Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut

Calibos

I hate to have to resort to sarcasm as it sometimes plays into the 'Arrogant Atheists meme' but sometimes you just have to use it to shine a spotlight on the mental disonance going on in some peoples heads....here we go....

"There are some minor flaws still remaining in the overwhelmingly accurately proven theory of evolution......therefor I can still confidently believe in the writings of spear wielding bronze age goat herders from a desert land on the eastern mediterrainian circa 4000-2000 years ago. Furthermore can I just take this opportunity to say that my belief in same is nothing to do with an accident of birth or geography, these particular set of goat herders writings are manifestly true...but boy were those bronze age goatherders from the desert hills of that peninsular land between the aegean and adriatic seas who believed in that pantheon of Gods....wow, those guys were batsh!t crazy loike!!"

:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

GA361 wrote: »

Your starting to put me in bad humour.But don't worry I forgive as I am a Christian.

You see this is the problem, I have done nothing that requires forgiving. I point out a fact to you and you get put in a bad humour. This happens enough times and you start to hate atheists.

How about instead of hating the atheists for pointing out facts, you acknowledge that they are facts and maybe change your beliefs accordingly?

Or are you suggesting that the bible was written 8000 years ago by Adam and Eve?

chop86

GA361 wrote: »

Your starting to put me in bad humour.But don't worry I forgive as I am a Christian.

Welcome to a debate my friend!!#
You are putting forward your *cough* evidence *cough* for the existence of god, and we are debating whether that evidence as viable. Its only frustrating for you because any supposed evidence for god or creationism hasnt a leg to stand on.

JC 2K3

GA361 wrote: »

I suppose you,an Atheist,believe that it's only a myth?

From wiki:

The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Creationism is only a "theory" in the colloquial sense of the word. Scientists don't just call any idea a theory, a hypothesis has to be critically analysed before is can be classified as a theory.

ShooterSF

GA361 wrote: »

Your starting to put me in bad humour.But don't worry I forgive as I am a Christian.

You had a mis-conception about there being primary sources for creationism, actually so did I as I hadn't really thought it through. He informed you of that mis-conception and has helped you and I realise it. Surely enlightenment begets appreciation, not scorn or forgiveness.

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

You had a mis-conception about there being primary sources for creationism, actually so did I as I hadn't really thought it through. He informed you of that mis-conception and has helped you and I realise it. Surely enlightenment begets appreciation, not scorn or forgiveness.

+1

(still no thanks left :P)

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

+1

(still no thanks left :P)

Don't worry I'm off to watch the match anyway, so you won't need anymore :P Have fun! Oh and thanks for giving me one more fact in future debates.

TPD

GA361 wrote: »

Your starting to put me in bad humour.But don't worry I forgive as I am a Christian.

That added nothing to the debate. Defend your point or admit you can't.

GA361

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you start to hate atheists.

How about instead of hating the atheists for pointing out facts, you acknowledge that they are facts and maybe change your beliefs accordingly?

I don't hate atheist.I have absolutely no hate within me for anyone.

chop86 wrote: »

Welcome to a debate my friend!!#
You are putting forward your *cough* evidence *cough* for the existence of god, and we are debating whether that evidence as viable. Its only frustrating for you because any supposed evidence for god or creationism hasnt a leg to stand on.

I told you countless times that I DO NOT believe all the preposterous teachings of the Church.I just ask you to respect the opinions of those who do.Just as I respect yours'.Contrary to what you think I do NOT have to justify my belief in God.Can you prove that God does not exist?
Just stop tryinh to shove your opinions down my throat.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I thought you yourself were dismissing creationism?

Here's a theory for you:

hypothesis:
You are a goat.

Experiment:
Read this book I wrote that says you're a goat

Conclusion:
Hypothesis proven


That's a theory......in theory

This,my friend warrants forgiveness.

Sam Vimes

GA361 wrote: »

I don't hate atheist.I have absolutely no hate within me for anyone.

Fair enough you don't hate us but why am I putting you in a bad humour? All I did was point out the correct fact that there are no primary sources for creationism

GA361 wrote: »

I told you countless times that I DO NOT believe all the preposterous teachings of the Church.I just ask you to respect the opinions of those who do.Just as I respect yours'.Contrary to what you think I do NOT have to justify my belief in God.Can you prove that God does not exist?
Just stop tryinh to shove your opinions down my throat.

And here again we have the cop out. You chose to come onto a discussion forum and argue your religious beliefs and now that it's not going your way we're "forcing our opinions down your throat". No one's forcing you to post mate or even read. There's a big X on the top right there that will allow you to stop reading.

You don't have to defend your beliefs but if you don't want to defend them, don't post them on a public forum

edit:as for proving God doesn't exist, here's the old reliable FSM http://www.venganza.org/. Prove he doesn't exist

chop86

GA361 wrote: »

I told you countless times that I DO NOT believe all the preposterous teachings of the Church.



This,my friend warrants forgiveness.

You just believe some of the preposterous teachings!!
Also it is never up to anyone to prove something doesnt exist, only to prove something does exist.

JC 2K3

GA361 wrote: »

I told you countless times that I DO NOT believe all the preposterous teachings of the Church.I just ask you to respect the opinions of those who do.Just as I respect yours'.

Generally, the position taken is that religious beliefs in themselves aren't respected, but the people themselves, and their right to believe in whatever they like are respected.

GA361 wrote: »

I do NOT have to justify my belief in God.Can you prove that God does not exist?
Just stop tryinh to shove your opinions down my throat.

No one said you had to justify anything to anyone, and no one has shoved anything down your throat. You came in here making the insulting and inaccurate claim that atheists on here have nothing but contempt for believers. We engaged in some discussion with you and voiced some of our opinions, and now we're trying to shove opinions down your throat?

Naz_st

GA361 wrote: »

But I pointed out that although Evolution is the most logical it was still a scientific theory,which is probably accurate for the most part but needs some adjustments.

Actually, evolution is a fact and a theory.
The fact of evolution refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experimentations.

The "Theory of evolution" would have been originally Darwin's "Natural Selection" but more accurately now refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur.

Steven J. Gould put it quite well:

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

Sam Vimes

I just started watching a documentary made by the BBC called the Darwin debate. I expected it to have half scientists and half religious leaders arguing their respective points but it has a psychologist, an anthropologist, a biologist and a neurologist and they're debating "To what extent are we still under the shadow of natural selection".

They're not even entertaining the idea that the theory might be wrong

JC 2K3

Well why would they be?

It's quite easy to begin thinking that Creationism is quite widely believed when you engage in online debates and read the propaganda online, but in reality, it's only a small subset of fundamentalist Christians (if a rather vocal one) in the states who actually subscribe to it.

The Mad Hatter

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I just started watching a documentary mad by the BBC called the Darwin debate. I expected it to have half scientists and half religious leaders arguing their respective points but it has a psychologist, an anthropologist, a biologist and a neurologist and they're debating "To what extent are we still under the shadow of natural selection".

They're not even entertaining the idea that the theory might be wrong

No serious thinkers do.

Sam Vimes

Just got this off youtube and wrote it down.

Here's a handy way to disprove the existence of Jesus (the supernatural being, not the man) in three easy steps:

Step 1: read Corinthians 15:3-8

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters* at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.*
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Here we learn two important facts:

1. Jesus proved his resurrection by appearing to people
2. It is ok to appear to people. He appeared to hundreds and their faith was not harmed in any way and their free will was not taken away

Step 2: Read Matthew 18:19-20

19 Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.
20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.

Here we learn two important facts:
1. Jesus is amongst us, he could be standing next to you right now
2. God will do anything we ask


Step 3: Ask Jesus to appear. Grab a friend and try this prayer:

Dear Jesus, we know that you are in our midst already. We ask you to physically appear,
so that we may know you are resurrected. We have faith that you will answer our prayer as
you promise in the Bible. In your name we pray, Amen.

To recap, supposedly we know from the bible:
1. Jesus is already here
2. It would be trivial for him to appear. He is all powerful and timeless
3. It is OK for him to appear. He has appeared to hundreds
4. Jesus has promised that he will appear in response to our prayers.

And yet nothing happens. Conclusion:Jesus does not exist


That's it all wrapped up so. You can turn in your crucifixes at the nearest Garda station

towel401

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People get into heated discussions on thousands of different topics on boards but any time a discussion on atheism comes up it's "those arrogant militant atheists who force their opinions on everyone" (not that you're saying that, just in general)

imo it's just a cop out. People can't prove the atheists wrong so instead they dismiss them as arrogant and argumentative. Really people wish atheists would just shut up* and let them keep fooling themselves.

just because someone doesn't want to read your piles upon piles of anti-religious ramblings doesn't mean they are a 'believer', peasant or other group of society you look down on.

ya know maybe they're just not that interested. maybe too living rather than worrying and arguing about what happens after death and all.

it must be hard to imagine that not everybody is bothered by this sort of stuff when you're so caught up in it yourself. I can't understand why someone would subscribe to a particular belief system [ be it atheism or anything else ] and then try to defend this belief using a keyboard on the world wide interweb.

Sam Vimes

towel401 wrote: »

just because someone doesn't want to read your piles upon piles of anti-religious ramblings doesn't mean they are a 'believer', peasant or other group of society you look down on.

ya know maybe they're just not that interested. maybe too living rather than worrying and arguing about what happens after death and all.

it must be hard to imagine that not everybody is bothered by this sort of stuff when you're so caught up in it yourself. I can't understand why someone would subscribe to a particular belief system [ be it atheism or anything else ] and then try to defend this belief using a keyboard on the world wide interweb.

As with any other thread on this website or any situation other than one where you are being forcibly held against your will, you are completely free to hit that big X in the corner of the screen.

My point is that people have arguments about everything on the website but it's only atheists who are singled out in this way because people don't like what they have to say and so look for excuses to dismiss them. That point stands whether you care about my ramblings or not

Sam Vimes

I can actually give evidence for my point in the form of this guy:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59731367&postcount=401

who charged into the thread all ready to preach about his beliefs but when everything he said was shot down he trotted out the old reliable "you're forcing your opinions on me", forgetting the fact that he started posting in the thread so he could "force his opinions on us"*


*I'm not saying he was forcing his opinion, just that he was posting in the thread just as much as we were so either both of us were forcing our opinions or neither of us were

towel401

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As with any other thread on this website or any situation other than one where you are being forcibly held against your will, you are completely free to hit that big X in the corner of the screen.

My point is that people have arguments about everything on the website but it's only atheists who are singled out in this way because people don't like what they have to say and so look for excuses to dismiss them. That point stands whether you care about my ramblings or not

of course i could. if i felt like it i could make a script that would filter out any potentially stupid threads but i couldn't really be arsed tbh. its not really the postings themselves but the mentality behind them.

if any other group of nuts started making a nuisance of themselves towards people who are not interested the same would start happening to them. the first few might go unnoticed but after that it starts to get annoying

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can actually give evidence for my point in the form of this guy:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59731367&postcount=401

who charged into the thread all ready to preach about his beliefs but when everything he said was shot down he trotted out the old reliable "you're forcing your opinions on me", forgetting the fact that he started posting in the thread so he could "force his opinions on us"*


*I'm not saying he was forcing his opinion, just that he was posting in the thread just as much as we were so either both of us were forcing our opinions or neither of us were

well thats that guy, i cant speak for anyone else.

TPD

towel401 wrote: »

if any other group of nuts started making a nuisance of themselves towards people who are not interested the same would start happening to them.

If you are not interested, why do you return to the thread?

towel401

TPD wrote: »

If you are not interested, why do you return to the thread?

because i was wondering why it was still alive. thought that maybe if its going on for so long it might actually be interesting and hopefully gone well off topic for a few laughs, but no its just a re-hash of the same old crap as before. like most religious/anti-religious threads

TPD

towel401 wrote: »

because i was wondering why it was still alive. thought that maybe if its going on for so long it might actually be interesting and hopefully gone well off topic for a few laughs, but no its just a re-hash of the same old crap as before. like most religious/anti-religious threads

You're facilitating the 'nuisance' by continuing to come back here and post though.

And in one of your earlier posts you said:
'ya know maybe they're just not that interested. maybe too living rather than worrying and arguing about what happens after death and all.'

Did you mean that the religious ones are concerned with the here and now, and it's the atheists who are concerned about what happens after we die? Seems inaccurate.

Sam Vimes

Look towel401, if you don't want to get involved in the debate that's fine. But don't try to make out that atheists are a separate subset of people who are more likely to have arguments than others and like to force their opinions on people because I can find dozens of examples from all over this website to prove that people argue other topics just as frequently and with just as much zeal

What you're saying is an ad hominem argument, one that attacks the person making the point rather than the point itself. You are angrily posting in a thread about atheism to speak out against atheists - to try to suggest that we keep pushing ourselves on people who are not interested

If you're not interested in hearing from atheists then don't click on a thread with the word atheism in the title! As it is, I don't see anything wrong with discussing atheism here because I would think that anyone who clicked on that thread title is interested in hearing about atheism. You might as well be going into the soccer forum and telling everyone that no one's interested in their opinion on soccer

Sam Vimes

Also, why aren't you attacking the religious advocates in the thread with the same vigour? Us atheists aren't talking to ourselves here, we're responding to religious people who are posting just as much as us. What makes you think anyone is interested in what they have to say?

towel401

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Look towel401, if you don't want to get involved in the debate that's fine. But don't try to make out that atheists are a separate subset of people who are more likely to have arguments than others and like to force their opinions on people because I can find dozens of examples from all over this website to prove that people argue other topics just as frequently and with just as much zeal

you get that type of people everywhere. windows vs unix and other tired old debates. i dont bother with them either. anyone who gets too caught up supporting any sort of cause tends to be an annoying cnut

What you're saying is an ad hominem argument, one that attacks the person making the point rather than the point itself. You are angrily posting in a thread about atheism to speak out against atheists - to try to suggest that we keep pushing ourselves on people who are not interested

If you're not interested in hearing from atheists then don't click on a thread with the word atheism in the title!

because a few of them actually do and once they think they can get away with it from behind the safety of their screen its only a matter of time before they appear on the door step.

on here its usually the same group of anti-religious people you see stirring up this ****, just wish they'd f*ck off back to their own forums that were made specifically for the purpose

Sam Vimes

towel401 wrote: »

you get that type of people everywhere. windows vs unix and other tired old debates. i dont bother with them either. anyone who gets too caught up supporting any sort of cause tends to be an annoying cnut

Right so it's nothing to do with atheists specifically and can be applied equally well to both sides of the debate. Or is religion vs atheism the only one of these tired debates where only one side is filled with annoying cnuts?

towel401 wrote: »

on here its usually the same group of anti-religious people you see stirring up this ****, just wish they'd f*ck off back to their own forums that were made specifically for the purpose

Tbh I don't like to post in the christianity forum specifically because I don't like forcing my opinion on people. That's their forum and if they want to talk about their beliefs among themselves that's their business.

And I don't like posting in the atheism forum because I have this idea that it'd just be a bunch of people agreeing with each other which would be a bit dull. I like the neutral ground of a non biased forum. People can still choose not to read the thread if they don't want to

Also, the next time a 'tired' debate pops up where people have strong opinions, ask yourself if you feel so strongly that they should '**** off' as you do about these threads and if not, why not? Ask yourself is it simply because you disagree with the atheists and you don't like that they raise questions that you can't answer.....

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You might as well be going into the soccer forum and telling everyone that no one's interested in their opinion on soccer

Actually the above is slightly wrong. Coming into a thread where atheists and religious people are debating and saying that no one's interested in what the atheists are saying is more like going into the soccer forum and telling only Liverpool fans that no one's interested in what they're saying

towel401

towel401 wrote: »

ya know maybe they're just not that interested. maybe too living rather than worrying and arguing about what happens after death and all.

Eh, actually, religious people are the ones who are obsessed with what happens after death. It's sort of the point of religion.

towel401 wrote: »

it must be hard to imagine that not everybody is bothered by this sort of stuff when you're so caught up in it yourself. I can't understand why someone would subscribe to a particular belief system [ be it atheism or anything else ] and then try to defend this belief using a keyboard on the world wide interweb.

You can't imagine that people want to defend something they believe or you can't imagine why people subscribe to a belief system?

In either case you make almost no sense. Of course people defend their beliefs, I have no problems with religious people defending their beliefs and I hope they have no problem with me defending mine.

Also, people will always look for ways to engage with their environment. Theoretical frameworks for our place in the universe help us deal with life. It's only natural to seek a belief system to help engage with the world around us.