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

When atheists go too far

Options
1…1011131516…47

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    So you leave open the possibility that something may lack an underlying reason.

    I leave it open yes, but I think that all things have an ultimate reason for occurring, some beyond our grasp.
    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    But if there is something infinite then it does not require a cause other than itself?

    If something is infinite then it cannot have a cause.


  • Options
    #363
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    philologos wrote: »
    If something is infinite then it cannot have a cause.
    Yes it can. It can have a clear starting point and be infinite in one direction


  • Options
    #364
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    Yes it can. It can have a clear starting point and be infinite in one direction

    It will be finite in so far as it was created X years ago, or began X years ago. We can't guarantee how long something will exist for except conceptually if we are going to posit infinites.


  • Options
    #365
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    philologos wrote: »
    It will be finite in so far as it was created X years ago, or began X years ago.
    So can we take infinite in this case to mean having always existed?


  • Options
    #366
    Mark200
    Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    philologos wrote: »
    It will be finite in so far as it was created X years ago, or began X years ago. We can't guarantee how long something will exist for except conceptually if we are going to posit infinites.

    In that case, you're arguing that something can't have a cause if it has always existed. How do you know the universe has not always existed? Or how do you know that there wasn't something before the universe?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Elliemental wrote: »
    ...For years, Atheists have had to put and shut up...
    iamstop wrote: »
    I have no problem ridiculing idiots who's beliefs cause harm or hurt to others or hinder progression.

    The two above aptly sums my feelings up.

    That and the fact of which, if you truly believe that freedom of expression which talking in terms of peace-filled open ideas, should be allowed to all, you have to by the turn of a coin, allow an opposition to be saying their words too - even if you disagree with them!

    The religious fanatics have had it their own way far too long.


  • Options
    #368
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Biggins wrote: »
    The two above aptly sums my feelings up.

    That and the fact of which, if you truly believe that freedom of expression which talking in terms of peace-filled open ideas, should be allowed to all, you have to by the turn of a coin, allow an opposition to be saying their words too - even if you disagree with them!

    The religious fanatics have had it their own way far too long.

    Personally I don't have much interest in hindering the common rights and liberties that are deserving to both believers and non-believers. People in this country should have both freedom of and from religion, and the freedom of expression. Unfortunately some religious institutions have hindered this liberty for too long.

    We are a society of believers and non-believers and I do think we should make efforts to tolerate each other. It's when intransigence and intolerance seep in that things become a whole deal more difficult for everyone. Kind of why I detest people claiming that people of faith are idiots or insane because that's just vacuous intolerance, likewise in the other direction.


  • Options
    #369
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    philologos wrote: »
    Personally I don't have much interest in hindering the common rights and liberties that are deserving to both believers and non-believers. People in this country should have both freedom of and from religion, and the freedom of expression. Unfortunately some religious institutions have hindered this liberty for too long.

    We are a society of believers and non-believers and I do think we should make efforts to tolerate each other. It's when intransigence and intolerance seep in that things become a whole deal more difficult for everyone. Kind of why I detest people claiming that people of faith are idiots or insane because that's just vacuous intolerance, likewise in the other direction.

    I detest fanatics on BOTH sides.
    Let the rest quietly sit (or whatever) and cross-communicate - the world would be a much better place.
    ...Yes, I live in hope! :)


  • Options
    #370
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    Of the three you mention, I seem to recall reading that Abe Lincoln, if not an outright atheist, had severe doubts about the existence of any kind of deity or supernatural being.

    Obama and Enda are both "sane" in the sense that they are ambitious politicians and they know which side their bread is buttered on when it comes to getting votes; neither would find it expedient to be in any way doubtful about religion in the country where they have to appeal to the electorate. :D

    But the statement made was that 'no sane person could believe in a deity'............:) So you are taking it upon yourself to declare what YOU perceive Enda's beliefs may or may not be? Curious, to say the least.


  • Options
    #371
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    But the statement made was that 'no sane person could believe in a deity'............:) So you are taking it upon yourself to declare what YOU perceive Enda's beliefs may or may not be? Curious, to say the least.


    It is your interpretation that is, to use your own term, curious. I am not stating that I believe I know what Enda's - or for that matter Obama's - beliefs are. All I am pointing out is that both men are manifestly intelligent, both are clearly ambitious, and both clearly recognise that in their respective countries it is not politically wise to deny the existence of the sky fairy. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to leave open the possibility that neither actually believes in a god. In other words, I was contradicting an earlier poster who seemed to be saying that the fact, as the poster seems to regard it as, that men like them, in that poster's view, believe in a deity disprove's someone else's statement that no sane person could believe in a supreme being.:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ellis Dee: What evidence do you have to suggest that either are closet atheists if that's the implication?*
    * I really detest the insinuation that people must be less intelligent because they believe in God.


