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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

I cringe more when someone says they're an Atheist

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Its also 'part' of the reason why I reject the burden of proof arguement. The reason atheism exists, is because of the need to express an opinion that goes against the grain of human history. For millenia, our ancestors have worshipped gods and goddesses etc. Such worship being such an integral part of the various societies both ancient and modern. Someone who decided to reject these things, needed a word to describe their opinion. Atheist, was that word.

    I think there's a certain logic to your point. To put it in my own words; we need the word atheist because it is a contentious issue in modern society. If there were a great deal of powerful people who believed in fairies and belief in fairies was integrated into many parts of our culture then yes, we'd be using the word afairist a great deal.

    However, I contend that this in no way alters the burden of proof argument, it is merely a linguistic practicality. Popularity and degree of scandal have no bearing on such matters. A theist is one asserting that they have knowledge of a powerful entity that created the universe, an atheist asserts that this claim is baseless without evidence. The fact that a huge number of people are not claiming that fairies exists makes it no less ideal a comparison; If I told you I believed fairies exist you would expect evidence before you agree with me. The burden is on the theist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Its one of the main reasons I don't accept the explaination that it is a 'non' belief. To say you are atheist emplies thought and opinion, and in turn a belief. Basically that being the belief that no God/s exist. Its also 'part' of the reason why I reject the burden of proof arguement. The reason atheism exists, is because of the need to express an opinion that goes against the grain of human history. For millenia, our ancestors have worshipped gods and goddesses etc. Such worship being such an integral part of the various societies both ancient and modern. Someone who decided to reject these things, needed a word to describe their opinion. Atheist, was that word.

    Quick thought experiment ...
    A large group of Atheists, having rejected God(s), Magic(k) and so on are sent to live on an Island. On this island they are forbidden from ever mentioning even the concept of God, gods, souls or magic...
    Over time they have children and raise them with out ever mentioning gods not even to say they don't exist (which atheist parents in real life often have to when little Johny comes home crying cause some other children tell him he's going to burn in hell), when questions such as where do we come from arises as honest an answer as possible is given. The children learn that "We/I don't know" is a valid answer to some questions...
    These children grow up and become adults ... what do we call them?
    The don't believe in god... they don't even have the concept*.
    What do we call them? Atheists? Innocents? The Ill-informed? :) ... [add your own term here].



    * I do recall something about children assigning imaginary agents to events during language developments and of course many children have imaginary friends so perhaps the children could develop their own ad-hoc spirituality...
    So considering this lets say there are two islands and this is suppressed/doesn't happen and one and is allowed to run free (all though not necessarily encouraged).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Zillah wrote: »
    However, I contend that this in no way alters the burden of proof argument, it is merely a linguistic practicality.
    It is interesting that some people would think it does though. There is obviously comfort to be had in thinking that most people think like you. This is possibly a strong motivation for evangelicalism.

    As for the word atheist we have always had words for people who are a minority of a set, even if that word describes something they don't do. For example vegatarian, someone who doesn't eat meat. When you think about it that is a bit weird, a word describing something someone doesn't do, but when the norm is to eat meat we just accept that as not needing an every day term and need a word to describe people who buck that trend.

    The same with atheist. When it is part of human nature to imagine supernatural agents as the norm we need a word to describe people who don't do that.

    Though originally I think atheist meant rejection of God (and "atheist" came before theist). I do shake my head at the arguments that atheists reject God. How can you reject something you don't think is real?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I do shake my head at the arguments that atheists reject God. How can you reject something you don't think is real?

    It is because secretly we do believe in God, we're just closing our hearts against him, or under the sway of Satan.

    We secretly believe in him either because it's impossible for someone to not believe something so obviously true, or because God has made us aware of him at a deep level so that we can begin a relationship with him, which we, in our wicked hubris, reject.

    Apparently.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Schuhart wrote: »
    I actually think this is a reasonable point. Atheism is the aberration, only recently popular. It requires us to maintain that most folk are deluded.

