nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

"no, I'm actually an athiest"

PAULWATSON

These days, it seems everyone is tearing about the place mouthing off about "being an athiest".

Is this some sort of snobbish "new, new Ireland" thing that has passed me bye?

No bible basher myself, however I don't ever want to be confused with an athiest. I don't pride myself on "the scientific method", or believe in evolution for that matter.

One thing always bothered me about evolution, according to the theory the people around you are the fittest "best of the best" after two million years of dog eat dog. Now looking at this lot, what must the prototype have been like, a right clown I'd say.

(paedo this, paedo that, blah, blah, catholic church, blah, had enough, blah, superstition, blah, we're so educated, blah.)

Are you a smug little athiest?

Find more posts tagged with

circle jerk

stamps

rhinosaurus

more atheism...

atheists eat babies

atheism = darth vader

darth vader was a hero

babies are delicious

luke i am your atheist

darth vader is my god

dawkinites vs religion :|

hail xenu!

age of friesian

evolution caused religion

jesus saves wit aib

mary=single mum

jebus saves!

is there a dog?

aib is your lord!

created from

we are all bacteria..

men are also bitchy

ezekiel 23:20

crud

just a theory

Quick Links

Comments

Galvasean

fontanalis wrote: »

There's another theory of evolution.

Good old lamarkism...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism

Saganist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEhtOhwL8xk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0safHyhPo

liah

MagicMarker wrote: »

So you're not going to tell us about these militant atheist groups that you say exist?

Ah leave her to eat. She'll be back when she has time, just be patient.

Scanlas The 2nd

midlandsmissus wrote: »

No I don't think it's the same as at all.

I don't know the ins and out of the theory of evolution, which I will gladly state now, so I can't have a well informed argument on it.

But I think what that poster was trying to get at, and I would actually like to ask as well, as I'm a novice in the understanding of evolution is:

If we are descended from apes why do they still exist? Surely if we 'evolve', the new better version (humans) should replace the old (apes)?

Again I don't know that much about it, but that is something I would like to ask?

We aren't actually descended from apes, we have a common ancester. Somewhere along the way a speicies split into different species and split againg and so on. We have a common ancestor to bananas, but you'd have to go a long way back. You should read about evolution. It's really interesting.

AudreyHepburn

Ok I think everyone needs to take a step back here a little. This thread is starting to veer to personal insult territory what with people being labled liars and begin accused of playing the victim because others don't agree their opinions. Those kinds of arguments help no-one.

To try and keep in on topic I find it hard to understand why certain posters can't or won't see that they are being as condscending and belittling as those they accuse of being the same. Why would anyone think they have the right to call some-one a liar or deluded or retarded for believing in God or think that a woman saying god bless to some-one is somehow insulting or oppressive.

The very same people pitch a fit if anyone disagrees with them or treats
them in that way.

The problem here is not what people believe but how they go about broadcasting it. As I said before by all means debate and question but do so in a respectful and mature way without resorting to name-calling and personal insult because it just ruins your argument.

MrStuffins

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Interesting, so you think I would actually go to the length of making up a story to annoy atheists on here. To a scientific mind such as yours, what is the probability of that?
Or is there more probability that I am so annoyed about atheism having had it forced on me for most of my life?

Quite high in fact. Some people don't like it when their beliefs are questioned. Sometimes people will lie and cheat to keep the upper hand. I've no reason to believe you would do this, but i have no reason to believe that you wouldn't!

I don't have to prove myself to you, and I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. If you go to the A and A forum you will see I have been posting about my childhood experiences for over three years there.
How arrogant of you to assume I would make up a 'little' story for you.

well this is all well and good, but you have made comments which you cannot back up. I presume you are twisting things anyway so it's all the same to me. Other have also called you into question and you refuse to answer them.

Answering is your purogative, i just don't know why you would go a bit of the way there and then shy away from going the full way.

As I've said to Liah, though I said it nicer to her as she was nice to me, (maybe take a leaf out of her book), I don't live to answer your questions, and I am now going to get something to eat.

