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

Just a thought...

1…78101213…16

Comments

  • #272
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    DuPLeX wrote: »
    Is there evidence for the non existence of God ?

    This has come up before, suprisingly enough....
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot


  • #273
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    MrPudding wrote: »
    And here is the power of religion. They have convinced people to ignore that fact that it does not make sense, it appears to be bullsh1t and teach them that it is somehow virtuous not believe without evidence. If it wasn't so insidious it would be impressive.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    there is no evidence at all whatsoever for what you are saying

    You always refer to the fact that there is no evidence to prove God, and there isn't. One can offer reasons to believe but nothing can factually prove it to be true, therefore you argue people of faith are somehow stupid to be following an "insidious" load of "bullsh1t".
    Why can't you realize that the very essence of an atheist's argument carries equal weight. There is nothing to prove God's doesn't exist. Absolutely no evidence to prove that the Word of God is nothing more than man made nonsense. All you have to base your argument on is a personal conviction that's its all a bunch of lies and you are confident and happy in that belief, and of course your opinion must be respected. Call it an anti-faith if you wish but your line of thinking is absolutely no different to a person who believes. They too, like myself, have a personal conviction that there is in fact a God who intervenes in our fate. yes its fair to say it can't be proved but either can your argument. We are all the same.
    This debate has changed from merely discussing God to discussing the human mind. We all follow opinions and beliefs which to ourselves seem perfectly legitimate but to shoot them down, like you have done, and claim faith is complete blindness is an attack on your own thinking. You say religion has said its "virtuous to believe without evidence", but haven't you done the exact same thing just from the other side of the fence?
    MrPudding wrote: »
    People believe based on habit, indoctrination and a desire for it to be true.

    Isn't that exactly what you are doing?

    Also "indoctrination" is a terrible choice of word. To assume we are brainwashed into thinking is an insult.
    Surly you can grant the human brain enough credit to make up its own mind based on what it personally sees fit, like what you and I have done, albeit from different sides.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    What you are saying here is you are debating form a closed mind. You have the assumption that a particular god exists and that god has a particular set of attributes. What, then, is the point of debating?

    Aren't you debating from a closed mind? You are certain there is no God so all your opinions emerge from that belief. So, therefore, what is the point of debating?




    Forget about God, the Bible, the Church and everything else for a minute and see religious belief for what it is, a personal conviction that a deity exists.

    Likewise, your personal conviction is that a deity does not exist.

    To attack another is to shoot yourself in the foot as both are the product of the mind.

    It just so happens that in today's society, you're beliefs receive far less criticism and belittlement, while mine are an easy target for modern culture.


  • #274
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    They too, like myself, have a personal conviction that there is in fact a God who intervenes in our fate. yes its fair to say it can't be proved but either can your argument. We are all the same.
    Same point to you, because you are making the same common misunderstanding.

    Do you have a personal faith and conviction that Thor or Zeus or any other god does not exist?
    Do you have any evidence to show they do not exist? If so, please provide this evidence. If not, then why do you not believe they exist?


  • #275
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »

    Do you have a personal faith and conviction that Thor or Zeus or any other god does not exist?
    Do you have any evidence to show they do not exist? If so, please provide this evidence. If not, then why do you not believe they exist?

    I don't. That's exactly what I'm trying to say..

    Do you have evidence that they do or do not exist? No.

    Similarly no one can provide evidence to show God exists or does not exist, only reason to believe or not.

    So what makes your beliefs any less acceptable than mine.


  • #276
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    I don't. That's exactly what I'm trying to say..

    Do you have evidence that they do or do not exist? No.

    Similarly no one can provide evidence to show God exists or does not exist, only reason to believe or not.

    So what makes your beliefs any less acceptable than mine.
    You failed to answer the important question, which should in fact answer yours.

    So given you do not have any evidence at all that those things do not exist, why exactly do you believe they do not?


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »

    So given you do not have any evidence at all that those things do not exist, why exactly do you believe they do not?

    The exact same reason you do not believe the Christian God exists - Personal belief. Did you read my earlier post at all?

    Stop asking for evidence and proof, there is none to suit either argument. When you strip down religious belief, remove the Bible, Church and actually just focus in on what it means to believe in a God, it can be all summed up with the convictions of the person. A personal belief based on a personal viewpoint.

    It is no different to the beliefs of an atheist which are similarly based on the mind of the person themselves.

    Therefore to assume a person of faith is somehow divinely wrong is to attack an atheists beliefs.......which carry equal weight.


  • #278
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    The exact same reason you do not believe the Christian God exists - Personal belief. Did you read my earlier post at all?

    Stop asking for evidence and proof, there is none to suit either argument. When you strip down religious belief, remove the Bible, Church and actually just focus in on what it means to believe in a God, it can be all summed up with the convictions of the person. A personal belief based on a personal viewpoint.

    It is no different to the beliefs of an atheist which are similarly based on the mind of the person themselves.

    Therefore to assume a person of faith is somehow divinely wrong is to attack an atheists beliefs.......which carry equal weight.
    Nope you are still misunderstanding my points and atheism, and now even basic logic.

    You cannot seriously believe or expect others to believe that you have just as much faith in the non-existence of Thor as you do for the existence of you particular god.

    So we have to start from the start. What happens if I present you with the idea of some supernatural thing that you have never heard of or thought about before?
    I offer no evidence to support it's existence, but equally you cannot provide or find any evidence to show that it does not exist.
    Do you have faith in this thing's existance or in it's nonexistance?
    Do you believe it exists or not, and why?


  • #279
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »
    Nope you are still misunderstanding my points and atheism, and now even basic logic.

    I am surly not ignoring basic logic, maybe you are, and i perfectly understand what you're saying. You are so convinced a belief in any God is so distorted so therefore even the concept amuses you. But you are sure there is no God, yet you cant properly explain why. You can definitely give reasons for your choice but can provide no evidence. So why do you believe what you believe? When you think about it you can't really answer that question. similarly I can't answer why I believe in God.
    King Mob wrote: »
    So we have to start from the start. What happens if I present you with the idea of some supernatural thing that you have never heard of or thought about before?
    I offer no evidence to support it's existence, but equally you cannot provide or find any evidence to show that it does not exist.
    Do you have faith in this thing's existance or in it's nonexistance?
    Do you believe it exists or not, and why?

    You have just summed up the mankind's experience with "God". I believe because I know it to be true. You don't believe because you know it not to be true. Each argument is perfectly acceptable. To ask why a person believes, especially when discussing matters such as faith is a pointless exercise as you are delving in to what it means to be human, to ask questions, to search for meaning etc.

    No evidence can truly support mine or your respective arguments so stop asking for it.


  • #280
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Why is it so excruciating to get people to answer questions directly....
    whatsup? wrote: »
    You are so convinced a belief in any God is so distorted so therefore even the concept amuses you. But you are sure there is no God, yet you cant properly explain why.
    None of the above is an accurate description of what I believe.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    You can definitely give reasons for your choice but can provide no evidence. So why do you believe what you believe? When you think about it you can't really answer that question. similarly I can't answer why I believe in God.
    I can explain directly and succinctly why I lack a belief in god. And it is the same logical reason you similarly lack a belief in other gods, other supernatural things or anything I could dream up.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    You have just summed up the mankind's experience with "God". I believe because I know it to be true. You don't believe because you know it not to be true. Each argument is perfectly acceptable. To ask why a person believes, especially when discussing matters such as faith is a pointless exercise as you are delving in to what it means to be human, to ask questions, to search for meaning etc.

    No evidence can truly support mine or your respective arguments so stop asking for it.
    You failed to answer any of the questions. And I was specifically not referring to God as I qualified the point as "a supernatural thing you have never heard of."

    The reasons I lack a belief in god are the exact same reasons you lack a belief in the supernatural thing in the example. But I think we'd be here a while before you will answer the questions that show this.

    First, most atheism, and specifically the version I adhere to, is not a positive belief in the non-existence of god. It is a negative opinion: the position that there is not enough evidence or reasoning to conclude this is a god. It is simply the default logical position on the question of whether there is a god or gods.
    It's the same with all claims, supernatural or otherwise. The base assumption is the null hypothesis ie that the claim is not true and this will only change once there is sufficient evidence or reasoning.

    You don't believe in fairies. You have no evidence that they don't exist, and you can't prove they don't (as you can't prove a negative) and for all you know they *could* exist. But at the same time there's nothing to convince you that they do exist, and assuming that they don't for practicality creates no contradictions in logic or in observation. Then you just apply Occam's razor.

    Your arguments might apply to atheists who positively believe in the non existence for god, but that's not what I or most atheists hold.


  • #281
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    whatsup? wrote: »

    No evidence can truly support mine or your respective arguments so stop asking for it.

    But rational thought and logic would dictate that we are on the right side of the argument. The lack of empirical evidence of any sort weakens yours to that of a fairytale.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why is it so excruciating to get people to answer questions directly....

    None of the above is an accurate description of what I believe.


    I can explain directly and succinctly why I lack a belief in god. And it is the same logical reason you similarly lack a belief in other gods, other supernatural things or anything I could dream up.


    You failed to answer any of the questions. And I was specifically not referring to God as I qualified the point as "a supernatural thing you have never heard of."

    The reasons I lack a belief in god are the exact same reasons you lack a belief in the supernatural thing in the example. But I think we'd be here a while before you will answer the questions that show this.

    First, most atheism, and specifically the version I adhere to, is not a positive belief in the non-existence of god. It is a negative opinion: the position that there is not enough evidence or reasoning to conclude this is a god. It is simply the default logical position on the question of whether there is a god or gods.
    It's the same with all claims, supernatural or otherwise. The base assumption is the null hypothesis ie that the claim is not true and this will only change once there is sufficient evidence or reasoning.

    You don't believe in fairies. You have no evidence that they don't exist, and you can't prove they don't (as you can't prove a negative) and for all you know they *could* exist. But at the same time there's nothing to convince you that they do exist, and assuming that they don't for practicality creates no contradictions in logic or in observation. Then you just apply Occam's razor.

    Your arguments might apply to atheists who positively believe in the non existence for god, but that's not what I or most atheists hold.

    Interesting post.

    So you don't believe in God and base your claim on the same argument that I put forward for not believing in fairies, or Zeus or any other magical mythical creature. That's fine of course. I still fail to see how I'm not making myself clear to you.

    I believe because I believe, simple as. I have no evidence only faith.

    You don't believe because God to you is a supernatural creature like fairies so there is simply not enough evidence to convince you, so you lack a belief.

    Neither of us have evidence. I cant show you that God exists and you can't show me that God does not exist. Neither argument can be proved or ever be proved.

    So in essence either one of us is right and the other wrong or vice verse, but we will never know.

    Each opinion is still valid.


  • #283
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Kivaro wrote: »
    But rational thought and logic would dictate that we are on the right side of the argument. The lack of empirical evidence of any sort weakens yours to that of a fairytale.

    Most definitely incorrect. I could say the exact same thing that a lack of evidence on your behalf weakens your argument. There will never come a time when either argument will be proven beyond doubt.

    And it's an insult to describe my faith as a "fairytale" by the way.


  • #284
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Interesting post.

    So you don't believe in God and base your claim on the same argument that I put forward for not believing in fairies, or Zeus or any other magical mythical creature. That's fine of course. I still fail to see how I'm not making myself clear to you.

    I believe because I believe, simple as. I have no evidence only faith.

    You don't believe because God to you is a supernatural creature like fairies so there is simply not enough evidence to convince you, so you lack a belief.
    Close, you you have to remember that because my position is a negative one I can't provide "evidence for atheism" or "evidence there is no god" or similar, only evidence and reasoning against the claims made for god.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    Neither of us have evidence. I cant show you that God exists and you can't show me that God does not exist. Neither argument can be proved or ever be proved.
    Well no, yours being the positive position can and should have evidence to support it. However since no such evidence exists (almost as if your position is wrong) you are basing your belief on irrational reasons such as "you just do" or faith (aka, the suspension of logic and critical thinking.)
    And further you know that such irrational reasons are not convincing or reasonable because you don't believe them when they are applied to things other than your god. If this was not the case you would have to believe equally in all Gods ever dreamed up and any inane fairytail ever spun because people "just believe" and have faith.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    So in essence either one of us is right and the other wrong or vice verse, but we will never know.

    Each opinion is still valid.
    No they are not, and you know they are not equal.
    Unless you actually want us to think that a belief in fairies or unicorns or any fictional entity I can dream up on the spot are as valid as you belief in god.


  • #285
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »
    Close, you you have to remember that because my position is a negative one I can't provide "evidence for atheism" or "evidence there is no god" or similar, only evidence and reasoning against the claims made for god.

    Okay and in the same way I can't providence evidence for God only reasons in support of the claim for God.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Well no, yours being the positive position can and should have evidence to support it. However since no such evidence exists (almost as if your position is wrong) you are basing your belief on irrational reasons such as "you just do" or faith (aka, the suspension of logic and critical thinking.)

    There is no evidence to support my claim only reasons for believing. Evidence lies with the person and in their own personal belief that there is a God.
    Am I right in saying that you simply don't believe because the idea seems false and you are waiting for evidence? Well there will never be evidence, God will never be proven to you similarly his non existence will never be proven to me.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And further you know that such irrational reasons are not convincing or reasonable because you don't believe them when they are applied to things other than your god. If this was not the case you would have to believe equally in all Gods ever dreamed up and any inane fairytail ever spun because people "just believe" and have faith.

    I understand perfectly. Also I definitely don't believe in fairies or unicorns. Why? because there are not true and instead are only fictional stories. I know thats how you see my faith in that exact same light, as a fictional story. You may ask why I don't equate the same level of belief in God as I do to fairies? Afterall both provide convincing reasons as to not believe..

    I can only answer that based on my personal life including my experiences with friends, family, community etc and a firm unchangeable and strong belief that God is without doubt a real and living person and that his Son Jesus came into this world to redeem us. Of course that's fiction to you and you would view it in the same light as if I condured up a story to describe why I believe in fairies..you would look for proof, realize there is none and then conclude that it must be false. Nothing I can say will show you why I believe.

    Belief in God is different, I can't describe it really. For me to equate it to a belief in mythology is so wrong but that's how you see it and that's fine. God is not some sort of theorem to be proved but an experience to be lived. You cant experience mytholigical creatures but you can experience God.

    I can only speak from my own experiences and I know God is true, I dont need evidence. Call it blindness if you wish or a ignorance of basic logic but I know in myself as do countless millions know that God is real.

    And please don't say "oh you're just basing it on what you want to believe". faith is IMPOSSIBLE to describe, it can't be. You have no idea really. Logic applies to this world but God defies logic.
    King Mob wrote: »
    No they are not, and you know they are not equal.

    All I was saying is our arguments are equal. If you are saying somehow your's is more correct because it's based on pending evidence that I can't submit then you're mistaken. Not every argument can be proven to the human mind. Our arguments are equal except you search for proof, (which you will spend your life searching for, but will never find) while I don't need scientific proof, I know God is real.


  • #286
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Okay and in the same way I can't providence evidence for God only reasons in support of the claim for God.

    There is no evidence to support my claim only reasons for believing. Evidence lies with the person and in their own personal belief that there is a God.
    Am I right in saying that you simply don't believe because the idea seems false and you are waiting for evidence? Well there will never be evidence, God will never be proven to you similarly his non existence will never be proven to me.
    No, the reason you can't provide evidence for God is because there is none.
    But because it is a positive claim that something actually exists there is no barrier for you to find and provide such evidence as there is with providing evidence for a negative.
    Evidence by definition does not lie "in the person", it is objective and verifiable outside of the person and regardless of what they believe.
    And reasons of course can be shown to rely on misunderstandings and faulty logic as yours very much do.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    I understand perfectly. Also I definitely don't believe in fairies or unicorns. Why? because there are not true and instead are only fictional stories. I know thats how you see my faith in that exact same light, as a fictional story. You may ask why I don't equate the same level of belief in God as I do to fairies? Afterall both provide convincing reasons as to not believe..

    I can only answer that based on my personal life including my experiences with friends, family, community etc and a firm unchangeable and strong belief that God is without doubt a real and living person and that his Son Jesus came into this world to redeem us. Of course that's fiction to you and you would view it in the same light as if I condured up a story to describe why I believe in fairies..you would look for proof, realize there is none and then conclude that it must be false. Nothing I can say will show you why I believe.

    Belief in God is different, I can't describe it really. For me to equate it to a belief in mythology is so wrong but that's how you see it and that's fine. God is not some sort of theorem to be proved but an experience to be lived. You cant experience mytholigical creatures but you can experience God.

    I can only speak from my own experiences and I know God is true, I dont need evidence. Call it blindness if you wish or a ignorance of basic logic but I know in myself as do countless millions know that God is real.

    And please don't say "oh you're just basing it on what you want to believe". faith is IMPOSSIBLE to describe, it can't be. You have no idea really. Logic applies to this world but God defies logic.
    That's all well and good, but it's just more waffle you would not believe from someone else.

    You say that you can't experience mythological creatures like you can with god, but this is another positive claim that you cannot back up or explain. And people who do believe in those mythological creatures can say the exact opposite to you with equal conviction and equal support.

    So why do you think these people believe in stuff that is false? How could they possibly have faith in something they can't feel like you think you can feel god?

    And most importantly, how do you know that same reasons can't or don't apply to you?
    whatsup? wrote: »
    All I was saying is our arguments are equal. If you are saying somehow your's is more correct because it's based on pending evidence that I can't submit then you're mistaken. Not every argument can be proven to the human mind. Our arguments are equal except you search for proof, (which you will spend your life searching for, but will never find) while I don't need scientific proof, I know God is real.
    No your argument is not equal to mine as your relies on irrational subjective reasons that can be used by other people who believe different things you don't believe and can be equally applied to random nonsense that anyone can make up.

    You don;t accept someone's faith in Zeus or fairies is as valid as your faith in God.
    So how can your argument be more valid than theirs when it's the exact same?

    How can you argument be valid at all when not only does it equally support ideas you don't believe but also clearly nonsensical made up ones equally well?


  • #287
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    whatsup? wrote: »
    I believe because I know it to be true. You don't believe because you know it not to be true. Each argument is perfectly acceptable. [....] No evidence can truly support mine or your respective arguments so stop asking for it.
    While there's plenty of evidence that could accurately support your position, there's none that does support it. In this forum at least, claims which are presented without evidence will tend to be dismissed without being taken seriously.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    To ask why a person believes, especially when discussing matters such as faith is a pointless exercise
    Again, in this forum, asking why people believe makey-uppey things is standard operating procedure.


  • #288
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    robindch wrote: »
    .Again, in this forum, asking why people believe makey-uppey things is standard operating procedure.

    Well then, prove they are makey-uppey so...


  • #289
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Well then, prove they are makey-uppey so...

    Space tea-pot.


  • #290
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Well then, prove they are makey-uppey so...

    You are asking to prove a negative, that religion is made up. As it has been stated many times before in this forum the burden of proof is on the person making the supernatural claim. For example if I told you there was a colony of leprechauns on pluto and asked you to prove that that is a makey-uppey thing when you looked at me funny you would tell me its silly for you to have to prove such a thing. The burden of proof would clearly lie entirely with me to show that it is true.


  • #291
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Well then, prove they are makey-uppey so...

    Even by your usual posting standards that's a weak post.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    whatsup? wrote: »
    I dont need evidence. Call it blindness if you wish or a ignorance of basic logic but .................while I don't need scientific proof, I know want to believe God is real.
    OK that pretty much sums it up.


  • #293
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Even by your usual posting standards that's a weak post.

    No sorry, if your going to call someones beliefs "makey uppey" then you need to also prove it or else keep your opinions to yourself. None of this double negative / space tea pot / flying spaghetti monster BS that critic atheist usually spew out. So go ahead, prove there is no god! By the way I am an atheist myself. I just don't go around taking the piss out of religious people, I have respect.


  • #294
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    No sorry, if your going to call someones beliefs "makey uppey" then you need to also prove it or else keep your opinions to yourself. None of this double negative / space tea pot / flying spaghetti monster BS that critic atheist usually spew out. So go ahead, prove there is no god! By the way I am an atheist myself. I just don't go around taking the piss out of religious people, I have respect.
    reverse-1275389857_naked-gun-facepalm.gif


  • #295
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    No sorry, if your going to call someones beliefs "makey uppey" then you need to also prove it or else keep your opinions to yourself. None of this double negative / space tea pot / flying spaghetti monster BS that critic atheist usually spew out. So go ahead, prove there is no god! By the way I am an atheist myself. I just don't go around taking the piss out of religious people, I have respect.

    Please show this is 1) possible to do and 2) that an inability to do so either supports the idea of the existence of the thing or someone excludes that thing from the burden of proof.

    You can do this by selecting any entity you don't believe exists and provide the evidence that it does not.

    If you cannot provide exactly what you are asking for then your demand is as silly and ignorant as it would be if it was spewed by a believer.


  • #296
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Look be an atheist, nobody cares. Just leave everyone else alone to believe what they want k. Bloody hell, I'm sick of being associated with church bashers just because I'm an atheist.


  • #297
    SloomyRengen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4 ✭SloomyRengen


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    No sorry, if your going to call someones beliefs "makey uppey" then you need to also prove it or else keep your opinions to yourself. None of this double negative / space tea pot / flying spaghetti monster BS that critic atheist usually spew out. So go ahead, prove there is no god! By the way I am an atheist myself. I just don't go around taking the piss out of religious people, I have respect.

    Do you know of a concept called 'burden of proof'? It essentially means that the onus is on the person professing something to be true to provide evidence, not on the person denying it. This argument can't be used for evolution, for example an evolutionary biologist would never say in a debate 'Why don't you prove evolution isn't true?' It would be asinine and foolish of him/her to use that as an argument. As for respect, the only way that is applicable is to the respect of someones right to hold whatever view they want, not respect for the views themselves, some of which are frankly reprehensible when it comes to God and should be dealt with with the riducule their dogma invites. Any in the public domain is open to piss taking.


  • #298
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Look be an atheist, nobody cares. Just leave everyone else alone to believe what they want k. Bloody hell, I'm sick of being associated with church bashers just because I'm an atheist.
    Well unfortunatly some of us atheists aren't content with just reaching our conclusions without challenging them or thinking about them.

    So can you provide what you are demanding from us ignorant church bashers or not?
    And if you can't, isn't it hypocritical and silly of you to come in here and make such irrelevant, ignorant demands?


  • #299
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Look be an atheist, nobody cares. Just leave everyone else alone to believe what they want k. Bloody hell, I'm sick of being associated with church bashers just because I'm an atheist.
    Do you think secularism is preferable or not?


  • #300
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Look be an atheist, nobody cares. Just leave everyone else alone to believe what they want k. Bloody hell, I'm sick of being associated with church bashers just because I'm an atheist.

    Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. That does not mean those beliefs must (or even should) be respected and free of ridicule.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Look be an vegetarian, nobody cares. Just leave everyone else alone to eat what they want k. Bloody hell, I'm sick of being associated with meat-eater bashers just because I'm a vegetarian.

    Please go post that in the Veggies forum. :)


Advertisement