Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 05-04-2009 12:58pm

I killed an atheist once, and I'd do it again.

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 1:04pm

shamblertine wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss for atheists. All their beliefs are based on half baked ideas with no evidence to back them up. I really can't stand the smug self righteousness of atheists trying to force their beliefs on everyone.

lol

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 1:05pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

You have got to be taking the piss?

He's either trolling or brainwashed. Either way there's no point getting sucked in

son.of.jimi · 05-04-2009 1:11pm

shamblertine wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss for atheists. All their beliefs are based on half baked ideas with no evidence to back them up. I really can't stand the smug self righteousness of atheists trying to force their beliefs on everyone.

Where's Yore proof? lol?

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 1:15pm

son.of.jimi wrote: »

Where's Yore proof? lol?

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

shamblertine · 05-04-2009 1:16pm

son.of.jimi wrote: »

Where's Yore proof? lol?

proof of what?

Dudess · 05-04-2009 1:19pm

I don't see it as trolling, necessarily. What (s)he says is very much applicable to some atheists, as well as to theists.

I think both positions are far too absolutist, despite insufficient evidence to support either - it's part of the reason why I'm agnostic.

Disease Ridden · 05-04-2009 1:23pm

Dudess wrote: »

What I find objectionable is certain atheists acting all self satisfied in a "that showed them" kind of manner - it's not rebellious or shocking to be an atheist. Ditto people who attack the catholic church. If you think the above is sockin' it to the system, you are 13.

Exactly. Maybe up until the 1940's or something atheism was considered something noteworthy and even something to be admired as a sign of a free-thinker. Nowadays all it is is something internet geeks revel in, thinking that most other people actually do believe in things like the literal interpretation of the bible. They DONT. I would hazard a guess that quite a large percentage of the adult population of this country dont believe in any religion or god at all, but they dont go on about it like its a big deal. I also think lots of non-believers take their children to mass simply so the children dont feel different from the other children.
The atheists think they are extremely intelligent for not beleiving in god, even though there is loads of literature available to assist a person in becoming an atheist these days and they simple formed their beliefs from this literature. I'm an atheist myself and I'm very happy with my beliefs but it annoys me to hear geeks trying to convert believers; sometimes I think its because the geek is annoyed that he cant believe and so the best he can do is rob the belief from another person who dosent want to be told the truth.

Dave! · 05-04-2009 1:27pm

Dudess wrote: »

I don't see it as trolling, necessarily. What (s)he says is very much applicable to some atheists, as well as to theists.

I think both positions are far too absolutist, despite insufficient evidence to support either - it's part of the reason why I'm agnostic.

You keep saying this... Are you agnostic about fairies etc. also? No... But there's no evidence for them, so you don't believe in them. You're an a-fairy-est. I'm sure if you're presented with evidence for them, you'll believe. But you're not ag-fairy-stic are you?

I don't get why you'd condemn atheism in the same breath as theism, it doesn't make sense to me. Nobody can say for sure that fairies or leprauchauns or god exists.

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 1:29pm

Dudess wrote: »

I don't see it as trolling, necessarily. What (s)he says is very much applicable to some atheists, as well as to theists.

I think both positions are far too absolutist, despite insufficient evidence to support either - it's part of the reason why I'm agnostic.

The part I'm saying he's trolling about is the bit where he says atheist beliefs are half baked and based on no evidence. That is demonstrably not true of atheism and equally demonstrably true of theism

Stercus Accidit · 05-04-2009 1:33pm

Atheism is about not believing the pack of yammering superstition perpetuated by generations of those unable to understand the world.

Its not cool,

its not fashionable,

Its just religious beliefs are entirely illogical, and nonsensical.

There is no evidence to support these beliefs, therefore there is no reason to believe they are true. You don't need evidence to the cotrary, you need to prove your ludicrous assertions about the world for people to adopt them.

By that logic, any catholic for example would have to disprove every other existing religion, cult, random view or rambling lunacy to believe their own.

There is no evidence of a god of any description, but there are countles instances of religion being wrong.

But maybe I'm just revelling in my fashionable 'beliefs' on the internet, to be cool and get out of mass, or just not one to believe such tripe at the drop of a fictional hat.

Dinner · 05-04-2009 1:36pm

Dudess wrote: »

What I find objectionable is certain atheists acting all self satisfied in a "that showed them" kind of manner - it's not rebellious or shocking to be an atheist. Ditto people who attack the catholic church. If you think the above is sockin' it to the system, you are 13.

Similarily the self satisfied manner in which some christians attack atheists with wild generalisations and an air of smugness is equally as bad. As below.

shamblertine wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss for atheists. All their beliefs are based on half baked ideas with no evidence to back them up. I really can't stand the smug self righteousness of atheists trying to force their beliefs on everyone.

SoWatchaWant · 05-04-2009 1:38pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

My mam is up in my house for the weekend and it being Sunday morning, she tried to make me go to mass with her. I refused, using the old "but I'm an Atheist" reasoning to broach the subject. So off she went, noticeably indifferent to my proclamation of faithlessness.

She returned an hour later with some of her friends for tea and a Chocolate Kimberley in my kitchen. I went in to feed the dog and mam said to her friends "he says he's an Atheist, so he wouldn't go to mass with me". The other women laughed, and basically dismissed that such a thing existed.

I tried my best to explain my position on the whole religion thing, and even quoted Darwin. It had little effect on them.

One of the women is a real Jesus freak, and part of the parish brigade. She looked visibly shocked at what I was saying and didn't even crack a smile.

Do any of you experience such rejection of your views by family or friends?

Well, the undeniable truth of evolution doesn't rule out all religion. What it does rule out is ****ty self contradicting Bronze Age primitive scripture claiming to be the word of God. So that rules out Christianity then.

Dudess · 05-04-2009 1:38pm

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Atheism is about not believing the pack of yammering superstition perpetuated by generations of those unable to understand the world.

Its not cool,

its not fashionable,

Its just religious beliefs are entirely illogical, and nonsensical.

There is no evidence to support these beliefs, therefore there is no reason to believe they are true. You don't need evidence to the cotrary, you need to prove your ludicrous assertions about the world for people to adopt them.

By that logic, any catholic for example would have to disprove every other existing religion, cult, random view or rambling lunacy to believe their own.

There is no evidence of a god of any description, but there are countles instances of religion being wrong.

But maybe I'm just revelling in my fashionable 'beliefs' on the internet, to be cool and get out of mass, or just not one to believe such tripe at the drop of a fictional hat.

I agree people who say "you're only questioning god's existence/not believing to be cool" are gigantic pains in the hole... but people who are atheists, critics of religion etc who act as though they're really rebellious and outrageous are also pains in the hole.

Dudess · 05-04-2009 1:42pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The part I'm saying he's trolling about is the bit where he says atheist beliefs are half baked and based on no evidence. That is demonstrably not true of atheism and equally demonstrably true of theism

I think what (s)he means is, despite the evidence atheists have, there is still no solid evidence there isn't a deity.

Dinner · 05-04-2009 1:47pm

Dudess wrote: »

I think what (s)he means is, despite the evidence atheists have, there is still no solid evidence there isn't a deity.

But that's not how the world works. I know it's a cliche, but we don't believe in fairys or santa or thor because there is no evidence that they exist. Similarily, there is no evidence that god exists so I have to treat god as I would unicorns and conclude that he probably doesn't exist.

If I'm agnostic to that god then I have to be agnostic about every other god past and present as well as every fairytale character because, afterall, there is no proof that they don't exist.

Stercus Accidit · 05-04-2009 1:47pm

Dudess wrote: »

I agree people who say "you're only questioning god's existence/not believing to be cool" are gigantic pains in the hole... but people who are atheists, critics of religion etc who act as though they're really rebellious and outrageous are also pains in the hole.

I find most atheists that could be described as such are just being dismissive of the arguments and beliefs being thrown at them, in debate, the arguments used by the theist camp are often illogical, well, allways, and are treated with distain and a lack of respect such notions deserve.

I firmly believe that you can respect someones right to believe, but you do not have to respect the fact that they do believe, or the beliefs themselves.
The problem is many theists can take it personally, to have what they claim to believe being questioned, hence this 'atheists are condescending' bull. I don't respect organised religion, its preaching, the beliefs of its followers, and I lump believers into two categories, those who 'believe' by habit but could sway either way, and those who have thought it through, are aware of the inconsistencies, but believe out of self delusion, the worst of these go on quests to convert others, to bolster their own nonsence.

Dave! · 05-04-2009 1:50pm

Dudess wrote: »

I think what (s)he means is, despite the evidence atheists have, there is still no solid evidence there isn't a deity.

There doesn't need to be... If there is evidence for something, you'll believe in it. If there's not, you won't. Why would you require evidence against something in order to 'not believe' in it? There's no evidence against fairies or leprauchauns...

JC 2K3 · 05-04-2009 1:51pm

Dudess wrote: »

I think what (s)he means is, despite the evidence atheists have, there is still no solid evidence there isn't a deity.

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.

Dudess · 05-04-2009 1:54pm

Dinner wrote: »

we don't believe in fairys or santa or thor because there is no evidence that they exist. Similarily, there is no evidence that god exists so I have to treat god as I would unicorns and conclude that he probably doesn't exist.

If I'm agnostic to that god then I have to be agnostic about every other god past and present as well as every fairytale character because, afterall, there is no proof that they don't exist.

Meant to get back to Dave! earlier on that one:

That argument doesn't cut it for me. And the reason is: while there is no solid evidence that god exists, I think there is evidence that a deity could exist - not a kind, loving one looking after us (I certainly believe, just thinking about how ****ed up the world has always been, that that's utter bollocksology) but literally just a higher power that's simply "there" - neither benevolent nor malevolent. What's the evidence? The universe, living things... why are they all here? How did they come about? They can't just have emerged from a vacuum.

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 1:57pm

Dudess wrote: »

I think what (s)he means is, despite the evidence atheists have, there is still no solid evidence there isn't a deity.

I don't think that is what he's saying as he specifically said we have no evidence, which is not true. At best it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black because he has no evidence of his god either but it's actually worse than that because we have lots of evidence and he has none

Dudess · 05-04-2009 1:58pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I think a lot of agnostics would have the exact same beliefs as a lot of atheists

True in my case.

but don't identify with the word "atheist" because of the stigma surrounding the term.

Definitely not in my case. I don't think there's as much stigma surrounding atheist as there is surrounding believer. I wouldn't give a flying **** about identifying myself as an atheist... but I won't, because I'm not. An atheist doesn't allow for the possibility there is a higher power. I do.

coffee_cake · 05-04-2009 1:59pm

Dudess wrote: »

Meant to get back to Dave! earlier on that one:

That argument doesn't cut it for me. And the reason is: while there is no solid evidence that god exists, I think there is evidence that a deity could exist - not a kind, loving one looking after us (I certainly believe, just thinking about how ****ed up the world has always been, that that's utter bollocksology) but literally just a higher power that's simply "there" - neither benevolent nor malevolent. What's the evidence? The universe, living things... why are they all here? How did they come about? They can't just have emerged from a vacuum.

In fairness dudess, "i dont know" -/-> "must be a god/higher power".
We could simply just say we're ignorant on the universe coming to be, without having to become agnostic on it.

Stercus Accidit · 05-04-2009 2:01pm

Dudess wrote: »

They can't just have emerged from a vacuum.

Why not?

There is plenty of work going into uncovering the origins of the universe, but to claim you don't understand it therfore it must be a god(by any other name) is a very theist thing to do.

I'll remain atheist, I don't believe there is a god, there is no evidence of it, logic applies here. If along the lines some evidence crops up that our universe filled with rules is all some quantum computer running WOW on a teen angels desktop, I'll consider that evidence, but for now, I havn't seen anything to indicate that.

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 2:03pm

Dudess wrote: »

Meant to get back to Dave! earlier on that one:

That argument doesn't cut it for me. And the reason is: while there is no solid evidence that god exists, I think there is evidence that a deity could exist - not a kind, loving one looking after us (I certainly believe, just thinking about how ****ed up the world has always been, that that's utter bollocksology) but literally just a higher power that's simply "there" - neither benevolent nor malevolent. What's the evidence? The universe, living things... why are they all here? How did they come about? They can't just have emerged from a vacuum.

Sure they could. Think of it this way:

you say matter couldn't have just emerged from a vacuum and that a higher power must have created it but then this higher power must have just emerged from a vacuum. At some point in the past something had to emerge from nothing and I don't see why it had to be a higher power. It could just as easily have been matter in a process that we don't yet understand.

In fact it's far more likely that the matter was created in a natural process that we don't yet understand than that an infinitely complex supernatural being magically did it

Dudess · 05-04-2009 2:04pm

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

There is plenty of work going into uncovering the origins of the universe, but to claim you don't understand it therfore it must be a god(by any other name) is a very theist thing to do.

No, I said "therefore it could be a higher power", not "must". I find I'm unable to rule out that possibility, hence my stance. But that's just me - I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else.

Dudess · 05-04-2009 2:08pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you say matter couldn't have just emerged from a vacuum and that a higher power must have created it but then this higher power must have just emerged from a vacuum. At some point in the past something had to emerge from nothing and I don't see why it had to be a higher power. It could just as easily have been matter in a process that we don't yet understand.

In fact it's far more likely that the matter was created in a natural process that we don't yet understand than that an infinitely complex supernatural being magically did it

A very good point. But until I know what the facts are, I won't take an absolutist stance, I'll just remain on the fence - and that's what I think agnosticism is: a form of fence-sitting.

Doctor DooM · 05-04-2009 2:08pm

I'm more interested in hearing where Darwin stated religions aren't real, tbh.

Stercus Accidit · 05-04-2009 2:12pm

Dudess wrote: »

No, I said "therefore it could be a higher power", not "must". I find I'm unable to rule out that possibility, hence my stance. But that's just me - I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else.

Ye know what, I can respect that.

Claiming to know anything one way or the other without evidence is what we don't want.

philologos · 05-04-2009 2:22pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

My mam is up in my house for the weekend and it being Sunday morning, she tried to make me go to mass with her. I refused, using the old "but I'm an Atheist" reasoning to broach the subject. So off she went, noticeably indifferent to my proclamation of faithlessness.

So you expect your belief that God doesn't exist to stop your mother from going to church? If she believes, so what? Deal with it, we have freedom of conscience in this country.

Upward Spiral wrote: »

She returned an hour later with some of her friends for tea and a Chocolate Kimberley in my kitchen. I went in to feed the dog and mam said to her friends "he says he's an Atheist, so he wouldn't go to mass with me". The other women laughed, and basically dismissed that such a thing existed.

I think that might have been a bit too far for the other women to suggest. You could try asking your mother to respect your views on religion and not to spout them to others as a general point of conversation if you don't want people to give you that kind of attention for them.

Upward Spiral wrote: »

I tried my best to explain my position on the whole religion thing, and even quoted Darwin. It had little effect on them.

Why should it have any effect on them? Why do you care so much for almost evangelising your atheism?

Upward Spiral wrote: »

One of the women is a real Jesus freak, and part of the parish brigade. She looked visibly shocked at what I was saying and didn't even crack a smile.

She obviously cared for your salvation.

Upward Spiral wrote: »

Do any of you experience such rejection of your views by family or friends?

Not in my family, I'm a Christian. However amongst my friends, some are very critical of my stance for accepting that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour. However, some are more agnostic about the issue and ask me about how Christianity works in my life and I appreciate that and I like to share about what it is like for me so that others might know more about God, or even come to know Him one day.

Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut

Comments