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

A post for Soul Winner

124

Comments

  • #92
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    "...learn this"? Learn what? You believe in fairy tales, written many years after the alleged event.

    So if enough years go by things that happened in the past didn't really happen? Excellent logic, well done ;)


  • #93
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,546 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    He was in the unfortunate position of not liking football, what a terrible condition to find oneself in, but then to find yourself following MU is an even worse condition. He's been converted to the prawn sandwich brigade. Couldn't you have chose a better religion excuse me football club?

    I don't support Man-U thankfully ;)

    So if it's possible to not support a football team why is impossible to have no religion in your mind?


  • #94
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Right next to the clubs for people who don't collect stamps, aren't they?
    What color is the hair of a bald man?


  • #95
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 303 ✭✭SleepDoc


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    So if enough years go by things that happened in the past didn't really happen? Excellent logic, well done ;)

    That is not my logic.

    If you write about something that happened 60 years ago, with only the benefit of hearsay evidence, the likelihood is that it will be an inaccurate account.


  • #96
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Yeah but imagine everyone waking up and being just like you? There'd be no need for an A&A forum anymore. :(

    very true
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I think we've driven the atheism is/isn't a religion thing into the ground enough. I've given the reasons why I think it is a religion and all I'm getting back is yeah but atheism isn't a religion comments, lets agree to disagree on this one shall we?

    Ok, if supporting Manchester United, voting for Fianna Fail and supporting women's rights are religions then atheism is a religion too. Otherwise not so much


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    I don't support Man-U thankfully ;)

    So if it's possible to not support a football team why is impossible to have no religion in your mind?

    Wouldn't you rather they started to follow your team? Or to enjoy at least watching a game on its merits there with a few pints down the local with a few mates? Beats sitting at home doing the ironing thinking about what could have been. :pac:


  • #98
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    That is not my logic.

    If you write about something that happened 60 years ago, with only the benefit of hearsay evidence, the likelihood is that it will be an inaccurate account.

    Well the Jews for instance had a very good oral tradition that made stories spread by word of mouth easier to remember plus if you can find evidence of writings which can be dated to within the life time of the eyewitnesses to the events in question then this puts you on a better footing and gives you good grounds for accepting the validity of later copies of these documents. That wouldn't make the story true obviously but it at least gives credence to the later manuscripts and the charge of heresy cannot be leveled as easily.


  • #99
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Well the Jews for instance had a very good oral tradition that made stories spread by word of mouth easier to remember plus if you can find evidence of writings which can be dated to within the life time of the eyewitnesses to the events in question then this puts you on a better footing and gives you good grounds for accepting the validity of later copies of these documents. That wouldn't make the story true obviously but it at least gives credence to the later manuscripts and the charge of heresy cannot be leveled as easily.
    Gosh, you're right. Maybe's it's time I gave Zeus and the lads another chance.:pac:


  • #100
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    When someone begins to believe in a particular religion it is called conversion because it is something different from was previously believd in to be true. But to be converted one must hold to a different view prior to this new belief. If one is an atheist and is subsequently converted to Christianity (I just picked that one out of the blue :)) then what has that person been converted from? Another view of the world. Hence his former atheism was how he saw the world. It dictated his behavior and thought processes and affected his opinions in conversations and might even have led to an argument or two. In effect atheism is just like a religion.
    By this logic, if somebody has black hair and shaves it all off then, in effect, they've changed their hair color.

    Except of course, really, they haven't.


  • #101
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Getting back to this...
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    No, here's what your very first ****ing line says: (Hey how come mine gets starred out??? :mad: )

    Haha, your forum-fu is weak.
    So as well as wording your sentences badly you then make up stuff that you didn't say in the first place and then say that you said it. I believe that these words were probably going around in your head at the time of typing but try better next time to convey your thoughts to 0s and 1s. Cheers...

    Uh...what I said was a direct copy/paste of my post so you've gotten really really confused about what I said. You've even quoted all the material you claim I made up. Were you just out of bed when you wrote this post?
    Which is another way of saying that Stalin's Russia was not in fact an atheist regime. What a clever thing you just did. Instead of calling a spade a spade you've decided (all by yourself) that a spade is actually a club in order to support your argument. To you a regime who massacres priests, and destroys churches did it because it was the thing to do back then and it had nothing to do with their ideology. Thats what some people would call intellectual prostitution. The point I make is that if a religious organization did similar things you guys would blamed it on their religion and not on their greed for money and power. If religious ideologies can cause an institution or regime to commit atrocities then other ideologies are equally capable to committing them. Stalin's ideology was rooted, bolted, and cemented in atheistic ideals and hence was the cause of his atrocities. Get over it. Either that or religion is not as responsible for most of the evil that atheists would like to beleive its responsible for.

