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

Would you like to see the death of religion.

Options
1…457910…21

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,617 ✭✭✭Conar


    Yes - through natural causes
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    A few of the teachers in my school were gay and seemed happy enough.

    I'm sure thats true but at the end of the day so many school boards are controller by the Church, and their leader openly denouces homosexuality so it cannot be a comfortable environment for some or a lot of them.
    I'm sure that plenty of black people worked in the company of racists in power for many years without being fired but they would still have felt marginalised.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Atheists can be homophobic as well.
    Most definitely, but I would imagine less commonly.
    Regardless there is no book of atheism which would guide any atheist organisation and if there were I'm pretty certain it would not denounce homosexuality.[/QUOTE]

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Theists can be quite liberal on this issue and are welcoming of homosexuals.
    PDN made a point recently about his daughter and her friend. The Anglican chruch is also quite progressive here.
    This point fails because it just seems a generalisation without good evidence.

    That is very true, but in this situation I can never help but wonder why they believe that the word of God is wrong on this matter yet infallible on all other things (except the other bits they know to be wrong).
    Again though in general like it or not the liberal religious still follow the same book as the hardline ones and we are only ever a few steps away from fundamentalism returning (IMO)...which again is why I would love to see the end of religion.


  • Options
    #183
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Yes, except for my religion.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    That's a straw man. I never said their feelings and position was secondary to that of the school ethos.

    You implied it by your argument. You seem to support the schools position and the tract of legislation that allows it. So, you did.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Well then withdraw your remark that they are kicked out if you can't substantiate it.

    I didnt say that they "are" kicked out and doubtless no school would say it openly because of the fall oout however it does not change the fact that the government is supporting and actiely legislates in favor of a discriminatory policy contrary to EU regulations and the sodding consitution of the Republic of Ireland.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Not bad. Is it really at the expense of everyone though? How many people are at a loss because of this? I can't think of anytime anybody in this state was prosecuted for blasphemy.

    Again, an actual case of blasphemy being prosecuted (which I assure you it has happened) is irrelevant since it is the potential presented by the legislation in place to appease the theist agenda. How are you not getting this yet?
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Could you provide more evidence for premise?

    See above.

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I think your premise is based on subjective view of things.
    Most of life is irrational and illogical. The evidence thing is moot unless you can provide evidence to negate this view points.

    Now that IS an assertion and a hyperbole to. Also, you bloody hypocrite. You cant ask for evidence then dismiss its validity!
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    This argument is a bit muddled. You have several premises and several conclusions. Each one could be examined separately. It would be easier to examine this if you narrowed done both or separated them.
    Rgds

    You asked for it, you got it. the burger king principal of debate.

    Honestly, just because you dont want to make the effort or wish to continue obscuring the view of your own, inane and flaccid argument it doesnt give you the right to make pointless, pedantic requests nor to portray assertion as fact. You cant have your cake and eat it.


  • Options
    #184
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.
    Conar wrote: »
    Most definitely, but I would imagine less commonly.
    Regardless there is no book of atheism which would guide any atheist organisation and if there were I'm pretty certain it would not denounce homosexuality.

    In some countries there are such books (Cuba, China etc) that guide the atheist organisations in schools and youth groups. And yes, they violently denounce homosexuality. In Ireland, however, I imagine your assertion holds true.
    That is very true, but in this situation I can never help but wonder why they believe that the word of God is wrong on this matter yet infallible on all other things (except the other bits they know to be wrong).
    Again though in general like it or not the liberal religious still follow the same book as the hardline ones and we are only ever a few steps away from fundamentalism returning (IMO)...which again is why I would love to see the end of religion.

    Actually it is perfectly possible to believe homosexual acts to be sinful and also to detest homophobia. I would be opposed to any fear of, hatred towards, or legislation against homosexuals, against those who engage in heterosexual extramarital sex, against people who curse, against people who pray to statues, against people who testify under oath in a courtroom, or against people who get drunk. I believe I would qualify in most people's opinion as a 'fundamentalist', but believing something to be wrong in no way implies a 'phobia' of those who engage in such behaviour.

