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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Help me help a friend

13

Comments

  • #102
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,327 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    King Mob: You could do with reading the posts I've linked to about the creation account before posting.

    I've also made it clear in previous posts that I believe in a regional flood.

    But those posts do not answer the question.
    And the bible does not say a "regional flood".

    So why does the bible say 1) the flood covered the entire world and 2) claimed to cover mountain tops.
    Do you believe that Noah's flood covered mountain tops which is impossible for any sort of flood?

    And why does the bible claim that birds existed before land animals? Is this a metaphor? If so what for and why does it not look like any sort of metaphor?


  • #103
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    philologos wrote: »
    I've provided you with enough to look at in the two links. It's not a cop out answer to link to posts where I've dealt with the exact same topic before.

    I've read them. They don't explain why you're not a creationist, so yes, it's a cop-out, and I'll thank you to acknowledge that. You claimed to defend creationism just a few posts back. But you're not a creationist. Why? What's wrong with their belief, that you don't share it? Come on, you keep claiming you love debate but you never, ever enter into it when the other side doesn't already agree with you.


  • #104
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    They very clearly explain the understanding I hold about Creation. The links very clearly show why I disagree with the YEC view of Scripture. Simply put, the structure of Genesis shows that it was never intended to be regarded as a science book. The links show exactly why I think that.


  • #105
    Burt Lancaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Burt Lancaster


    King Mob wrote: »
    But those posts do not answer the question.
    And the bible does not say a "regional flood".

    So why does the bible say 1) the flood covered the entire world and 2) claimed to cover mountain tops.
    Do you believe that Noah's flood covered mountain tops which is impossible for any sort of flood?

    And why does the bible claim that birds existed before land animals? Is this a metaphor? If so what for and why does it not look like any sort of metaphor?

    I'd like to see this post answered properly


  • #106
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,327 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    They very clearly explain the understanding I hold about Creation. The links very clearly show why I disagree with the YEC view of Scripture. Simply put, the structure of Genesis shows that it was never intended to be regarded as a science book. The links show exactly why I think that.
    So then why do you regard a later portion as a historical account?
    And then why does that historical account detail something that is impossible and we know didn't happen?

    So again, do you believe that the flood water covered mountain tops as described in the Bible?

    Why do you only believe in a regional flood and not a global flood as it is actually described in the bible?

    And again: Why does the genesis account say that birds came before land animals? What is the metaphorical meaning for this like you think exists for the other bits we know aren't true?


  • #107
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    Tea_Bag wrote: »
    I've got a very close friend who is a strong Christian believer. family, friends, the works.

    She's agreed to read a book of my choosing.

    I'm hoping to start with evolution, and stuff like the earth isn't 7000 years old, Adam/eve, universe doesn't give a **** about us etc. Just kinda dispute the all perfect factual Bible stuff, not attack her faith in a god. not yet anyway, that's likely going to take a very long time.

    I've read and own a few Dawkins books, and while good, he's a bit of a condescending D!ck, and assumes you have doubt in your mind already if you get me.

    any suggestions? maybe a more entry level Dawkins that I don't know about?

    Dawkins - "The Ancestor's Tale", would be my suggestion.


  • #108
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,253 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Taking it all out of context King Mob!

    You're not being fair taking it out of context! It's only a metaphor!

    etc etc etc

    Basically the same old nonsense they like to trot out when they've been caught out.


  • #109
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Ah, I see what's going on. You're misinterpreting me so you can spam "yay jebus".

    I said: "[Creationism] is a stupid belief. It SHOULD be challenged. Christ, even philologos doesn't defend it."

    You said: "Except that I do and have done plenty of times on boards.ie :)"

    Then when confronted with this, you launched into an unrelated post about why you think the bible is true, which shows the exact opposite of what you just said. I very much doubt you weren't aware of exactly what I meant, yet you still misinterpreted it to suit your own ends. That's dishonest, you know. You should be able to debate without twisting someone's words.

    Can we conclude that you do in fact condemn young earth creationism as heresy, despite the fact they use nothing but the bible for their doctrines? Or are you going to find a reason to say it's worthy of consideration, despite all the crap you've already written about it?


  • #110
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    philologos wrote: »
    Simply put, the structure of Genesis shows that it was never intended to be regarded as a science book.
    If it wasn't intended to be an accurate description of the world, then why didn't the authors put a line at the top like "This book is frequently wrong"?

    That's a serious question, btw.


  • #111
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,327 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    If it wasn't intended to be an accurate description of the world, then why didn't the authors put a line at the top like "This book is frequently wrong"?