Indeed, Liah is a very intelligent and nice poster and her manner comes across much better thn mine does on Boards. Sometimes i tell it as it is! I won't apologise for that.

Enjoy your meal

philologos

liah wrote: »

I am kind of intrigued as to why you believe so strongly, if you ever have the time or the inclination maybe you could shoot me a pm as to what brought you to where you are now. We've had our run-ins in the past, but I've softened since then, and I'd genuinely like to be able to fully see your point of view in a non-fragmented way, as all I ever see are bits and pieces in threads, not the whole picture.

If not, I totally understand that too. I just want to open my mind a little.

Yeah, I'd say that I've scattered enough of it in different segments around the boards.

Just wondering why it is such an oddity that I believe so strongly, is it because it would be atypical for someone like me to believe in God, or is it just that you just would like to know?

When I get a little bit of time I'll try do my best to give you the whole story as accurately as I can piece it together.

liah

Jakkass wrote: »

Yeah, I'd say that I've scattered enough of it in different segments around the boards.

Just wondering why it is such an oddity that I believe so strongly, is it because it would be atypical for someone like me to believe in God, or is it just that you just would like to know?

When I get a little bit of time I'll try do my best to give you the whole story as accurately as I can piece it together.

Not so much an oddity, just that you're obviously intelligent and you're the only poster I've seen in the places I post that has really, truly got their viewpoint solidified from as many points of view as possible in your mind, meaning you're the best person I could ask as I can be assured I'll receive a well thought-out and developed answer.

I also find it interesting to explore minds that work in a vastly different manner to my own and find out how people reached the conclusions they did. I like psychology and I love people in general for their differences and like to explore that to better myself and develop my own mind further. I'm even open to conversion if I find an argument strong enough and well backed-up enough, it's just that I haven't found that yet.

MrStuffins

liah wrote: »

Not so much an oddity, just that you're obviously intelligent and you're the only poster I've seen in the places I post that has really, truly got their viewpoint solidified from as many points of view as possible in your mind, meaning you're the best person I could ask as I can be assured I'll receive a well thought-out and developed answer.

I also find it interesting to explore minds that work in a vastly different manner to my own and find out how people reached the conclusions they did. I like psychology and I love people in general for their differences and like to explore that to better myself and develop my own mind further. I'm even open to conversion if I find an argument strong enough and well backed-up enough, it's just that I haven't found that yet.

In a very quick and general viewpoint here........ most people believe in their particular version of God for a few different reasons.

But the major one is............ geography!

strobe

Einhard wrote: »

Without the RCC, many of the schools either wouldn't have been built or adminstered. There's no need to question historical reality in the pursuit of an agenda. Edmund Rice funded his first Christian Bros school out of his own money. Most of the early CB schools were built with private donations and funds which the Church didn't have to make available for school building. Most of them were staffed by Christian Bros who got paid tiny salaries so that the remained could be re-invested in the schools themselves. Indeed, in my own secondary school, the brothers who taught in the school handed most of the pay cheque over to the Board of Governors for use in running the school, only keeping a small stipend for themselves. And this was in the 90s.

I think that one of the legitimate issues that believers have with some atheists, is their compulsion to paint a picture of the Church as entirely devoid of goodness, and of not tangible benefit to humanity in any form, at any time. And that's simply not the case. To deny this is, IMO, an abuse of history for a personal agenda.

It's not about a personal agenda and I'm not claiming there are no good people within the church.

But to try and claim the children of Ireland would not have been educated without the Catholic Church (which is what you said) simply isn't true. Were the children of China or Saudi Arabia or England or the USA or Sweden educated? But how without the RCC? Schools get built. The RCC were not a necessary instrument.

liah

MrStuffins wrote: »

In a very quick and general viewpoint here........ most people believe in their particular version of God for a few different reasons.

But the major one is............ geography!

Oh, I know that, which is why I wouldn't trust asking this of anyone else. But Jakkass seems like the kind of person who would have researched as much as possible-- it may be a reach, but I'd even suggest he's like me in that he loves learning and educating himself and solidifying his opinion through that-- before deciding on his final religion, and I believe he's the best at hand to explain why his is right over all else.