    Recent as in pre-dating Jesus? Yup. Pretty recent.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Classical_antiquity
    Schuhart wrote: »
    It sort of struck me again reading that Humanist Association advert about there being 250,000 non-believers in Ireland. Presumably that means there's 3,750,000 who believe in some kind of a deity.

    Atheism is the contention that those 3,750,000 are labouring under a massive misconception of what reality is.

    It can be tough to go against the grain sometimes. Especially when so many people believe they are right.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭rugbyman


    just a question on lighter note. watched telly tonight aboutbthe burial chambers on this Island from 6,000 years ago. What is the conventional theory on where the souls of people from then until st patricks time went to.?

    regards,rugbyman


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Thankfully popularity and numbers are never necessarily a measure of actual truth :)
    "Actual truth" - what a rickety ship that one is!
    Zillah wrote: »
    If I told you I believed fairies exist you would expect evidence before you agree with me. The burden is on the theist.
    Why would you demand that someone else to agree with you that faeries exist?

    Atheists generally believe that there is no God, due to lack of perceived sensual evidence. In other words, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The position of denying that such higher knowledge is either way possible is commonly known as Agnosticism, not atheism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭mehfesto2


    To get pack to the original point/question:
    I share the opinion of the OP. I reckon it's down to first impressions of Atheism.

    The first people I encountered who 'were atheist', were 17-18 year old girls and guys, with red hair, nose piercings, skateboards and such. Atheism to them was just another "non-conformist" thing they could grab a hold of - it was nothing but a fashion statement.

    And personally, I think that that's the main reason people are "skeptical" of atheists - you don't have to do anything to be an atheist. The most informed and well read atheist here, represents Atheism as much as the red haired teen hanging out around Central Bank on a Saturday. This is not the case for Christians etc., who have to attend services/ceremonies. You can't be a practicing (and therefore representative) Christian without doing certain things. To be an atheist, you just have to say you are.

    And because there are no rituals or hierarchy within Atheism, those who are in your face most and who shout loudest - are heard.

    It's unfortunate; there are obviously quite a lot of intelligent and rational thinking theists about Ireland, but for me (and many others, I believe) as soon as I hear Atheist, I will think of the Red Haired, Attention Seeking Girls at Central Bank. First Impressions do endure...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Thankfully popularity and numbers are never necessarily a measure of actual truth :)
    Absolutely, but we do need to account for why a view that seems strictly unnecessarily is popular.

    I think we just need to remind ourselves now and again that we are contending that most people are deluded. To the extent that those same folk report that religion is something of great value to them, we are also contending that many folk operate best when deluded.

    These are not light things to contend, but I think we've a tendency to step around them.
    Recent as in pre-dating Jesus? Yup. Pretty recent.
    You'll notice I said "recently popular". Indeed, atheism has been around for ages. The Bible wouldn't say 'the fool says in his heart that there is no god' unless there were folk saying 'there is no god'. However, despite atheism existing as a concept, theism thrived instead. That's, to my mind, the point of interest. Presented with an alternative, people got behind theism.

    Incidently, that wikipedia article could also mention that Plato advocated a death penalty for unrepentant atheists, as was discussed here a while back.
    It can be tough to go against the grain sometimes. Especially when so many people believe they are right.
    It can, indeed, be very difficult to alert people to blind spots in their mindsets.

    I find you have to be willing to be persistent.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,314 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Prefer the term "pagan" myself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    the_syco wrote: »
    Prefer the term "pagan" myself.
    Already taken.

    "Heathen" might have potential, but does not seem to exclude theists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Húrin wrote: »
    Why would you demand that someone else to agree with you that faeries exist?

    Er, this is assuming we're having a discussion on who is correct. Y'know, along the lines of "I think God exists because x y and z" and "No x y and z are flawed for this reason".
    Atheists generally believe that there is no God, due to lack of perceived sensual evidence.

