Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Hazards of Belief

24567334

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    yes we are being cruel, but welcome to humanity. We're not all that nice.

    jesus christ


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    The guy did obviously have issues, but there is nothing in any of the information that has been furnished to suggest that the issues were anything other than an over zealous belief in his god. To say that this tragedy has nothing to do with religion is quite a baseless statement.

    Religion and a belief in a God are not the same thing. It is actually baseless to try and connect this to religion since no religion teaches that kind of behaviour nor does it encourage it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Playboy wrote:
    My logic goes like this Asiaprod. The guy obviously had issues and he didnt commit suicide becuase he was just 'stupid' like most people on here seem to think.
    I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You seem to be arguing that anyone with a strong faith in a personal intervening God has 'mental issues'!

    You're whining at others who are merely calling them stupid?
    This tragedy has nothing to do with any religion or what any religion teaches contrary to what Healingblight thinks.
    Quite a philosophical statement there Playboy - I'm calling it philosophical in the sense it's not backed by any evidence or argument.

    In a world still dominated by 'miracle stories' where God responds to prayers of the pious to cure cancer etc, ONE story showing clearly that this does not actually happen seems entirely appropriate.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > This tragedy has nothing to do with any religion or what any religion teaches

    Nonsense. Had the guy not been told by somebody that the sky pixie would protect him, then he'd probably be still alive -- religion is directly responsible for feeding this man a fatal illusion which lead to his death. If he was mentally unbalanced, as you suggested, then the man's religious leaders are doubly responsible, as they took advantage of his illness as well as fed him lies. Whatever way you look at it, religious lies cause this man's death and there's nothing funny or laughable about that.

    Here's another fatal illusion which fundamentalist christianity tries on:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers.html
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers_2.html

    "There are over 100 documented deaths from serpent bites" -- do you believe that religion is blameless here too?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    pH wrote:
    I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You seem to be arguing that anyone with a strong faith in a personal intervening God has 'mental issues'!

    You're whining at others who are merely calling them stupid?

    I'm not going to waste energy on arguing such a ridiculous point. If you want to think that his actions were one of a sane individual then you are entitled to that opinion but I would have to disagree.

    pH wrote:
    Quite a philosophical statement there Playboy - I'm calling it philosophical in the sense it's not backed by any evidence or argument.

    That doesnt make any sense. What do you think philosophers write in those large volumes they knock out other than evidence and argument. Tbh your childish disdain for philosophy is growing tiresome pH. You had a chance on a couple of other threads to back up your uninformed opinions on philosophy and you declined to do so. I can only imagine it was becuase you had nothing to say.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    robindch wrote:
    > This tragedy has nothing to do with any religion or what any religion teaches

    Nonsense. Had the guy not been told by somebody that the sky pixie would protect him, then he'd probably be still alive -- religion is directly responsible for feeding this man a fatal illusion which lead to his death. If he was mentally unbalanced, as you suggested, then the man's religious leaders are doubly responsible, as they took advantage of his illness as well as fed him lies. Whatever way you look at it, religious lies cause this man's death and there's nothing funny or laughable about that.

    Here's another fatal illusion which fundamentalist christianity tries on:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers.html
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers_2.html

    "There are over 100 documented deaths from serpent bites" -- do you believe that religion is blameless here too?

    These are 2 completley different types of events. Religion does not condone nor does it encourage this type of behaviour. To compare this event to some obscure religious practice in the bible belt is completley disengenous.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    That doesnt make any sense. What do you think philosophers write in those large volumes they knock out other than evidence and argument.

    guesses...educated guesses alot of the time to be sure, but still.. they are just guesses. Plato didnd't know any more about the universe than my five year old cousin, he just thought about it alot more and convinced himself (and others) that what he thought was correct.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    Mordeth wrote:
    guesses...educated guesses alot of the time to be sure, but still.. they are just guesses. Plato didnd't know any more about the universe than my five year old cousin, he just thought about it alot more and convinced himself (and others) that what he thought was correct.

