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

Failing to see how ridiculous religion is until you escape it

1…457910…20

Comments

  • #182
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Glenster wrote: »
    How do you respond to something like that?

    What if they're all right? What if six of them are right?

    How do you make a claim like that? That's the sort of thing an incredibly aggressive religious nut would say. I'm assuming you're not that.

    They can't all be right, they're mutually exclusive. For example the christian god claims to be the one true god. If another god exists then he doesn't
    Glenster wrote: »
    Thats not the theoretical game.

    And it's not real life either, no-one's ever told me to pick a religion or they'll kill me.

    There's no point in being facecious.

    Yes they have I'm afraid. Many many religions, including christianity, claim that only followers of their religion will receive eternal reward and the rest will either cease to exist or endure eternal punishment depending on who you ask


  • #183
    --amadeus--
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,095 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    Glenster wrote: »
    You could theoretically test this, but you haven't (for the purposes of this argument you haven't tested everything you believe to be true), you just accept it.

    Again, with the greatest respect, you are making an elementary error here.

    There is a vast gulf of difference between facts which can be checked (even if you have not personally checked them) and pseudo-facts which cannot be checked.

    I haven't read books specifically on, for example, string theory. But I know that the content is just a google away if I need it so when a respected scientist or commentator says something I tend to trust it. Unless it sounds nonsensical, in which case I'll attempt to verify it.

    You can't do that with religious "facts".


  • #184
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Glenster wrote: »
    Sorry I'm under a bit of pressure here......

    He says that you cant say that theism and atheism are opposite sides of the same coin. And uses the football supporters analogy.

    The non-supporter has no opinion on the merits of teams, he refuses to be drawn on which team is better.

    However he thinks that football is silly and the supporters think that football is not silly, that it's important. In that respect they are opposites.
    No they're not. The non-supporter thinks football is silly and the supporter thinks one particular team in football is good and all the others are silly. The non-supporter and the supporter agree on every team except one


  • #185
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Glenster wrote: »
    Sorry I'm under a bit of pressure here......

    He says that you cant say that theism and atheism are opposite sides of the same coin. And uses the football supporters analogy.

    The non-supporter has no opinion on the merits of teams, he refuses to be drawn on which team is better.

    However he thinks that football is silly and the supporters think that football is not silly, that it's important. In that respect they are opposites.

    Saying that he doesn't have a belief because the word belief only applies to which football team is better is attempting to cordon off the word belief so that it only has meaning in one context.

    I can understand why you do it, it's to seperate yourself from the idea of irrational belief. my argument would be that we all have irrational beliefs that we apply to even the most rational subjects.

    His belief that football is lame is as strong in it's own way as mine that Spurs are the most exciting and best team in the Premiership today. Even without Lennon.

    The only thing that seems irrational to me is calling someone a "non-football supporter". And saying that this is a belief. Even if his belief is that football is silly and that this is the reason for not liking the sport, this still doesn't qualify the first statement. That is nonsensical and pointlessly convoluted.


  • #186
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Sam Vimes wrote: »

    The door analogy

    If the first guy is saying you can look, then why not look? I certainly dont have a problem with that.

    But assuming you dont trust one person anymore than the other (you have no reason to) The probability of there being a pit on the other side of the door is equal.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Your religious belief is not one of those things. It's an important decision that effects how you live your life in a big way so it matters if you're wrong.

    That being said if ones religion told one to love other people, give to charity, all the rest of the things you hear in a mainstream church or mosque. What of it if it is wrong? Same thing happens when that person die as when you die. And he will have lived well according to whatever faith he subscibes to.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Atheism simply defines a lack of belief in religion, thinking religion is silly is just a likely coincidence, that the dictionary definition doesn't require, any other beliefs an individual may have are superfluous to its definition.

    Edit: Even the above isn't a belief, more of an opinion, there are reasons someone would form the opinion religion is silly, the behaviour of its followers etc. it has evidence for want of a better word. Belief in a god is not in any way fact based, its based on faith in someone else's unsubstantiated claim.


  • #188
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    The only thing that seems irrational to me is calling someone a "non-football supporter".

    The only thing we know about him is that he doesn't follow football, and for the purposes of this discussion that is all he is. What am I supposed to call him 'Billy'?

    You guys are so touchy about what people call you. If someone uses non-believer or atheist as an insult it doesnt mean you have to take it as an insult.

    Unless there's some sort of shame inacccepting that that is technically what you are. And there isn't.

    Noone is saying that that is all you are, you might be florists or scrabble-players too.


  • #189
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Glenster wrote: »
    If the first guy is saying you can look, then why not look? I certainly dont have a problem with that.

    But assuming you dont trust one person anymore than the other (you have no reason to) The probability of there being a pit on the other side of the door is equal.
    Please explain to me why you have no more reason to trust the first guy than the second. The first guy at least claims to have looked and is giving you the opportunity to look yourself if you don't believe him but the second guy doesn't have any more information than you do but claims to know something you don't. He has never looked behind the door but claims to know what's behind it anyway. Surely that alone is reason not to trust him or at least reason to disregard everything he says because his opinion is based on nothing?