    There are no such things as atheistic ideals. Stalin's ideology was rooted, bolted and cemented in the ideals of authoritariansim, despotism and communism. Yes, one element of his ideology was the removal of religion's influence, but that doesn't mean atheism was a driving force. Atheism can't be a driving force, that doesn't even make sense.
    Finland - Christian Nation
    Norway - Christian Nation
    Sweden - Christian Nation
    USA - Christian Nation
    China - Communist Nation
    Saudi Arabia - Muslim Nation

    Why do you have Norway Sweden and Finland on one side and USA, China and Saudia Arabia on the other? The only non religious state is China, one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world. Congratulations.

    You still don't understand my point. It is about abdication of moral responsibility to a higher authority. Let's see if these statistics explain why I get Norway, Sweden and Finland.

    Sweden - Belief in God at 23%
    Norway - Belief in God at 32%
    Finland - Belief in God at 41%

    USA - Belief in God at 91%
    Saudi Arabia - I'm not sure, but certainly 90+%
    China - Authoritarian Communist State where the people abdicate moral responsibility to the party.

    You can also have North Korea (authoritarian), Iran (very religious and authoritatian) or...I dunno...Peru (very religious).

    When we look at societies around the world and throughout history we see a strong correlation between societal health and a populace who are morally independent from authoritarian government and religious influence.

    You don't like it, that doesn't change it.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    As an afootballist I am appalled at the suggestion that I support a football team. What are they called? Noteam?


  • #103
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    As an afootballist I am appalled at the suggestion that I support a football team. What are they called?
    Is that the French national side?

    I recall them playing asoccer against Ireland last year sometime.


  • #104
    mehfesto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,277 ✭✭✭mehfesto


    No, yer mixing it up - they'd be A-Theirry-ists.


  • #105
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,591 ✭✭✭Azza


    Off is such a good TV channel.


  • #106
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Oh the witticisms...:rolleyes:

    Anyway, getting back to what atheism really means. We know that we define religions as belief systems about the existence of God or gods. They are not lack of belief systems. Likewise atheism is not simply a lack of a belief in a deity either, its is also the belief that there is no deity(s). If you don't think that an atheist can hold to this view then check here and here for examples of some phrases expressed by an atheist who might disagree with you.

    If atheism doesn't mean the belief that there is no God, then is there another word in the English language for the belief that there is no God? Surely there are people who believe that there is no God. What are they called if not atheists? So in the absence of a better word to describe such people I think we are on safe ground when we define atheism as the belief that there is no God and as such it is a belief system and as such it is just like a religion.

    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

    In fact Ush1's example is even stronger than saying that atheism is a belief system. He goes even further by suggesting an absolutely matter of fact and he/she is even willing to provide evidence into the bargain. But let us just say that it is simply the belief that their is no God. That's fine if it simply was just like the belief that their are no fairies but we don't get many people who think it worth while writing books about that or engaging in debates about it either or doing tours around the world giving talks on afairiesm and defending it. It's a non issue because most people don't believe in fairies anyway so there is no debate as such.

    "No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the world as this good news of Atheism." Annie Wood Besant

    So atheism is a belief system which has proponents some of whom are actively engaged in efforts that would try to, if not rid the world of any and all belief systems which hold to the view that a creator God of the universe exists, then curtail as much as possible. That my dear friends in effect is the spreading of a belief system and as such is just like what religions do, like it or lump it. If Ush1 wants to provide evidence that there is no God then I want to see it and be converted to the belief that there is no God i.e. Atheism.

    Glossary of terms:


    Term - Definition

    A). Theism - The Belief that there is a God
    B). Agnosticism - The lack of belief that there is a God
    C). Atheism - The belief that there is no God

    If you think C above is wrong then please fill in the blank below:

    C). ???????? - The belief that there is no God


  • #107
    thirtythirty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭thirtythirty


    Well, that's a nice bit of logical substantiation of an argument. So why can't you apply it to support the existance of a god?

    Why do we have to prove there is no god, in order for you to believe it, when you don't have to prove there is, in order to believe that there definately is a god?

    Why? Because you can't. So if you take proving and dis-proving out of the equation, what are you left with? Basic supporting evidence.

    And the supporting evidence by logical substantiation leans towards the existance of a god being an impossibility.




    ps - as a side note, atheism isn't necessarily a belief, it's rationalised and logical shared understanding by individuals. The platform of your argument crumbles a bit if you remove the fact of atheism as being a "belief" in the wishy-washy respect.


  • #108
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    Soul Winner, I honestly can't believe that you still think that.



    Oh and what I just said isn't a belief either.