    Philosophy is logical argument and evidence. It might not be scientific evidence but there is still evidence. If there was no evidence then there would be no basis for the reasoning and hence it wouldnt be logical.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,553 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Playboy wrote:
    ye a community of smart asses who get to together to pat each other on the back about how intelligent they are in comparison to theists and laugh at the misfortune of the mentally ill.
    Thats your opinion. Take it with you on the way back to the philosophy board where of course you'd never find any smart asses or ego rubbing.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    It might not be scientific evidence but there is still evidence.

    whatever evidence there is is whatever evidence the 'philosopher' thinks is appropriate, or whatever he/she decides to pull out of their head. but anyway I'm not trying to go off on a rant about philosophers, although I don't really like most of them .. they can't all be david hume.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Playboy wrote:
    I'm not going to waste energy on arguing such a ridiculous point. If you want to think that his actions were one of a sane individual then you are entitled to that opinion but I would have to disagree.
    So you're prepared to make the point but not support it by argument. As for wasting energy, as someone who's 'studied' philosophy I'd have thought you'd be used to it.
    Philosophy is logical argument and evidence. It might not be scientific evidence but there is still evidence. If there was no evidence then there would be no basis for the reasoning and hence it wouldnt be logical.

    There's no evidence, it's all tosh and you know it - it's for people who want to look smart but don't have any real intelligence.

    And are you still maintaining that: Anyone who believes that in a perilous situation that God will save them has mental issues?

    I suppose you have 'evidence' for this rubbish too?

    From what I can gather this forum exists so atheists can come together to massage each others ego's in relation to how smart and logical they are and laugh at the so called stupidity of people with religious belief. Imo the attitudes of most of the people on this board represent all of the negative stereotypes people have about atheists which other atheists are spending a lot of energy trying to get rid of.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    There's no evidence, it's all tosh and you know it - it's for people who want to look smart but don't have any real intelligence.

    mostly yeah.. but cmon, there are some gem's out there. Philosophy would be great if not for philosphers and philosophy students.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    It's his "I'm a philosopher! - no one else is entitled to an opinion that differs from mine - none of you think clearly" attitude that amuses me.

    Earlier on this thread for example he was lecturing some posters on what that they should and shouldn't find funny!
    Playboy wrote:
    Tbh your childish disdain for philosophy is growing tiresome pH.
    And to make it absolutely clear, the last thing I'd do is go and troll the philosophy forum with my opinions, in the way he trolls here about atheists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 443 ✭✭Fallen Seraph


    Playboy wrote:
    Religion and a belief in a God are not the same thing. It is actually baseless to try and connect this to religion since no religion teaches that kind of behaviour nor does it encourage it.


    This might have been mentioned before, but here's the quote
    These signs will accompany those who believe: [...] they will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them

    That's just the NT, I don't know if there's anything similar in the OT or Koran, but it wouldn't surprise me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    Thats your opinion. Take it with you on the way back to the philosophy board where of course you'd never find any smart asses or ego rubbing.

    Since you mod the forum and fought for its creation I thought you would be concerned about the direction of the forum and its purpose. I am an agnostic so I supported the creation of the forum. What I am expressing here is what I feel this forum has degenerated into. Can you tell me what the purpose of this forum is apart from what I stated that it seemed to be? Why did you want this forum in the first place and do you think it achieves anything such as combating religious misinformation, promoting a positive image for atheists and agnostics alike and promoting positive dialougue between atheists and thiests? How about a responsible attitude instead of childlishly telling me to sling my hook.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    Mordeth wrote:
    whatever evidence there is is whatever evidence the 'philosopher' thinks is appropriate, or whatever he/she decides to pull out of their head. but anyway I'm not trying to go off on a rant about philosophers, although I don't really like most of them .. they can't all be david hume.