    That's a serious question, btw.

    Or at least make it clear from the outset that it wasn't what it appeared to be (an ignorant bronze age creation myth that was to be believed) rather than waiting for people to come up with that idea after we developed the science that would show that all of it was impossible nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    King Mob wrote: »
    Or at least make it clear from the outset [...]
    If the author was omniscient, then why the hell didn't he/she explain evolution, rather than producing a noticeably second-rate creation myth that so many modern-day nutters believe with an incandescent contempt -- something he must have known would happen, if his/her omniscience were genuine.

    But at this point, what the hell. A kid could see that this is complete claptrap. It's quite embarrassing that a suitably unthinking adult can't.


  • #113
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,327 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    If the author was omniscient, then why the hell didn't he/she explain evolution, rather than producing a noticeably second-rate creation myth that so many modern-day nutters believe with an incandescent contempt -- something he must have known would happen, if his/her omniscience were genuine.

    Or if they didn't want people to think that it was a science book or a collection of histories, simply not have any lies and untruths about the origin of the universe and such.
    robindch wrote: »
    But at this point, what the hell. A kid could see that this is complete claptrap. It's quite embarrassing that a suitably unthinking adult can't.
    And most Christians can, as does Philologos. And that's why they need to come up with the excuse that it's just a metaphor, then stick their fingers in their ears when it doesn't work, like in the examples I suggested.

    Phil realises that birds coming before land animals as depicted in the bible, but contrary to reality does not have any metaphorical significance even giving the lax parameters he uses to form his other metaphors.

    Similarly he realises that if he addresses the point about the flood he must either admit that the Bible says something that isn't true (as "covering mountain tops" can't be fobbed off as a mistranslation of "world" like the other quotes), or he would have to admit that he believes that the flood did cover mountain tops which is impossible for any sort of normal flood. And if he believes that impossible thing, there's no reason why he shouldn't then also believe in the equally impossible thing that the flood really was global.

    But Phil knows that the idea of a global flood, or any flood that could match the account in the bible is so ridiculous and clearly not true, he is more comfortable being dishonest and avoiding the point than just admitting what he actually believes.
    Similarly he knows that his excuse for the genesis account breaks down on examples like birds coming before land animals, hence why he avoids the question instead of addressing it.

    And while most christians are reasonable and rational, I think they all run into these little blocks of selective dishonesty or ignorance.


  • #114
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Honestly at this stage I don't even know why people insist of pushing Philogos. He's never once answered a question directly. By engaging and ridiculing his reasoning you actually make yourself look worse to the lurkers.


  • #115
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Jernal wrote: »
    Honestly at this stage I don't even know why people insist of pushing Philogos. He's never once answered a question directly. By engaging and ridiculing his reasoning you actually make yourself look worse to the lurkers.

    Except I have on numerous occasions. Most of the time people just don't like my opinion, that the Bible can and does make good sense on a number of issues.

    A lot of people get annoyed that I don't fit their preconceived box and that I spend time and effort trying to see what the Bible is saying.

    King Mob: Firstly, it's not dishonest to see that the Hebrew term eretz can also be rendered as land.

    Secondly, I read Genesis 1 and 2 that way because I can see textually the style in which it is written. I can see how the author intentionally wrote the text in that way. It isn't simply a list of details, it is a poetic account.

    I read other passages which are presented as narrative and history in that way, because well, the Bible presents them in that way. I look at commandments presented by God in that way, because the Bible presents them that way.

    robindch: I don't believe Genesis 1 and 2 is false. Just because something is written in a poetic style doesn't mean that it cannot communicate truth. For example, the Psalms are written in a poetic style, yet I still believe that David and the other Psalmists are communicating a clear truth about God. The same is true for Ecclesiastes and Solomon.

    Genesis 1 and 2 make me clearly see that the Lord God is responsible for everything, and that He is all powerful. The sun and the moon were created by Him, rather than being deities in and of themselves as many would have believed at that time. The fundamental beginnings ultimately come back to Him in a Judeo-Christian setting. That's a claim that I regard as true. I just don't happen to regard the world as young, or that it was literally created in 7 days.

    If you do a search for the Hebrew term yom in the Old Testament, you'll find that it is used for longer periods of time in other Scriptures.


  • #116
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,859 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I'd recommend we need to talk about Kelvin, it's a good read about the universe around us.

    Very easy to read for folk that aren't scientists (like myself for example). I really liked the section about how the universe formed.

    It would be a good book to get your friend to consider the scientific explanation of the universe around us:)

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #117
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    koth wrote: »
    I'd recommend we need to talk about Kelvin, it's a good read about the universe around us.

    Nice one, I'll be adding that to the wishlist.


  • #118
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    I'd go with Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus. Show's you how the Bible's wrong in a non-in-your-face way.


  • #119
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,011 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    OP, Do you fancy her?


  • #120
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,011 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Tea_Bag wrote: »
    its really interesting that youre an atheist and you were defending her here. respect.

    for fairness, she's given me:

    In Defense of the Faith- Dave Hunt

    the Evidence Bible

    and a couple of CS Lewis books. "The problem of Pain" is an interesting one.

    oh and a Tourist guide to South Africa. that's the most disgusting one. I get violently sick reading it. ugh.

    I would say C. S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' is probably one of the best arguments for atheism.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Tea_Bag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,983 ✭✭✭Tea_Bag


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    OP, Do you fancy her?
    do I have to because she's female?


  • #122
    Tea_Bag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,983 ✭✭✭Tea_Bag


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I would say C. S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' is probably one of the best arguments for atheism.
    it'd be hard to suggest a book by a guy that became a Christian.


  • #123
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,011 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Tea_Bag wrote: »
    do I have to because she's female?

    Why do you care what she believes in?


  • #124
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Why do you care what she believes in?
    Why do you care why he cares what she believes in? Do you fancy Tea_Bag?


  • #125
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Why do you care why he cares what she believes in? Do you fancy Tea_Bag?

    Janey likes Milhouse....


  • #126
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    She does not!


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Why do you care what she believes in?
    TR - I'm not sure what the point of this line of questioning is.

    Two friends had a conversation about their differing beliefs and agreed to read some books recommended by the other.


  • #128
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,253 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    philologos wrote: »
    Except I have on numerous occasions. Most of the time people just don't like my opinion, that the Bible can and does make good sense on a number of issues.

    A lot of people get annoyed that I don't fit their preconceived box and that I spend time and effort trying to see what the Bible is saying.

    King Mob: Firstly, it's not dishonest to see that the Hebrew term eretz can also be rendered as land.

    Secondly, I read Genesis 1 and 2 that way because I can see textually the style in which it is written. I can see how the author intentionally wrote the text in that way. It isn't simply a list of details, it is a poetic account.

    I read other passages which are presented as narrative and history in that way, because well, the Bible presents them in that way. I look at commandments presented by God in that way, because the Bible presents them that way.

    robindch: I don't believe Genesis 1 and 2 is false. Just because something is written in a poetic style doesn't mean that it cannot communicate truth. For example, the Psalms are written in a poetic style, yet I still believe that David and the other Psalmists are communicating a clear truth about God. The same is true for Ecclesiastes and Solomon.

    Genesis 1 and 2 make me clearly see that the Lord God is responsible for everything, and that He is all powerful. The sun and the moon were created by Him, rather than being deities in and of themselves as many would have believed at that time. The fundamental beginnings ultimately come back to Him in a Judeo-Christian setting. That's a claim that I regard as true. I just don't happen to regard the world as young, or that it was literally created in 7 days.

    If you do a search for the Hebrew term yom in the Old Testament, you'll find that it is used for longer periods of time in other Scriptures.

    So in a nutshell. Some of it is literal, some of it is not, and you decide this based on your previous opinions.

    I actually feel sorry for people like this.


  • #129
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,327 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    King Mob: Firstly, it's not dishonest to see that the Hebrew term eretz can also be rendered as land.
    I didn't say that was dishonest, I said it was a lame fobbing off. And I'll add that it ignores the context of the rest of the passage that very clearly refers to the entire Earth.
    What I called dishonest was the fact that you are ignoring the questions I'm asking, which you have done again.
    philologos wrote: »
    Secondly, I read Genesis 1 and 2 that way because I can see textually the style in which it is written. I can see how the author intentionally wrote the text in that way. It isn't simply a list of details, it is a poetic account.
    So then, which style was the claim that Noah's flood covered mountain tops written in?
    Do you believe the flood waters actually covered mountain tops, yes or no?
    Do you realise that this is impossible for normal floods, yes or no?
    philologos wrote: »
    I read other passages which are presented as narrative and history in that way, because well, the Bible presents them in that way. I look at commandments presented by God in that way, because the Bible presents them that way.
    No, it's all presented in the one way, you are just pretending, or perhaps convinced yourself otherwise because you realise how stupid and wrong the claims in genesis are. You know that they have no baring in reality and are impossible, so you need some excuse to ignore that fact.
    And even then you realise how that excuse falls apart because you are ignoring my other questions about why birds are claimed to come before land animals.
    Did birds actually come before land animals? Yes or no?
    Is there a "poetic meaning" to claim that they did? Yes or no?
    If so, what is it? If not, why does the bible claim so?

