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

Godless students

kuro_man

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/students-rate-looking-good-as-more-important-than-religion-603483.html

some interesting data...

Also...

One in five students responded that they were Atheists.

..with a capital A, I wonder did Mr. Nugent lobby for this.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

seamus

mickrock wrote: »

What factual knowledge do atheists have about, for example, how life could have originated by accident from inorganic matter and how DNA could have come about?

What factual knowledge do theists have about the matter?

Note, I'm looking for factual knowledge, not myths and legends written 3 millenia ago.

PopePalpatine

The latter half of mickrock's username is appropriate when it comes to discussing evolution.

5uspect

mickrock wrote: »

What factual knowledge do atheists have about, for example, how life could have originated by accident from inorganic matter and how DNA could have come about?

None, just hope and belief that one day it'll all be figured out. They have faith in the fairy tale that chance and physical laws will be adequate explanations.

Why don't you go do a lit review of the scientific literature and let us know. Have you ever read a Journal paper?

mickrock

seamus wrote: »

What factual knowledge do theists have about the matter?

Note, I'm looking for factual knowledge, not myths and legends written 3 millenia ago.

Neither side has any factual knowledge of what happened but the more reasonable explanation or inference would be that intelligence was involved.

To rule out an intelligent cause at the outset just because you don't like the idea would be short sighted.

Knowing what we now know, saying that life and DNA just happened by accident would be like saying it happened by magic. The idea that it happened by accident is more ridiculous than the idea of an intelligent cause.

kylith

mickrock wrote: »

Neither side has any factual knowledge of what happened but the more reasonable explanation or inference would be that intelligence was involved.

To rule out an intelligent cause at the outset just because you don't like the idea would be short sighted.

Knowing what we now know, saying that life and DNA just happened by accident would be like saying it happened by magic. The idea that it happened by accident is more ridiculous than the idea of an intelligent cause.

It's not that we don't like the idea, it's that there is absolutely zero evidence for it.

longhalloween

I wonder what the answer would be if they posed the question "When was the last time you went to mass on your own volition?"

I doubt they'd get a 10% positive response to that.

mickrock

kylith wrote: »

It's not that we don't like the idea, it's that there is absolutely zero evidence for it.

There's zero evidence for abiogenesis, yet it's accepted by many as what must have happened. I'd call it wishful thinking.

Cabaal

mickrock wrote: »

Neither side has any factual knowledge of what happened but the more reasonable explanation or inference would be that intelligence was involved.

To rule out an intelligent cause at the outset just because you don't like the idea would be short sighted.

Knowing what we now know, saying that life and DNA just happened by accident would be like saying it happened by magic. The idea that it happened by accident is more ridiculous than the idea of an intelligent cause.

Ok, lets ignore ALL the evidence and go with what you are saying,

The intelligence was Gaia, the christian god is all a lie and its utter nonsense and Gaia is far older and she created life on earth. Uranus created the galaxy's and stars.

Happy now? No?

Bannasidhe

mickrock wrote: »

There's zero evidence for abiogenesis, yet it's accepted by many as what must have happened. I'd call it wishful thinking.

This post overwhelmed me with Deja Poo.

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

There's zero evidence for abiogenesis, yet it's accepted by many as what must have happened. I'd call it wishful thinking.

but accepting the idea of an intelligence, that has no proof of their existence, created matter from nothing isn't?

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

Neither side has any factual knowledge of what happened but the more reasonable explanation or inference would be that intelligence was involved.

Mick, you've been asked time and again not to assume that everybody shares your thundering cluelessness of biology.

There are people who have studied this stuff and have come to reasonably reliable answers on it, even though you're unaware of them and their work and knowing that you have no interest in either.

If you'd like to improve the rep of creationists here -- and heaven knows, it could hardly be worse -- you could try to remember these facts for longer than the time it takes to do a really, really long fart.

5uspect

mickrock wrote: »

Neither side has any factual knowledge of what happened but the more reasonable explanation or inference would be that intelligence was involved.

To rule out an intelligent cause at the outset just because you don't like the idea would be short sighted.

Knowing what we now know, saying that life and DNA just happened by accident would be like saying it happened by magic. The idea that it happened by accident is more ridiculous than the idea of an intelligent cause.

But the intelligence is magic right?

maguic24

kylith wrote: »

I mean Mammys filling in the census on behalf of their children and putting them down as Catholic regardless of the young person actual stance on religion.

Last census we had reports on here of parents changing what their children had put down, putting them down as RCC even though their child had told them not to, that kind of thing.

My mammy does this despite the fact she knows I'm an atheist...

Haven't lived at home since I was 17.....I've been renting and move a lot so it's easier to get sh*t sent there....

mickrock

koth wrote: »

but accepting the idea of an intelligence, that has no proof of their existence, created matter from nothing isn't?

I'm talking about the origin of life from matter, not the creation of matter. That's a separate issue.

If something has the appearance of design the default position should be that it was designed, unless it can be shown otherwise. As time goes on it's becoming increasingly clear that ways of trying to explain the appearance of design by undirected, unintelligent means are looking weaker and weaker.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

If something has the appearance of design the default position should be that it was designed, unless it can be shown otherwise. As time goes on it's becoming increasingly clear that ways of trying to explain the appearance of design by undirected, unintelligent means are looking weaker and weaker.

Mick, you've been asked time and again not to assume that everybody shares your thundering cluelessness of biology.

There are people who have studied this stuff and have come to reasonably reliable answers on it, even though you're unaware of them and their work and having no interest in either.

If you'd like to improve the rep of creationists here -- and heaven knows, it could hardly be worse -- you could try to remember these facts for longer than the time it takes to do a really, really long fart.

mickrock

SmilingLurker wrote: »

Scientists have many hypotheses, none of which meet criteria to be accepted. In summary, scientists do not know yet. No fairy tale. No faith. Not enough evidence.

Given a choice of magic man in the sky or inorganic matter forming life over a very large period of time under some currently unknown circumstances, I choose the latter as more likely given the balance of probabilities.

Not knowing answers is not a weakness.

You say not knowing answers is not a weakness.

Likewise I don't see the idea that it might have an intelligent cause to be a weakness either, as you seem to do.

Sarky

You don't see because you are doing your level best to ensure you remain blind

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

I'm talking about the origin of life from matter, not the creation of matter. That's a separate issue.

If something has the appearance of design the default position should be that it was designed, unless it can be shown otherwise. As time goes on it's becoming increasingly clear that ways of trying to explain the appearance of design by undirected, unintelligent means are looking weaker and weaker.

No, you're not.

Humans seem as if designed, ergo designer.
Earth seems designed as it supports human life, ergo designer.

The designer(s) of Earth and humans also seem designed (because humans are).

The universe must be designed to support the Earth-designers.

And so on, ad infinitaum. You're kicking the can down the road. At some point you have to have life that arose without a designer. Otherwise, you're putting forward "God did it".

Knasher

mickrock wrote: »

I'm talking about the origin of life from matter, not the creation of matter. That's a separate issue.

If something has the appearance of design the default position should be that it was designed, unless it can be shown otherwise. As time goes on it's becoming increasingly clear that ways of trying to explain the appearance of design by undirected, unintelligent means are looking weaker and weaker.

Isn't it your position, as a christian (I assume), that the entire universe moves exactly to gods plan, that literally everything is designed. So what frame of reference would you have to recognise something that isn't designed? If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

robindch

btw, now that this has deteriorated into discussing creationism, any further creationism-related posts will be moved to A+A's god-did-it thread.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

btw, now that this has deteriorated into discussing creationism, any further creationism-related posts will be moved to A+A's god-did-it thread.

Fair warning! All subsequent posts about creationism/ID were moved to the above address.

lazygal

Nice to hear god has designed such a good system of dealing with creationism. Praise be!!

Turtwig

lazygal wrote: »

Nice to hear Mod has designed such a good system of dealing with creationism. Praise be!!

FYP.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

FYP.

lazygal wrote: »

Nice to hear god has designed such a good system of dealing with creationism. Praise be!!

With a lower case 'g' - such a modest Mod too.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With a lower case 'g' [...]

It's traditional around here.

Handsome Bob

These threads are always hilarious, consisting of the stamping of feet and posters condescendingly declaring "people are atheist; they just don't know it/haven't got the balls to admit it."

Doctor DooM

Handsome Bob wrote: »

These threads are always hilarious, consisting of the stamping of feet and posters condescendingly declaring "people are atheist; they just don't know it/haven't got the balls to admit it."

Ok, when 50% claim to be catholic yet80% agree with something directly against catholic teachings, how do you describe the discrepancy?

You see condescension, I'd say most people see frustration at the influence of a ridiculous organisation over our society for no good reason.

Bannasidhe

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Ok, when 50% claim to be catholic yet80% agree with something directly against catholic teachings, how do you describe the discrepancy?

You see condescension, I'd say most people see frustration at the influence of a ridiculous organisation over our society for no good reason.

Indeed - if the RCC ever introduced a whip system their ranks would be decimated after the first vote.

Handsome Bob

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Ok, when 50% claim to be catholic yet80% agree with something directly against catholic teachings, how do you describe the discrepancy?

It's a discrepancy that doesn't bother me as long as that 80% stick to their beliefs when the time comes for them to vote on such issues. If they do then what religion someone associates with is irrelevant to me.

Doctor DooM

Handsome Bob wrote: »

It's a discrepancy that doesn't bother me as long as that 80% stick to their beliefs when the time comes for them to vote on such issues. If they do then what religion someone associates with is irrelevant to me.

Well, if it doesn't bother you that's ok for you... but it's not so for everyone else.

Do a quick search in this forum and find the many, many cases where people can't find a school place for their children, because the majority of schools are catholic.

I've several personal horror stories from times in catholic hospitals. I had no alternative, there was none.

Although things are finally starting to turn, in the past the Catholic Church claimed all these public services because based on what people failed to say they represented the "majority" of the country. In the census, see.

In an ideal world you'd be right and religion would be a strictly personal thing and it wouldn't affect anyone but the person themselves. Sadly, we don't have that luxury here.