    Perceived sensual evidence lol. 'Lack of evidence' is a far less clumsy and...well wrong way of phrasing it.
    In other words, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

    You're falling for a couple of different fallacies here. First of all, yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It's not proof of absence, but it's a damn good reason for a rational person to remain extremely sceptical.
    The position of denying that such higher knowledge is either way possible is commonly known as Agnosticism, not atheism.

    In a strict philosophical sense we should all be agnostic about absolutely everything. I could be a brain in a jar having a false reality fed to me for all I know. But when we accept certain basic propositions such as "The world can be known" and "Logic and evidence are good means by which to understand the world" we must conclude that claims as to the existence of God should be dismissed until evidence is presented, just as we would dismiss any one of the infinite amount of evidence-less claims that can, and frequently are, made.

    I feel that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is getting a little tired at this stage but I'm afraid I have to trot him out again. There is no evidence for his existence, this is a very good reason to dismiss claims as to his existence until evidence is presented. You can manage to apply this logic to such examples, but Jehovah gets a Get Out of Jail Free Card because you have faith. It'd be sweet if you could just admit that instead of pretending you're taking a rational position.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Schuhart wrote: »
    These are not light things to contend, but I think we've a tendency to step around them.You'll notice I said "recently popular". Indeed, atheism has been around for ages. The Bible wouldn't say 'the fool says in his heart that there is no god' unless there were folk saying 'there is no god'. However, despite atheism existing as a concept, theism thrived instead. That's, to my mind, the point of interest. Presented with an alternative, people got behind theism.

    Given how little humanity understood of the natural world at the time, that is hardly surprising, is it? I mean, people didn't even have the telescopes necessary to check for their magic sky-friend. Let alone the volume of knowledge we now have about our world and universe. Perhaps that is why Atheism is, as you say, becoming recently popular. It would appear that there is an inverse relationship between human knowledge and belief in god/s.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Schuhart wrote: »
    It sort of struck me again reading that Humanist Association advert about there being 250,000 non-believers in Ireland. Presumably that means there's 3,750,000 who believe in some kind of a deity.
    I assume the HAI had their hands tied on the stats by the last census - which I'd strongly contend underestimates the number of non-believers. Think of any poll on After Hours about religion - and then think of how many of their mammys filled in their details on the census form!
    Húrin wrote: »
    Atheists generally believe that there is no God, due to lack of perceived sensual evidence. In other words, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The position of denying that such higher knowledge is either way possible is commonly known as Agnosticism, not atheism.
    Might I suggest you have a look at this thread. Atheism and agnosticism are not two sides to a coin. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

    Suggesting the absence of evidence is being seen by atheists as "evidence" itself is just a verbal trick. In reality there's simply no reason to believe something exists if no evidence exists. You need evidence to believe something, not to not believe it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭hobochris


    I just tell people who ask that im open to the concept of religon providing it can be proved by facts.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Húrin wrote: »
    "Actual truth" - what a rickety ship that one is!

    You're a curious character. On one hand you expose a sense of nihilistic gray, yet on the other, you believe the Christian God exists and the tales of the bible and the dogmas it contains should be followed. Explain this dichotomy please. Is it a case that you are really a nihilist at heart but are falling back on good ol' Pascal's wager to hedge your bets?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Húrin wrote: »
    The position of denying that such higher knowledge is either way possible is commonly known as Agnosticism, not atheism.

    I don't agree. This 'higher knowledge' doesn't necessarily have to take the form of a God, biblical or even 'other worldly'. In that sense anti theism or atheism holds as a valid description of ones belief. The open ended speculation that their may exist somewhere a higher knowledge hardly contradicts a simple term used to describe ones outlook on charted deities. Take Dawkins for example, he's a confirmed atheist who frequently speculates that there may well be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
    Also I tend to look at agnosticism as automatically leaning toward atheism unless expressly stated by the agnostic that he/she is trying to be religious but that they are having problems getting past certain concepts of the religious dogma at hand, whatever that may be.
    The very act of doubting leads to questioning leads to the ruling out of certain answers. Answers like 'god did it' are the first to go and I think atheism is really only a way of someone describing what they are not prepared to accept as an answer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    Given how little humanity understood of the natural world at the time, that is hardly surprising, is it? I mean, people didn't even have the telescopes necessary to check for their magic sky-friend. Let alone the volume of knowledge we now have about our world and universe. Perhaps that is why Atheism is, as you say, becoming recently popular. It would appear that there is an inverse relationship between human knowledge and belief in god/s.
    That's a fair point. I mean, its really only since Darwin that we've had some kind of a decent explanation for the origin of the human species.