I'm a very "devout" atheist and I honestly can't see how anything presented through religion will be able to upend what I believe now based upon the scientific way of thinking, but if there is actual proof and any kind of solid argument that I can actually work out my own via reason and logic, I would definitely be open to receiving it and, if found verifiable enough, believing it.

Einhard

strobe wrote: »

It's not about a personal agenda and I'm not claiming there are no good people within the church.

But to try and claim the children of Ireland would not have been educated without the Catholic Church (which is what you said) simply isn't true. Were the children of China or Saudi Arabia or England or the USA or Sweden educated? But how without the RCC? Schools get built. The RCC were not a necessary instrument.

The children of SA and China were, for the most part, not educated. Schools didn't get built. In the absense of a strong state education system, there was no other body to intervene in the educational sphere. In Ireland, there was.

I'm not acquained with the systems in the US and Sweden, but I would point out that both countries could afford to fund their eductional systems. For several decades the Irish state could not, and prior to that the Brits weren't all that interested. Indeed, the Brits actively pursued a policy of non-education for a time, with the purpose of keeping the catholic population ignorant and more easily controlled. This is the breach into which the Christian Brothers stepped. One in which there was no education for the masses, and where, contrary to your assertions, schools didn't get built.

ragg

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The problem here is not what people believe but how they go about broadcasting it. As I said before by all means debate and question but do so in a respectful and mature way without resorting to name-calling and personal insult because it just ruins your argument.

I think you can take this point and remove the internet factor and bring it into real life. I have no problem with people reconciling their beliefs, questioning where they feel the need to.
However, being respectful to others beliefs should be paramount. Not because im some kind of "we are all equal" hippy, but because people turn to religion for a number of reasons and noone has any business telling them they are wrong for that.

I remember a few famous athiests trying to hatch a plan of a citizens arrest on the pope when he landed in the UK, i just don't see what there was to be gained from engaging in that kind of disrespectful and down right abhorrent behaviour

OutlawPete

liah wrote: »

For anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, do you mind explaining how vaccines work, and why we need to keep upgrading our vaccines annually?

Of FFS!!!

When will you people get it into your head, that just because there are some people that do not accept ALL aspects of the Theory Of Evolution, DOES NOT mean that they do not believe that humans, plants and animals are evolving.

Turtwig

OutlawPete wrote: »

Of FFS!!!

When will you people get it into your head, that just because there are some people that do not accept ALL aspects of the Theory Of Evolution, DOES NOT mean that they do not believe that humans, plants and animals are evolving.

Oh FFS,

Obviously that wasn't direct at you then. Jeez, even scientists today don't agree all aspects of any theory. If they did, it would no longer be science.

philologos

MrStuffins wrote: »

In a very quick and general viewpoint here........ most people believe in their particular version of God for a few different reasons.

But the major one is............ geography!

Funnily enough, an old friend of mine from school sent a facebook message to me recently going through what issues he had with Christianity, and how I was deluded, cheapening humanity by attributing much of my turn-around as an individual to God, and so on and so forth. One of the points he put across was would I be a Christian if I lived in Iran, Saudi Arabia, China or so on and so forth.

I conceded immediately, that due to availability of Christianity being considerably lesser in countries such as these admittedly I wouldn't be. However, I did go on and the more and more I thought about the subject I realised, hang on a second here. I've heard of Iranians becoming Christians, I've heard of people from China becoming Christians. I then remembered that most growth in Christianity at present is taking place where Christianity has not traditionally been. I remembered that most of Christianity's growth is by conversion, not by birth, or "indoctrination" as atheists would claim. Christianity was actually the only faith where this was true. If you think about it historically the earliest growth of Christianity would have had to have been by conversion, even for "indoctrination" to begin.

Christianity is a truly international faith, it can be found in all areas of the world, albeit in lesser and greater forms. Availability does play a factor, but it is no longer a strong argument as in the 21st century more than any other century, Christianity is a global faith. Most Christians don't live in places where Christianity traditionally was. This argument will fade by the end of this century in relation to Christianity, I can guarantee you.

liah

OutlawPete wrote: »

Of FFS!!!

