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

Stoner

looksee wrote:

Am I being 'superior' in making these arguments? Should I just humbly nod and say 'I am sure you are all correct, I will abide by your beliefs'?

You're arguments are not what I'm discussing. It's the reasoning behind the approach to compare a religion to a fairy tale. It's a very easy argument for you as it is.

I've no proof of the existence of any god, I'm not going down a road of trying to get you to believe in something.

I wouldn't know where to start anyway, this was never about that, there's no need to bring it down that road. I've never seen a non believer lose such a debate.

There's no need to bring "we" into it. I'm talking to you, you as a poster, you and I are IMO too far down the road in a discussion for the MOD cap to be put on and off. That's why I asked if fairness applies.

Someone asked why does this forum exist, if atheists don't believe in a religion why discuss it?
You've done a pretty good job explaining that since, way of life etc thank you.

The questions I asked related why would you talk about fairy tales and santa and compare them to someone's religion.

For what it's worth I didn't realize that you had made the same comparison I questioned so recently.

I'm agreeing that the existence of a god subject is simple argument, how can posters prove there is a God. It's a slam dunk for your side of the argument.

So I'm asking why refer to santa etc to win an easy argument while knowing how seriously people view their religion.

So if it's not to feel superior, what is it?
Again genuine question.

I offered a sense of resentment towards being preached to as an alternative.

Stoner

looksee wrote:

Did I? Well you seem to be still here. Do you want to engage with the discussion?

I can engage no problem, your short term memory span might cause an issue though!!

pauldla

These comments guffawing at atheists being well-up on Christianity. Is it really so risible? If laughter is warranted at all, should it not be at those who subscribe to a faith despite being pitifully unaware of its history and dogma?

smacl

Stoner wrote: »

You're arguments are not what I'm discussing. It's the reasoning behind the approach to compare a religion to a fairy tale. It's a very easy argument for you as it is

While I can't speak for others, my rationale is that most major religions are highly invasive in that that they work very hard to push their beliefs on others. This is shows no respect when done to another adult and borders on abuse when done to ones children without the consent of their parents. So for example, if a teacher says to a non-religious child that Jesus died for their sins and the child says they don't believe that is true it is the child that gets into trouble, while it was the teacher that is in fact trampling all over the freedom of belief of that child and their family. Those of us who have been through that have no respect for organised religion because we have never been shown any respect by organised religion. Those bright sparks that come onto this forum spouting verses from the bible are deservedly going to get their beliefs ridiculed because pushing your religious beliefs on those who clearly have no wish to share those beliefs is offensive and aggressive. While I have no problem whatsoever in people holding whatever beliefs they so choose, I object strongly to use of my taxes to spread what I consider to be their pernicious nonsense. Similarly I object when the archaic morality attached to this religion attempts to inform legislation in such a way as it interferes with personal freedoms and basic human rights of my family.

Respect tends to be mutual, as things stand the position between those advocating religious belief and myself is one of mutual disrespect.

smacl

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

You obviously didn't read my post in full...I'm not a Protestant.

Btw. My son is in an RC school and I'm also on the board of management.

As for being here. I enjoy a bit of light hearted chat:D

My bad. So you're not a Catholic nor a protestant, but you are a Christian recently back from teaching pastors in Asia. What religious organisation do you belong to? Outside of Russian Orthodox, I'd thought most non-Catholic Christians were broadly protestant to some degree or another.

nozzferrahhtoo

Stoner wrote: »

But again I'm not questioning direct insulting, it's more that it's too easy, how can anyone prove that a god exists?

This is why I never ask them to "prove" there is a god. I think that is too lofty a goal, to difficult a challange, and that it is "too easy" as you put it for me to use that as a slap down.

So instead I ask them a more general question. When I enter into a discussion of this nature with a theist I ask them:

Have you ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can offer that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that our universe was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent?

See? No demands for "proof". Yet somehow they can not rise to that challenge either. Why? Because the claim itself is not one they can substantiate in ANY way.

Stoner wrote: »

What's to be gained or achieved, what's the motivation to do it?

I would rather not EVER do it. I would love to wake up tomorrow in a world where I never had to think about, engage with, or be in any way concerned with religion or the religion in any way at all.

I am simply not let.

I am interested (and often very ACTIVE) in many things in this world. Sexuality. Ethics. Morality. Education. Science. Medicine. Equality. Democracy. Politics. Humanity. And much more.

And in EVERY single one of those fields I am confronted with nonsense and push back and arguments and white noise of a religious nature.

