The Hazards of Belief

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason that post you pulled from a year ago is irrelevant now, is because it's over a year old, and I for one anyway allow for the fact that people's opinions change over time. I know mine does, does yours? What he seemed to be implying was interpreted that way by a couple of posters here, but I personally don't keep scores on people's opinions. Their opinion is only relevant for the time in which we are now. Pulling their opinion from a year ago to undermine their opinion now is just underhanded and unnecessary IMO.

Very good, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that his option has changed. Whilst I am all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, and I really am, once the doubt has been taken away then unless I see something to indicate a change, then I am afraid I will stick with what I know. What we have here is a poster that has certain views, views that are in common with certain other posters that have other particular views. This will raise a certain air of suspicion. Then there is a post which can, quite reasonably, ben interpreted a particular way, this is reasonable due to the particular views that seem to be held by this person, and persons that share other views this person holds. Then we have the denial. Ah now, that isn't what I meant, what I meant was <insert something that (seriously OEJ) really, really doesn't make any sense using any kind of logic or grammar that I am aware of>. OK, now I am really suspicious, so I do a search.

And I will say something else. I object to your characterisation of my actions as underhanded. We have a poster that has said something easily interpreted as meaning A, he then says ah no, I meant B, even though B does not make sense in the context. I then discover he has previously said A, and I am the underhanded one? Really OEJ, have a word.

My view on fran17 would have been completely different had he said, "you know what guys, a year ago I did believe there was a connection between homosexuality and child abuse, but I have done some research and now I realise that this is not the case, and it is actually quite an offensive view to hold. What I actually meant here was..." But he didn't. He came up with some crappy interpretation of his words that really don't make any sense at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That must be quite the little dossier on posters you have there

Not really, but certain nasty attitudes and views stick in my craw. Should I apologise for that? I really like the way we have a person drawing a connection between homosexuality and child abuse and you are trying to make the persona calling him out the bad guy. Your parents must be very proud. You aren't an RCC bishop by any chance, are you?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seriously Mr P, let it go, you'll feel better for it.

I feel absolutely fine. Slightly irritated that I am being accused of being underhanded, but aside from that I am fine.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd tell you myself that I'm often inconsistent depending upon how well a person can argue their case without descending to having to use underhanded tactics to undermine another person's opinion. Once they engage in that sort of behaviour, they've lost their case as far as I'm concerned, personally.

I really am struggling to get my head round this, calling someone out for appearing to be less than truthful about their views is underhanded now? And we can all be a little inconsistent in our arguments and posts, but thinking there is, on the one hand, a connection between homosexuality and child abuse and on the other, that there isn't is a little more than mere inconsistency.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You may of course have a different view that says once a person expresses an opinion, they are never allowed to change their opinion, and must always be reminded of the opinion they once held. I'm just not sure how useful a strategy that is, beyond mere mud slinging.

I absolutely hold the view that a person is entitle

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That might work for some people who demand that people retract their previous opinions and statements they made in the past, but I'm more than willing to work with the opinion someone expresses in the here and now rather than trudge over old ground with them. I don't see the purpose in it other than an attempt to humiliate a person, and seeing as I wouldn't like it done to me, I'm sure as hell not going to try and do it to someone else.

That's just me though, I'm more interested in someone's argument, than being interested in lording it over them. I don't believe that evet contributes very constructively to a discussion.

Ah, more insults for me, awesome. Now I am trying to humiliate and lord it over him? Really?

I would love to work with the opinion he is expressing now, but it doesn't make any sense. His words don't match with his reasoning. His "meaning" for the consequences of repressing one's sexuality reads more like furious back peddling and damage control and any genuine meaning for the phrase. His previously stated view, that there is a connection between homosexuality and child abuse is a much better explanation for the phrase he used.

MrP

Cabaal

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36189614

Indonesian police have confiscated a sex toy from a remote village after its inhabitants and some on social media mistook it for an "angel".

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

That is all very nice but it has zero relevance to the discussion

Actually it's very relevant to this particular discussion. It was a direct response to your post, and to be perfectly honest, if someone demanded that I retract statements I made in the past which were completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I'd be telling them in no uncertain terms to step off.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually it's very relevant to this particular discussion. It was a direct response to your post, and to be perfectly honest, if someone demanded that I retract statements I made in the past which were completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I'd be telling them in no uncertain terms to step off.

Why not just let the poster in question clarify for him/herself ?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Why not just let the poster in question clarify for him/herself ?