    I think its far to say that advance in human knowledge actually changes the nature of religious belief. A few hundred years ago it probably was fair enough to say, "look, there's no reasonable alternative explanation for why all this stuff is here". It would probably also be possible to go through life without ever coming across any kind of reasonable alternative to whatever religious creation myth was to be found in your society.

    But now religious belief really has to be a lifestyle choice. That, in and of itself, doesn't make religious faith right or wrong. But the 'faith of our fathers' cannot really exist any more. So, indeed, I think its a fair point that advances in knowledge is what makes atheism an accessible alternative.
    Dades wrote: »
    I assume the HAI had their hands tied on the stats by the last census - which I'd strongly contend underestimates the number of non-believers. Think of any poll on After Hours about religion - and then think of how many of their mammys filled in their details on the census form!
    You could well be right, but I'm happy to accept such evidence as we have.

    I mean, even the figure of 250,000 is significant. On the one hand, It's far more than (I expect) would have been the case fifty years ago, and maybe even thirty years ago.

    On the other hand, the fact that the majority of census form-fillers are undeniably theist similarly alerts us that, even now, religion is tremendously popular.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Schuhart wrote: »
    But now religious belief really has to be a lifestyle choice. That, in and of itself, doesn't make religious faith right or wrong. But the 'faith of our fathers' cannot really exist any more. So, indeed, I think its a fair point that advances in knowledge is what makes atheism an accessible alternative.You could well be right, but I'm happy to accept such evidence as we have.

    I'd peg the internet as the single largest contributor to the increase in Atheism worldwide. It puts so much information and opinions readily at everyones fingertips. It makes it a lot easier for a questioning teen to break out of the religious bubble their parents have raised them in. I mean think back to the early 90's, how easy would it of been for a teenager to find a group of Atheists to pose questions to, what influences in their lives would of even got them to ask these questions?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    I always thought as follows, speaking on generalities and applying labels(which is never all that accurate):

    Atheists: Religion is wrong and I'm right about them being wrong, there can be no such thing as a god. Agnostics take the easy way out/are too lazy to take one side or the other.

    Agnostics: Man has no way of knowing whether religion is right or wrong, so let's get on with our lives.

    Theists: God (or gods) exists and I know how he did it all because he told some people thousands of years ago and s/he wrote it all down. Therefore Atheists are wrong and Agnostics will go to hell.

    Creationists: People living in the past were much smarter than we are now. They KNEW man, they knew....

    Looking at this thread though, clearly these labels have been severely muddied since I drew these conclusions!:D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Atheists must be the only group of people that are have a word to describe what they don't believe in. Weird really.

    It's not as big a deal to not believe in fairies or unicorns as it is to not believe in God for some reason. If they (God and fairies etc) really are on a par with each other then why draw a distinction just for God? :confused: I don't believe in Santa but I don't consider myself an Asantaist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    guy jumps from a plane,his parachute and reserve parachute fail.

    Repeatedly he screams "help me god,help me god"
    nothing happens,as a last resort he pleads "help me allah,help me allah"

    a non white hugh hand gently saves him and lowers
    him to the ground,once he is back safely on terra firma he in elation exclaims "thank god"!

    a hugh non white foot stomps on him!

    as Bob dylan sang:did Judaes Iscariot have god on his side?

    contemplating religion too much can be dangerous to one,s(mental) health


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    Hi fanny for some strange,perhaps supernatural reason? i received your email message before it was posted here: you said "What utter tosh,have I any evidence that studying religion can be bad for one,s mental health"

    I sure have! for I studied religion!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    show details 3:22 AM (1 hour ago) Reply
    Hey if it was a p.m,it should have been said,if It was removed from the thread why was it?

