Jimoslimos wrote: » Surely the onus should be on those who make the claim for religion to prove, not the other way around??
Mickey Dazzler wrote: » As a straight, non-intravenous drug taking man living in the west you have absolutely no chance of catching AIDs by having sex with a woman without a condom.
Grimebox wrote: » Even if she has AIDs?
PhlegmyMoses wrote: » Could you expand on this? No point making the statement without making a case for it. I don't agree with you, by the way. Have a read of some Jared Diamond books. He touches on this quite a bit.
Skulldigger wrote: » In terms of race, just like there are physical disparities between races, intellectual disparities also exist. i.e some races have a higher/lower average IQ than others. Here's another one, a lot of people agree with that but are too much of a shítty arse to admit it.
Skulldigger wrote: » In terms of race, just like there are physical disparities between races, intellectual disparities also exist. i.e some races have a higher/lower average IQ than others.
RichieC wrote: » I think most of the eire bashing on this site is of foriegn origin.
nicebutdim wrote: » This is what led me to address this. Now I would suggest that she is as much trying to promote herself by being controversial rather than any particular philosophy, but I've come across this attitude elsewhere. It is the belief that she is correct and anyone who disagrees with her viewpoint is dismissed out of hand is the crux of my issue. I completely accept that she is not representative of athiesm as a whole.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyA9f-rs1-M
Jimoslimos wrote: » AAARRGGGGHH! You were putting forward a coherent argument right up to this point. I hate that term. What exactly is a "modern atheist"? Sure we could argue everyone else is a "modern" Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. It's a nonsensical phrase, meaning nothing and adding absolutely no value to your main point. Also, since when has atheism become a "movement", other than a way of handily categorising people who don't share a belief in the supernatural. A mass-murdering rapist who doesn't believe in God is an atheist as is the person (who also doesn't believe in the supernatural) who volunteers at the local homeless shelter. I'm pretty sure that a "movement" needs a little bit more common ground than that. Atheists (despite what the Church would have you believe) aren't on a mad crusade to try convert religious folk - if they were, they'd probably have resorted to the cheap tricks practised by most religions by now.
The King of Moo wrote: » They don't have to, you're right, but what I'm saying is that they would be much more likely to persuade religious people that a secular worldview is a valid, worthwhile one by pointing out how it can be of benefit to a person, rather than simply mocking the beliefs of religious people. They don't have to justify their atheism, but if they're debating about its merits it would serve them well if they did. Now they're perfectly entitled to mock anyone they want, but I don't see what constructive purpose that would achieve. If you want to someone to change their religious point of view to a secular one, you're much better off understanding their point of view and acknowledging it before you disagree with it. Ridiculing a religious person is only likely to make the ridiculer more smug and the religious person more entrenched in their beliefs. I'm not saying all modern atheists are like this at all, just enough to give the movement a bad name.
Jimoslimos wrote: » I don't understand why it is felt that atheists should have to justify or prove their "lack of belief" with any arguments at all. Surely the onus should be on those who make the claim for religion to prove, not the other way around??
The King of Moo wrote: » I agree with that, but unfortunately there are too many people arguing for atheism who neglect to provide any of the many good arguments for the position, and instead resort to smug mockery and comments like "Hur hur, religion, you believe in a supernatural being!" or "You believe in a zombie who's the son of a sky fairy!"
The King of Moo wrote: » I agree with that, but unfortunately there are too many people arguing for atheism who neglect to provide any of the many good arguments for the position, and instead resort to smug mockery and comments like "Hur hur, religion, you believe in a supernatural being!" or "You believe in a zombie who's the son of a sky fairy!" I don't see how they think that this will convince religious people. Maybe they think that the thousandth time they hear a smug joke about religion they'll finally realise the folly of their faith. Basically they come across as stupid people trying to sound clever, which just makes them seem more stupid. There are lots of people who sell atheism well, but people like this are not them. I also hate when they say things like "religion can't prove anything, I believe in science!" without knowing the first things about some of the basic tenets of science and the scientific method. .
PhlegmyMoses wrote: » Absolutely. I'm not certain that many of the people who make the sky daddy comments are people who are interested in having a debate. They've read The God Delusion and that is it for them. While it is a terrible soundbite, people can "believe in science" more than they do religion without understanding how Schroedinger's thought experiment works. They don't need to know how chemotherapy works to know that it helped to cure their friend. People can believe in the ability of science to change things without knowing how it works fully.
Geekness1234 wrote: » Unpopular Opinions: 1-most YouTube videos of all types are complete sh!t with very few exceptions. 2-The F-35,despite the increased cost will be a great plane. 3-Shannon airport should've been sold to the U.S. Air Force. 4-Ireland should have joined NATO back in the late 1970's/1980's. 5-America is a great country. 6-As a nation we have proved unable to manage our country and that the IMF being here is our fault completely.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » The ''fighting Irish'' moniker is a load of crap, it was always only a small handful of people who stood up for anything in this country, the rest bend over.
Larianne wrote: » The Simpsons is not funny.
Toby Take a Bow wrote: » In general, or later episodes?
The King of Moo wrote: » I agree with that, but unfortunately there are too many people arguing for atheism who neglect to provide any of the many good arguments for the position, and instead resort to smug mockery and comments like "Hur hur, religion, you believe in a supernatural being!" or "You believe in a zombie who's the son of a sky fairy!" I don't see how they think that this will convince religious people. Maybe they think that the thousandth time they hear a smug joke about religion they'll finally realise the folly of their faith. Basically they come across as stupid people trying to sound clever, which just makes them seem more stupid. There are lots of people who sell atheism well, but people like this are not them. I also hate when they say things like "religion can't prove anything, I believe in science!" without knowing the first things about some of the basic tenets of science and the scientific method. People who make rational arguments for the benefits of atheism while understanding the appeal of religion (something people like Richard Dawkins in particular seem unable to do) are fine in my book. But if someone's clearly out to make cheap jokes about religion and make themeselves feel superior, wrapped up in the veneer of religious debate, then I find it hard to take them seriously. I also wonder why they weren't so vocal ten years ago when there weren't such prominent public arenas where it was considered the norm to be an atheist and being religious would get you laughed at. I'm sure they were ticking "Catholic" on their census forms then. Basically, anyone who uses the term "sky fairy" is an idiot.
