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

Ok you're an Atheist

beefburrito

You don't believe in God,woo,magic or a spiritual realm.

You don't accept any evidence put forward by anyone who are not putting up scientific evidence.

Then when someone puts forward their own theory, they're ran ragged trying to explain what they mean.

Agnostics seem to have more of an interest and willing to be more open minded.

What's the point in having an Atheism and Agnosticism forum ?

All I read now is something to do with half baked politics, abortion, Iona institutions....and other boring debates.

Is this forum getting to snow flakey ?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

magicbastarder

well, this will last long.

beefburrito

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, this will last long.

Well that's what I'm expecting magicbastader
I don't think the post will get far.

I appreciate your honesty though.

robindch

beefburrito wrote: »

Then when someone puts forward their own theory, they're ran ragged trying to explain what they mean.

Well, that can be useful when the theory was ragged and generally unfit for purpose to start with - as pretty much all religious output is.

A+A, on the other hand, is a public discussion forum, so feel free to contribute to a public discussion if you'd like.

Alternatively, if you continue in the wayward and fistwavey tone above, you'll likely be feeling the warm comforting toe of a moderator's boot before too long.

smacl

beefburrito wrote: »

You don't believe in God,woo,magic or a spiritual realm.

I don't believe in God, Kali, unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, or any other god or gods. Put another way, I believe in one less god than most Christians.

You don't accept any evidence put forward by anyone who are not putting up scientific evidence.

Then when someone puts forward their own theory, they're ran ragged trying to explain what they mean.

You might want to explain the difference between evidence and religious dogma there. Perhaps give us your definition of evidence.

Agnostics seem to have more of an interest and willing to be more open minded.

What's the point in having an Atheism and Agnosticism forum ?

All I read now is something to do with half baked politics, abortion, Iona institutions....and other boring debates.

You have a point there in that many of the discussions relate more to secularism than atheism or agnosticism and this should possibly be reflected in the title.

Is this forum getting to snow flakey ?

No more than it ever has been, largely due to an ongoing precipitation of self-righteous and ill-informed zealots treating this place as a pulpit.

looksee

Good point smacl - I'd be in favour of changing the name to Atheism, Agnosticism and Secularism, if only to keep building on the word count in my 'mod description'. The abbreviation would also distinguish us from Aviation and Aircraft

Hoagy

beefburrito wrote: »

I probably learn more about religion in this forum than any other.

Sky god was a first for me,then from being on other forum's I learned about the crusades, mother Theresa,the way people were badly treated by the church etc
About Galelio and the pope.

Orphanages, so called God wills it in battle.

Without reading about all that stuff,I'd be still oblivious to it all.

This forum has its uses, though.

Mark Hamill

beefburrito wrote: »

Then when someone puts forward their own theory, they're ran ragged trying to explain what they mean.

It's called peer review. If you fail it, it's usually because your theory doesn't mean anything.

beefburrito wrote: »

Agnostics seem to have more of an interest and willing to be more open minded.

Pretty sure that every atheist on this forum is also agnostic.
Besides, accepting something without evidence or argument doesn't make you open minded, quite the opposite.

beefburrito wrote: »

Is this forum getting to snow flakey ?

Does complaining about about being asked to actually justify their claims make someone a snowflake? Maybe, but that's not the forums fault.

nozzferrahhtoo

beefburrito wrote: »

You don't accept any evidence put forward by anyone who are not putting up scientific evidence.

Who is it you are actually talking to, because you do not appear to be talking to me for example.

Why? Because I for one never say "scientific" evidence.

What I say is "Have you any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends credence to the claim our universe was created by a non-human intelligent intentional agent".

Where in that is science mentioned?

beefburrito wrote: »

Then when someone puts forward their own theory, they're ran ragged trying to explain what they mean.

Yup, welcome to the real world

When you are putting forward a theory, then taking pains and effort to explain yourself is sorta what is expected of you. Are you suggesting in any way that this is not a good thing?

beefburrito wrote: »

Agnostics seem to have more of an interest and willing to be more open minded.

Read my statement above (the one that does not mention science). I would be agog to hear what is not open minded about it.

beefburrito wrote: »

What's the point in having an Atheism and Agnosticism forum ?

I will defer to Micheal Nugent on this one who, if your attention span stretches to 10 minutes, explained this one quite well. The same answer he gave there, I would give here.

[Deleted User]

beefburrito wrote: »

You don't accept any evidence put forward by anyone who are not putting up scientific evidence.

Then when someone puts forward their own theory, they're ran ragged trying to explain what they mean.

Why do you think atheists have any interest in having these discussions?

I'm an atheist, not a bloody target for conversion. Like, fcuk off away from me tbh.

beefburrito

robindch wrote: »

Well, that can be useful when the theory was ragged and generally unfit for purpose to start with - as pretty much all religious output is.