    Freedom of speech rocks!

    Dear ynotdu,
    Fanny Cradock has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - I cringe more when someone says they're an Atheist - in the Atheism & Agnosticism forum of boards.ie.

    This thread is located at:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055536211&goto=newpost
    Here is the message that has just been posted:
    ***************
    What utter tosh! Have you any evidence to support the notion that too much contemplation of religion is bad for your health?
    - Show quoted text -
    ***************

    There may also be other replies, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.
    All the best,
    boards.ie
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Unsubscription information:
    To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/subscription.php?do=removesubscription&type=thread&subscriptionid=2096052&auth=dbdcbc04173d1010a97ea02aed44e49e
    To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    ynotdu wrote: »
    Freedom of speech rocks!

    Hi! Welcome to boards.ie, where you have no free speech.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,105 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Pointless term imo, it entertains the question.
    People do need terms for functional use though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    Zillah wrote: »
    Hi! Welcome to boards.ie, where you have no free speech.

    Dont mean I wanted his/her message to either be not posted or to be deleted!Who was it that did delete or decide not to post it?

    I was accused of talking tosh(I,ve been acused of worse:))as(insults)go it was a mild one,certainly no major crime&nothing I could not have dealt with,who knows may,be i was talking tosh?I like to know when i am disagreed with,even if i dont like it.

    I dont like strong offensive language on what is a discussion board though.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Fanny Cradock deleted his own message after writing it, as he obviously thought (correctly) it would a waste of time going down that road with you. Unfortunately he didn't reckon on the thread subscription email that had already e-mailed his response to you. :p

    Anyhow, as the offending (hardly) post is now gone, let's all forget this ever happened, sober up, and move along.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭actuallylike


    Some people believe atheism is a belief in nothing, to me that's a bit too nihilistic and definite for me. To believe in nothing and not believe are very different things, therefore I declare myself a weak atheist, open to the possibility of something but not accepting towards whatever has been set forward.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    Dades wrote: »
    Fanny Cradock deleted his own message after writing it, as he obviously thought (correctly) it would a waste of time going down that road with you. Unfortunately he didn't reckon on the thread subscription email that had already e-mailed his response to you. :p

    Anyhow, as the offending (hardly) post is now gone, let's all forget this ever happened, sober up, and move along.

    Dades thanks for clearing that up,nice that you bothered to do so.

    I dont know about fannyc but drink had nothing to do with it.

    I genuinely believe trying to figure out the meaning of our existance too much can crack some people up.
    cheers


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    ynotdu wrote: »
    I genuinely believe trying to figure out the meaning of our existance too much can crack some people up.

    define "too much"
    I don't believe in Santa but I don't consider myself an Asantaist.

    well thats because the majority accept it would be silly to believe in Santa. Sadly Santa only gives us things money can also which is why he is so easily kicked to the curb once we discover money and how to use it. Your God promises us things no amount of money can which is why he is still in such high demand.

    If Santa promised people that when they died his final present to them would be eternal existence, you'd have plenty of reasons now to call yourself an Asantaist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    define too much?ok!
    when the thought process on a topic becomes a source of distress to any individual.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Your God promises us things no amount of money can which is why he is still in such high demand.

    If Santa promised people that when they died his final present to them would be eternal existence, you'd have plenty of reasons now to call yourself an Asantaist.

    But in order for God to promise things no amount of money can as you put it, then He must exist. Therefore if He exists to promise something then there is no valid basis for atheism. Because atheism is the belief that He doesn't exist or the non-belief in His existence, whichever one floats your boat, either way both are wrong if God exists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    But in order for God to promise things no amount of money can as you put it, then He must exist.