    If Catholic schools were funded totally by the Catholic Church, and if there were sufficient alternatives available so that the only students in such schools were those whose parents specifically desired a Catholic education for their children, then they should have the right to select teachers who reflect their beliefs. Therefore they would be within their rights to exclude homosexuals, atheists, Protestants, or indeed anyone who denies Papal infallibility as teachers.

    However, so long as they continue to receive even one cent of support from the taxpayer, or children are forced to go to such schools due the State's pathetic abdication of responsibility in the area of education, then no such discrimination should be tolerated against any teacher.


  • Options
    #185
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    PDN wrote: »
    against people who curse.
    Out of interest do you mean blasphemous curses are wrong or all curses. If the later are bad what is wrong with them?
    (I know your post wasn't about this, but it's question I always wanted to ask.)


  • Options
    #186
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Yes, except for my religion.
    PDN wrote: »
    In some countries there are such books (Cuba, China etc) that guide the atheist organisations in schools and youth groups. And yes, they violently denounce homosexuality. In Ireland, however, I imagine your assertion holds true.

    I think those books would have more to do with the polical inclinations of the government producing them (they are both communist) and their designs on social structures but the rest I have no problem with.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,617 ✭✭✭Conar


    Yes - through natural causes
    PDN wrote: »
    Actually it is perfectly possible to believe homosexual acts to be sinful and also to detest homophobia. I would be opposed to any fear of, hatred towards, or legislation against homosexuals, against those who engage in heterosexual extramarital sex, against people who curse, against people who pray to statues, against people who testify under oath in a courtroom, or against people who get drunk. I believe I would qualify in most people's opinion as a 'fundamentalist', but believing something to be wrong in no way implies a 'phobia' of those who engage in such behaviour.

    True and thanks for the honest response PDN.
    I still think there is a hypocrasy in this stance though as your good book definitely advocates the slaughter of homosexuals so I can't help but feel that if a fundamentalist grip were to take hold again that peoples liberal stance may slowly degrade again.
    I'm caught in 2 minds about fundamentalisn; on one hand I can't understand how people can devoutly follow a message which seems so insane to me, yet on the other hand I have more respect for someone that follows their religious beliefs more diligently than someone who just cherry picks the bits that they like most.

    PDN wrote: »
    If Catholic schools were funded totally by the Catholic Church, and if there were sufficient alternatives available so that the only students in such schools were those whose parents specifically desired a Catholic education for their children, then they should have the right to select teachers who reflect their beliefs. Therefore they would be within their rights to exclude homosexuals, atheists, Protestants, or indeed anyone who denies Papal infallibility as teachers.

    This is where it gets disturbing.
    I would love to disagree and say it could never happen, yet I think it probably could and would.
    A business would not be allowed act in a same manner though which is another example of how religion is given unfair treatment in our fair country.
    I firmly believe (but don't know how it could ever be implemented) that the charity status of any organisation which preached such exclusionary messages should be recinded and they should be made to sink or swim on the back of their own congregations wallets.
    PDN wrote: »
    However, so long as they continue to receive even one cent of support from the taxpayer, or children are forced to go to such schools due the State's pathetic abdication of responsibility in the area of education, then no such discrimination should be tolerated against any teacher.

    I definitely agree that the states record is pathetic and neither side is a winner but I'd still rather a secular schooling mentality than a seperatist one.


  • Options
    #188
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Dades wrote: »
    Suffice to say that sometimes we're all not as logical as we like to think we are.
    Agree. But surely we should use logic to sort that not name calling. By all means point out where I have used "straw man" or "assertion" incorrectly.


  • Options
    #189
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    Intellectually speaking my answer is better than your "?".

    I was saying "wow" at the startling arrogance and hypocricy you seem capable of. One rule for us and another, more lenient rule for you I see?

    As for your comment about your gay teachers feeling happy ... that is not evidence, the evidence I gave you is legislation that appears in the national statute of laws. Your "evidence" is hearsay and unsupportable.
    ? is shortand
    Wow is sarcastic.


  • Options
    #190
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Yes, except for my religion.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    ? is shortand
    Wow is sarcastic.

    Opinion.