A+A, on the other hand, is a public discussion forum, so feel free to contribute to a public discussion if you'd like.

Alternatively, if you continue in the wayward and fistwavey tone above, you'll likely be feeling the warm comforting toe of a moderator's boot before too long.

Lol fistwavey, seriously dude or dudess.... Im not here to start a fight.

You've a history of running people away from these discussions, banning people who don't adhere to your makeyuppy principles....

beefburrito

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Who is it you are actually talking to, because you do not appear to be talking to me for example.

Why? Because I for one never say "scientific" evidence.

What I say is "Have you any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends credence to the claim our universe was created by a non-human intelligent intentional agent".

Where in that is science mentioned?

Yup, welcome to the real world When you are putting forward a theory, then taking pains and effort to explain yourself is sorta what is expected of you. Are you suggesting in any way that this is not a good thing?

Read my statement above (the one that does not mention science). I would be agog to hear what is not open minded about it.

I will defer to Micheal Nugent on this one who, if your attention span stretches to 10 minutes, explained this one quite well. The same answer he gave there, I would give here.

Michael Nugent lol why bring that guy into the discussion,sure he's enough on his plate no doubt... helping people out and heading his own organisation...

beefburrito

beefburrito wrote: »

Lol fistwavey, seriously dude or dudess.... Im not here to start a fight.

You've a history of running people away from these discussions, banning people who don't adhere to your makeyuppy principles....

I watched that clip,it's only a bit of light hearted humour.

looksee

beefburrito wrote: »

Lol fistwavey, seriously dude or dudess.... Im not here to start a fight.

You've a history of running people away from these discussions, banning people who don't adhere to your makeyuppy principles....

Would you like to give an example of 'running people away' and tell us what our 'makeyuppy principles' are?

You have not yet dealt with a single response yet, apart from agreeing that the thread will not last long. This is indeed true; if there is no argument forthcoming beyond vague generalities everyone will get bored with your 'discussion'.

nozzferrahhtoo

beefburrito wrote: »

Michael Nugent lol why bring that guy into the discussion

You will find I included the reason I mentioned him while mentioning him. Go read it again.

eviltwin

A lot of posters, believers or not, are not really interested in debating the existence or otherwise of God, it's been done before and unless there are new developments it's just rehashing the same old stuff.

The other stuff you mention, abortion, politics etc are relevant because we have a say and the impact will be felt by all. There is nothing wrong with debating the current abortion laws or religion in school etc etc and they make for interesting and informative threads.

robindch

beefburrito wrote: »

Lol fistwavey, seriously dude or dudess.... Im not here to start a fight.

Well, then don't roll up waving your electronic fists about the place trying to slag off the forum and the posters who make it what it is :rolleyes:

beefburrito wrote: »

You've a history of running people away from these discussions, banning people who don't adhere to your makeyuppy principles....

Unfortunately, some posters stop by A+A, post a few unhelpful messages and head away again. Very few are banned except the most persistent and obvious trolls and rule-breakers - you're a long way from them at the moment and that's good - please try to keep it that way.

As above, you are entirely free to hang around and contribute to the discussion, engage in civil debate and so on, but if the best you can do is contribute at the low tone you're currently using, then as above, it's likely that neither you nor this thread will survive very long into the future.

Thanking youze.

beefburrito

robindch wrote: »

Well, then don't roll up waving your electronic fists about the place trying to slag off the forum and the posters who make it what it is :rolleyes:Unfortunately, some posters stop by A+A, post a few unhelpful messages and head away again. Very few are banned except the most persistent and obvious trolls and rule-breakers - you're a long way from them at the moment and that's good - please try to keep it that way.

As above, you are entirely free to hang around and contribute to the discussion, engage in civil debate and so on, but if the best you can do is contribute at the low tone you're currently using, then as above, it's likely that neither you nor this thread will survive very long into the future.

Thanking youze.

Thanks Robin

From reading the replies from my op I have my answers.
I suppose sometimes I ask the questions some people don't ask, but have thought about doing so.

Nothing wrong with deviations now and again and asking questions.

I'm a pagan myself and have my own beliefs and practices.

Anyhow thanks for the heads up

beefburrito

eviltwin wrote: »

A lot of posters, believers or not, are not really interested in debating the existence or otherwise of God, it's been done before and unless there are new developments it's just rehashing the same old stuff.

The other stuff you mention, abortion, politics etc are relevant because we have a say and the impact will be felt by all. There is nothing wrong with debating the current abortion laws or religion in school etc etc and they make for interesting and informative threads.

Point taken.
There's a lot of different personalities and people of different diversity,and yes indeed it makes debating interesting.