When will you people get it into your head, that just because there are some people that do not accept ALL aspects of the Theory Of Evolution, DOES NOT mean that they do not believe that humans, plants and animals are evolving.

Was that really necessary? I thought I'd been pretty diplomatic and fair throughout the thread. Guess I was mistaken. My apologies.

What theory of evolution are you talking about? And what aspect of it is it that you disagree with? Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself, I may have missed your posts on the topic.

bakedbean

Athesist are not the militants. Major world religions are proselytising religions. If you read the Bible and Qur'an to the letter they tell you it is not sufficient to sit quietly and live your faith, you need to go out and tell others.

I've noticed that the people that set out to lecture me on their faith have no idea about other belief systems. If someone reads around, explores others religions and then selects one, then that person earns my respect. Those that are born into a religion, do not question it and are not curious about others, do not.

Deus Ex Machina

Saganist wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEhtOhwL8xk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0safHyhPo

I love Stephen Fry, everytime I hear him talk I learn about forty words.

scientific1982

ragg wrote: »

I think you can take this point and remove the internet factor and bring it into real life. I have no problem with people reconciling their beliefs, questioning where they feel the need to.
However, being respectful to others beliefs should be paramount. Not because im some kind of "we are all equal" hippy, but because people turn to religion for a number of reasons and noone has any business telling them they are wrong for that.

I remember a few famous athiests trying to hatch a plan of a citizens arrest on the pope when he landed in the UK, i just don't see what there was to be gained from engaging in that kind of disrespectful and down right abhorrent behaviour

How was that abhorrent behaviour by Hitchens et al. Did the pope not have knowledge of child sexual abuse and did he not try and cover it up. If that was any other individual, they would be arrested by the authorities.

Einhard

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hahaha, i got an infraction today over in the CT forum for arguing with a Holocaust Denier! Madness :pac:

You argue with people in the CT forum?! Madness! :pac:

You're an alien lizard masquerading as a human aren't you?!:eek:

MrStuffins

Jakkass wrote: »

Funnily enough, an old friend of mine from school sent a facebook message to me recently going through what issues he had with Christianity, and how I was deluded, cheapening humanity by attributing much of my turn-around as an individual to God, and so on and so forth. One of the points he put across was would I be a Christian if I lived in Iran, Saudi Arabia, China or so on and so forth.

I conceded immediately, that due to availability of Christianity being considerably lesser in countries such as these admittedly I wouldn't be. However, I did go on and the more and more I thought about the subject I realised, hang on a second here. I've heard of Iranians becoming Christians, I've heard of people from China becoming Christians. I then remembered that most growth in Christianity at present is taking place where Christianity has not traditionally been. I remembered that most of Christianity's growth is by conversion, not by birth, or "indoctrination" as atheists would claim. Christianity was actually the only faith where this was true. If you think about it historically the earliest growth of Christianity would have had to have been by conversion, even for "indoctrination" to begin.

Christianity is a truly international faith, it can be found in all areas of the world, albeit in lesser and greater forms. Availability does play a factor, but it is no longer a strong argument as in the 21st century more than any other century, Christianity is a global faith. Most Christians don't live in places where Christianity traditionally was. This argument will fade by the end of this century in relation to Christianity, I can guarantee you.

First of all, thanks for the well thought out and eliquent answer Jakkass, your posts are always great to read.

And although i do agree with some of what you're saying, it's hard to argue against the fact that the vast majority of people are religious because they are indoctrinated as children, and their geography at the time decides which version of "God" they will believe in and in which religious version.

MrStuffins

liah wrote: »

Was that really necessary? I thought I'd been pretty diplomatic and fair throughout the thread. Guess I was mistaken. My apologies.

What theory of evolution are you talking about? And what aspect of it is it that you disagree with? Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself, I may have missed your posts on the topic.

I was asking these questins last night. But to no avail!

Outlaw Pete seems to think that there is just one rule for all and everyone who doesn't believe in God believes in it.

Of course, all i got in reply was "Oh, so you didn't mention Darwin eh? So it's MrStuffins's Theory of Evolution then is it?"