I have no doubt fran is able to clarify anything for himself (not that he should have to if posters didn't wilfully misconstrue what was actually written, and there was no mention of paedophilia in that post), but other posters are not the only people with the right to call people out on their bullshìt.

I would have been more than willing to let it go, but I was asked by Mr P to explain a post that he had pulled from fran's post history from over a year ago. Now that might be an acceptable discussion tactic to Mr P and yourself, but I consider it underhanded personality politics.

The irony that in a thread titled 'the hazards of belief', in a forum where most posters will have changed their beliefs, yet they make no allowances for the fact that other people may change, modify, or even abandon their previous beliefs upon being presented with new information.

fran17

marienbad wrote: »

Why not just let the poster in question clarify for him/herself ?

I have clarified it twice already.Yes their is things I said in the past which I regret,they were ill judged and some were,well,down right stupid.Some were for dramatic value and others in response to what was at times vicious personal attacks on myself.
This is my response to being questioned on the matter in the past:

http://www.boards.ie/vbuttetin/showthread.php?p=91101958

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057241068&page=52

MrPudding

I'll try one more...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no doubt fran is able to clarify anything for himself (not that he should have to if posters didn't wilfully misconstrue what was actually written, and there was no mention of paedophilia in that post), but other posters are not the only people with the right to call people out on their bullshìt.

I did not willfully misconstrue. I willfully construed based on the experience, as I have stated previously, that posters that hold certain views about certain things often hold other views. The other view, in this case, being that homosexuality is linked to paedophilia.

Whilst I appreciate that you have fully accepted fran17's "explanation", I'm sorry, but I don't. It simply does not make any sense either in logic, in grammar or in the context of the discussion, you the reasons I went into above.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would have been more than willing to let it go, but I was asked by Mr P to explain a post that he had pulled from fran's post history from over a year ago.

Here's the thing, I didn't ask you to explain anything. I pointed out that the post I found from all the way back last year kind of backed up the interpretation of those posters that thought there was something a little off. I invited you to give an alternative meaning to his words, if you so chose, but I did not need you to explain what they meant, as I believe the meaning is quite clear.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now that might be an acceptable discussion tactic to Mr P and yourself, but I consider it underhanded personality politics.

Again with the insults. I am still struggling to see how it is underhanded to actually try to understand a poster's opinion on a subject to understand what that poster means when they say something either ambiguous or unclear.

Whilst it is super awesome that you take everyone at their word and give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but the benefit of the doubt should only go so far. I think it is perfectly acceptable when one thinks someone is perhaps being a little dishonest, to seek some clarification. If that clarification either does not come or, when it does, it doesn't make sense, then I don't see the big deal in seeing if that poster has said anything on this subject in the past. Top be perfectly honest, I don't consider that to be underhanded. What I do consider to be underhanded is saying something and then trying to pass it off with some feeble excuse when people take a certain meaning from you words, when the meaning they have taken is exactly something you have said in the past.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The irony that in a thread titled 'the hazards of belief', in a forum where most posters will have changed their beliefs, yet they make no allowances for the fact that other people may change, modify, or even abandon their previous beliefs upon being presented with new information.

One of my previous posts got cut off, I have just noticed. I had written a bit about this, I will try again.

I am actually quite happy for people to change their mind. Particularly on receipt of newer or better information. In fact, I get really irritated when politicians are criticised for changing their minds on something, flip-flopping. I don't want a politician that has a pre-conceived idea and refuses to change his mind even in the face of evidence showing he is wrong. That is not a weakness, that is not a flaw, that is something we should all aspire to. So I fully support a person's right to change his mind.

That said, I will not simply assume someone has changed their mind. That is stretching "benefit of the doubt" a little further than I think it should be stretched. If someone espouses a particular view and does not clarify that their position has changed then benefit of the doubt should not apply. They have confirmed a view. The box is open and the cat is either dead or it is alive, there is no doubt to be given the benefit of. If that is no longer his position then I will be delighted. But I am sorry, until he tells me that he now accepts marriage equality as something that was right and proper to legislate for and that he no longer thinks that homosexuality is synonymous with child abuse or some "sinister undercurrent", then I am sorry, but I will go with what I know.

MrP

MrPudding

fran17 wrote: »

I have clarified it twice already.Yes their is things I said in the past which I regret,they were ill judged and some were,well,down right stupid.Some were for dramatic value and others in response to what was at times vicious personal attacks on myself.
This is my response to being questioned on the matter in the past:

http://www.boards.ie/vbuttetin/showthread.php?p=91101958

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057241068&page=52

I think your first link is broken. I apologise that I missed your previous clarifications that your views had changed, and I am glad you made the effort to get the information you needed to do that.

