Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut

Handsome Bob

JC 2K3 wrote: »

See Dave's post about a-fairy-ism etc.

Whether you're agnostic or atheist is largely due to whatever meaning you apply to "belief". I think a lot of agnostics would have the exact same beliefs as a lot of atheists, but don't identify with the word "atheist" because of the stigma surrounding the term.

I didn't know you were inside my mind. I'm Agnostic and that's not because I'm afraid to call myself an Atheist. I couldn't give care less about the stigma surrounding the term Atheist because in my opinion it doesn't exist among the younger generation. Within my age bracket in Ireland for the most part there is no stigma around being an Atheist. If anything, there is more stigma attached to being a 20 something year old religious person, you are treated as the "weirdo" within your social circle.

entropi

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

OP probably doesn't believe in using that forum.

But that forum is about LACK of belief surely? :pac:

Not believing in using a forum, that has a focus on lack of belief...nice haha!

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

1. I would rather when you make a point that you did not use the rhetorical device of saying "There are only 2 possibilities" (mainly about the disciples lying section) as there are, in fact, a whole range of possibilities for how and why they did what they did.

I'm at a stretch to see how there is a third option. Surely it is pretty much, the disciples believed what they were doing was true, or the disciples were lying. Both of these cannot be true. If we are to take either option there are other points to be considered as to the probability of a resurrection event having taken place.

Deleted User wrote: »

2. You seem to have a complete deficit of logic. Your points are rambling and quite often misrepresent my position - as in the Biblical locations section.

Logic or your definition of logic? It's a nice catchword to throw into a conversation but most of the time I find that atheists can be just as illogical as any theist can be. Why's that? Because we are both human perhaps.

You have been so far unable to explain to me how on earth the universe could be the creator of itself, or what indicates you to believe that. As I've said science remains agnostic on the issue of whether or not a divine being created the universe.

Deleted User wrote: »

3. The expression is IN and of itself, not IF and of itself. The latter makes zero sense, much like your argument.

Apologies, it's called a typo

Deleted User wrote: »

I enjoy a good debate on issues like this but I have been forced to conclude, mostly due to your points about Aristotle and Socrates. I cannot believe you fail to see the difference between their works and the Bible. They are simply discussing philosophical issues. Whether the conversations actually happened doesn't matter as the points remain valid. However when one claims to be the son of God and to have walked on water then there is a need to examine the legitimacy of the events themselves. I am not saying that the principles from the Lord's Sermon on the Mount are wrong or should be ignored, as regardless of whether Jesus was God or not they have logical merit IN and of themselves, but that does not mean I have to accept everything in that book as true where they describe supernatural events.

Well Kayroo, in all honesty the works of Aristotle and Plato are highly contestable. We could doubt the existence of those who wrote them, particularly due to the fact that the texts had remained lost for years until an Arabic translation brought them back into Europe via Al Andalus. As the text had been restored, philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, and other Islamic philosophers would use his material to argue for a higher power through the kalam, and other cosmological arguments. Certainly the case of authenticity for said texts is actually weaker than the Tanakh or the New Testament.

As for not having to accept all of it that's fine. However, who is to say the incident of the Sermon of the Mount, or the constructing of Solomon's Temple is not any more a "fairy tale" than the rest of the text?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm at a stretch to see how there is a third option. Surely it is pretty much, the disciples believed what they were doing was true, or the disciples were lying. Both of these cannot be true. If we are to take either option there are other points to be considered as to the probability of a resurrection event having taken place.

Your point on the matter is that the resurrection is likely because these people wouldn't have been so dedicated and willing to die for their beliefs if they had not seen it with their own eyes or if they were not absolutely sure it had happened. How then do you explain the fact that members of other religions have shown themselves to be just as dedicated and just as willing to die? They can't possibly have seen miracles with their own eyes because you believe their religions are false and yet they show the same dedication.........?