  • Options
    #373
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gvn wrote: »
    ....... a lot of religious people argue that good is what God does. So, if God does or wills something, it is inherently good. He can't do or will evil; evil is what God doesn't do or will. God is also the standard by which good and evil are measured. So, everything in the Bible is good, not evil, by that logic........
    With the result we have the crazy situation where by following the example of a blood thirsty war god we have had immeasurable suffering inflicted on people in his name by his minions, all claiming they are doing good.
    philologos wrote: »
    Not really. The Old Testament is a broad collection of 39 books containing Torah law, historical books, poetic books and prophesy.
    A bit of poetry doesn't negate the bloodshed.
    As gvn has pointed out your argument is based on subjective morality. I would hold that morality is entirely objective. Rights and wrongs are based on universal principles. As to where these universal principles come from, I believe they are from God Himself.
    And I believe it is genetic, even dogs have a sense of "fair play" when they play with each other, and with wolf pups if one breaks these rules it is ostracised and as an adult these animals often have to leave the pack.
    Morality I believe is evolutionary as an important part of our being a social species. People who would somehow harm the group would be removed and hence unable to breed.
    He created us with free will and we decided to rebel against Him. I include myself as much as you in that definition. The only difference between you and I is that I've stopped because I've come to realise who God really is and what He has done.
    What has he done that makes him so great?
    We are getting closer to creating life and it is a dinstinct possibility in the near future.
    In a hypothetical situation where we create sentient life do you think the lifeform created should bow down and worship a scientist, just because he was its creator.
    You've clearly rejected God. Hence why you are arguing against His existence.
    We could go around in circles with this one, so I'll leave it.
    IMO, I don't see how Christianity is more illogical than atheism is. I was agnostic for quite a few years but I eventually realised that it didn't make sense (there had to be a truth as to why things are the way they are) and it was simply the result of a lot of confusion about what to believe. I was born with a philosophical mind and as a result I can't just leave questions like this alone.
    This is the main reason for religion, the totally anthropocentric view that there has to be a reason for everything or everything has to have a creator.
    We are tool making and using beings, hence when we see something we automatically assume it had to have been created, that is how our brains are wired, it does not follow that it is true.
    1000 years ago even our brightest minds had no clue what a star was or how one could come about, now kids in school are routinely taught the basis of stellar evolution, no deities needed.

    In the great (possible) infinity of time and space the chance that molecules could arrange themselves into you without a creator, becomes a certainty.


  • Options
    #374
    Mindme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭Mindme


    The Gods put forward so far are just too silly to dwell on.

    We are all here on this unfinished planet not in full control of our own brain. What does that tell you?

    Somethings are way beyond human understanding although there are always some claiming they have 'insider' information. :-)


  • Options
    #375
    Mark200
    Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    It is your interpretation that is, to use your own term, curious. I am not stating that I believe I know what Enda's - or for that matter Obama's - beliefs are. All I am pointing out is that both men are manifestly intelligent, both are clearly ambitious, and both clearly recognise that in their respective countries it is not politically wise to deny the existence of the sky fairy. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to leave open the possibility that neither actually believes in a god. In other words, I was contradicting an earlier poster who seemed to be saying that the fact, as the poster seems to regard it as, that men like them, in that poster's view, believe in a deity disprove's someone else's statement that no sane person could believe in a supreme being.:D

    I'm not sure about Obama's views (he's a secularist, his mother wasn't religious and he said in his first book that if you want to be a politician in Chicago then you have to have a church to go to) but I'm quite convinced that Enda is a religious person.


  • Options
    #376
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Obama has stated that he's a Christian. Why would we assume that he is anything else (atheist, Muslim etc..). He often attends church with his family, and he reads the Bible and prays regularly. Article here.

    At the Hispanic Prayer Breakfast recently he invoked the Torah in respect to immigration policy. Video here.


  • Options
    #377
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    http://politico.ie/social-issues/science-tech/7573-richard-dawkins-interview-world-atheist-convention

    Dawkins said he doesnt mind ridiculing other people's beleifs. Im an agnostic but I really dont see the point in constantly maintianing that anyone witha different view of the world to mine is stupid or wrong. Am I missing out on something here If history has taught us anything is intolerance of other people's beliefs has caused a huge amount of suffering in the past.
    Ever since South Park let rip on Dick Dawkins any time i see him on tv i get a mental image of him and Mr Garrson getting it on.


  • Options
    #378
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    philologos wrote: »
    * I really detest the insinuation that people must be less intelligent because they believe in God.

    The truth hurts.


  • Options
    #379
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    RichieC wrote: »
    The truth hurts.

    The thing is it's verifiably false given that many intelligent people are believers. Indeed the truth may hurt vitriolic anti-theists.


  • Options
    #380
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    RichieC wrote: »
    The truth hurts.
    Respet for the views of others goes a long way when trying to get a point across.


  • Options
    #381
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    http://politico.ie/social-issues/science-tech/7573-richard-dawkins-interview-world-atheist-convention

    Dawkins said he doesnt mind ridiculing other people's beleifs. Im an agnostic but I really dont see the point in constantly maintianing that anyone witha different view of the world to mine is stupid or wrong. Am I missing out on something here If history has taught us anything is intolerance of other people's beliefs has caused a huge amount of suffering in the past.