So the motivation for highlighting the ridiculously unsubstantiated nature of the nonsense claims of religion and the religious is clear. It is one battle in a war of ideas, which I am being forced to fight while progressing the things I ACTUALLY care about deeply.

If that is a poor motivation, I would be agog to hear why. And if you want to move to dismiss such motivation as something petty like "it's to appear superior in some way" or it is merely "a resentment towards being preached to" then the failing here lies not with me but somewhere in the location of your nearest mirror.

Stoner wrote: »

However we'd still fight about race, skin colour and most of all resources imo.

We probably would. But note how those arguments are ones religious arguments have also been brought to bear in. During the times when our species used to debate (though some still do) about inter racial marriage for example......... what god "wants" and what god was perceived to have done in the past...... were arguments presented in that context.

So yes we will still argue and debate about those things, I fully expect! But the arguments we have while doing so will, ideally, be based on reality not on superstitious and imaginary woo and nonsense.

There are enough divisions to cause such arguments in our world, without religious marching in and creating them where none actually exist.

Stoner wrote: »

Yet you saw fit to show me the door following the first post.

Quite the misrepresentation / interpretation that.

I do not think it was the first post, and I do not think you were "shown the door" at all, so much as you had further options adumbrated for you. I am not sure playing the victim card in this context is likely to work for you really. Not least because you were in no way a victim.

Stoner wrote: »

You're arguments are not what I'm discussing. It's the reasoning behind the approach to compare a religion to a fairy tale. It's a very easy argument for you as it is.

You will have to help me here. If two things share a multitude of characteristics, is there some reason I am missing NOT to liken or equate them in any way?

Aside from the number of people who subscribe their belief to them........ could you adumbrate for me the differences between religion (a particular one or in general) and "fairy tales"? Because I genuinely am not seeing many (any?). Let alone any of note.

Stoner wrote: »

The questions I asked related why would you talk about fairy tales and santa and compare them to someone's religion.

Because there are a host of similarities? That is generally why people compare things I would have thought.

nozzferrahhtoo

beefburrito wrote: »

I suppose sometimes I ask the questions some people don't ask, but have thought about doing so.

Not on this thread though? So far the "questions" (there was actually only two in the OP) you have asked here are ones we get in one form or another on occasion.

If you thought they were in any way edgy or original, then I hate to disappoint you. They aren't. By a long way.

beefburrito wrote: »

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.

Usually yes. That such people get spooked in a "spooky" house likely has nothing to do with evidence or beliefs.

There are things that go on in such settings that merely "trigger" aspects of us that have evolved (for good reason) for many millennia into our biology.

beefburrito wrote: »

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

Would there be a reason to? I do not tend to go around performing actions purely for the sake of it. Especially if it is not my property and I may fall fall of any ethical or literal laws.

If however there was a reason I wanted to do either of those things, I would not HESITATE to do so merely because they were a fairy tree or whatever a "leyline" is meant to be.

beefburrito wrote: »

Am seriously,are you for real.

I am not sure your inability to detect sarcasm and caricature makes the other user the "amateur" here. So before you shout insults, maybe check who they actually apply to.

While the users analogy was intentionally facetious, the point he is caricaturing is pretty clear. He was offering a caricature version of the kind of selective anecdotal circular argumentation we sometimes hear from theists.

The expression of a faith seems in some debates to be a validation of it in other words. And this is not a good thing.

beefburrito wrote: »

Atheists know more about the Bible and Jesus than Christian's....

Does the phrase "know your enemy" ring any memory bells with you at all?

beefburrito wrote: »

Because I learned more about Christianity in the A+A forum than anywhere else....

Which itself is a worrying statistic. That the purveyors of woo and religion, as harmful as they can be, do not even know the content of what they profess to believe is itself a terrible thing.

Interestingly enough (from my perspective at least), of the moderate number of people I have ever talked out of being religious..... I did it not by arguing against the existence of god, but by informing THEM of what it is THEY are claiming to believe.

When they saw what a nonsense it all was, they moved on without it.

beefburrito wrote: »

Well considering you think I'm breeding emu's in a dark attic....

It is no less ridiculous a claim, and no less unsubstantiated, than much of the woo we get on religious forums, pagan forums, alternative medicine forums and so forth. So what exactly is your problem with it?

Amazing how purveyors of unsubstantiated nonsense are so quick to recognize the unsubstantiated nonsense of others, but not themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

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 might find, if you read threads before replying to them, that this has been answered already. For example the video link I included in my own first post on the thread contains a quite rounded answer to the question.