    Here is a hint. Pick up something other than a Terry Prachet novel for a change and you might be in a better postion to discuss the merits of something like philosophy. I would look a bit foolish if I tried to discuss Terry Prachets writing when I had never read any or skimmed through a couple of his books wouldnt I? Why do you think its ok to do the same?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    pH wrote:
    So you're prepared to make the point but not support it by argument. As for wasting energy, as someone who's 'studied' philosophy I'd have thought you'd be used to it.

    How can we argue the point?

    We have the same evidence but draw different conclusions.

    A guy gets killed when he puts himself in mortal danger by breaking into a Lions enclosure whilst shouting that If God exists he will save me.

    Conclusion A: This is highly abnormal and possibly suicidal behaviour which would indicate that the individual was suffering from some kind of mental illness.

    Conclusion B. The guy woke one morning and decided that it was a good day to test his faith in God without taking any advice from a member of the clergy. Even though the man had no logical reason to believe that God should intervene on his behalf becuase it contradicts the teaching of the church he decided to risk his life anyway. The guy died and therefore was stupid.


    Which really seems more plausible?
    pH wrote:
    There's no evidence, it's all tosh and you know it - it's for people who want to look smart but don't have any real intelligence.

    Hmmm ... Im starting to think you like making yourself look stupid. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054900215&page=3 Go to the bottom of that thread and answer the questions you were asked the last time you made a claim similar to this one.
    pH wrote:
    And are you still maintaining that: Anyone who believes that in a perilous situation that God will save them has mental issues?

    Anybody who puts themselves in mortal danger for the sole purpose of proving the existence of God to themselves in my opinion suffers from mental issues.
    pH wrote:
    I suppose you have 'evidence' for this rubbish too?

    From what I can gather this forum exists so atheists can come together to massage each others ego's in relation to how smart and logical they are and laugh at the so called stupidity of people with religious belief. Imo the attitudes of most of the people on this board represent all of the negative stereotypes people have about atheists which other atheists are spending a lot of energy trying to get rid of.

    Its in most threads on this board from posters like you.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    Here is a hint. Pick up something other than a Terry Prachet novel for a change and you might be in a better postion to discuss the merits of something like philosophy. I would look a bit foolish if I tried to discuss Terry Prachets writing when I had never read any or skimmed through a couple of his books wouldnt I? Why do you think its ok to do the same?

    you're such an intelligent person, I'll stop doing what I'm doing and listen to you straight away!

    but since what I read defines my intelligence, atm I'm reading daniel c dennet - the psychology of religion: breaking the spell, john ralson saul - voltaires bastards: the dictatorship of reason in the west.. last books I read were david hume - theory concerning human understanding (I didn't really get it), diane ackerman - an alchemy of mind and something by simone de beavouir or somesuch..

    so respectfully, stfu.


  • Registered Users Posts: 443 ✭✭Fallen Seraph


    On further thought, I think your analysis of the situation quite accurate Playboy.

    Also, this thread is turning into a flamewar.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    Mordeth wrote:
    you're such an intelligent person, I'll stop doing what I'm doing and listen to you straight away!

    but since what I read defines my intelligence, atm I'm reading daniel c dennet - the psychology of religion: breaking the spell, john ralson saul - voltaires bastards: the dictatorship of reason in the west.. last books I read were david hume - theory concerning human understanding (I didn't really get it), diane ackerman - an alchemy of mind and something by simone de beavouir or somesuch..

    so respectfully, stfu.


    And you are still clueless. Just shows that reading without intelligence is about as pointless as TV without electricity. You made a statement about philosophy. You were wrong. Deal with and stop being a child.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    for such a reasoned master of philosophy and all the rational arts playboy, you're getting very defensive.
    Philosophy would be great if not for philosphers and philosophy students.

    I stand by this. No philosopher in the course of human history has discovered anything so crucial or interesting about life that it excuses philosophy students.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    Mordeth wrote:
    for such a reasoned master of philosophy and all the rational arts playboy, you're getting very defensive.



    I stand by this. No philosopher in the course of human history has discovered anything so crucial or interesting about life that it excuses philosophy students.

    Really in all honesty what are age you? I dont have time to be talking to children or idiots. And fyi I study Psychology not philosophy.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    23, my learned 26 year old.

    again, for such an intelligent person I'm surprised you had to ask instead of just looking at my boards profile and doing a small bit of counting. That's how I found out you were 26 and if I can do it, you surely can.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    I did see your age. I just couldnt believe that you were 23 after making a statement like the one you did. Just shows you that age is just a number.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    I couldn't agree more, you'd expect a 26 year old to be more mature than a simple 23 year old. Especially one versed in the 'disciplines' of psychology and philosophy, but here you are again and again stooping to my level.

    Shame playboy, shame.


    (edit)

    <--- victorious!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Playboy wrote:
    Conclusion A: This is highly abnormal and possibly suicidal behaviour which would indicate that the individual was suffering from some kind of mental illness.

    Conclusion B. The guy woke one morning and decided that it was a good day to test his faith in God without taking any advice from a member of the clergy. Even though the man had no logical reason to believe that God should intervene on his behalf becuase it contradicts the teaching of the church he decided to risk his life anyway. The guy died and therefore was stupid.

    So are you saying :

    Anyone who tries to test if God exists and will intervene is insane - or only if you bet your life on it? Would risking your arm be insane?

    And you also seem to be saying that it's perfectly sane in a dangerous situaution (not of your own making) to expect/pray/ask God to save you, it's somehow testing this that make you insane?

    If someone believes that God can/will save then from peril (sane in your opinion) how does the source of the peril (self inflicted or external) make that belief a certain indicator of insanity (as you are claiming)?

    no logical reason to believe that God should intervene

    You're joking surely? You don't think that a devout follower of Christianity (or Islam for that matter) has any logical reason to believe that God might intervene on earth on their behalf? What may I ask leads you to this conclusion?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,553 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Playboy wrote:
    Since you mod the forum and fought for its creation I thought you would be concerned about the direction of the forum and its purpose. I am an agnostic so I supported the creation of the forum. What I am expressing here is what I feel this forum has degenerated into. Can you tell me what the purpose of this forum is apart from what I stated that it seemed to be? Why did you want this forum in the first place and do you think it achieves anything such as combating religious misinformation, promoting a positive image for atheists and agnostics alike and promoting positive dialougue between atheists and thiests? How about a responsible attitude instead of childlishly telling me to sling my hook.
    You've got to remember this is a public forum. I can't just delete every thread that fails to promote positive atheism. One user was given a ban for the second time this week for basically doing what you accuse us all of doing. And that's basically what you have done - tarred any regulars poster with the same brush. As a student of psychology I don't know how you didn't anticipate the response you got from me. You basically insulted an entire forum.

    Some threads are meaningless. Some threads have a point. There are slow days and busy days. I could alter the charter so that posters would not be allowed to represent "us" badly, but frankly there isn't an "us". There is no creed and everybodys (dis)belief, and how it is manifested is different to everyone elses.

    And as a student of psychology why are you so surprised at people's reaction to the article? It would have got the same response on most any other forum.

    At any rate everyone should calm down.
    It's getting close to charter breaking and I want to watch the football instead.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 HealingBlight


    They apparently caught it on video:
    http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1149852565/Hungry_Lions_Versus_Foolish_Man
    Although it doesent show or sound like anything graphic from what I see, its still disturbing because, well, you know whats happening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    At any rate everyone should calm down.
    It's getting close to charter breaking and I want to watch the football instead.

    It's the heat, the d*mned heat I tell you!

    ISAW and Pocari are giving each other a good kicking in Christianity, too, although that's more of a win-win.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Scofflaw wrote:
    ISAW and Pocari are giving each other a good kicking in Christianity, too, although that's more of a win-win.
    Is it not great to see the finer points of Papal history debated with such vigour?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement