Why Is It That Athiests Talk So Much About Religion

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

I'd also be of the opinion that personal tragedy or peril is a common catalyst for religiosity. Far more often than simply reasoning yourself into that position when the sun shines (not that that doesn't happen too).

I guess that's where the phrase "no atheists in foxholes" comes from. Oddly, this is sometimes used a stick by believers to support their position, while the fact that so many turn to religion out of fear of their own (or a loved one's) mortality points to the idea that religion is simply a crutch, and reason doesn't come into it.

It is definately a catalyst alright. I think my own mother is a great example. Virtually never goes to Mass, never mentions God or religion, doesn't strike as being religious at all, but give her a hospital appointment or make a relative sick and watch her run to the church to light candles, pray etc.
People tend to be more religious when they want something.

h8scobes

well the reason that people talk about it o here is because they are losers most likely. most people who are atheists wouldnt be bothered about science or broing **** like that they just get on with life u no wat i mean like?

MagicMarker

h8scobes wrote: »

well the reason that people talk about it o here is because they are losers most likely. most people who are atheists wouldnt be bothered about science or broing **** like that they just get on with life u no wat i mean like?

Does getting on with life include learning how to read and write?

old_aussie

h8scobes wrote: »

well the reason that people talk about it o here is because they are losers most likely.

I don't think anyone on this forum is a looser, just here to discuss things that are important to their well-being.

Ickle Magoo

old_aussie wrote: »

I don't think anyone on this forum is a looser, just here to discuss things that are important to their well-being.

Who you calling loose?! :mad:

:pac:

Marcus.Aurelius

h8scobes wrote: »

well the reason that people talk about it o here is because they are losers most likely. most people who are atheists wouldnt be bothered about science or broing **** like that they just get on with life u no wat i mean like?

WTF?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Who you calling loose?!

Somebody within the atheist coven has been telling stories about our mass orgies again. That and the dead baby buffets.

Turtwig

h8scobes wrote: »

well the reason that people talk about it o here is because they are losers most likely. most people who are atheists wouldnt be bothered about science or broing **** like that they just get on with life u no wat i mean like?

Negative Sir! Trolling Monsters are most likely the biggest losers. No wait sire! That's a fact a Sir! Trollsters are the biggest losers.

*For reasons of this posts possibly being interpreted as ad hom I'm not saying the poster is a troll, I'm just merely outlining that trolls happens to be the biggest losers.;)

Dougla2

h8scobes wrote: »

well the reason that people talk about it o here is because they are losers most likely. most people who are atheists wouldnt be bothered about science or broing **** like that they just get on with life u no wat i mean like?

I think i don't know what you meant ..... at all...
anyway you just typed that on a computer most likely or a phone brought to us by science........

Ickle Magoo

It's quite sad that anyone would think science, progress, technology and learning as being for losers or "broing ****", between that and the clear literacy issues I feel quite sorry for h8scobes - and judging by their handle, just to top it off they are filled with self loathing. Poor wee scone.

amacachi

h8scobes wrote: »

well the reason that people talk about it o here is because they are losers most likely. most people who are atheists wouldnt be bothered about science or broing **** like that they just get on with life u no wat i mean like?

LOL, how much of your "life" do you think you'd be getting on with without science and other boring ****e. Gotta love how the internet is used by people to make fun of science and progress.

Mark Hamill

House wrote: »

h8scobes wrote:

well the reason that people talk about it o here is because they are losers most likely. most people who are atheists wouldnt be bothered about science or broing **** like that they just get on with life u no wat i mean like?

WTF?

He means this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtLXGQu-OF4

:pac::D

Dades

h8scobes enjoying a weeks ban for his one and only post.

Zombrex

h8scobes wrote: »

well the reason that people talk about it o here is because they are losers most likely. most people who are atheists wouldnt be bothered about science or broing **** like that they just get on with life u no wat i mean like?

Things like this make me weep for future civilization :pac:

old_aussie

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Who you calling loose?! :mad:

:pac:

The loser (who won a weeks holiday) with the loose mouth

jayzusb.christ

Boring sh1t like science.


Don't think or read about things, and you don't have to be one of those loser atheists either!

rational

robindch wrote: »

But ultimately, atheists just don't have a doctrine to defend.

All they have is questions -- a debate -- for those who do.

Is that all they have really?

No secular agenda? Just questions.

Just questions and debate, yea, as long as the outcome of the debate is the atheistic secular agenda.

Lets see now they want the removal of the dominance of one particular world view (religion) and in its place the dominance of an atheistic secular world view. Oh as atheists have we learned nothing from religion.

Dougla2

rational wrote: »

Is that all they have really?

No secular agenda? Just questions?

Sure just questions.

A debate, yea, as long as the outcome of the debate the atheistic secular agenda.

not all atheists are secular not all atheists are humanist there is no agenda each atheist may or may not have his or her own agenda but there is no collective "agenda"

Galvasean

Dougla2 wrote: »

not all atheists are secular not all atheists are humanist there is no agenda each atheist may or may not have his or her own agenda but there is no collective "agenda"

Yup. That's why atheists have such a hard time getting things done. They all want different things.
It's also the reason why I laugh when I hear people say things like "the atheist agenda".

mikhail

Galvasean wrote: »

Yup. That's why atheists have such a hard time getting things done. They all want different things.
It's also the reason why I laugh when I hear people say things like "the atheist agenda".

Don't listen to him Dougla2. That was the mistake Dougla1 made. Galvasean is a mod here; he stores and maintains the Atheist & Agnostic Holy Text, a ragged beer mat smelling vaguely of Coors on which the words "There is no God (probably)" are emblazoned in the ink of a green BIC biro.

Dr. Loon

rational wrote: »

Is that all they have really?

No secular agenda? Just questions.

Just questions and debate, yea, as long as the outcome of the debate is the atheistic secular agenda.

Lets see now they want the removal of the dominance of one particular world view (religion) and in its place the dominance of an atheistic secular world view. Oh as atheists have we learned nothing from religion.

Ha ha ha. Ha. That is all.

The Mad Hatter

rational wrote: »

one particular world view (religion)

Seriously?

Turtwig

rational wrote: »

Is that all they have really?

No secular agenda? Just questions.

Just questions and debate, yea, as long as the outcome of the debate is the atheistic secular agenda.

Lets see now they want the removal of the dominance of one particular world view (religion) and in its place the dominance of an atheistic secular world view. Oh as atheists have we learned nothing from religion.

Ok, I'm going to say this as politely as I can possibly can.

Given the sheer level of misunderstanding you have shown about the concepts of Atheism, secularism and even religion, I think it's time I ask that from the next paragraph onwards until the end you read this post aloud and repeat it three times.

Ok are you reading aloud? Is it possible for an atheist to have an agenda? Yes absolutely, but the question you need to ask yourself is, "it possible for atheism to have an set agenda? To answer this we will first look at the actual definition of atheism. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in deities. So let's examine some fictional people to see if they have an atheism agenda.

Atheist John Doe believes that religion is really bad idea, that people who believe in God are stupid retards and that gays are an abomination that deserve to be shot on sight. He sees his life agenda as purging gays and religion from the ranks of human society.

Atheist Jane Doe believes that religion is actually ok, she doesn't personally believe in God but she does understand how it can give people hope in the such tough times. She is a hard on feminist and sees that as her agenda for the near future.

Atheist James Doe is very anti science he does not like the way modern technology has corrupted human society and ultimately this planet. He is a passionate advocate against GM foods. He strongly believes that nature should be let work naturally and humans should not interfere with its work.

Atheist Janet Doe is doesn't believe in God. She struggles to understand why people who don't believe in God simply can't stop discussing the concept and actually get on with their lives. She's see her own agenda as looking out for her family, friends and the man that makes butterflies flutter within her abdomen.

All of the above were atheists, the problem is because of how narrow the category of what defines a person an atheist is you cannot actually give atheism an agenda. It's just not possible as the only thing atheists share in common with one another is their lack of belief in God. Now anti-theists, they could possibly be said to have an agenda, but anti-theism is not the equivalence of atheism.

Secularism is the idea that the laws of the state should be free from religious doctrines. This DOES NOT mean that the population that live within that state should have no religion. What it means is that there is freedom of religion, all religions should be treated equally, and that when arguing changes in legislation these arguments must be made using arguments that members of ALL faiths and those of no faith alike can discuss. Invoking the bible as a means to abhor or approve the civil partnership bill should simply not be allowed.

Just like what adherents of religions themselves claim they adhere to, the definition of religion is incredibly vague. However, even with these vague definitions regarding the, what does, and what doesn't, constitute a religion, it is almost universally agreed that religion is something that requires a commitment to the belief in the various doctrines and practices that consist of supernatural beliefs. It is entirely possibly to get human beings who believe and worship supernatural elements but don't believe in deity. These people are atheists who belong to a faith or religion. The most well known example of this is Buddhism.

