagine people being good without having to be threatened or cajoled into doing so...

Nah. It will never catch on.

MrP

G.K. · 02-03-2012 7:45pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Phil did answer your question, The only way to really find the truth about God is to become a follower, perhaps try it for 2 weeks and see how much of a better person you become.

For 2 weeks, I go on a quest to better myself by becoming a follower. Instantly 2 problems present themselves. First, what religion am I supposed to be following? Christianity? Which denomination? Second, I'm undoubtedly making myself a better person by living a lie for 2 weeks, aren't I?

RichieC · 02-03-2012 7:49pm

G.K. wrote: »

For 2 weeks, I go on a quest to better myself by becoming a follower. Instantly 2 problems present themselves. First, what religion am I supposed to be following? Christianity? Which denomination? Second, I'm undoubtedly making myself a better person by living a lie for 2 weeks, aren't I?

The bigger problem for me would be over riding every thing I've learned in 33 years and actually believing it for two weeks.

oldrnwisr · 02-03-2012 8:07pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Evolution does fascinate me and I got very interesting answers from people here with a lot of expertise on the subject, though they couldnt convince me it was real as the fossils talked about are scarce and it would be one of those things you'd really have to see to believe, though it did make for interesting reading all the same.

I have already explained this to you on the evolution thread. While fossils are great and they provide the most visually impressive and recognisable evidence for evolution, they are not entirely necessary to prove evolution (no offence Galv) particularly in the case of human evolution. There are many concordant pieces of hard data which all confirm the same picture of human evolution. You can see this quite clearly in the picture below. If you still aren't convinced by such demonstrable evidence then I'm afraid it's not us it's you.

Oranage2 wrote: »

There is evidence, take a look at the universe, it's far too complex just to exist. It's like the wind, you cant see the wind so does wind not exist?

If you wish to have a meaningful debate with those of us who value reason and logic then you may want to brush up on logical fallacies as avoiding them will make for a better argument on your part. In particular you may want to read this one: Argument from incredulity. You may also want to consider that a lack of understanding of cosmology and quantum mechanics may be a better explanation for the complexity of the universe rather than an actual unexplainable complexity.

Dades · 02-03-2012 11:59pm

Oranage2, I think, is done with the current (useful) evolution thread. It's pretty clear that mind is not open to change.

Galvasean · 03-03-2012 12:20am

Dades wrote: »

Oranage2, I think, is done with the current (useful) evolution thread. It's pretty clear that mind is not open to change.

We'll make him change!

joseph brand · 03-03-2012 12:34am

Oranage2 wrote: »

There is evidence, take a look at the universe, it's far too complex just to exist. It's like the wind, you cant see the wind so does wind not exist?

Are you saying you cannot feel the wind? See leaves blowing? A kite?

Glass is also hard to see. I'll find a really clean glass door and you have to run straight into it (it's invisible). If you can't see it it's not there. (Although you can touch it, and see it from a different angle)

Is the blood from your nose real? :pac:

Oranage2 · 04-03-2012 10:12am

RichieC wrote: »

Evolution you have to see to believe but God!, well, he's real and you heathens are going to hell.... You referred to it as pseudo science, so yes. you were trolling that thread, even after the evidence was presented to you, it didnt convince you. you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it. or as I suspect, didn't give a dam, you just wanted to wreak a thread.

I did no such thing excuse you!

I asked a question and it was answered - The evidence presented wasnt enough for me to completely change my mind. I've still a few questions like why cant fish do mathematics or why are we so much smarter than any other species which just doesnt add up for me.

Now you admit it that you were trolling on that thread!

joseph brand wrote: »

See to believe? Where and when did you see god?

Here's a photo of a fossil I have:

Not as rare as you think.

I'm just seeing a rock - if thats the case I've a dragon fossil out my back.

Dades wrote: »

Oranage2, I think, is done with the current (useful) evolution thread. It's pretty clear that mind is not open to change.

Not done at all, perhaps done with replying but certainly not done reading it - As you might imagine DNA wouldnt be my mastermind subject so if I cant add anything useful I dont bother replying.

And my mind is open - I'd be willing to change my mind that God created each species to God created evolution.

Solair · 04-03-2012 12:33pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm just seeing a rock - if thats the case I've a dragon fossil out my back.

Right, so you don't notice the rather large insect type thing that's fossilized into the rock???

Interesting....

Zombrex · 04-03-2012 12:45pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm just seeing a rock - if thats the case I've a dragon fossil out my back.

A fossil is a type of rock.

What did you expect to see?

Oranage2 · 04-03-2012 1:03pm

Full skellington or something I'm not a archaeologist.

philologos · 04-03-2012 1:11pm

Amtmann: I don't really believe it's all that difficult not to be obnoxious about it. All it takes is to listen, consider and respond on the basis of what is logically sound / unsound about it in a respectful manner. I've done the same with other positions that I disagree with, and it's proven beneficial. I can't imagine any case where anyone resorts to ridicule being beneficial for anyone. Generally, it's a good sign post for me to know when to realise that it is pointless to continue as it is unlikely that anyone's understanding will progress.