I feel all warm inside now...

MrP

fran17

MrPudding wrote: »

I think your first link is broken. I apologise that I missed your previous clarifications that your views had changed, and I am glad you made the effort to get the information you needed to do that.

I feel all warm inside now...

MrP

Yes for whatever reason that link does not work but that link is to a post which can be found on the previous page of the link which does work.No apology necessary MrP,the medium of online communication can be fraught at times.

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

I'll try one more...

I did not willfully misconstrue. I willfully construed based on the experience, as I have stated previously, that posters that hold certain views about certain things often hold other views. The other view, in this case, being that homosexuality is linked to paedophilia.

Whilst I appreciate that you have fully accepted fran17's "explanation", I'm sorry, but I don't. It simply does not make any sense either in logic, in grammar or in the context of the discussion, you the reasons I went into above.

The thing is though - there was simply no mention of paedophilia in that post! It was a conversation about homosexuality within the priesthood, nothing more. Take a look again at what was said, and the context in which it was said (bold emphasis my own):

fran17 wrote: »

Generalise and stereotype at will,it wont make it true though.
Ah,no I don't believe I made the argument for the RCC being a good,bad or indifferent place for gay men to reside.While there may be no conclusive evidence regarding this matter there is a number of studies which very much conclude that the percentage of gay men in the RCC is vastly higher than in the general population as a whole.A US study in the 1990's estimated it to be as high as 33% while another ranged it anywhere from 15-58%.
Why,baring in mind religious teachings on the matter,would such a disproportionate amount enter the priesthood?What is the net gain?

Custardpi wrote: »

Assuming those figures are accurate could it be possible (just wildly speculating here, could be wrong) that in previous eras men who for some strange reason showed a reluctance/inability to settle down with a nice girl would be likely candidates to be gently (or perhaps not so gently) nudged towards a vocation by their family as a "respectable" alternative?

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I agree,this would seem to be the most logical explanation.I can recall a priest on Joe Duffy in the recent past claiming that half of his class in Maynooth were gay men.This of course was decades past.The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.
Thankfully nowadays most people can,in general,be who they are and live the lives they wish to live.

NO mention of, and no allusion to, and no connection with paedophilia.

MrPudding wrote: »

Here's the thing, I didn't ask you to explain anything. I pointed out that the post I found from all the way back last year kind of backed up the interpretation of those posters that thought there was something a little off. I invited you to give an alternative meaning to his words, if you so chose, but I did not need you to explain what they meant, as I believe the meaning is quite clear.

Hmm...

MrPudding wrote: »

See OEJ, this is why we sometimes take a certain meaning form certain words, particulalry when the words are form certain posters. It's because we have seen it before, not necessarily from the same poster, but sometimes from the same type of poster. Or perhaps you would like to explain how the quote above does not say what it appears to say and means something else.

That looks like an invitation to explain what another user meant in the post you quoted from a previous and unrelated discussion.

MrPudding wrote: »

Again with the insults. I am still struggling to see how it is underhanded to actually try to understand a poster's opinion on a subject to understand what that poster means when they say something either ambiguous or unclear.

Whilst it is super awesome that you take everyone at their word and give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but the benefit of the doubt should only go so far. I think it is perfectly acceptable when one thinks someone is perhaps being a little dishonest, to seek some clarification. If that clarification either does not come or, when it does, it doesn't make sense, then I don't see the big deal in seeing if that poster has said anything on this subject in the past. Top be perfectly honest, I don't consider that to be underhanded. What I do consider to be underhanded is saying something and then trying to pass it off with some feeble excuse when people take a certain meaning from you words, when the meaning they have taken is exactly something you have said in the past.

I'n afraid we'll have to disagree on our standards of perfectly acceptable standards in a discussion.

I would however appreciate clarification on the part in bold, because when you invited me to explain something, and then claim only minutes later that you didn't ask me to explain something, trying to pass it off with some feeble excuse that you were inviting me to give an alternative meaning when I take your words exactly as you have written them, and the meaning I took from them is exactly what you had written in the previous post. By your own standards, that is an underhanded tactic in a discussion.

Awkward...

MrPudding wrote: »

One of my previous posts got cut off, I have just noticed. I had written a bit about this, I will try again.