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

You don't believe in God, that's your choice.

Speak for yourself. Belief for me is not a "choice". I can not "choose" to believe something that is devoid of evidence. I can not "choose" to withhold belief from something if all the evidence suggests it is true.

Perhaps your belief is that labile. That must be nice. Can you look at a patently empty box for example and simply choose to believe it full of money? What is that LIKE?

It simply does not work that way for me. I do not "choose" not to believe in a god.

I do not believe in a god because the quantity of argument, evidence, data and reasoning on offer that suggests our universe was created by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent...... is precisely and exactly ZERO. Least of all from you.

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

You guys need to get over the fact that some people believe in God and find something else to talk about.

Or you need to get hip to the fact that what you describe is not actually the issue most of the atheist posters on this forum actually have with religion and the religious. And really all you are doing here is misrepresenting them, and the forum, entirely.

Or maybe you once again simply "choose" to believe and unsubstantiated nonsense.

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

For people who've no interest in God you sure spend a lot of time talking about him.

I think you will find if you observe reality, rather than your internal narrative you extracted from gazing into a navel orifice, you will find that the majority of the discussion on a forum such as this is NOT about "god" per se so much as it is about believers and how their belief manifests itself in society.

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

I have the evidence of my own life and the change there has been in it.

Which AT BEST would be evidence of the power of belief. It is certainly not evidence that the belief itself is valid or accurate however.

Which is no small difference.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

My bad. So you're not a Catholic nor a protestant, but you are a Christian recently back from teaching pastors in Asia. What religious organisation do you belong to? Outside of Russian Orthodox, I'd thought most non-Catholic Christians were broadly protestant to some degree or another.

Just goes to show how much you don't know:D
The fact that Christianity preceded Roman Catholicism should give you a hint....just don't tell the Catholics that:eek:

uck51js9zml2yt

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"

I think you will find if you observe reality, rather than your internal narrative you extracted from gazing into a navel orifice, you will find that the majority of the discussion on a forum such as this is NOT about "god" per se so much as it is about believers and how their belief manifests itself in society.

.

When you get to the level of playing the man and not the ball ,and resort to personal insults you've lost my goodwill to answer your post!

smacl

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

Just goes to show how much you don't know:D
The fact that Christianity preceded Roman Catholicism should give you a hint....just don't tell the Catholics that:eek:

Ah yes, I've read the various heated discourses between various sects on Catholics on the Protestants vs Catholics thread on the Christianity forum. When not sniping at non-Christians you Christians seem to have plenty of time to take pot shots at one another. Nothing new there of course, the reason the Catholics consider themselves the only Christian church prior the schism was they went to great pains to wipe out the others. The Cathar and Bogomil congregations aren't exactly thriving in case you hadn't noticed, so while Christianity might well precede Catholicism, non-Catholic Christianity didn't fare quite so well in the intervening period. I'd imagine from where the pope is sitting, you're all a bunch of new-agers :pac:

robindch

Mod:

Stoner wrote: »

TBH there's a mixture good debate but there are users who use it as a launching pad to slag anyone who believes in a religion IMO. [...] But that's not really here though, some good stuff, but a good bit of smug content too where posters run the same lines about santy and the tooth fairy etc, low hanging fruit, circle jerk stuff. [...] IMO it's not a place to post if you are in anyway religious. You are just setting yourself up to be laughed at.

Stoner wrote: »

Debate is one thing but insulting is a other. [...] I'm not debating for a genuine position on religion, I'm talking about this forum. [...] This is not a Lions Den [...] but it is for the behavior of some, again some of the posters.

Stoner wrote: »

What's to be gained or achieved, what's the motivation to do it? Again I offer that potentially it's to appear superior in some way. However thinking about it now I'd fully understand that a resentment towards being preached to could build in anyone raised in Ireland.

Stoner - I haven't really been able to locate a coherent line of thought in any of your posts other than that you seem to believe from time to time that at least some people post here in A+A because they believe themselves to be better people than religious people. That's neither supported by any substantial evidence, nor is it a useful contribution to the discussion.

The discussion, on the other hand, would progress much more smoothly on your side if you could developed a coherent, evidence-based point of view, to which you then wrote clearly and succinctly.

Thanking youze.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

Ah yes, I've read the various heated discourses between various sects on Catholics on the Protestants vs Catholics thread on the Christianity forum. When not sniping at non-Christians you Christians seem to have plenty of time to take pot shots at one another. Nothing new there of course, the reason the Catholics consider themselves the only Christian church prior the schism was they went to great pains to wipe out the others. The Cathar and Bogomil congregations aren't exactly thriving in case you hadn't noticed, so while Christianity might well precede Catholicism, non-Catholic Christianity didn't fare quite so well in the intervening period. I'd imagine from where the pope is sitting, you're all a bunch of new-agers :pac:

I was always interested in the way they wanted to wipe us out...not very Christian now...is it?

mikhail

beefburrito wrote: »

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

...

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

Have you heard about our Lord and Saviour, Odin?

smacl

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

I was always interested in the way they wanted to wipe us out...not very Christian now...is it?

Us non-believing types didn't exactly have it easy either, between being labelled heretics, pagans, apostates, et cetera. Nobody likes to mention the Spanish Inquisition, but you know....

beefburrito

mikhail wrote: »

Have you heard about our Lord and Saviour, Odin?

Ní féidir liom Odin....

beefburrito

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not on this thread though?... but not themselves. (edited - mod)

Exactly

Mod Edit: a 'thanks' on Nozzferrahhtoo's post would have done fine, this is just irritating. Don't quote long posts for a one word reply.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

When you get to the level of playing the man and not the ball ,and resort to personal insults you've lost my goodwill to answer your post!

And yet no insults are contained in the text you quoted, so really it looks more like you were desperately inventing a reason to ignore my post, rather than actually taking offence to something that existed in your own head.

In fact the "Just goes to show how much you don't know" comment you directed at another user JUST above is WAY more a "playing the player not the ball" than anything you have quoted from me.

But facts are not insults, and the fact is that the comment I was replying to from you appears to be based more on an internal navel gazing narrative than any reality around you. If you find observation of that fact an insult, then that is certainly not a failing that lies with me.

uck51js9zml2yt

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet no insults are contained in the text you quoted, so really it looks more like you were desperately inventing a reason to ignore my post, rather than actually taking offence to something that existed in your own head.

In fact the "Just goes to show how much you don't know" comment you directed at another user JUST above is WAY more a "playing the player not the ball" than anything you have quoted from me.

Butfacts are not insults, and the fact is that the comment I was replying to from you appears to be based more on an internal navel gazing narrative than any reality around you. If you find observation of that fact an insult, then that is certainly not a failing that lies with me.

Lots of facts but not much evidence...only personal opinion which may or may not be based in reality.....and its quiet clear our realities are different. Mine includes a spiritual dimension yours appears not to.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

Lots of facts but not much evidence...only personal opinion

Well yes, that is kind of my point!

Your comment was this:

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

For people who've no interest in God you sure spend a lot of time talking about him.

Let us look at the difference between opinion and evidence here. There are 1000s of posts on this forum. How many of them are actually talking about god?

I am finding none really on the abortion thread. I just opened 20 posts randomly (each) on the "Ongoing religious scandals" thread and the massive " Interesting Stuff Thread". No one in the short " I am an atheist that has had nothing but a good experience with catholic schools" and also no hits in "Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)"

For a group of people who "spend a lot of time talking about him" it is amazing how few people are talking about "him" is it not? Is the disconnect between your statement (narrative) and reality not striking and wantonly apparent?

So...... exactly what is your issue with my suggestion that your comment is actually based on some kind of internal narrative you have going rather than any observation of reality? It seems nothing. So whats your beef?

And if no beef, then the other comment that you fabricated insult, where none existed, just to dodge out of replying to my post would also appear to be somewhat on the money?

looksee

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

Lots of facts but not much evidence...only personal opinion which may or may not be based in reality.....and its quiet clear our realities are different. Mine includes a spiritual dimension yours appears not to.

Maybe you should give some thought to the nature of this forum - and remember to check your irony meter occasionally, this post is pretty much off the scale.

beefburrito

looksee wrote: »

Maybe you should give some thought to the nature of this forum - and remember to check your irony meter occasionally, this post is pretty much off the scale.

What scale,I understand exactly what they mean.
You're not really making a valid contribution to my op.
If you don't have anything of validation, please post somewhere else.
Thanks

robindch

beefburrito wrote: »

If you don't have anything of validation, please post somewhere else.

beefburrito has been carded for incivility and inability to stick to the forum charter despite repeated warnings.

smacl

mikhail wrote: »

Have you heard about our Lord and Saviour, Odin?

Off topic, but I read Neil Gaiman's book on Norse Mythology a couple a months back, very entertaining and you do have to love old one eye. Comparing Norse mythology to Christianity is akin to comparing Coronation Street with Game of Thrones

uck51js9zml2yt

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes, that is kind of my point!

Your comment was this:

You left out the rest of my statement which still stands..our realities differ. Mine has a spiritual dimension...as you don't know me you've no way of verifying if it's true or not.

Let us look at the difference between opinion and evidence here. There are 1000s of posts on this forum. How many of them are actually talking about god?

Without a statistical analysis of every post, I can't give you an answer. But based on my observations in A&A and athiests posting the Christianity forum God or his non existence seems to be a preoccupation. I don't have time to be going through every post. Let me know your results.

I am finding none really on the abortion thread. I just opened 20 posts randomly (each) on the "Ongoing religious scandals" thread and the massive " Interesting Stuff Thread". No one in the short " I am an atheist that has had nothing but a good experience with catholic schools" and also no hits in "Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)"

I've never defended the religious scandals and never will. I've also no problems with RC schools. My experience has been good as a non RC. My eldest is in one, my youngest following next year and I'm on the board of management. My kids just don't do RE.

For a group of people who "spend a lot of time talking about him" it is amazing how few people are talking about "him" is it not? Is the disconnect between your statement (narrative) and reality not striking and wantonly apparent?

Not sure what you're on about here

So...... exactly what is your issue with my suggestion that your comment is actually based on some kind of internal narrative you have going rather than any observation of reality? It seems nothing. So whats your beef?

As I said, our realities differ.....and I prefer lamb or chicken to beef:)

And if no beef, then the other comment that you fabricated insult, where none existed, just to dodge out of replying to my post would also appear to be somewhat on the money?[/quote]
I think I've answered you above.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

You left out the rest of my statement which still stands..our realities differ.

I trust the data stored on the servers of boards.ie remains the same in your reality as it does in mine however. And it seems that the data on that server does not contain all that many atheists in this area of the forum that are talking about "god" all that much.

So no, I do not think appeals to different realities is gonna change your statement from unsubstantiated nonsense to anything else really.

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

Not sure what you're on about here

Not sure how it could be clearer what I am on about. YOU said "For people who've no interest in God you sure spend a lot of time talking about him." and I am showing you how there does not appear to be ANY data backing up that statement.

So the problem as I see it is, I wrote a reply to your post..... you pulled out ONE line of that post and ignored the rest. You then proceed to claim there was some "insult" in that post when there was in fact no such thing.

So now I am showing you that not only did the quote in question contain no insult, the quote in question is entirely accurate.

You were, I suspect, in fact inventing an insult where none existed in order to cop out of replying to the post in question. But now since no insult can be found, and your excuse to not reply to my post is therefore unfounded, you might go back and actually reply to the post?

MrPudding

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

When you get to the level of playing the man and not the ball ,and resort to personal insults you've lost my goodwill to answer your post!

That's really convenient for you. It was getting to the stage where you were going to have to actually come up with something coherent and sensible, dodged a bullet there.

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

I was always interested in the way they wanted to wipe us out...not very Christian now...is it?

Well, in my experience, no one beats christians for acting in an unchristian-like manner.

Rowan White Newspaper wrote: »

Lots of facts but not much evidence...only personal opinion which may or may not be based in reality.....

Just a little tweaking and you have a pretty perfect summation of religion. You were so close.

MrP

beefburrito

I've been informed by a mod that I'm upsetting people on this thread, it's quite clear that debating here is a no go area for anyone who doesn't tow the line of inconsistencies.

Anyhow the best place for me is to say I'm out of here.
Too many soft people and not enough tough people.
Anything but Atheism forum is that way......its plain to see which one is more tellerant and less snowflakey....

Tally ho youz

smacl

beefburrito wrote: »

I've been informed by a mod that I'm upsetting people on this thread, it's quite clear that debating here is a no go area for anyone who doesn't tow the line of inconsistencies.

Anyhow the best place for me is to say I'm out of here.
Too many soft people and not enough tough people.
Anything but Atheism forum is that way......its plain to see which one is more tellerant and less snowflakey....

Tally ho youz

Sounds like the story of the woman who slept with every man in the area and then publicly announced they were all lousy in bed. Maybe a bit of introspection is called for, there might just be a common denominator you're missing somewhere :rolleyes:

uck51js9zml2yt

MrPudding wrote: »

That's really convenient for you. It was getting to the stage where you were going to have to actually come up with something coherent and sensible, dodged a bullet there.

Well, in my experience, no one beats christians for acting in an unchristian-like manner.

Just a little tweaking and you have a pretty perfect summation of religion. You were so close.

MrP

I love you too