Sarky · 04-03-2012 1:17pm

When were you planning on putting that into practice, by the by?

swampgas · 04-03-2012 1:23pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Full skellington or something I'm not a archaeologist.

You don't need to be an archaeologist, you don't need to stay ignorant either. You can read and use your own common sense.

Maybe try starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

philologos · 04-03-2012 1:30pm

Sarky wrote: »

When were you planning on putting that into practice, by the by?

I think largely I already do in respect to missionaries that I speak to out in the street advocating for any number of ideologies. My first response isn't to burst out and laugh, but rather it is to listen to them and give them a response on the basis of my POV. Likewise most of the time on boards.ie, genuinely I would say that it what I would desire from most discussions. I can't ever say that I've burst out laughing at atheism on many occasions, but rather I've listened to it and given what objections I have to it. On a number of occasions that I've had with non-Christian friends of mine, this has largely been my approach also.

Zombrex · 04-03-2012 1:37pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Full skellington or something

You can see a fossil of the full skeleton, it is the top right hand side of the rock. The fossilized skeleton though is still a rock.

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not a archaeologist.

So is your rejection of evolution based merely on ignorance?

krudler · 04-03-2012 1:41pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Didnt really mean to ignore most your post it's just not my style to nit pick every sentence or word with a fine tooth comb.

And you shouldnt be angry with God, he's a loving God, and as Dades says he does work in mysterious ways. The fact that he hasnt smite anyone on this forum yet shows he's real and a forgiving God.

except that whole wiping out people willy nilly teenage phase he went through at the beginning of the bible, like most lads once the first kid arrived he matured and calmed down a bit though.

really though thats just staggeringly stupid reasoning for a god to exist, I didnt get hit by a tractor today, god must love me!

the more I think about it the more I question why anyone would actually WANT to go heaven, it'd be like moving in with a girlfriend you already know is a hormonal cyclone with arbitrary interchangeable rules.

philologos · 04-03-2012 1:43pm

krudler: I don't believe God changed one bit. The Bible accounts for one revelation to mankind as far as most Christians are concerned, not two.

Sarky · 04-03-2012 1:44pm

philologos wrote: »

I think largely I already do in respect to missionaries that I speak to out in the street advocating for any number of ideologies. My first response isn't to burst out and laugh, but rather it is to listen to them and give them a response on the basis of my POV. Likewise most of the time on boards.ie, genuinely I would say that it what I would desire from most discussions. I can't ever say that I've burst out laughing at atheism on many occasions, but rather I've listened to it and given what objections I have to it. On a number of occasions that I've had with non-Christian friends of mine, this has largely been my approach also.

So we can expect either an admission that you believe because you don't like the alternative, or an actual explanation as to how totally subjective feelings are integral to logic? Because every single time it comes down to this, and every single time so far you've buggered off for a while and when you come back you pretend it never happened. It seems a bit... disrespectful, to be honest.

philologos · 04-03-2012 2:12pm

I rarely argue from subjective feelings. Most of the time what I do argue is on the basis of the world around me, it seems likely that Christianity is true for X, Y and Z reason. That's generally

I've done this many times since I started posting after I became a Christian in 2007 (I used my account since 2005 but a lot of what you will find before 2007 will be devoid of Christianity) I can even link to you to a large number of posts where I've done this later if you'd like both here and over yonder.

The argument has been by and large exhausted at this point. The only way I think that the argument can be reinvigorated is if atheists are also willing to argue as to why they believe God's existence is improbable.

MagicMarker · 04-03-2012 2:14pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Full skellington or something I'm not a archaeologist.

Ignorance really is bliss eh?

Zombrex · 04-03-2012 2:32pm

philologos wrote: »

I rarely argue from subjective feelings. Most of the time what I do argue is on the basis of the world around me, it seems likely that Christianity is true for X, Y and Z reason. That's generally

I've done this many times since I started posting after I became a Christian in 2007 (I used my account since 2005 but a lot of what you will find before 2007 will be devoid of Christianity) I can even link to you to a large number of posts where I've done this later if you'd like both here and over yonder.

The argument has been by and large exhausted at this point. The only way I think that the argument can be reinvigorated is if atheists are also willing to argue as to why they believe God's existence is improbable.

How about we just argue that Christianity is not likely because of X, Y and Z reasons.

Without a rational reason for being a Christian you would stop being a Christian, correct? Or is being a Christian more about emotion and promise than rational reasoning?

Oranage2 · 04-03-2012 3:31pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ignorance really is bliss eh?

Do you actually add anything to threads or do you just come in and have a go at people?

Sonics2k · 04-03-2012 4:06pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Full skellington or something I'm not a archaeologist.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Full skellington

Oranage2 wrote: »

skellington

:pac:

How come Atheists are against anti blasphemy laws but are OK with bashing other .....

Comments