SouthWesterly wrote: » From my point of view you need to disprove God. This thread is testament to the fact that you can't. Millions upon millions since the beginning of creation have proven His existence by their experience of Him. From my point of view, it's you who needs to prove to me that He doesn't exist. The human race didn't believe the earth was round. Their non belief didn't change the facts.
kowloonkev wrote: » I really don't get people's obsession with others' faith. Some people believe in God. Get over it. Science, law, political systems, education systems are equally as corruptable as religion. We know scientists blatantly lie for money. We know they lied about the effects of smoking. We know they lied about face masks. So how can we know when they are telling the truth? How do we know whether humanity has proof of the existence of God? Would they tell us if they had proof? Would it be bad for business? We know the court of law is different in every country so which court are we comparing religion to? Do you really think in most countries there is a burden of proof on the accuser? Do you really think evidence beyond doubt is required if people in authority want somebody gone? Do you think they won't be able to produce such evidence where it doesn't exist if necessary? Using science and law as bastions of how we ought to maintain standards, be responsible and hold people responsible is very amusing to me.
uptherebels wrote: » The thing with science is that a claim can be refuted or supported based on the data used to make the claim. And the data used can be refuted/supported based on the methodology used to attain the data. What would you use instead of science and law?
jaxxx wrote: » I've read some BS in my time but you take the f*cking biscuit.. .. ..
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So I am curious what context OTHER than you pretending there is a god........ can you think of where people get to make a claim and then act like everyone else who does not believe the claim has the onus of evidence? Or is it magically only on the things YOU want to call "true" that this happens?
2. Respect the right of people to hold religious or irreligious beliefs which are different from yours. Forum moderators reserve the right to take action against posts or posters which they deem to be offensive or intended to inflame.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » So what?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Mod Wee reminder of the charter A poster may hold a sincerely held belief that differs from the majority in this forum, they may even express that belief in ways that are somewhat lacking in respect for the lack of belief of others, however that does not mean we disrespect their belief by accusing them of "pretending". This warning extends to the poster you were responding to - @SouthWesterly is equally obliged to respect the lack of belief of other posters. Debate, bicker, discuss is all grand - but telling people what they believe, or dismissing other's beliefs as "pretending", is frankly rude and had no place in an adult discussion. Thanking you.
kowloonkev wrote: » I really don't get people's obsession with others' faith. Some people believe in God. Get over it.
karlitob wrote: » And since there is no god - then they are pretending than one exists.
karlitob wrote: » - a school (St Who Cares), paid for by the tax payer, can legally discriminate against the hiring of gay staff, on the basis of ‘ethos’.
- a child needs a baptismal cert to attend a local school.
- our legislators have to pray before doing their job
- our constitution has religion throughout it
- our Justice system requires oaths to gods.
So your beliefs do affect me. The question is - Why can’t you keep your beliefs to your self.
smacl wrote: » I'm with you up until this point which is where you go wrong. To pretend implies trying to deceive which if very different than to state and honestly held belief. Genuinely religious people don't pretend their god or gods exist they believe their god or gods exist. To suggest otherwise is to imply deceit which is where you're likely to fall foul of the charter. That you or I might consider the beliefs entirely specious is neither here nor there.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » This is no longer the case, although they can discriminate against anyone not of their faith. To obtain employment as a primary school teacher in 90% of schools in this country one must obtain the certificate of catholic education and convince a board of management that one is a practising catholic. Similarly for the 6% which are Church of Ireland. That leaves about 4% of job opportunities which are open to an honest atheist or agnostic. Somehow this discrimination is held to be legal. This was never the case, but it's a popular myth which led to a lot of baptisms. Catholic schools used to be able to ask for a baptismal cert, and if they were full, those who did not present one would be turned away in preference to those who did. This is no longer allowed. "Minority" religion schools which are full can still turn away those not of their faith in preference to those of their own faith. Although I believe (:)) that this is wrong, no member of the Oireachtas is obliged to attend during the prayer. Yes and this is wrong. As above. Also as a witness or defendant, having to "out" yourself in court as either a member of a minority religion, or as an atheist, might not be in your best interests. I'm quite certain that if you were up before the court your defending barrister would advise you to swear on the bible and not affirm. The religions that kept themselves to themselves though either remained as a small minority or died out altogether. (e.g. Shakers admitted men and women to their cult but insisted all remain celibate - surprise surprise they died out, but made some nice furniture first.) The ones that were willing to preach zealously, accept converts from all other races and religions, even force conversion at the point of sword or gun, or wipe out their rivals using same, have "succeeded".
karlitob wrote: » From my perspective, I think it’s you/one who implies deceit when using pretence. Dictionary definition would suggest otherwise.