  • Options
    #191
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    You implied it by your argument. You seem to support the schools position and the tract of legislation that allows it. So, you did.
    No I didn't imply it. You are trying to take insert your own meanings into my arguments.

    I didnt say that they "are" kicked out
    Post 73:
    "...this leads to the gagging and potential dismissal of homosexuals from schools"
    Now that IS an assertion and a hyperbole to. Also, you bloody hypocrite. You cant ask for evidence then dismiss its validity!
    I said your evidence was based on a subjective experience of things, leave the name calling "bloody hypocrite" out and state if you agree or disagree?

    You asked for it, you got it. the burger king principal of debate.

    Honestly, just because you dont want to make the effort or wish to continue obscuring the view of your own, inane and flaccid argument it doesnt give you the right to make pointless, pedantic requests nor to portray assertion as fact. You cant have your cake and eat it.
    Lost you here. Why not clearly show where my argument is flaccid?

    There seems to be a problem with me examing the rationality (or lack of) with your view point while you seem to be quite prepared to dismiss the lack of rationality in a religious view. To quote yourself:
    "You can't have your cake and eat it".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    Opinion.
    Well are you saying you were not being sarcastic using: "Wow"?


  • Options
    #193
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Yes, except for my religion.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    No I didn't imply it. You are trying to take insert your own meanings into my arguments.

    They are your implications and the extention of your argument. Dont try to weasel out of it.

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    VPost 73:
    "...this leads to the gagging and potential dismissal of homosexuals from schools"

    Buy a dictionary. Look up the meaning og the word "potential". Realise your error (the third or fourth glaringly bad one so far).

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I said your evidence was based on a subjective experience of things, leave the name calling "bloody hypocrite" out and state if you agree or disagree?

    There is nothing "subjective" about legislation and the clauses therin. nor about the articles of the constitution. These are facts. And you are a bloody hypocrite. you happily used the political compass to support your poisition and clarify but when it is used against your arguments it suddenly became useless and irrelevant - a rank hypocrisy.

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Lost you here. Why not clearly show where my argument is flaccid?

    There seems to be a problem with me examing the rationality (or lack of) with your view point while you seem to be quite prepared to dismiss the lack of rationality in a religious view. To quote yourself:
    "You can't have your cake and eat it".


    I wont be dragged back into this line of "I dont understand, you must be stupid because I cant understand you" which is where every single conversation or argument wit hyou seems to end up.


  • Options
    #194
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    Yes, except for my religion.
    Dades wrote: »

    And for the record Hivemind I don't agree that abortion is relevant here. Yes, the outcome was influenced by religion, but despite your lack of 'faith' in the referendum system, it was democratically voted against. And I recall a LOT of press from both sides. You seem to suggest that all non-religious would by default be in favour of legalisation, which I don't believe to be true.

    I'm an atheist and am strongly opposed to abortion, I know several likeminded atheists


  • Options
    #195
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Yes, except for my religion.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Well are you saying you were not being sarcastic using: "Wow"?

    It is your opinion that "?" constitutes a valid shorthand rather than a patronising dismissal.

    It is also your opinion that "wow" is meant sarcastically. It wasnt, it is a genuine exclamation of suprise and astonishment with your ability to be capable of rank hypocrisy while demanding that everyone else obey your laws of logic and vague rules of engagement.


  • Options
    #196
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Yes - through proactive secularism
    Enough with the "bloody hypocrite" (or "bigoted fascist" for that matter)...
    Don't want to have to step in, or be called to.


  • Options
    #197
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Yes I would.
    I imagine I would be dead at least a couple of millenia before humans could advance to that stage.