    Glenster wrote: »
    That being said if ones religion told one to love other people, give to charity, all the rest of the things you hear in a mainstream church or mosque. What of it if it is wrong? Same thing happens when that person die as when you die. And he will have lived well according to whatever faith he subscibes to.

    Your religion also teaches that homosexuality is an abomination, that women should not have authority over men, that god can and does order people to kill others, that morality should be based on an argument from authority instead of reason, that all people who do not follow your religion are destined for hell etc etc etc etc. You should love other people and give to charity because those are good things to do, not because an old book of magic stories tells you to.


  • #190
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    seamus wrote: »
    It's win-win for the atheist. If all religious viewpoints are correct, then the atheist will be redeemed. If six balls are pulled from our virtual lottery and any single ball matched wins, then the chances of winning are 6 * 0 = 0.

    I wasn't saying that, I was saying the lottery analogy doesn't go that far because the probabilities aren't as clear in metaphysics as they are in maths.

    Most maths anyway.


  • #191
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Glenster wrote: »
    The only thing we know about him is that he doesn't follow football, and for the purposes of this discussion that is all he is. What am I supposed to call him 'Billy'?

    You guys are so touchy about what people call you. If someone uses non-believer or atheist as an insult it doesnt mean you have to take it as an insult.

    Unless there's some sort of shame inacccepting that that is technically what you are. And there isn't.

    Noone is saying that that is all you are, you might be florists or scrabble-players too.

    Erm, I am not an atheist. I just have an issue with people being nonsensical. From my perspective, I am the guy looking at the atheist and the various religious and I see more in common between the religious and nothing in common between the atheist and the religious. The atheist just happens to disagree with the group at large.

    Let's look at another group. The majority believe that Einstein's relativity best explains the orbits of planets. One person disagrees and gives no reason. This person is an a-relativist? This is a belief? Nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You should love other people and give to charity because those are good things to do, not because of fear of eternal pain and suffering.

    Had to amend this, sorry!


  • #193
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Please explain to me why you have no more reason to trust the first guy than the second.

    Just cos someone tells you something doesnt mean it's true.

    You could trust that guy, trust is a beautiful thing but you'd never know unless you looked yourself.

    Look at it this way, if someone you didn't trust was at door a you probably wouldn't go through door a. The fact that someone claims to have seen it doesn't make the fact any more true objectively.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Your religion also teaches that homosexuality is an abomination, that women should not have authority over men, that god can and does order people to kill others, that morality should be based on an argument from authority instead of reason, that all people who do not follow your religion are destined for hell etc etc etc etc. You should love other people and give to charity because those are good things to do, not because an old book of magic stories tells you to.

    Tell me more about my religion.

    This is maybe an argument for a different thread.


  • #194
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Glenster wrote: »
    Just cos someone tells you something doesnt mean it's true.

    You could trust that guy, trust is a beautiful thing but you'd never know unless you looked yourself.

    Look at it this way, if someone you didn't trust was at door a you probably wouldn't go through door a. The fact that someone claims to have seen it doesn't make the fact any more true objectively.

    He went to some trouble to explain this to you, the first man says he has looked, and that you can look too.

    The second man makes a faith claim.

    If you havn't gotten it yet the first man is a scientist who says he has looked and is willing to share his evidence of that claim.

    The second is a priest or some such telling you jesus loves you.


  • #195
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Erm, I am not an atheist. I just have an issue with people being nonsensical. From my perspective, I am the guy looking at the atheist and the various religious and I see more in common between the religious and nothing in common between the atheist and the religious. The atheist just happens to disagree with the group at large.

    Let's look at another group. The majority believe that Einstein's relativity best explains the orbits of planets. One person disagrees and gives no reason. This person is an a-relativist? This is a belief? Nonsense.

    Maybe I'm just a bit touchy on that subject, apologies to you personally.

    If you were seperating people in terms of their belief in relativity then I dont see the problem, in terms of a discussion about those two groups, in labeling one relativists and the other anti relativists.

    Now if that person was not engaged in a debate about the worthiness of believing in relativity, i would place him in a 'dont care' or 'non-respondents' or 'no opinion' group.


  • #196
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Glenster wrote: »
    Tell me more about my religion.

    17431.jpg
    Revelation 2:20-23

    20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

    21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

    22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

    23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works..


    Nice chap.


  • #197
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Glenster wrote: »
    Maybe I'm just a bit touchy on that subject, apologies to you personally.

    If you were seperating people in terms of their belief in relativity then I dont see the problem, in terms of a discussion about those two groups, in labeling one relativists and the other anti relativists.

    Now if that person was not engaged in a debate about the worthiness of believing in relativity, i would place him in a 'dont care' or 'non-respondents' or 'no opinion' group.

    Ah ah ah! Can you not tell the difference between an atheist (relativist) and an anti-theist (relativist)???


  • #198
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Revelation 2:20-23

    20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

    21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

    22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

    23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works..

    Thunderf00t's latest video yes? :D


  • #199
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    Thunderf00t's latest video yes? :D

    I'm gonna kill you with death!

    :D:rolleyes:


  • #200
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    He went to some trouble to explain this to you, the first man says he has looked, and that you can look too.

    The second man makes a faith claim.

    If you havn't gotten it yet the first man is a scientist who says he has looked and is willing to share his evidence of that claim.

    The second is a priest or some such telling you jesus loves you.

    Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    I did say that if you can look, look and make your decision based on that.

    But if you were going to look you dont have to listen to anyone. You've done your own independent research.

    Accepting one thing without checking it out is the same as accepting something else without checking it out. Is the point I was making.


  • #201
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Glenster wrote: »
    You guys are so touchy about what people call you. If someone uses non-believer or atheist as an insult it doesnt mean you have to take it as an insult.
    If we're touchy it because every week we get some new poster here making out that atheism is a faith like theirs. Usually they start off all cagey - ask a few loaded questions - and then spring their 'trap'. "So atheism is a FAITH just like any OTHER religion"... As if by somehow equating atheism with a religious faith (which it clearly is not) makes their own any more believable.

    I'm not suggesting you are doing this - just explaining why this topic is a live one.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Glenster wrote: »
    Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    I did say that if you can look, look and make your decision based on that.

    But if you were going to look you dont have to listen to anyone. You've done your own independent research.

    Accepting one thing without checking it out is the same as accepting something else without checking it out. Is the point I was making.

    But given a more real life situation where you can look but what you are looking at will likely make no sense to you, in the case of a complex scientific explanation, you would have to take someone's word for it, someone qualified to make a call.

    In that case, you would listen to the scientific community, rather than good old door number two jesus loves you guy.


  • #203
    --amadeus--
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,095 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    Glenster wrote: »
    Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    I did say that if you can look, look and make your decision based on that.

    But if you were going to look you dont have to listen to anyone. You've done your own independent research.

    Accepting one thing without checking it out is the same as accepting something else without checking it out. Is the point I was making.

    Which continues to neatly sidestep the difference between checkable and non-checkable "facts"


  • #204
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Ah ah ah! Can you not tell the difference between an atheist (relativist) and an anti-theist (relativist)???

    seperate them into three batches then.

    I just used anti relativist because arelativist looks weird.

    If someone filled in no on a 'do you believe in god form' (In the post next week) then as far as I'm concerned they are an atheist. What's wrong with that? it's in the dictionary.


  • #205
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    --amadeus-- wrote: »
    Which continues to neatly sidestep the difference between checkable and non-checkable "facts"

    I did mention before that i'm not comparing the systems, just the people who utilize them.

    Is it more acceptable to believe a scientific theory without checking the facts than it is to beleive a religious theory without checking the facts.


  • #206
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Glenster wrote: »
    If someone filled in no on a 'do you believe in god form' (In the post next week) then as far as I'm concerned they are an atheist. What's wrong with that? it's in the dictionary.
    Well, if you were in Saudi and somebody asked you if you believed in Allah, and you replied "No", does that make you an atheist?


  • #207
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    17431.jpg




    Nice chap.

    Dont get me wrong I love karate chop action jesus but I certainly wouldn't consider myself a RC if thats what you're getting at.


  • #208
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    robindch wrote: »
    Well, if you were in Saudi and somebody asked you if you believed in Allah, and you replied "No", does that make you an atheist?

    Yeah!

    Maybe god was the wrong word, It's a name and a noun, replace it with a divinity


  • #209
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Glenster wrote: »
    Dont get me wrong I love karate chop action jesus but I certainly wouldn't consider myself a RC if thats what you're getting at.

    Ah, your denomination made the wise decision in removing in drug-fuelled ramblings of Revelations then?

    A step in the right direction, at least.


  • #210
    Peggypeg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 578 ✭✭✭Peggypeg


    I was going to post something but then I remembered that religion and religious people just piss me off. And religious debates piss me off even more. For some reason I thought the atheism forum would just be a hilarious forum pointing out just how ridiculous it is to believe in a man in the sky and so forth but then I got here are you guys are quoting the bible at each other. I'm so very disappointed.:p


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Peggypeg wrote: »
    I was going to post something but then I realised that religion and religious people just piss me off. And religious debates piss me off even more. For some reason I thought the atheism forum would just be a hilarious forum pointing out just how ridiculous it is to believe in a man in the sky and so forth but then I got here are you guys are quoting the bible at each other. So very disappointed.:p

    It would be more satisfying if noone ever questioned your definition of ridiculous wouldn't it.


Advertisement