  • #109
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Oh the witticisms...:rolleyes:

    Anyway, getting back to what atheism really means. We know that we define religions as belief systems about the existence of God or gods. They are not lack of belief systems. Likewise atheism is not simply a lack of a belief in a deity either, its is also the belief that there is no deity(s). If you don't think that an atheist can hold to this view then check here and here for examples of some phrases expressed by an atheist who might disagree with you.

    In fact Ush1's example is even stronger than saying that atheism is a belief system. He goes even further by suggesting an absolutely matter of fact and he/she is even willing to provide evidence into the bargain. But let us just say that it is simply the belief that their is no God. That's fine if it simply was just like the belief that their are no fairies but we don't get many people who think it worth while writing books about that or engaging in debates about it either or doing tours around the world giving talks on afairiesm and defending it. It's a non issue because most people don't believe in fairies anyway so there is no debate as such.

    How is what I said anyway inferring atheism is a "belief system"? Do you define not believing in fairies as a belief system? Clearly no.

    Just because you believe in a particular type of make believe makes it no more valid, doesn't matter how many people want to debate it, it's just as preposterous!


  • #110
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    spottyelephant wrote: »
    Well, that's a nice bit of logical substantiation of an argument. So why can't you apply it to support the existance of a god?

    I believe in God, I never said I could prove He exists. I am happy and willing to call my position a belief system. You cannot prove your position either i.e. that their is no God (I assume), hence you can only proceed on the assumption that the position you hold is true. Hey that's what I do.
    spottyelephant wrote: »
    Why do we have to prove there is no god, in order for you to believe it, when you don't have to prove there is, in order to believe that there definately is a god?

    Well you wouldn't have to prove there is no God, you would just have to give some good reasons to think that such a Being doesn't exist. If you can do that, then you might persuade me to your side so that I too will believe that there is no God.
    spottyelephant wrote: »
    Why? Because you can't. So if you take proving and dis-proving out of the equation, what are you left with? Basic supporting evidence.

    Yes. So what evidence do you have that a creator God of the universe doesn't exist or at least cannot possibly exist?
    spottyelephant wrote: »
    And the supporting evidence by logical substantiation leans towards the existance of a god being an impossibility.

    How so?
    spottyelephant wrote: »
    ps - as a side note, atheism isn't necessarily a belief, it's rationalised and logical shared understanding by individuals. The platform of your argument crumbles a bit if you remove the fact of atheism as being a "belief" in the wishy-washy respect.

    Verbal gymnastics. Just answer the question at the end of my last post and we'll have the correct definition for the belief that there is no God.


  • #111
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    ColmDawson wrote: »
    Soul Winner, I honestly can't believe that you still think that.

    Why not?
    ColmDawson wrote: »
    Oh and what I just said isn't a belief either.

    But after a few more posts it will be. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Verbal gymnastics. Just answer the question at the end of my last post and we'll have the correct definition for the belief that there is no God.

    I think a good word would be itheism. There is morality, immorality which is the opposite of morality and amorality which is a lack of morality, e.g. killing someone is immoral because it's a conscious decision to hurt someone but things like earthquakes are amoral because there is decision to hurt. In the same way we can have theism, itheism (the opposite of theism) and atheism (the lack of theism)


  • #113
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Ush1 wrote: »
    How is what I said anyway inferring atheism is a "belief system"? Do you define not believing in fairies as a belief system? Clearly no.

    Ok here's what you said:

    "We say there is almost certainly no god. There is evidence for that." Ush1

    What is the problem with me inferring that you believe there is no God based on that statement?

    I believe that fairies don't exist. That is a belief system I hold. I might be wrong but that depends on whether I can be presented with evidence for their existence or given some good reasons to think that they exists.

    We define fairies as small people-like creatures with wings who give money to kids who loose their teeth. I'll have no problem believing in such creatures once I can be presented with the evidence for them or believing in them theoretically at least if I'm given good reasons to think that they exist.

    Now we define God in one sense as a Being who created the universe. And a Being who also created life on Earth. Now given the staggering odds of a life permitting universe like ours just popping into existence from virtually nothing at all and the odds of life just happening to come about on this planet in the first place, then I think we can remain rational in mind when we deduce from that that it must have taken a supernatural force to do it, i.e. a force which operates outside of nature as a necessity, given that nature itself was brought about as a result i.e it couldn't have been anything inside nature that brought it about i.e. outside i.e. supernatural. If you can give me another example of such a supernatural force other than God then I'm all ears. So unlike fairies we do have good reason to think that a creator God of the universe exists even though we cannot scientifically prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt just like we can't prove anything in Science beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    Ush1 wrote: »
    Just because you believe in a particular type of make believe makes it no more valid, doesn't matter how many people want to debate it, it's just as preposterous!

    We're not talking about the validity or not of any particular belief system, we're talking about whether what we hold to be true are belief systems or not. I infer from you own statement that you believe to be true the statement there is no God. So I'm either wrong and you do believe that there is such a Being or you don't, i.e. you beleive there is no God. There's no middle ground in fairness, or is there? If there is, then how does that gel with your statement: "We say there is almost certainly no god. There is evidence for that."?


  • #114
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Some stuff..


    also... not going for a jog is exercise


  • #115
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Ok here's what you said:

    "We say there is almost certainly no god. There is evidence for that." Ush1

    What is the problem with me inferring that you believe there is no God based on that statement?

    I believe that fairies don't exist. That is a belief system I hold. I might be wrong but that depends on whether I can be presented with evidence for their existence or given some good reasons to think that they exists.

    So you're saying everything is a belief system. Very original. So when I answer my phone it's a belief system that someone will talk? When I start my car in the morning, that's my belief in the internal combustion engine kicking in.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    We define fairies as small people-like creatures with wings who give money to kids who loose their teeth. I'll have no problem believing in such creatures once I can be presented with the evidence for them or believing in them theoretically at least if I'm given good reasons to think that they exist.

    Now we define God in one sense as a Being who created the universe. And a Being who also created life on Earth. Now given the staggering odds of a life permitting universe like ours just popping into existence from virtually nothing at all and the odds of life just happening to come about on this planet in the first place, then I think we can remain rational in mind when we deduce from that that it must have taken a supernatural force to do it, i.e. a force which operates outside of nature as a necessity, given that nature itself was brought about as a result i.e it couldn't have been anything inside nature that brought it about i.e. outside i.e. supernatural. If you can give me another example of such a supernatural force other than God then I'm all ears. So unlike fairies we do have good reason to think that a creator God of the universe exists even though we cannot scientifically prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt just like we can't prove anything in Science beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    All irrelevant. Fairies, unicorns, spaghetti monsters, all equal to God for me.

    Soul Winner wrote: »
    We're not talking about the validity or not of any particular belief system, we're talking about whether what we hold to be true are belief systems or not. I infer from you own statement that you believe to be true the statement there is no God. So I'm either wrong and you do believe that there is such a Being or you don't, i.e. you beleive there is no God. There's no middle ground in fairness, or is there? If there is, then how does that gel with your statement: "We say there is almost certainly no god. There is evidence for that."?

    Erm, nice to see you having an arguement with yourself.

    Again, all irrelevant. You're defining pretty much any thought as a "belief system". So if you call not believing in fairies a belief system, then yes YOU would call a lack of belief in God a belief system. Nobody else would though.;)


  • #116
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I think a good word would be itheism. There is morality, immorality which is the opposite of morality and amorality which is a lack of morality, e.g. killing someone is immoral because it's a conscious decision to hurt someone but things like earthquakes are amoral because there is decision to hurt. In the same way we can have theism, itheism (the opposite of theism) and atheism (the lack of theism)

    Dades: Feel free to move this thread to the Itheism and Ignosticism forum. :D


  • #117
    ZorbaTehZ
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,149 ✭✭✭ZorbaTehZ


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    [Atheism] maintains that there is no God
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    C). Atheism - The belief that there is no God

    You realise there's a contradiction there?


  • #118
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    ZorbaTehZ wrote: »
    You realise there's a contradiction there?

    Not really. One is just a stricter version of the other, but they certainly don't contradict each other. Just like the phrases: 'the lack of belief in God' and 'the belief that there is no God' don't contradict each other either, one is simply more prohibitive than the other in the overlap. I would submit that the new atheism at least, is not just the belief that there is no God but that it actively maintains that there is no such being as God and is willing to back it up with evidence which would appear (to new atheists at least) to support that position.


  • #119
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Not really. One is just a stricter version of the other, but they certainly don't contradict each other. Just like the phrases: 'the lack of belief in God' and 'the belief that there is no God' don't contradict each other either, one is simply more prohibitive than the other in the overlap. I would submit that the new atheism at least, is not just the belief that there is no God but that it actively maintains that there is no such being as God and is willing to back it up with evidence which would appear (to new atheists at least) to support that position.
    What on earth is a 'new atheist'? I'd love to know the difference between a new one and an old one.


  • #120
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    ColmDawson wrote: »
    What on earth is a 'new atheist'? I'd love to know the difference between a new one and an old one.


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

    http://newatheism.org

    http://newatheists.org

    http://thenewatheist.blogspot.com


    Google is your friend ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I would submit that the new atheism at least, is not just the belief that there is no God but that it actively maintains that there is no such being as God and is willing to back it up with evidence which would appear (to new atheists at least) to support that position.
    Dawkins, one of your so-called new atheists, does not deny the possibility of a deity existing. I would very surprised if Harris, Hitchens or Dennett did either.

    They certainly maintain that there is no good evidence for god, but that's a different thing.


Advertisement