I noticed it myself, and while it didn't make any sense either in logic, in grammar or in the context of the discussion, I wasn't going to be a dick about it as I got the general gist of what you were saying from the post as a whole.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am actually quite happy for people to change their mind. Particularly on receipt of newer or better information. In fact, I get really irritated when politicians are criticised for changing their minds on something, flip-flopping. I don't want a politician that has a pre-conceived idea and refuses to change his mind even in the face of evidence showing he is wrong. That is not a weakness, that is not a flaw, that is something we should all aspire to. So I fully support a person's right to change his mind.

That said, I will not simply assume someone has changed their mind. That is stretching "benefit of the doubt" a little further than I think it should be stretched. If someone espouses a particular view and does not clarify that their position has changed then benefit of the doubt should not apply. They have confirmed a view. The box is open and the cat is either dead or it is alive, there is no doubt to be given the benefit of. If that is no longer his position then I will be delighted. But I am sorry, until he tells me that he now accepts marriage equality as something that was right and proper to legislate for and that he no longer thinks that homosexuality is synonymous with child abuse or some "sinister undercurrent", then I am sorry, but I will go with what I know.

MrP

None of that was actually relevant though to anything fran had said in their post, and if you read it again, you'll see that the post was nothing to to with marriage equality, or any suggestion that homosexuality is synonymous with child abuse, and the only posters perceiving a "sinister undercurrent" to the post, were those posters that were reading into things that weren't there:

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I agree,this would seem to be the most logical explanation.I can recall a priest on Joe Duffy in the recent past claiming that half of his class in Maynooth were gay men.This of course was decades past.The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.
Thankfully nowadays most people can,in general,be who they are and live the lives they wish to live.

The epitome of a hazard of their own belief - confirmation bias.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36189614

Indonesian police have confiscated a sex toy from a remote village after its inhabitants and some on social media mistook it for an "angel".

I wonder if it was wearing the hijab when the fishermen found it, or would they have dressed it up? It just seems odd.
The (real) local women as seen in the photo do not seem to wear headscarves.

Links234

Only God Controls The Weather

I'd seriously love to round up everyone who voted for this complete and utter plonker, and make them watch the Nicolas Cage version of The Wicker Man as punishment.

Custardpi

The Healy Raes are smarter than people give them credit for - great on the ground operators. His position on climate change may be the opposite one to practically all scientists but there's a definite audience out there for that kind of denial/scepticism & he's obviously looking to capitalise on that.

Lurkio

Links234 wrote: »

Only God Controls The Weather

I'd seriously love to round up everyone who voted for this complete and utter plonker, and make them watch the Nicolas Cage version of The Wicker Man as punishment.

He won't let ye though. He looks after his own. Personally I look forward to a return to clan based regional politics, and the attendant frivolity of cattle raids and feuding that will accompany it.

robindch

Custardpi wrote: »

His position on climate change may be the opposite one to practically all scientists but there's a definite audience out there for that kind of denial/scepticism & he's obviously looking to capitalise on that.

It's not skepticism, but hands-over-eyes blanket denialism. The belief that you can get something for nothing, or make somebody else pay for your own consumption. The simple-minded prerogative of the perpetual motion machine salesman. The hunting yowl of every clueless anti-Irish Water buffoon who ever drew breath.

oscarBravo

Custardpi wrote: »

The Healy Raes are smarter than people give them credit for - great on the ground operators. His position on climate change may be the opposite one to practically all scientists but there's a definite audience out there for that kind of denial/scepticism & he's obviously looking to capitalise on that.

It's an interesting perspective. It suggests that he's either a complete ****ing idiot, or the worst kind of deceitful pandering gob****e imaginable, with pretty much no other possibilities.

Either way: well done, Kerry. In a representative democracy, this is who you chose to represent you.

robindch

Links234 wrote: »

Only God Controls The Weather

Here's the excellent Mr Healy-Rae explaining his beliefs concerning the weather, the "combustible engine" and a famine in the 1740's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z28xVdck_ts

marienbad

robindch wrote: »

Here's the excellent Mr Healy-Rae explaining his beliefs concerning the weather, the "combustible engine" and a famine in the 1740's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z28xVdck_ts

He is correct on the famine .

Custardpi

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's an interesting perspective. It suggests that he's either a complete ****ing idiot, or the worst kind of deceitful pandering gob****e imaginable, with pretty much no other possibilities.

Either way: well done, Kerry. In a representative democracy, this is who you chose to represent you.

-

Winston Churchill wrote:

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

robindch

marienbad wrote: »

He is correct on the famine .