    You really should be asking yourself why you have to keep dodging these very simple straightforward questions.


  • #130
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,011 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Why do you care why he cares what she believes in? Do you fancy Tea_Bag?
    Most witty.
    Dades wrote:
    TR - I'm not sure what the point of this line of questioning is.

    Two friends had a conversation about their differing beliefs and agreed to read some books recommended by the other.
    Ok. Fair enough. I guess as I get older I care less for trying to convince anyone to have similar views to me and I wonder why I ever did.


  • #131
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Most witty.


    Ok. Fair enough. I guess as I get older I care less for trying to convince anyone to have similar views to me and I wonder why I ever did.

    I think that's because when we're younger we're convinced we can change the world! Make it a better place for all, banish irrationality and fallacious reasoning from the surface the Earth. With time we realise that people can't be reasoned out of something they didn't really reason themselves into. Finally, we realise that life is too short to be wasted on such trivialities, apathy sets in and we set about making sure our life is an enjoyable one. Sometimes I still care but not near as much as I once did.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Burt Lancaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Burt Lancaster


    King Mob wrote: »
    But those posts do not answer the question.
    And the bible does not say a "regional flood".

    So why does the bible say 1) the flood covered the entire world and 2) claimed to cover mountain tops.
    Do you believe that Noah's flood covered mountain tops which is impossible for any sort of flood?

    And why does the bible claim that birds existed before land animals? Is this a metaphor? If so what for and why does it not look like any sort of metaphor?

    Philologos, can you answer these flood queries please ?


  • #133
    equivariant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Most witty.


    Ok. Fair enough. I guess as I get older I care less for trying to convince anyone to have similar views to me and I wonder why I ever did.

    Because you are nearer to dying and therefore have less time to reap the rewards of having more sensible people in the world. Of course young people care more about changing the world - they have to live in it longer after all


  • #134
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,011 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    equivariant wrote: »
    Because you are nearer to dying and therefore have less time to reap the rewards of having more sensible people in the world. Of course young people care more about changing the world - they have to live in it longer after all

    But if you want to change the world, why go for a friend? Why not aim for things at a higher level? Fly a Richard Dawkins poster over that 12 million euro church in firhouse!


  • #135
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    But if you want to change the world, why go for a friend? Why not aim for things at a higher level? Fly a Richard Dawkins poster over that 12 million euro church in firhouse!
    Gotta be trolling...


  • #136
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,011 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Gotta be trolling...
    Just a joke. Probably not a good one.


  • #137
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    Except I have on numerous occasions. Most of the time people just don't like my opinion, that the Bible can and does make good sense on a number of issues.

    It is nothing to do with "liking" or "disliking" your opinions. You might prefer to paint it that way because it just makes others look ill informed or bigoted. The truth however is much worse for you. It is that we have evaluated your opinions and found them to be entirely unsubstantiated, false and quite often egregiously dishonest. What little substantiation you ever did attempt was quite thoroughly debunked.


  • #138
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    10 pages and not one mention of a Christopher Hitchens book. For shame!

    Get her to read God is Not Great.

    The Letters to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris recommendation should be followed as well.

    Those two books will be better her for than Cosmos.


  • #139
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Tea_Bag wrote: »
    any suggestions? maybe a more entry level Dawkins that I don't know about?

    It is a very difficult question to answer. The Books that will free people from religion are as unpredictable and varied as the personalities involved.

    One extreme example of this is the Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She describes her desires of escaping Islam as having been ignited while reading Nancy Drew of all things. Seems random but they are books that dared her to dream of freedom, adventure and female equality.

    Meanwhile in his recent talks Dan Barker talks of how his very Evangelical and Fundamentalist faith cracked when he started making small concessions to the faith of others, and the whole tower just crumbled from there.

    Dan Barkers book itself did it for some people, including Leo Igwe who I had the pleasure of meeting recently. Leo gave the book to his father who was himself also very religious, and said father has refused to give it back since as he loves it so much for putting him on the path of rationality and away from religion.

    Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett have all talked in the past of how their In Boxes were full of people who credited them with their loss of faith. I think of the four of them however Harris is probably the "easiest on the ear" of a Christian as he can talk the talk better than many others about the spiritual side of atheism which will ring true with many Christians.

    For my own experience I can second the call by many on here that actually getting Christians to sit down and really read the Bible is one of the best ways to break their faith. I have not "deconverted" many in my life but I can tell you most, if not all, of them was done not with reason, science or arguments, but by really working through the Bible with them which left them with a feeling of "I was meant to believe THAT???" from which they never recovered. I have been consistently shocked over the years in fact at how many Christians not only have not read the Bible, they have never even SEEN a Bible and some are even shocked to see how big it is.

    Having never had faith myself I was never converted out of it, I was always this way and I was 12 before it really hit me that other people really did believe the stuff that I thought was actually just "Story Time" in school.

    So in summary I do not think you will guess what will "do it" for your friend. Read the literature yourself... you know your friend better than us.... and pick for yourself which book you feel will be more palatable to them.


  • #140
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    In the case of the OP's friend, I wouldn't be interested in relieving her of her faith - more in opening her mind and getting her away from that deceitful nonsense that is creationism.

    Hence a more amiable *popular science* approach that doesn't attempt to get her to throw Baby Jesus out with the bathwater.


  • #141
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ^ Indeed. The OP might find the phrase "Do not teach them what to think, but how to think" helpful. Often books about atheism and anti-theism is not the way to go with someone religious. But maybe books like Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" for example *which are interesting, informative, and can actually teach someone a lot about "how to think" and how not to fall for fallacies of correlation, bias and so on) can sow the seeds for people of faith going back and applying those new skills to their own religion.

    But I guess !again! not always because there is a theistic skill it seems to spot the fallacies in the religions, myths, superstitions and woo science of others, but somehow wholly miss them in their own.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Burt Lancaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Burt Lancaster


    ^^ those theists, they are so thick and stupid


  • #143
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Burt Lancaster wrote: »
    ^^ those theists, they are so thick and stupid

    Nope - many of them are smart enough when it comes to stuff that isn't their own religion. That's what's curious (to me anyway).

    *Edit* Hell, I was a theist - I didn't get any smarter when I became an atheist, I just got my thinking straightened out. ...


  • #144
    Burt Lancaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Burt Lancaster


    swampgas wrote: »
    I just got my thinking straightened out. ...

    They can't think straight, that must be it as well.


  • #145
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Burt Lancaster wrote: »
    ^^ those theists, they are so thick and stupid
    Burt Lancaster wrote: »
    They can't think straight, that must be it as well.

    Care to make a proper rebuttal? You seem to be hinting at something but not quite going for it.


  • #146
    Burt Lancaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Burt Lancaster


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Care to make a proper rebuttal? You seem to be hinting at something but not quite going for it.

    eh ? that was a rebuttal of theism, I'm not into writing big long waffle essays, its all been said before.


  • #147
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Burt Lancaster wrote: »
    ^^ those theists, they are so thick and stupid

    Your opinion, not mine thankfully :) It is certainly not a position I have seen much to support. While there are some inverse correlations to be found between religiosity and things like intelligence and education, they are not enough to extrapolate this kind of generalization from.


  • #148
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Burt Lancaster wrote: »
    eh ? that was a rebuttal of theism, I'm not into writing big long waffle essays, its all been said before.
    Well if it's all been said before, and you're not into longer posts, then maybe don't post here.

    Continuous one-liners with ambiguous intent is an unacceptable posting style.


  • #149
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    I've only skimmed the thread, so sorry if it's been mentioned already, but if you aren't completely set against recommending anything by Dawkins, The Greatest Show On Earth might be worth a look.

    I'm not sure if there's much love for it around these parts, but if you want something that spells out in a nice straightforward way how we know what we know about natural selection, it's just the thing.


  • #150
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    While I did like Dawkins' TGSOE, he does use the term 'history denuers' in relation to Creationists, which I would imagine would be off putting to one.
    I also find as a rule of thumb a great many theists' minds tend to go into defense mode when the name 'Dawkins' is mentioned.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Galvasean wrote: »
    While I did like Dawkins' TGSOE, he does use the term 'history denuers' in relation to Creationists, which I would imagine would be off putting to one.
    I also find as a rule of thumb a great many theists' minds tend to go into defense mode when the name 'Dawkins' is mentioned.

    Tell me about it, I've a friend who passed up the Oxford Book of Modern Scientific Writing simply because Dawkins was an editor. It beggared belief.:eek:
    I don't his arrogant rep is all that accurate either but oh well awesome science book ignored.


Advertisement