Unpopular Opinions.

Seomra Mushie · 29-01-2012 04:46PM

Larianne wrote: »

The Simpsons is not funny.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

In general, or later episodes?

Yeah, PLEASE don't judge The Simpsons by the post-1998 dreck. That's NOT The Simpsons.

TheZohanS · 29-01-2012 05:01PM

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.

I think that refers to the drunken Irish stereotype, get pist, start fighting.

Geekness1234 · 29-01-2012 05:29PM

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.

breffni666 · 29-01-2012 07:36PM

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.

1. Agree
2. Dont know
3. Absolutely agree as well as Cobh being developed into a NATO naval base, hundreds of millions to the local economy every year forever.
4. Agree, but only for the reasons given foe 3 above.
5. Agreeish, it has its faults like a lot of countries.
6. Mostly agree, we have shown many times that we are incapable of running a small successful economy. Time to let someone else have a go.

The King of Moo · 29-01-2012 07:58PM

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.

It's definitely better to have such a faith in science than religion, and we definitely don't need to know all the details.

I just know a few people who elevate science to some kind of magic, almost anthropomorphicised thing that can definitely solve all the problems of the world, rather than something more realistic.

Zorbas · 29-01-2012 09:01PM

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.

.

Important that atheists dont fall into the same prostelising behaviour as religious zealots. The good thing about athism is that propoganda to get a conversion is unecessary - it does not matter at all how many atheists there are whereas those of religious belief see the "saving of souls" as theri god-given purpose on earth.
Its possible to escape from the guilt-ridden belief system generated by propogandists and just accept the norms of a good non-judgemental and honest, moral way of life but no pressure to go one way or the other. Chill.

Jimoslimos · 29-01-2012 09:17PM

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 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 · 29-01-2012 09:27PM

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??

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.

nicebutdim · 29-01-2012 09:46PM

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

nicebutdim · 29-01-2012 09:49PM

On a completely different note, commenting on youtube videos should be completely disabled. Leave the like/dislike part

Jimoslimos · 29-01-2012 09:57PM

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.

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 · 29-01-2012 10:10PM

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.

By "modern atheist" I simply meant an atheist living now. I probably should have dropped the "modern" and taken that as assumed.

I know there's no specific atheist movement, but there is a noticeable cultural shift in recent years in which atheism (secularism is probably a better term, but atheism tends to be used more often) is a more prominent, persuasive and culturally acceptable force in society. And I welcome that.
I know some people are sometimes held up as leaders or spokespeople, but it's a much broader cultural change.

Finally, I know most atheists aren't trying to convert religious people and are content to just happily get on with their lives, but it's hard to ignore the people who do constantly mock religion and argue that religious beliefs deserve to be mocked and should be (see the "Was Jesus a gay?" thread) even if they are a minority.

Gbear · 29-01-2012 10:12PM

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

It is idiotic to believe something so extraordinary with literally no evidence.
What the "sky fairy" and "zombie jesus" people are doing is being lazy. Those comments are short hand, much the same as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise be upon his noodly appendages:pac:) or Russel's teapot, for demonstrating that we by and large don't believe extraordinary things without evidence.

While this argument is logically sound it fails as a debating technique because it adopts too confrontational a tone. The same point can be made without having to resort to such overt ridicule.

Saying a person is an idiot outright because they believe something stupid is nonsense however. Cognitive dissonance - or essentially partitioning your brain into logical and illogical parts, is what's responsible for this.
There are a whole host of things that smart people believe in for which there is no evidence.
If they were to apply the normal critical criteria they use in the day to day, they wouldn't believe in them.

Grimebox · 29-01-2012 10:18PM

I am of the opinion that believing in Santa Claus once you reach adulthood is foolish

RichieC · 29-01-2012 10:48PM

I think most of the eire bashing on this site is of foriegn origin.

Geekness1234 · 29-01-2012 11:03PM

RichieC wrote: »

I think most of the eire bashing on this site is of foriegn origin.

Concerning the economy or the people?

philologos · 29-01-2012 11:22PM

A few would be -
My Christian beliefs particularly the existence of God,
the importance of Jesus' coming into the world to save mankind from sin through His death and resurrection,
my pro-life stance in respect to abortion,
my lack of patriotism, my skepticism towards the importance of the 1916 Rising in terms of Irish independence,
my views on marriage and family arguably could be unpopular amongst many also.

Mickey Dazzler · 30-01-2012 12:41AM

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 · 30-01-2012 02:26AM

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.

Even if she has AIDs?

Skulldigger · 30-01-2012 03:00AM

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.

LH Pathe · 30-01-2012 03:35AM

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.

true. "mongos" are not just more intelligent than us, but also physically more adept than us.

Nagikami · 30-01-2012 03:44AM

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.

I agree. Based on my experience, I'd say that the Human Race is probably the least intelligent one. =D

PhlegmyMoses · 30-01-2012 03:51AM

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.

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 · 30-01-2012 04:04AM

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.

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

longhalloween · 30-01-2012 04:08AM

People who break the laws of society should not be protected by those laws.

Also people who have a criminal record should not be entitled to social welfare. Just because you were born in this country doesn't give you the right to dick around and then expect to be treated like a normal citizen.

Millicent · 30-01-2012 04:16AM

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?

Or you get an unsafe blood transfusion, come in contact with blood through a cut or open sore or get tattoos? Or if she has or is a carrier for the HIV virus or has contracted AIDS through other means?

That's not an unpopular opinion, that's an extremely unsafe one.

longhalloween · 30-01-2012 04:17AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Surely the onus should be on those who make the claim for religion to prove, not the other way around??

Religion is based on faith and those who are religious should have their beliefs respected, not ridiculed or questioned by atheists.

Conversely, no one should have religion forced on them. I do think that children should be raised according to whatever faith their parents are. There'll be plenty of time for them to make up their own mind when they're older.

Sindri · 30-01-2012 05:01AM

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.

There are studies that show intelligence is mainly influenced by genetic factors. It is mainly heritable.

Seomra Mushie · 30-01-2012 06:16AM

Stephen Fry's intellect and erudition are greatly overstated. He's a smart guy, no doubt, but nothing exceptional IMHO.

iwishiknew · 30-01-2012 10:43AM

I'll run for cover after this, but....United Ireland...no thanks

Unpopular Opinions.

Comments