Well, blow me down with a feather - he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Famine_(1740%E2%80%9341)

oscarBravo

"Climate has changed without human intervention, therefore human intervention can't change the climate."

Flawless logic, right there.

Cabaal

marienbad wrote: »

He is correct on the famine .

Indeed he was, but we know why this happened http://www.doonbleisce.com/The%20Great%20Frost%20in%20Ireland%20-%20%201740%20-%201741.htm

We also know that humans can and are effecting our climate now, but funny he ignores this information.

He's happy to accept the human weather as effect from a cause (but he doesn't mention the cause), but he won't accept the human cause now.

Links234

This is a seriously interesting read, perhaps the hazards of disbelief even, but it does highlight a lot of how organized atheism can fall into some of the same traps as religion.

Lurkio

Links234 wrote: »

This is a seriously interesting read, perhaps the hazards of disbelief even, but it does highlight a lot of how organized atheism can fall into some of the same traps as religion.

As long as there's greed, there will be chancers, and they do not discriminate as regards who they fleece. For every Slayer or Napalm Death, there is a Babymetal.

Links234

Lurkio wrote: »

For every Slayer or Napalm Death, there is a Babymetal.

I don't actually mind Babymetal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Some extremely talented musicians in the live band.

Custardpi

Yeah don't get the hate. It's J-Pop fused with metal, what do you expect? Only boring music nerds with too much attachment to supposed musical "purity" could object to a group that are essentially a fun, cheesy as hell interpretation of the metal genre.

Links234

They're hardly the first manufactured metal band either. But honestly, the musicians involved are nothing short of spectacular. Give this a look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNHujktWNuU

That bass section about half way through is phenominal! :eek:

There's not a band I'd actually listen to very often, but I'd love to see them live at some point, because they look to put on an incredible show.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Climate has changed without human intervention, therefore human intervention can't change the climate."

Waterford Whispers weighs in:

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/05/05/danny-healy-rae-suggests-leaving-child-of-prague-under-bush-to-combat-climate-change/

Waterford Whispers wrote:

ALTHOUGH Danny Healy Rae is standing by his comments that “only God above is in charge of the weather”, the Kerry TD has admitted that Ireland can tackle climate change by implementing some tried-and-tested methods such as leaving a statue of the Child Of Prague under a bush overnight.

Healy Rae was speaking at a climate change discussion in the Dáil yesterday, when he made the argument that carbon taxation aimed at curbing climate change was costing the rural community massive sums of money.

Arguing against some fairly significant climate data mined from surveys and scientific research from all over the world, Healy Rae stressed that there wasn’t much that a government could do about climate change, but conceded that he would get as many people in his constituency to put their Child Of Prague out in the ditch, as well as having their St. Bridgid’s cloak at hand at all times.

“You can’t change the climate of the world by addressing carbon emissions or listening to scientists,” said Healy Rae, eating a Caramac.

“But we’ll do our best to ensure a few grand nice days there with the Child Of Prague under the hedge. Sure didn’t it work for us there in Kerry the time we were going to our cousin’s wedding, we put the statue out and it was a fierce day the next day altogether. There’s no reason a concentrated effort by a few hundred thousand people across the country couldn’t do more for climate change than you’d ever get done by banning fossil fuels”.

Healy Rae went on to state that the plan faced opposition “up in Dublin”, adding that “they’re just mad that they live in flats and don’t have a hedge to call their own”.

robindch

Links234 wrote: »

This is a seriously interesting read, perhaps the hazards of disbelief even, but it does highlight a lot of how organized atheism can fall into some of the same traps as religion.

That's one of the reasons why - for myself - I argue against referring to atheists as part of some kind of "community" and tend to avoid organizations which promote atheism.

Custardpi

robindch wrote: »

That's one of the reasons why - for myself - I argue against referring to atheists as part of some kind of "community" and tend to avoid organizations which promote atheism.

True, there is a tendency out there to assume "oh you're an atheist/agnostic, you must believe x/y/z & do a/b/c" whereas in reality the only thing unifying A&A people is scepticism or a lack of belief in a deity. The amount of sh1te & personal agendas around stuff like the Atheism+ clusterf*ck which I've observed from outside would make me very wary of getting involved in the "community" aspect of things, added to the fact that I'd always have a personal distrust for any club which would have me as a member.

Lurkio

Custardpi wrote: »

Yeah don't get the hate. It's J-Pop fused with metal, what do you expect? Only boring music nerds with too much attachment to supposed musical "purity" could object to a group that are essentially a fun, cheesy as hell interpretation of the metal genre.

