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

Dawkins: Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life (New Series)

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Exactly, and this is the point atheists miss over and over. What people believe is a personal issue, and people with faith are greatly offended by atheists telling them what they believe is wrong. Long before organized religions were formed man believed in dualism, the distinction between spirit and the physical. The belief in an afterlife is common to most ancient cultures. What is wrong with people having faith that some aspect of their consciousness survives and that they will be reunited with their loved ones after death, and what exactly is gained by attempts to shoot holes in why people believe that at a personal level?

    Nothing wrong with that belief IMO. You can believe what you want.
    My belief that there is no afterlife can be proven no better than the belief that there is one. I could be wrong. Obviously, I think I'm right, based on evidence - but that's not always the same as being right.


  • Options
    #63
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Exactly, and this is the point atheists miss over and over. What people believe is a personal issue, and people with faith are greatly offended by atheists telling them what they believe is wrong. Long before organized religions were formed man believed in dualism, the distinction between spirit and the physical. The belief in an afterlife is common to most ancient cultures. What is wrong with people having faith that some aspect of their consciousness survives and that they will be reunited with their loved ones after death, and what exactly is gained by attempts to shoot holes in why people believe that at a personal level?
    Wuut?

    I think I speak for the majority of the people on this forum when I say we don't give a toss what people choose to believe. I think I also speak for the majority here when I say that we save our "hole shooting" for forums such as this, where people are free to ignore what they may find offensive, and/or for conversations with willing participants.

    There is nothing wrong with a person having faith, however when that faith impacts on the laws of the land, then those people should be prepared to stand their corner, because denying someone equality (as a for instance) because their God says so isn't a good enough reason as far as we're concerned.

    So do please desist with the generalizations.


  • Options
    #64
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Yes but it's also tied into their religious belief. What if one day one of them as is very possible loses their faith in religion.

    Well, what if? People who take such a strong stance, who have such a firm belief and base a decision that affects another living being on their faith, will more than likely not change their thinking in my opinion. If they do, then they deal with the personal fall-out, which will be harsh I'm sure.

    As you say, the baby may have suffered less if it had been aborted - but that is not within their faith to do. If one of the parents has a change of mind later on, yes, that is something they will have to live with. As it is for a woman who decides she can't have a child, for whatever reason, and has an abortion and then later on feels she did the wrong thing. Peace will only come when each person realises they did their best, following their belief, at the time. What can you say? Nobody has a claim how best to forgive yourself, if you disagree with your own decision making. Such is life and death.


  • Options
    #65
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Wuut?

    I think I speak for the majority of the people on this forum when I say we don't give a toss what people choose to believe. I think I also speak for the majority here when I say that we save our "hole shooting" for forums such as this, where people are free to ignore what they may find offensive, and/or for conversations with willing participants.
    Yes, but we try and be a bit respectful when someone comes along with a faith and genuinely has a question, right? If they are slandering us, or denying our belief isn't founded, then it's fair game. But generally up here, I've not come across the attitude "you shouldn't believe that because it's pants" without a fair resort to "and here's why".
    There is nothing wrong with a person having faith, however when that faith impacts on the laws of the land, then those people should be prepared to stand their corner, because denying someone equality (as a for instance) because their God says so isn't a good enough reason as far as we're concerned.
    Yes, that's the distinction.
    So do please desist with the generalizations.
    Do we ever generalise? Honest now....;)


  • Options
    #66
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The thousands of deities in history are an attempt by various cultures to put a name on the God entity that (they believe) exists outside our known physical universe.

    See, there's the part (in bold) where you should have put in a "they believe". Otherwise you're doing no better than people who say you're wrong, with no proof.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    nagirrac wrote: »
    They get there by literal interpretations of ancient texts that most likely and according to most theologians are not meant to be read literally. I applaud atheists who fight to keep such fundamentalist positions out of our systems of government. However, if Dawkins were truly serious about the dangers to society due to such beliefs he would be lecturing in Saudia Arabia rather than America. Fundamentalist Christians are a fringe group in America, and separation of church and state is well established in the constitition and legal system.

    We all fight our own corner. I think Dawkins (although I don't like him), among others, does quite well countering the fundamentalists in the developed West (and they're by no means a fringe group in America, they are scarily active and necessitate activity to counter them).


  • Options
    #68
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    So do please desist with the generalizations.

    That's rich..


  • Options
    #69
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Obliq wrote: »
    Well, what if? People who take such a strong stance, who have such a firm belief and base a decision that affects another living being on their faith, will more than likely not change their thinking in my opinion. If they do, then they deal with the personal fall-out, which will be harsh I'm sure.

    Indeed and it's sad to think that the closure they have is tied to a faith which could change. I know how it feels to grieve all over again when you lose your faith.
    As you say, the baby may have suffered less if it had been aborted - but that is not within their faith to do.

    Now that's an interesting if difficult topic. Do you think we do jehovah parents wrong when we as a society interfere to give their children blood transfusions against their parent's faith? We already step in to interfere when a parents faith risks suffering to their children.


  • Options
    #70
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    That's rich..
    Ooooh, cryptic.


  • Options
    #71
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Indeed and it's sad to think that the closure they have is tied to a faith which could change. I know how it feels to grieve all over again when you lose your faith.
    Sorry for your loss. I know how it feels to lie and say we'll meet again to someone on their deathbed, when they believed that but I didn't.


    Now that's an interesting if difficult topic. Do you think we do jehovah parents wrong when we as a society interfere to give their children blood transfusions against their parent's faith? We already step in to interfere when a parents faith risks suffering to their children.

    Yes, that's difficult alright, if not impossible on a personal level. IMO we can no more advise a person to abort a child to alleviate it's potential suffering than we can advise they have a child when they don't want to.

    As the law stands in most western countries, a born child has a right to the kind of health care that any person needs to stay alive, regardless of religion. A parent who denies their child that right is going to come up against the law. I suppose that a state (in order to uphold any rights at all) has to draw the line somewhere, and being born is as good a place as any, in that it defines a point that religious and non religious can agree on (to a certain extent!). So the born child has some more clear-cut rights here and a blood transfusion to save the child's life is clearly a matter where the state would step in (against a certain religion's faith).

    Damn, wish I could go on with this reasoning as it's a tricky one, but my youngest just stepped in the door and has his "rights" to the computer, as per earlier negotiations. For sure, I'll get back to this. Ta for the hard question! :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Maudi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭Maudi


    TheChizler wrote: »

    I know it's been said many times but nobody's forcing you or anyone else to listen to him, or implement or be affected by anything that he's advocating. Forcing X down your throat would be when you have no choice in the matter.
    grow up..its a discussion forum im discussing ..i know he not forcing it down my throat..its a figure of speech..i watch him on tv.ive read and enjoyed his books..il give my opinion..


  • Options
    #73
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    OH GOD WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF ALL THOSE POOR MAIMED ELLIPSES


  • Options
    #74
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Sarky wrote: »
    OH GOD WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF ALL THOSE POOR MAIMED ELLIPSES

    Haa! :D Wish I had your talent for making people laugh :)


  • Options
    #75
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Maudi wrote: »
    grow up..its a discussion forum im discussing ..i know he not forcing it down my throat..its a figure of speech..i watch him on tv.ive read and enjoyed his books..il give my opinion..
    Please don't ask me to grow up. Do you realise how when you say things on a discussion forum that people have no way of knowing if you're genuine or not?


  • Options
    #76
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Episode 3 on tonight. Can't wait for the outrage!!


  • Options
    #77
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Episode 3 on tonight. Can't wait for the outrage!!

    Right, I'll try and put my dislike of Dawkins on hold and sit through it this time. I'm in a better mood. What's it about tonight?


  • Options
    #78
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    I dunno, maybe tonight Dawkins tell us what the meaning of life is?


  • Options
    #79
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I dunno, maybe tonight Dawkins tell us what the meaning of life is?

    Don't need to know ;). Quite happy with my own meaning of my own little nonsensical, unimportant life - and I have the answer to that one already - I just try and improve on my answer every day.:D


  • Options
    #80
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    He might show us a trick hes taught his doggy.


  • Options
    #81
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Nodin wrote: »
    He might show us a trick hes taught his doggy.

    Yay! Will drag myself to the sofa so. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Well I'm looking forward to it, I have my jaffa cakes and coffee ready.


  • Options
    #83
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    nagirrac wrote: »
    An agnostic, whether theist, deist or weak atheist leaning, does not have a belief in a God, they are essentially neutral on the question
    Ignoring the general "incorrectness" of the statement for the moment, does anyone else get annoyed by the term "weak atheist"?
    Its as if an agnostic atheist is an atheist who is lacking the assertiveness and arrogance that Dawkins is blamed for, and is thus too timid to be a full atheist (a gnostic atheist?)
    Its the kind of post that gives theist posters a bad name.


  • Options
    #84
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    recedite wrote: »
    Ignoring the general "incorrectness" of the statement for the moment, does anyone else get annoyed by the term "weak atheist"?
    Its as if an agnostic atheist is an atheist who is lacking the assertiveness and arrogance that Dawkins is blamed for, and is thus too timid to be a full atheist (a gnostic atheist?)
    Its the kind of post that gives theist posters a bad name.


    I refer you to post #85 on the "Goodbye Atheism" thread where Michael Nugent gives a very good definition of weak atheism versus strong atheism. If it's good enough for Ireland's leading atheist its good enough for me.

    and I'm a deist agnostic by the way


  • Options
    #85
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    He was only pandering to your use of the term :p
    Nugent wrote:
    Strong atheism refers to whether you actively believe there is no god. It is sometimes called positive atheism or explicit atheism.
    Weak atheism refers to whether you passively do not believe that there is a god. It is sometimes called negative atheism or implicit atheism.
    I have my own doubts about whether belief can be divided into "active" or "passive". Its your opinion. Whether you care to express it or not, that is "active" or "passive".

    So, you're a weak deist then? :)


  • Options
    #86
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    recedite wrote: »

    So, you're a weak deist then? :)

    Yeah, I'm passive enough generally in that I would never try and impose my beliefs on someone else. When someone tries to impose their beliefs on me though I tend to get active fairly lively :)

    I think most people are the same, passive about their own beliefs and active about the beliefs of others. I suppose its what makes debate enjoyable, there's no value in slapping each other on the back in agreement all day.


Advertisement