Ridiculous!

MrStuffins

Einhard wrote: »

You argue with people in the CT forum?! Madness! :pac:

Well, it wasn't my fault! The thread was started in AH! It got moved and I, stupidly, followed it!

OutlawPete

liah wrote: »

I thought I'd been pretty diplomatic and fair throughout the thread.

What I said was directed at the thread in general, your comment was similar of much of what was said last night, in that users keep persisting to misrepresent the people that don't fully accept the 'Theory of Evolution' as being fact.

It is patronizing in the extreme to ask these people to then explain vaccines, implying that if they have issues with something that Evolution claims, then they must also be denying scientifically proven and observed evidence that viruses / moulds and bacteria etc can and do adapt to their environment.

Einhard

OutlawPete wrote: »

Of FFS!!!

When will you people get it into your head, that just because there are some people that do not accept ALL aspects of the Theory Of Evolution, DOES NOT mean that they do not believe that humans, plants and animals are evolving.

TBH, I think that those who argue against descent from a common ancestor do so out of solipsism more than anything else. I mean, evolution shouldn't be incompatible with a reasonable religious belief, and indeed, in Ireland at least, the majority of Christians would have no problem with it. Even the papacy has backed it to an extent.

And yet people are still determined to ignore (interestingly, rarely refute) the mounatins of scientific data and evidence supporting evolution. And I think it's a lot to do with human vanity. Humans have so long been taught that we were God's own creation, that we were divine, the brethren of the angels, granted dominon over the lower beasts, that it's difficult for some people to believe that this is not the case.

JohnathanM

OutlawPete wrote: »

It is patronizing in the extreme to ask these people to then explain vaccines, implying that if they have issues with something that Evolution claims, then they must also be denying scientifically proven and observed evidence that viruses / moulds and bacteria etc can and do adapt to their environment.

In not accepting evolution's underpinnings in general, you are implicitly suggesting that the application of a universal law is selective - that some forms of life do not survive and adapt more readily to an environment than others. What form of life, given time and environment, will not evolve or become extinct? Or are you pointing to specific elements appearing inconsistent and if so which, and why does that cause a problem in the face of empirical evidence other than to highlight holes in knowledge that will, eventually, be filled?

liah

OutlawPete wrote: »

What I said was directed at the thread in general, your comment was similar of much of what was said last night, in that users keep persisting to misrepresent the people that don't fully accept the 'Theory of Evolution' as being fact.

It is patronizing in the extreme to ask these people to then explain vaccines, implying that if they have issues with something that Evolution claims, then they must also be denying scientifically proven and observed evidence that viruses / moulds and bacteria etc can and do adapt to their environment.

It's just a bit difficult to hear that people don't accept evolution as fact, as you're not defining which theory of evolution it is you have discrepancies with, nor which direct aspects of it are the trouble, but merely lashing out and continuously calling us smug or whatever else.

Yes, a lot of "us" (being atheists, and us used in the loosest term) have been condescending throughout the thread and things did get heated, but that's human nature when involved in a debate such as this, and fueling the fire by recognizing and responding to these remarks in the same manner you're criticizing is only going to make things worse.

My question for you is, from what I've gathered out of what you've said you seem to accept microevolution (e.g. viruses), is it macroevolution you have the problem with? Or is it the actual "beginning" part? Or what?

I find that if I step back from my initial reaction of irritation and just try to focus on the actual argument rather than the choice words, the debate does eventually turn civil again as the people being smug/condescending (on both sides) will generally concede and be fair once the emotion has faded.

MagicMarker

OutlawPete wrote: »

Of FFS!!!

When will you people get it into your head, that just because there are some people that do not accept ALL aspects of the Theory Of Evolution, DOES NOT mean that they do not believe that humans, plants and animals are evolving.

Well, which is it?

OutlawPete wrote: »

For that reason I say that I don't believe in evolution.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Any Atheist that I know is an arrogant cúnt, tbh. They all seem to think that their better than us because we believe that there is a God and we go to mass.

I'm not saying all Atheists are like this, just the ones I know.

Except one fella, he's sound.:pac: