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

Why I secretly root for Atheists in Debates

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Penn wrote: »
    I would agree and disagree in equal amounts. I'd be on the side of babies being born atheist, but I wouldn't feel any need to classify them as such until they had the capacity to believe in god(s).
    Yeah, but don't we like to tell people who "don't feel the need" to call themselves atheists that they are - whether they call themselves one or not!

    *No* to baby labelling!


  • Options
    #123
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jernal wrote: »
    Just about to start reading 'The Blank Slate' by Pinker. Anyone else read it?
    Yep. It's good; most of Pinker's stuff is.

    btw, I wonder what happened to Onesimus? You still lurking around, ready to pounce to the defence of the indefensibly silly? :)


  • Options
    #124
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Dades wrote: »
    Yeah, but don't we like to tell people who "don't feel the need" to call themselves atheists that they are - whether they call themselves one or not!

    *No* to baby labelling!

    *No* to baby labelling - but *yes* to baby eating? No wonder folks think atheists have their priorities all wrong... :p


  • Options
    #125
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,739 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Dades wrote: »
    *No* to baby labelling!

    but it's a legal requirement for food tracabiliity :P:pac:

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



  • Options
    #126
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    *No* to baby labelling - but *yes* to baby eating? No wonder folks think atheists have their priorities all wrong... :p

    Have you ever met an atheist allergic to delicious babies?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,543 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Jernal wrote: »
    Have you ever met an atheist allergic to delicious babies?
    Why would God give someone an atheist gene and a baby allergy? That would be crazy. More proof of intelligent design

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #128
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    28064212 wrote: »
    Why would God give someone an atheist gene and a baby allergy? That would be crazy. More proof of intelligent design

    What about vegetarian atheists? Are they true atheists, considering they can't eat babies?

    Poor Onesimus. I don't think we'll be seeing him in this thread again.


  • Options
    #129
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Have we agreed that using the term 'atheist' for babies is debatable but we all agree that babies are not born believing in the existence of God?

    I pop out for half an hour...jeeze...


  • Options
    #130
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    gvn wrote: »
    What about vegetarian atheists? Are they true atheists, considering they can't eat babies?

    Poor Onesimus. I don't think we'll be seeing him in this thread again.

    You didn't eat him did you? :eek:


  • Options
    #131
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Have we agreed that using the term 'atheist' for babies is debatable but we all agree that babies are not born believing in the existence of God? delicious.
    Fire up the BBQ!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,402 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Have we agreed that using the term 'atheist' for babies is debatable but we all agree that babies are not born believing in the existence of God?

    Unless Onesimus comes back with evidence of a Christian gene, I think we're pretty much a lock on that matter.


  • Options
    #133
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Have we agreed that using the term 'atheist' for babies is debatable but we all agree that babies are not born believing in the existence of God?

    I pop out for half an hour...jeeze...

    I think everybody got a little distracted...
    Jernal wrote: »
    You didn't eat him did you? :eek:

    *ahem* No, no. Of course not. No. Definitely not. *ahem*


  • Options
    #134
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Dades wrote: »
    Fire up the BBQ!

    Babies give me wind :(


  • Options
    #135
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.
    Oh my word. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #136
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    I see only one real reason to label children as atheist and it's only to make the point that not believing in a god is all it takes to be atheist. It is in effect an effort to counter claims that atheism is the belief there is no gods.


Advertisement