Can't even have a moment of levity...............

Or people who like the music, they might have a problem with them too.

Links234

Lurkio wrote: »

Can't even have a moment of levity...............

I'll take any opportunity to waffle about Japanese metal bands, so you kinda baited me there. Especially Babymetal, because I just can't help jump straight in and defend the musicians involved. One of my absolutely favourite guitarists was in Babymetal, this guy right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw4UA3z6jMM

Lurkio

Links234 wrote: »

I'll take any opportunity to waffle about Japanese metal bands, so you kinda baited me there. Especially Babymetal, because I just can't help jump straight in and defend the musicians involved. One of my absolutely favourite guitarists was in Babymetal, this guy right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw4UA3z6jMM

O its not the ability of the lads to play that's the issue with me. Anyhoo.....

JPNelsforearm

Custardpi wrote: »

True, there is a tendency out there to assume "oh you're an atheist/agnostic, you must believe x/y/z & do a/b/c" whereas in reality the only thing unifying A&A people is scepticism or a lack of belief in a deity. The amount of sh1te & personal agendas around stuff like the Atheism+ clusterf*ck which I've observed from outside would make me very wary of getting involved in the "community" aspect of things, added to the fact that I'd always have a personal distrust for any club which would have me as a member.

looksee

robindch wrote: »

That's one of the reasons why - for myself - I argue against referring to atheists as part of some kind of "community" and tend to avoid organizations which promote atheism.

I agree, I do not see atheists as a community, I do not see any value in 'organised' atheism. Either you believe, or you do not. If you do not, fine, you get on with your life. The only reason for challenging religion (other than on Boards ) is when it interferes with secular life. In that case you challenge the relevant topic - including religion being taught in state schools, and people claiming god controls the weather.

Nor do I see the necessity for navel gazing about leaving religion. People who have been brought up in cults that split families, for example, might well need support in breaking away from a lifestyle. Everyone else should be capable of gradually working through what they believe, in their own heads. Certainly discuss your thoughts with other people, but why would you join a group to listen to someone else's ideas about why you should leave a group?

I admit I read that article very quickly, but it seemed to me to be a lot of self absorbed waffle. I unfortunately will never know as I am not prepared to give it any more time

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Well, blow me down with a feather - he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Famine_(1740%E2%80%9341)

He's not correct in his claim that the famine killed more than the then entire population of the island...

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He's not correct in his claim that the famine killed more than the then entire population of the island...

Given his background, his knowledge of history, his fascination with playing to a simpletons' gallery, and his general unfamiliarity with the topic upon which he chose to address the nation, I'm happy to note that he got at least one fact right.

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/health-blogger-cancer-major-legal-action-2754309-May2016/

a belief of sorts..

AN AUSTRALIAN LIFESTYLE blogger who claimed to have cured brain cancer through “nutrition and holistic medicine” is facing legal action following an investigation by a consumer watchdog.

Custardpi

Tis the new religion alright - "superfoods", "wellness" & juicing the fúck out of everything in a three mile radius. Combined with the visual cathecism of Instragram selfies. Gibson ramped it up a notch of course but plenty of chancers like her making money off promoting similar guff.

robindch

Custardpi wrote: »

Tis the new religion alright - "superfoods", "wellness" & juicing the fúck out of everything in a three mile radius.

"Boosting the immune system" :rolleyes:

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

"Boosting the immune system" :rolleyes:

pfft, I'll raise you "paleo diet"

Links234

A while back black pudding was the trendy new "superfood" but it was just marketing buzz. Still, that's definitely something I'd consider a superfood, as in super tasty

JPNelsforearm

Cabaal wrote: »

pfft, I'll raise you "paleo diet"

I'll raise you a "Detox cleanse", who needs a functioning liver or kidneys when you can buy some fruit juice, stop all dialysis and transplants, you dont need them, buy my toxin removing juice!

Links234

The whole fitness and supplement world is so full of woo as well, its not even funny.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

pfft, I'll raise you "paleo diet"

"Artisan"

Links234

robindch wrote: »

"Artisan"

Nah, artisan is just marketing bull****, like deluxe, or craft. Ultimately meaningless. Fad diets and the like can sometimes prove dangerous.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

"Boosting the immune system" :rolleyes:

and never mind all those illnesses caused by the immune system doing too good a job :rolleyes:

Lurkio

Chlorophyll

recedite

Ancient Grains is where its at.
I won't eat any cornflakes unless they're at least 5000 years old.