Merriam-Webster wrote: 1: to give a false appearance of being, possessing, or performing does not pretend to be a psychiatrist 2a: to make believe : FEIGN he pretended deafness b: to claim, represent, or assert falsely pretending an emotion he could not really feel 3archaic : VENTURE, UNDERTAKE
There is no god/gods/fairies etx - to engage with and practice in all the revelry and fanfare of ones belief system is pretending, in my view. My intent is not offence in that statement - not will I pretend that a god exists because someone else ‘thinks’ it exists. I’m not even sure I ‘believe’ in belief or ‘faith’. It’s a position arrived at using their own logic and reason and experience. How they articulate that position is described as a ‘belief’ or a ‘faith’ to make it more acceptable when their reason does not match with their experience and what they have been inculcated with. (Though all that is off point) ‘Genuinely religious people don’t pretend that their god or gods exists’. Again, not being argumentative for the sake of it, but that is something that you can’t know. You can’t say that another persons ‘belief’ is genuine or not. There is no god, then how can their be a genuine belief in something that doesn’t exist. ‘Genuinely held beliefs’ - as the phrase goes now - is new code for ‘don’t challenge me on what I believe because it’s ‘genuinely held’. I’m not saying you’re saying that - but it is the new phrase and it is used as a barrier to any ridicule or challenge to religion, belief and importantly culture that surrounds belief.
karlitob wrote: » Surely (Don’t call me Shirley!) there is a major difference respecting that a person holds a religious belief rather than respecting the religious belief. All beliefs - in fact everything in my view - should be open to ridicule. Not being offended does not outweigh the right to ridicule. I know you will think that I am being facetious - but I genuinely am offended by your post which intimates that ridicule is outweighed by being offended. And if so, I would imagine that my offence does not outweigh the religious lads offence. Which is an inequality that is plain to see. If fairies and pink unicorns are ridiculous, so is the belief in it. If xebu is ridiculous, so it the belief in it. I have no more respect for someone who thinks there’s a magical mystery man in the sky than I do anti-vaxxers. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect their right to a belief. And since there is no god - then they are pretending than one exists. Going to a building once a week where a lad in a toga gives out an ice cream wafer that he says is the body of another lad from 2000 years ago - based on beliefs by a Bronze Age illiterate nomadic people and telling me it exists - is pretending. The difference between delusion and hallucination is one knows that they are hallucinating. verb 1. behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.
smacl wrote: » Which dictionary definition would that be? You said people 'are pretending a god exists', i.e. using the word pretend as a transitive verb. If you look at dictionary definitions and supporting examples here you see implied deceit, making an assertion that which you know to be false. You refusing to pretend a god exists is reasonable but is in no way the same thing as stating that everyone who claims to believe a god exists are in fact just pretending. The former is you honestly stated position, that latter is accusing someone of deceit. tldr; Are you suggesting that everyone who states that they believe in a god or gods are just pretending, i.e. lying to us.
karlitob wrote: » verb 1. behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not. If there is no god, then it is a pretence.
smacl wrote: » Wrong. If you honestly believe something to be true it is not a pretense regardless of whether that thing is true or not. Pretending involves knowingly making something up. Also note, we're not talking about 4-7 year old children here.
karlitob wrote: » You’re wrong. Indeed we are clearly talking about 4-7 years. Sure the reason religious people believe in a god is that they’re been inculcated at a young age, and captured by birth. There’s a reason why people in ireland don’t believe in Islamic religions, why they don’t believe in American Indian religions etc etc. Religious belief is an accident of birth, and of era. Ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance is no excuse.
smacl wrote: » Rubbish. If, for example, you successfully inculcate a belief in god in a young child, that child is not pretending to believe in god, they actually believe in god. You seem to be intentionally conflating the belief of something with it actually being true when these things are distinct. I have no doubt that many people believe in god, Allah and the efficacy of homeopathy where I do not. That does not mean I doubt their belief, I do not think they are just pretending to hold these beliefs.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Millions of people claim to love Soccer. They have to be pretending. It's a boring game.
smacl wrote: » Indeed, how anyone could claim not to love rugby is equally baffling and also no doubt a pretense
nthclare wrote: » Wuby, do ya loike wuby... There's a lot of people who claim to like Wuby and they're just in it for the Wuby buzz, hanging out with the jock's and gannets etc I suppose Richard Harris is my favourite Wuby fan
Bannasidhe wrote: » I was only in it for the caps.
magicbastarder wrote: » there's no question i hate more than the 'so did you watch the match?' from the taxi driver when you get into the taxi.
nthclare wrote: » Hope you've the deck shoes, Polo Ralph Lauren Polo t-shirt, collar's up, a posh Munster accent and you'll have to go to mass on Sundays just to show a face like. It's easy though to recognise a real rugby fan over the cliche in it for the validation types of ilk. Let's all worship the egg shaped ball... rugby would be considered blasphemous in Biblical Times
Bannasidhe wrote: » Decent haul of medals, a few caps, and the long-term effects of various injuries. You seem to have a bit of an oval shaped chip on your shoulder.
