nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

atheists.. pee me off

utmbuilder

What is the deal with atheists campaigning for their beliefs and lack of.

Surely if you dont believe in something you just chill out shut up and go by your daily business.

They threat atheism like their new own religion, wanting to squash anything in their sight or their children sight which resembles anyone elses beliefs.

Is it just them thinking they are superior to everyone else and know everything?

I am no holy joe, but these guys pee me off.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

henryporter

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'm with the monkeys, they don't give a fcuk about any of that crap.

The Monkees on the other hand. . .

"Then I saw her face, now I'm a believer"

_Roz_

I'm an atheist, and I've no problem with people believing what they want to. I also don't go round shouting about atheism, because I think it would be rude. However, I also find it immensely rude when I'm walking round Cork city and I see people reciting passages from the bible into microphones or gathering in Daunt Square in groups to say the Rosary around a statue of Mary. But at the very least, if they're allowed throw their beliefs in my face like that, I should be allowed to stand in the street and talk about atheism. Muslims should be allowed stand in the street and talk about Islam, or pray in public places like the Christians. That inequality annoys me.

The Backwards Man

I'm with the monkeys, they don't give a fcuk about any of that crap.

The Monkees on the other hand. . .

Academic

Sam Kade wrote: »

To simplify it for you they both don't believe in something but can't stop talking about it.

And as I and others have observed, there's no reason why they should 'stop talking about it'. If that bothers other people, well, that's just tough.

VinLieger

Donald Trump wrote: »

Jaysus, are you serious? They restrict the job of chaplin to someone who studied and qualified as a priest???

Next you'll be telling me that they restrict the role of that fella in the student medical centre with the stethoscope around his neck, who tells people what medicine to take, to applicants who are qualified doctors.

Oh the humanity!

In all seriousness, what are you actually saying should be done? That colleges should hire atheists to be chaplains?

Good job showing your complete ignorance about the topic..... unsurprisingly your name fits your knowledge

You understand Chaplains can be of any faith and don't have to be catholic?

They can be Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Catholic etc. it doesn't matter.

The point the poster is making is that catholic priests always get these jobs above any other faiths

Galwayguy35

jacksie66 wrote: »

I wasn't correcting grammar. I'm drunk in ibiza do I apologise for that. What I was trying to say was that I'm atheist, not an atheist. An atheist to me means that I'm part of some movement rather than an individual..

You're in Ibiza and you logged into Boards?

Donald Trump

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

They receive a lot of state funding be it from priests automatically getting college chaplain jobs

Jaysus, are you serious? They restrict the job of chaplin to someone who studied and qualified as a priest???

Next you'll be telling me that they restrict the role of that fella in the student medical centre with the stethoscope around his neck, who tells people what medicine to take, to applicants who are qualified doctors.

Oh the humanity!

In all seriousness, what are you actually saying should be done? That colleges should hire atheists to be chaplains?

Sam Kade

Academic wrote: »

I don’t see the similarity.

“God exists” is an existence claim, and thus by definition empirical at its root.

“It’s wrong to eat animals” is a moral claim, necessarily contingent on some conceptually prior argument starting with an initial statement of ethical principle.

The only thing the two have in common is that they often annoy many of the same people. Which is rather telling, I think.

To simplify it for you they both don't believe in something but can't stop talking about it.

fyfe79

A Little Pony wrote: »

I wouldn't say bad people, probably the most boring imaginations in society though.

Most scientists (80% approx in the western world apparently) are athiest. Do these people have boring imaginations? If so, I'd prefer someone with a boring imagination who's contributing positively to society.

Samaris

Er...okay.

Do you break out in hives when an atheist is nearby or something? Not really sure how merely not believing in a god is so worthy of disapprobation.

NinetyTwoTeam

Well OP you'd be better off if you were a real holy Joe, bc then your faith would be so strong that a non-believer would not bother you, you'd just pity them and pray for them.

But sure we're all just half arsed Catholics round here, that's the norm

Academic

jacksie66 wrote: »

I wasn't correcting grammar. I'm drunk in ibiza do I apologise for that. What I was trying to say was that I'm atheist, not an atheist. An atheist to me means that I'm part of some movement rather than an individual..

Huh? To you perhaps, but not to anyone else I know.

In any event, "atheist" is a noun, so "an atheist" is correct.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

StupidLikeAFox

Candie wrote: »

Three of the bravest and most remarkable people I've ever met were Catholic priests from Monrovia, who stayed put during the second Liberian civil war and faced down the kind of threats I can't even imagine, to protect the orphaned children thrust into their care long after all the NGO's and UN personnel had gone.

We're they great people because of religion? Or would they still have been great people if they never set foot in a church?

murpho999

jacksie66 wrote: »

I'm athiest. Not an athiest.

Or in your case maybe you're a dyslexic atheist and you don't believe in Dog.

Ironic to correct grammar with wrong spelling.

[Deleted User]

gw80 wrote: »

And don't forget those good monks at the buckfast monastery;)

Belgian Trappist beer. Mmmmmmmmm....

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Academic

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Except that there are stories of a few illiterate farmers who had the balls to stand up and say "no, not in my family"[...]

Any that you could share?

Mrs OBumble

Academic wrote: »

While I agree with this in principle, I think that culpability is a matter of degree and varies from person to person, time to time, and place to place.
....

But consider the very different circumstance, for one example, of an illiterate farmer somewhere in the west of Ireland in the 1780s who was raised in this particularly toxic religious world. For him it was just the way the world was, and he’d no more imagine that things would be different than he’d imagine that day might not follow night.

Except that there are stories of a few illiterate farmers who had the balls to stand up and say "no, not in my family". So we know that it could be done.

Aggressive athiesm is just another way to hide from the dark shadow on the collective psyche of this country .

[Deleted User]

steddyeddy wrote: »

So we can thank organised religion for one thing I suppose.

You can also thank organised religion for educating vast swathes of the developing world where no other organisation would educate the poor for free - well, in return for some indoctrination - but it's a small price when you consider what people gain from education.

I kind of agree with the OP on one point. I'm an atheist but it doesn't define me in the way it seems to define some. I have a lot of respect for many people I know to be highly intelligent, but who are people of faith. I don't agree with ridiculing or calling people stupid for having a religious belief system. Granted, religion doesn't affect my everyday life. I have little interest in discussing it (there isn't much to discuss when you have no belief in something), and I hate being preached to by the strident atheists as much as I do by the rigid theists.

Religion is responsible for a lot of ills in the world, but for the sake of balance it's worth noting the contributions of religious organisations, especially to educating the worlds poorest (you can argue about it's quality but I'm talking about people who'd have no education otherwise), providing free medical care through nursing orders and religious run hospitals throughout the world, and the scholarly pursuits of clergy supported by their organizations.

Three of the bravest and most remarkable people I've ever met were Catholic priests from Monrovia, who stayed put during the second Liberian civil war and faced down the kind of threats I can't even imagine, to protect the orphaned children thrust into their care long after all the NGO's and UN personnel had gone.

Academic

Prickly Pete wrote: »

People voted for the politicians who gave the church the power over and over again.

My grandparents would almost certainly allowed their daughters sent away if they got pregnant out of marriage.

People just don't want to admit that the people of this country allowed the church to exert the influence they had on society and it is the people of this country who should be blamed for allowing the church to have the power they had.

The church are to blame for doing what they did but they would not have been able to do what they did if the people of this country didn't let them.

While I agree with this in principle, I think that culpability is a matter of degree and varies from person to person, time to time, and place to place.

I agree that today, given our generally higher level of education, and given everything we’ve learned in recent years about the church’s crimes, anyone who thinks they can blindly continue to follow all of the church’s teachings and public pronouncements simply isn’t thinking very clearly.

But consider the very different circumstance, for one example, of an illiterate farmer somewhere in the west of Ireland in the 1780s who was raised in this particularly toxic religious world. For him it was just the way the world was, and he’d no more imagine that things would be different than he’d imagine that day might not follow night.

What I’m saying is, with greater sophistication and experience goes greater ethical responsibility.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Prickly Pete

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

In a country ruled by fear of burning in hell and being shunned by your community? Was never going to happen. The church ruled through fear and having hands in the Government, it's not as simple as standing up for the girl. Girls could be ordered to go to a laundry, or have you forgotten that?

The blame falls almost entirely on the church for what they said. I'm sorry, but if you don't think that you are delusional and are just trying to find a reason why the church shouldn't shoulder the blame.

People voted for the politicians who gave the church the power over and over again.

My grandparents would almost certainly allowed their daughters sent away if they got pregnant out of marriage.

People just don't want to admit that the people of this country allowed the church to exert the influence they had on society and it is the people of this country who should be blamed for allowing the church to have the power they had.

The church are to blame for doing what they did but they would not have been able to do what they did if the people of this country didn't let them.

Academic

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I get the feeling that utmbuilder has left the building, since he hasn't posted anything to the thread since his opening post ...

As many have observed, he's in a tough position, since he can't cite a single example of someone actually doing what he described.

I like to think he's subsequently reconsidered his position.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

messinkiapina

I'm an atheist but the only time I ever bother to tell anyone about it is when one of those annoying Bible bashers corner me in public or call to my door.

If your rude enough to try and impose your beliefs on me without invitation, I'm coming back with both barrels blazing.

mrkiscool2

Prickly Pete wrote: »

Or the third option could be that the parents of the girl that got pregnant could stand up for her and actually look after the girl herself.

The people who went along with the church were idiots it's just people don't want to admit the large role their parents and grandparents played in giving the church such power and allowing them to do this stuff so they just blindly blame the church for everything without ever questioning why the church could do such things in the first place.

In a country ruled by fear of burning in hell and being shunned by your community? Was never going to happen. The church ruled through fear and having hands in the Government, it's not as simple as standing up for the girl. Girls could be ordered to go to a laundry, or have you forgotten that?

The blame falls almost entirely on the church for what they said. I'm sorry, but if you don't think that you are delusional and are just trying to find a reason why the church shouldn't shoulder the blame.

odyssey06

Prickly Pete wrote: »

They're human, they should be judged by that standard.

By the standards of their own religion, they were abject moral degenerates.
That should have been the only standard that mattered to them.
And it should have been the standard that mattered to their superiors in the church.
Instead their superiors turned a blind eye or shuffled them off to a different place to continue abusing when too many people asked difficult questions.

Conclusion, given that the church ignores its own moral teachings, so the rest of society has no need of the moral standards of any religion, nor should we believe that the professed moral standards of a church has any connection to its actual behaviour. Human standards are all we need.

The_Valeyard

Academic wrote: »

As is everyone, at all times. So what?

Look, I get it. You want to talk about "motivation." I'm not interested in that and won't comment further.

lol :pac: :rolleyes:

Then do not comment & you dont 'get it'

Prickly Pete

odyssey06 wrote: »

No. The priests and nuns claim to be the representatives on earth of their all loving all wise supreme being. They must be held to that standard.

All the religious instruction they had... The Bible... None of it prevented them abusing the power that the people of Ireland placed in their hands.

We should have been able to trust them with this power, if religion had the power to engender moral behaviour. We cannot. Because their religion must be useless for moral purposes if so many of the annointed representatives of the religion can be moral degenerates.

They're human, they should be judged by that standard.