MagicMarker

What he said ^^

liamw

Must be an interesting conversation at the annual Doe family dinner

strobe

Any chance one of the Mods could sticky these two posts by Malty and force any visiting theists to read them before posting here? Could save everybody involved a lot of time and hassle.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68274959&postcount=107

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68343782&postcount=83

jayzusb.christ

Any chance one of the Mods could sticky these two posts by Malty and force any visiting theists to read them before posting here? Could save everybody involved a lot of time and hassle.

Seconded. And maybe throw in this youtube animation that someone else posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSLkQnCurgs&feature=channel

ColmDawson

strobe wrote: »

Any chance one of the Mods could sticky these two posts by Malty and force any visiting theists to read them before posting here? Could save everybody involved a lot of time and hassle.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68274959&postcount=107

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68343782&postcount=83

Yes, then it might be fair to lock these threads when they appear.

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, I'm going to say this as politely as I can possibly can..

You are not saying anything you are writing it down. In your own head you may be hearing it aloud but your actually writing it.

PS why does your first sentance read so impolite, for someone trying to start off being polite:)

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok are you reading aloud? Is it possible for an atheist to have an agenda? Yes absolutely, but the question you need to ask yourself is, "it possible for atheism to have an set agenda? .

Atheism is a concept it does not have or cannot set the agenda. Groups of like minded atheists however can. For example those atheists who want to get rid of the angelus on the television in a prodominaltly catholic country like Ireland.

Malty_T wrote: »

To answer this we will first look at the actual definition of atheism. .

As in the royal "we" or "we" as in a group of like minded atheists?

Malty_T wrote: »

So let's examine some fictional people to see if they have an atheism agenda. .

Dont you mean "So lets set up some fictional john doe types that neatly fit into my frame of argument".

Malty_T wrote: »

Atheist John Doe believes that religion is really bad idea, that people who believe in God are stupid retards and that gays are an abomination that deserve to be shot on sight. He sees his life agenda as purging gays and religion from the ranks of human society.

Atheist Jane Doe believes that religion is actually ok, she doesn't personally believe in God but she does understand how it can give people hope in the such tough times. She is a hard on feminist and sees that as her agenda for the near future.

Atheist James Doe is very anti science he does not like the way modern technology has corrupted human society and ultimately this planet. He is a passionate advocate against GM foods. He strongly believes that nature should be let work naturally and humans should not interfere with its work.

Atheist Janet Doe is doesn't believe in God. She struggles to understand why people who don't believe in God simply can't stop discussing the concept and actually get on with their lives. She's see her own agenda as looking out for her family, friends and the man that makes butterflies flutter within her abdomen..

Fair and rational

Malty_T wrote: »

All of the above were atheists, the problem is because of how narrow the category of what defines a person an atheist is you cannot actually give atheism an agenda. .

While you paint a picture of atheists as being a diverse group which encompasses many different strata of society. You are choosing to ignore the large group of atheists who are anti-religion. Who do have an agenda against religious believe and who are instinctly hostile towards it.

Malty_T wrote: »

Now anti-theists, they could possibly be said to have an agenda, but anti-theism is not the equivalence of atheism.

While you do your best to seperate anti-theism from atheism Im not so sure the line is as clear as you argue it is.

Malty_T wrote: »

Secularism is the idea that the laws of the state should be free from religious doctrines. .

Is that your own one line definition? Its much more.

France is a secular state yets its laws are derived from 2000 years of christian moral thinking.

Malty_T wrote: »

and that when arguing changes in legislation these arguments must be made using arguments that members of ALL faiths and those of no faith alike can discuss.

So there are several John doe's and Jane doe's sitting in parliment they are committed christians and form a clear majority in that parliment. Are you seriously telling me that they should park thier religious moral vision at the gates of parliment and discuss complex cases of legislation without recorse to what gives their moral outlook? Are you trying to say that people have no right to let their religious belief influence their judgement?

A priest and a rabbi are elected members of the Dail................................ (are you seriously saying the priest does not have the right to views based on his religious belief? You just dont get the nuaince do you. We are getting to the nub of the issue here though.

rational

MagicMarker wrote: »

What he said ^^

Another like minded atheist:)

I see your not the only one to thank the poster for his post.

In fairness it was the best post writen by an atheist on here. Hats off to the guy.

rational

strobe wrote: »

Any chance one of the Mods could sticky these two posts by Malty and force any visiting theists to read them before posting here? Could save everybody involved a lot of time and hassle.

Those theists they just dont understand do they.