Jakkass wrote: »

Well Kayroo, in all honesty the works of Aristotle and Plato are highly contestable. We could doubt the existence of those who wrote them, particularly due to the fact that the texts had remained lost for years until an Arabic translation brought them back into Europe via Al Andalus. As the text had been restored, philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, and other Islamic philosophers would use his material to argue for a higher power through the kalam, and other cosmological arguments. Certainly the case of authenticity for said texts is actually weaker than the Tanakh or the New Testament.

As for not having to accept all of it that's fine. However, who is to say the incident of the Sermon of the Mount, or the constructing of Solomon's Temple is not any more a "fairy tale" than the rest of the text?

You missed his point quite widely there Jakkass. He said that whether or not Aristotle and Plato wrote those works doesn't actually matter because they're not claiming their works are the perfect word of God. We can look at their works and judge them on their own merit and it makes no difference where they came from.


If I wrote a book of my own personal ideas about how I think people should behave it wouldn't matter a hoot who I was because people could read the book and decide for themselves whether they agreed with me or not. However if I wrote the same book but claimed that the one true God had written it through me and the only way not to spend eternity in hell was to follow the rules I had written down, then the authenticity of my claims becomes an issue.

do you not see the difference?

JC 2K3

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I didn't know you were inside my mind. I'm Agnostic and that's not because I'm afraid to call myself an Atheist. I couldn't give care less about the stigma surrounding the term Atheist because in my opinion it doesn't exist among the younger generation. Within my age bracket in Ireland for the most part there is no stigma around being an Atheist. If anything, there is more stigma attached to being a 20 something year old religious person, you are treated as the "weirdo" within your social circle.

I wasn't aware that "a lot"="all".

Handsome Bob

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I wasn't aware that "a lot"="all".

Saying 'a lot' is still a pretty sweeping statement and also quite patronising to be honest.

JC 2K3

The stigma around atheism is that we're all arrogant, raving, militant, Dawkins-loving bigots.

You can't say that that view doesn't exist to varying extents.

I didn't mean that agnostics are afraid to admit that they're atheists, I think a lot of them don't identify with the term atheism despite it being more in line with their beliefs than agnosticism would (imo), because they don't understand exactly what atheism entails.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm at a stretch to see how there is a third option. Surely it is pretty much, the disciples believed what they were doing was true, or the disciples were lying. Both of these cannot be true. If we are to take either option there are other points to be considered as to the probability of a resurrection event having taken place.

Let's look at a few:

The disciples believed he was the son of God but realised he didn't fulfill many of the "checks and balances" of the Tanekh so embellished his life in order to help others see the light.

The disciples believed he was the son of God and passed on the events of his life to others through the oral medium which they say Jesus himself used and others, who came later, wrote the Gospels in their name.

The dissemination of the message of Jesus was conducted predominantly through word of mouth and, in the manner of these things, was distorted by numerous re-tellings which informed and affected the later writing of the Gospels.

All of these are quite possible. A combination of any number of other possibilities is also possible.

Jakkass wrote: »

Logic or your definition of logic? It's a nice catchword to throw into a conversation but most of the time I find that atheists can be just as illogical as any theist can be. Why's that? Because we are both human perhaps.

Well, my definition of logic is really quite straightforward. Though I accept there are a number of types of logic in essence logic is simply the reasoned and scientific nature of the relationship between propositions. You are basically rejecting the most simple form of logic of the syllogism. (A=C, B=C, therefore A=B) by making logical jumps.

Saying that the lack of a conclusive scientific model for the creation of the universe leads you to no other conclusion than the existence of a deity makes no sense. There is no reason to think that a God had anything to do with it.

Jakkass wrote: »

You have been so far unable to explain to me how on earth the universe could be the creator of itself, or what indicates you to believe that. As I've said science remains agnostic on the issue of whether or not a divine being created the universe.

Science remains open to all possibilities because closing oneself off to one limits ones ability to see all possible solutions to a problem. However, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, science is forced to believe that God does not exist as there is no evidence to support the theory that he does exist.

The reason I cannot explain the creation of the universe is because I am not a theoretical physicist and refuse to butcher the science with my interpretation of it. I shall not fall foul of Russell's great observation that a stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. Since I am, admittedly, quite stupid as to the particulars of theoretical physics I shall not attempt to parse the science here.

Jakkass wrote: »

Apologies, it's called a typo

You did it 4 times and the F and N keys are on alternate hand placements on a standard keyboard. It's called being wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

Well Kayroo, in all honesty the works of Aristotle and Plato are highly contestable. We could doubt the existence of those who wrote them, particularly due to the fact that the texts had remained lost for years until an Arabic translation brought them back into Europe via Al Andalus. As the text had been restored, philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, and other Islamic philosophers would use his material to argue for a higher power through the kalam, and other cosmological arguments. Certainly the case of authenticity for said texts is actually weaker than the Tanakh or the New Testament.

Aquinas only obtained the texts after St. Albertus Magnus built upon the works of a number of Arab scholars including Averroes and Avicenna in his own attempts to espouse a form of natural law which would give the Church the power it needed. That Aquinas succeeded is a testament to his mental alacrity. Oh yeah, I am very very well read in the history of natural law theory, so if you want to go down that avenue you are more than welcome.

As for the existence of Aristotle. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE EXISTED. The ideas are all that matter. Whether he wrote them or not is really inconsequential. What does matter is the philosophical benefit we gain from reading them.

However, in the case of Jesus, it DOES MATTER if he walked on water or was the son of God. The ideas of love and charity are all well and good and I agree with many of them but when you claim to be the son of God then investigating the legitimacy of that claim is a completely worthwhile endeavour.

I am forced to assume this nonsense about Aristotle is simply your attempt to be obtuse as it makes so little sense as to be truly amazing.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for not having to accept all of it that's fine. However, who is to say the incident of the Sermon of the Mount, or the constructing of Solomon's Temple is not any more a "fairy tale" than the rest of the text?

I cannot make this anymore clear for you than I have. Stating that a place exists does not mean that the events you claim happened there are true. To say that "The Temple of Solomon existed, therefore everything written in the Bible about what happened there is true" is totally ridiculous.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

The disciples believed he was the son of God but realised he didn't fulfill many of the "checks and balances" of the Tanekh so embellished his life in order to help others see the light.

I've already explained that there simply wasn't enough time to have constructed such a message given the time period. Actually if you could deal with my previous point concerning the time periods it would be appreciated. I have a good bit from The Case for Faith on this one too which I will edit into this post later.

Deleted User wrote: »

The disciples believed he was the son of God and passed on the events of his life to others through the oral medium which they say Jesus himself used and others, who came later, wrote the Gospels in their name.

How could Christianity have spread as far as it did in the first century if it was basically a message of a failed prophet who died. That's just a touch ridiculous if you don't mind me saying so. You still have to explain how the disciples got from the mourning stage, into the stage of evangelising that Jesus had risen from the dead. In this case they were either wrong about the Ressurrection or right. I.E Telling the truth, or telling a lie.

Deleted User wrote: »

The dissemination of the message of Jesus was conducted predominantly through word of mouth and, in the manner of these things, was distorted by numerous re-tellings which informed and affected the later writing of the Gospels.

Not really. How come the works of Paul reflect Jesus' teachings so clearly. I can quote instances clearly. Paul's letters were also written before the Gospels, so we would have to conclude the following based on 1 Corinthians 15 written 5 years before (in 55AD) the earliest Gospel:
A Ressurrection event had been believed by the Apostles prior to the Gospels being compiled, therefore rendering your first point invalid. Paul also had encountered the original witnesses of the life of Christ, particularly Peter and James the half brother of Christ. A Ressurection event was definitely professed by early Christians, as such we need to have a conclusive explanation for an alternative if you are to refute it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Saying that the lack of a conclusive scientific model for the creation of the universe leads you to no other conclusion than the existence of a deity makes no sense. There is no reason to think that a God had anything to do with it.

I didn't say there is no other conclusion, but rather that the existence of a God is rather probable and given the odds of a naturalistic explanation should be considered.

BTW, there is no reason to consider that the universe came from nothing or that it could be it's own author. That's actually illogical in itself.

Deleted User wrote: »

Science remains open to all possibilities because closing oneself off to one limits ones ability to see all possible solutions to a problem. However, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, science is forced to believe that God does not exist as there is no evidence to support the theory that he does exist.

Science is agnostic on the issue. Saying that God doesn't exist is actually a belief statement. Science currently has gone no further than God may exist, or God may not exist.

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason I cannot explain the creation of the universe is because I am not a theoretical physicist and refuse to butcher the science with my interpretation of it.

Neither do I. The science is the how, not the why.

Deleted User wrote: »

You did it 4 times and the F and N keys are on alternate hand placements on a standard keyboard. It's called being wrong.

I don't really use the traditional placement of the hands thing. I made a mistake, I was wrong to move my hand in a certain way. So I apologise for that, but lets deal with the arguments not the phrases. It comes off as pedantic.

Deleted User wrote: »

I cannot make this anymore clear for you than I have. Stating that a place exists does not mean that the events you claim happened there are true. To say that "The Temple of Solomon existed, therefore everything written in the Bible about what happened there is true" is totally ridiculous.

One of many examples. The more that God's existence is indicated for, the more likely it is that it is indeed the case.

For example if a policeman finds a dead body and someones jacket left beside the body. One could conclude that the jacket is evidence to indicate that the person who owned it may have been the murderer. Possibly not, but it does indicate it all the same.

Now, if I find a gun beside the corpse, it would be quite reasonable to suggest that the murderer used said weapon to kill the individual.

If I have more and more indications to suggest this, it is indeed more likely that this is true. I work from probability as there is no absolute proof for either theism or atheism.

javaboy

Last warning: This thread is not about debating the existence of God.

craggles

nvm

craggles

Actually what the hell is this thread doing in After Hours in its current state?

Calibos

Scientology has amassed millions of followers in only the last 30 years. It must be true. Praise Galactic overlord Xenu!! Its just a touch ridiculous if you don't agree.

and this is in the modern age. How easy would it be to convince millions of oppressed bronze age goat herders 2000 years ago?

the_syco

zeppe wrote: »

Do you know what really cracks me up? The f**kin "immaculate conception". WTF! It sounds like something Mary made up on the spot to Joseph, as a bare arsed sandal salesman legs it out the back window..Oh yeah, it probably was.

Well, since Jesus's dad was God, of course she did the dirt on Joseph.

=-=

Anyhoo's, only goto mass for funerals, weddings, and anniversary masses.

MarlboroMan

Its unusual to see how the topic of atheism results in such long yet interesting discussions which results in so many people voicing their opinion to one another, kind of like what religion tries to do by gathering people together... a paradox in a way :rolleyes:

Biggins

MarlboroMan wrote: »

Its unusual to see how the topic of atheism results in such long yet interesting discussions which results in so many people voicing their opinion to one another, kind of like what religion tries to do by gathering people together... a paradox in a way :rolleyes:

...or ironic?

Acacia

MarlboroMan wrote: »

Its unusual to see how the topic of atheism results in such long yet interesting discussions which results in so many people voicing their opinion to one another, kind of like what religion tries to do by gathering people together... a paradox in a way :rolleyes:

Biggins wrote: »

...or ironic?

An ironic paradox...most amusing.

dublinario

Acacia wrote: »

An ironic paradox...most amusing.

Didn't the book of revelations say something about an ironic paradox being the harbinger of the apocalypse? Well, I guess this is it then. I'm going out to blow my life savings on a lustful night with as many simultaneous hookers a I can afford. There is no tomorrow.

MarlboroMan

MarlboroMan wrote: »

Its unusual to see how the topic of atheism results in such long yet interesting discussions which results in so many people voicing their opinion to one another, kind of like what religion tries to do by gathering people together... a paradox in a way :rolleyes:

It would be a paradox if the highlighted section were true. Unfortunately religion attempts to indoctrinate people into what they consider to be the "truth".

Also, before anyone says it, atheism (in it's general non-militant form) does not make any claim to truth. Most atheists would be happy to believe in God if there was any tangible proof of his existence.

Being an atheist in Ireland does suck because it makes you realise how totally brainwashed some people are or alternately how totally unaware of the demands of their own religion they are.

Acacia

dublinario wrote: »

Didn't the book of revelations say something about an ironic paradox being the harbinger of the apocalypse? Well, I guess this is it then. I'm going out to blow my life savings on a lustful night with as many simultaneous hookers a I can afford. There is no tomorrow.

It's what Jesus would want.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Being an atheist in Ireland does suck because it makes you realise how totally brainwashed some people are or alternately how totally unaware of the demands of their own religion they are.

Nonsense. Every child is predisposed to their parents in several things, including turn of phrase, selection of language, morals, even in behaviours such as family recipes, family traditions and so on.

If you are raised in a secular family, you will be predisposed to atheism or agnosticism just as much as in a Christian family you will be predisposed to Christianity.

That isn't brainwashing. You still have the choice to accept or reject it.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

That isn't brainwashing. You still have the choice to accept or reject it.

Some common methods used by cults to brainwash members:

1. Confusing Doctrine - Encouraging blind acceptance and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible doctrine (Holy Trinity anyone?)

2. Chanting/Singing - Eliminating non-cult ideas through group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases. (Nicean Creed??)

3. Confession- Encouraging the destruction of individual ego through confession of personal weaknesses and innermost feelings of doubt. (Eh, confession? Also, "I confess to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters...)

4. Change of Diet - Creating disorientation and increased susceptibility to emotional arousal by depriving the nervous system of necessary nutrients through the use of special diets and/or fasting (Since it's Lent and all)

5.Guilt - Reinforcing the need for 'salvation' by exaggerating the sins of the former lifestyles.

6. Fear - Maintaining loyalty and obedience to the group by threatening soul, life or limb for the slightest 'negative' thought, word or deed.

Ross_Mahon

I was called 'Stupid' for being Atheist and it was like i was Satan in the house

After telling the uncle I'm atheist he said "Who made you believe that? That's stupid" i argued with him over that but to no conclusion

My religion teacher completely ignored me when i had an opinion and picked on me for small things, She even gave me 'D' for a brilliant exam that basically explains that I'm atheist but i am a good person.

ScumLord

dublinario wrote: »

Didn't the book of revelations say something about an ironic paradox being the harbinger of the apocalypse?

No your thinking of the son of Mr Potatohead.

Cabaal

Ask the Jesus Freak to watch the movie "the man that came from earth", it'll feck with her head

Biggins

Cabaal wrote: »

Ask the Jesus Freak to watch the movie "the man that came from earth", it'll feck with her head

Aye, great (if slow burning) film.
(Love the revealing twist at the end)

• Harry: Edith, I was raised on the Torah, my wife on the Qu'Ran, my eldest son is an Atheist, my youngest is a scientologist, my daughter is studying Hinduism, I imagine there is room there for a holy war in my living room, but we practice live and let live.
  
• Dan: I'm going home and watch Star Trek for a dose of sanity.
  
• John Oldman: And that's what I taught, but a talking snake made a lady eat an apple, so we're screwed.
  
• Edith: [talking about God] He's everywhere. We just can't see him.
  Harry: Pfft. If this was the best I could do, I'd be hiding, too

ShooterSF

Acacia wrote: »

It's what Jesus would want.

I think you'll find what Jesus really wanted was to have not used up all him Mana Points curing leprosy so he had enough left to magic the nails out of his hands and feet.

Stercus Accidit

ShooterSF wrote: »

I think you'll find what Jesus really wanted was to have not used up all him Mana Points curing leprosy so he had enough left to magic the nails out of his hands and feet.

Blue potion costs gold my friend.

He chose some good powers, but his gaming style wasn't sustainable.

Iang87

after reading through and seeing the arguments for and against all you can really say is what would jesus do :pac:

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Some common methods used by cults to brainwash members:

Your argument is about equivalent to someone saying:

Oh my... those atheists and agnostics... brainwashing our children to not believe in God, oh noes!!!

From a theist.

It's nothing more than nonsense, especially considering the research concerning the "God part of the brain". People are biologically geared towards belief in a higher power.