    2+2=?
    sw wrote:
    Therefore if He exists to promise something then there is no valid basis for atheism.

    People say he exists. People recorded his promises and threats. Saying 'therefore he exists' because he is recorded as saying something is not proof, evidence or anything even approaching a logical progression.
    By your way of thinking there is nothing to separate your God;s existence from the existence of any other sky god.

    sw wrote:
    Because atheism is the belief that He doesn't exist or the non-belief in His existence, whichever one floats your boat, either way both are wrong if God exists.

    What on earth are you on about here, I'm sorry but I really do not follow?


  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Because atheism is the belief that He doesn't exist or the non-belief in His existence, whichever one floats your boat, either way both are wrong if God exists.

    Wow, I think you're really on to something here:
    "Atheism is wrong if God exists"

    Stop the presses! "Fatal flaw found in Atheism!" Someone alert Richard Dawkins!

    The power of your deductive reason is awe-inspiring... in fact it leaves me speechless. :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    To Steevjazzx and Naz st. My post was in reply to Goduznt Xzst, so re-read it in the right context and it will make more sense. I think :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Dades wrote: »
    Anyhow, as the offending (hardly) post is now gone, let's all forget this ever happened, sober up, and move along.

    You can ask anything you want of me, except, if you ever ask me to sober up again you'll get a whiskey bottle to the head, just like all the others.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish



    hmm... ok perhaps you could expand further on why you are of the opinion that someone calling themselves Atheist is cringe worthy. Is it connotations that you tie to people who would be confident enough to call themselves such?

    I can't explain it, i don't believe in any type of religion but i still don't want to go around saying i'm an atheist, and its not because i care what people think. I don't know, its just one of them things :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,314 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    2+2=?
    13,541,564,654,564,151

    So God must exist!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    I can't explain it, i don't believe in any type of religion but i still don't want to go around saying i'm an atheist, and its not because i care what people think. I don't know, its just one of them things :confused:

    You started fundamentally saying you care what people think as you don't like people to think of themselves as atheist. ;)It sounds like you have an ingrained belief and find it hard to let go because it is hard to go from believing you have a future after death to not having one. Effectively you are going to loose something you never had but thought you did.

    A good way to look at it is in the Wizard of Oz never gave the Tin Man a heart or the Lion courage they always had it.

    It really doesn't matter which is right or wrong just to move from one to the other is a hard transition.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Kipperhell wrote: »
    A good way to look at it is in the Wizard of Oz never gave the Tin Man a heart or the Lion courage they always had it.
    You know what - I really like that. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Kipperhell wrote: »
    You started fundamentally saying you care what people think as you don't like people to think of themselves as atheist. ;)It sounds like you have an ingrained belief and find it hard to let go because it is hard to go from believing you have a future after death to not having one. Effectively you are going to loose something you never had but thought you did.

    A good way to look at it is in the Wizard of Oz never gave the Tin Man a heart or the Lion courage they always had it.

    It really doesn't matter which is right or wrong just to move from one to the other is a hard transition.

    Damn. That has me thinking! Great bit of insight.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    I don't think i've ever really thought that, my family isn't that religious at all so its not that
    Kipperhell wrote: »
    You started fundamentally saying you care what people think as you don't like people to think of themselves as atheist. ;)It sounds like you have an ingrained belief and find it hard to let go because it is hard to go from believing you have a future after death to not having one. Effectively you are going to loose something you never had but thought you did.

    A good way to look at it is in the Wizard of Oz never gave the Tin Man a heart or the Lion courage they always had it.

    It really doesn't matter which is right or wrong just to move from one to the other is a hard transition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Dades wrote: »
    You know what - I really like that. :)

    The strange thing is it is from a song by America called Tin Man with soft harmonies. The same idea of the story is explored in Zardoz but a bit freaky with lots of talk about immortality.

    @Fighting Irish
    It doesn't matter whether it is the after life you can't let go of but you know what you find hard to let go of. It could be a simple as why are we here?


Advertisement