    I just love that... to be a militant Christian/Muslim/Sikh/Hindu, you need to kill people. Preferably more than one.

    To be a militant atheist, you just have to laugh at others....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Show Time wrote: »
    Respet for the views of others goes a long way when trying to get a point across.

    I've no respect for religious views. It's an crutch for the weak and ex booze/drug hounds.


  • Options
    #383
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    RichieC wrote: »
    I've no respect for religious views. It's an crutch for the weak and ex booze/drug hounds.
    Fair enough, Tis easy to be narrow minded about this sort of stuff.


  • Options
    #384
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Show Time wrote: »
    Fair enough, Tis easy to be narrow minded about this sort of stuff.

    exactly, look how prevalent religion is.


  • Options
    #385
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    philologos wrote: »
    Ellis Dee: What evidence do you have to suggest that either are closet atheists if that's the implication?*
    * I really detest the insinuation that people must be less intelligent because they believe in God.

    The operative word in your question being "if".:)

    I am not implying that either man is a "closet atheist", just pointing out that their profession of religiosity does not necessarily prove conclusively that they actually believe in any of that stuff. They may, or they may not. But it would be political suicide in Ireland or, especially, the USA to be openly atheist.

    We cannot know for sure what they believe. What we do know for sure is that both are politicians, and consummate ones at that. And I probably wouldn't be going too far out on a very thin limb if I said we must all bear in mind that the possibility of a politician telling the odd little porkie cannot be entirely ruled out.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #386
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    I am not implying that either man is a "closet atheist", just pointing out that their profession of religiosity does not necessarily prove conclusively that they actually believe in any of that stuff. They may, or they may not. But it would be political suicide in Ireland or, especially, the USA to be openly atheist.

    That's exactly what you're saying. Both are closet atheists? What reason do you have to believe this? Or is it just that horrifying to think that Christians in many cases are intelligent just as many atheists are? :pac:
    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    We cannot know for sure what they believe. What we do know for sure is that both are politicians, and consummate ones at that. And I probably wouldn't be going too far out on a very thin limb if I said we must all bear in mind that the possibility of a politician telling the odd little porkie cannot be entirely ruled out.:rolleyes:

    We can just trust their sincerity as we do most people in terms of their beliefs. Their beliefs are up to them and God.


  • Options
    #387
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    RichieC wrote: »
    exactly, look how prevalent religion is.
    I myself distrust any form of religion as i am not to keen on getting sucked into a cult, But anyone who wishes to play along is more the welcome to in my book as i would not go out of my way to force my view(or lack of one) on anyone who is into the holy joe stuff. As i said best of luck to them and each to their own.


  • Options
    #388
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    philologos wrote: »
    Obama has stated that he's a Christian. Why would we assume that he is anything else (atheist, Muslim etc..). He often attends church with his family, and he reads the Bible and prays regularly. Article here.

    At the Hispanic Prayer Breakfast recently he invoked the Torah in respect to immigration policy. Video here.


    As I have already pointed out, Obama is 1) a politician, 2) he is ambitious, 3) he knows that in the USA he would have little chance of being elected dogcatcher unless he professed to be religious, went to church and let the media report that he prays ...

    After all, the USA is a country where millions of people still believe that dinosaurs once co-existed on the planet, that a relatively primitive tribe of people thousands of years ago built a wooden ship bigger than the Titanic, that a volume of water great enough to carry that vessel to near the summit of a mountain over 3,000 metres tall fell in the space of a few weeks and then disappeared to somewhere without leaving any traces, that a deity put people in a beautiful garden where they could enjoy everything but not eat the fruit of one tree (significantly, the Tree of Knowledge, so dumbing down was the name of the game from the beginning), where there was a snake that spoke archaic English --- puhleeese!

    Those people are not ready for reason. But they have the vote.:mad:


  • Options
    #389
    Mindme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭Mindme


    We learnt religion as children, and how to add two and two together.

    As we grew older doubts set in about religion, but not the maths. :-)


  • Options
    #390
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ellis Dee: I think it's more conspiracy theory material alá Obama is a Muslim hysteria but each to their own :)
    Mindme wrote: »
    As we grew older doubts set in about religion, but not the maths. :-)

    Kind of defeats the purpose of the faith as "indoctrination" thesis? No? :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Show Time wrote: »
    I myself distrust any form of religion as i am not to keen on getting sucked into a cult, But anyone who wishes to play along is more the welcome to in my book as i would not go out of my way to force my view(or lack of one) on anyone who is into the holy joe stuff. As i said best of luck to them and each to their own.

    That be great, only problem is they want laws that reflect their insanity.

    The day religion fk's off out of politics or starts paying tax is the day I stop giving them ****.

    Actually fk the paying tax bit, let them fk off out of politics.


Advertisement