If we were all the same we'd learn nothing and life would be quite boring....

spacecoyote

beefburrito wrote: »

You don't accept any evidence put forward by anyone who are not putting up scientific evidence.

A couple of people have already raised this point, but could you please clarify what exactly you mean here in terms of evidence.

I don't think that many, if any, people on here would be dismissive of actual evidence of something, unless we have very different understandings of what evidence actually is?

beefburrito

spacecoyote wrote: »

A couple of people have already raised this point, but could you please clarify what exactly you mean here in terms of evidence.

I don't think that many, if any, people on here would be dismissive of actual evidence of something, unless we have very different understandings of what evidence actually is?

There's different understanding s of evidence.

The majority of non believer's in woo,god, spirit's and different frequencies do not cross the Rubicon of what the curious or on the fence people perceive as evidence.

Yet put a non believer in a creepy castle or old house for a night on their own,more than likely they would be unnerved.

I wouldn't be bothered or find anything scary about inanimate objects or creaking furniture.
Or the wind whispering the cure just like heaven through the keyhole.....

Would you chop down a fairy tree, plough through a leyline.....

looksee

beefburrito wrote: »

There's different understanding s of evidence.

The majority of non believer's in woo,god, spirit's and different frequencies do not cross the Rubicon of what the curious or on the fence people perceive as evidence.

Yet put a non believer in a creepy castle or old house for a night on their own,more than likely they would be unnerved.

I wouldn't be bothered or find anything scary about inanimate objects or creaking furniture.
Or the wind whispering the cure just like heaven through the keyhole.....

Would you chop down a fairy tree, plough through a leyline.....

Is there some evidence in that answer?

magicbastarder

beefburrito wrote: »

Would you chop down a fairy tree, plough through a leyline.....

i don't chop down trees, generally, unless they deserve it. show me a ley line, show me a plough, happy to do it.

beefburrito

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't chop down trees, generally, unless they deserve it. show me a ley line, show me a plough, happy to do it.

Ok pm me your number
I know a leyline....

magicbastarder

looksee wrote: »

Is there some evidence in that answer?

there is evidence of something, but not what the poster intended, i think.

beefburrito

looksee wrote: »

Is there some evidence in that answer?

If there was logic to your reaction rather than a response id engage.

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

there is evidence of something, but not what the poster intended, i think.

Funny enough, evidence is one of those words that has quite different definitions in the various dictionaries, dictionary.com comes up with

'the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.'

whereas Merriam-Webster has the altogether woolier

'an outward sign'

and Collins has

'Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.'

My take on that from the second two definitions is that evidence can be subjective and is a very long way from objective proof. I think the distinction between evidence and scientific evidence in the OP is entirely reasonable, i.e. religious belief systems might have the former while lacking the latter.

As for pagan beliefs, fairy trees etc... they certainly seem no less reasonable to me than any other religious beliefs floating about and probably resonate far better at a cultural level. e.g. we had the Straw boys make an unexpected but very welcome visit at a family wedding in Clare some years back. While I don't personally believe in any of the magical or mythical elements I really do enjoy the rich traditions, of which there are many.

looksee

beefburrito wrote: »

If there was logic to your reaction rather than a response id engage.

Yes, that was my problem.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I don't believe in God, Kali, unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, or any other god or gods. Put another way, I believe in one less god than most Christians.

Which is not to say you don't believe in a god. Just not the ones mentioned.

Which is very like Christians. They only believe in the god they believe in, no others (well, in principle at least)

You might want to explain the difference between evidence and religious dogma there. Perhaps give us your definition of evidence.

I can give you an example of what a Religious Dogma is.

A religious dogma would suppose that "evidence is necessarily and only that which is empirically demonstrable and subject to scientific inquiry"

There is no evidence (as defined above) that that this religious dogma is correct. Rendering it a matter of personal belief. AKA a god.

uck51js9zml2yt

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why do you think atheists have any interest in having these discussions?

I'm an atheist, not a bloody target for conversion. Like, fcuk off away from me tbh.

Why do atheists have such a problem with theist beliefs that they spend so much time discussing and deriding those beliefs.
You don't believe in God, that's your choice.
Christians do, that's our choice. We're not asking you to believe ( well we are but you get the point I assume!)
You guys need to get over the fact that some people believe in God and find something else to talk about.
A&A talks more about God those those in the Christianity forum!

looksee

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

Why do atheists have such a problem with theist beliefs that they spend so much time discussing and deriding those beliefs.
You don't believe in God, that's your choice.
Christians do, that's our choice. We're not asking you to believe ( well we are but you get the point I assume!)
You guys need to get over the fact that some people believe in God and find something else to talk about.
A&A talks more about God those those in the Christianity forum!

Would you prefer if we came over to Christianity to 'discuss and deride'?