  • Options
    #198
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    They are your implications and the extention of your argument. Dont try to weasel out of it.
    Au contraire, you are weaseling implications that suit you into it.
    It's my argument, my point not your's.
    Buy a dictionary. Look up the meaning og the word "potential". Realise your error (the third or fourth glaringly bad one so far).
    Provide evidence of gagging and provide evidence of the potential to be kicked out.
    There is nothing "subjective" about legislation and the clauses therin. nor about the articles of the constitution. These are facts. And you are a bloody hypocrite. you happily used the political compass to support your poisition and clarify but when it is used against your arguments it suddenly became useless and irrelevant - a rank hypocrisy.
    That "subjective" reference is to your 3rd premise / conclusion argument in post 166. I detailed this in post 175. There was no reference to the constitution in that argument. You are now quoting my reply to your third argument as if it was a reply to your first argument even when I gave a specific reply to that.
    I wont be dragged back into this line of "I dont understand, you must be stupid because I cant understand you" which is where every single conversation or argument wit hyou seems to end up.
    I don't understand and I am asking you to explain clearly. What else are my supposed to do insert my own desired understanding and debate that? Doesn't make sense.


  • Options
    #199
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Yes, except for my religion.
    Dades wrote: »
    Enough with the "bloody hypocrite" (or "bigoted fascist" for that matter)...
    Don't want to have to step in, or be called to.

    He started it and I can back up my point, but I will refrain.


  • Options
    #200
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    It is your opinion that "?" constitutes a valid shorthand rather than a patronising dismissal.

    It is also your opinion that "wow" is meant sarcastically. It wasnt, it is a genuine exclamation of suprise and astonishment with your ability to be capable of rank hypocrisy while demanding that everyone else obey your laws of logic and vague rules of engagement.
    I would suggest point out the hypocrisy cleary rather than asserting it.
    "?" is meant as I don't understand, lost.
    I can't see much difference between
    "?"
    and
    "I don't understand that post."
    But I will use the latter if "?" is offensive. Although I find it ironic that you give out about religion and want to see then end of it and you can't deal with "?".
    Perhaps you need to be a little more flexible.


  • Options
    #201
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    MooseJam wrote: »
    I'm an atheist and am strongly opposed to abortion, I know several likeminded atheists
    Me also.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Yes, except for my religion.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Au contraire, you are weaseling implications that suit you into it.
    It's my argument, my point not your's.

    Liar liar pants on fire.

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Provide evidence of gagging and provide evidence of the potential to be kicked out.

    This is just stupid.

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    That "subjective" reference is to your 3rd premise / conclusion argument in post 166. I detailed this in post 175. There was no reference to the constitution in that argument. You are now quoting my reply to your third argument as if it was a reply to your first argument even when I gave a specific reply to that.

    This is also stupid.

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I don't understand and I am asking you to explain clearly. What else are my supposed to do insert my own desired understanding and debate that? Doesn't make sense.

    And so is this. Right, well I tried to deal with Tim and I have done as he has requested but I am officially stating my opinion that communicating with him is like counting all the grains of sand on a beach - a time consuming and pointless endevour.


  • Options
    #203
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Yes - through proactive secularism
    Asiaprod wrote: »
    Moosejam wrote:
    I'm an atheist and am strongly opposed to abortion, I know several likeminded atheists
    Me also.

    I'll take your dollar, so. On another thread.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #204
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    I'm an alatrist that is opposed to to abortion, I want a dollar. :()


  • Options
    #205
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    Liar liar pants on fire.
    You decide the implication and you insert it into someone else's (mine) argument.
    This is just stupid.
    This is also stupid.
    Perhaps a mod could step in here. As far as I am concerned. I have challenged your unsubstantiated claims which you think is stupid. I have pointed out you are using my replies for specific argument as if they were replies to other arguments. What are my supposed to do? Pretend I don't notice you mixing up my rebuttals.

    And so is this. Right, well I tried to deal with Tim and I have done as he has requested but I am officially stating my opinion that communicating with him is like counting all the grains of sand on a beach - a time consuming and pointless endevour.
    Not sure what to say here. I began because I thought your opinions were unfairly intolerant of others and I thought your arguments unsubstantiated. I tried to go through them as logically as I am able, and point out what I thought where the flaws.


  • Options
    #206
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'll take your dollar, so. On another thread.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    cordially accepted.
    Asia


  • Options
    #207
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Yes - through proactive secularism
    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    I'm an alatrist that is opposed to to abortion, I want a dollar. :()

    You get two dollars.*

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    *All dollars strictly notional at this point.


  • Options
    #208
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You get two dollars.*

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    My lucky night
    Asia


  • Options
    #209
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Yes - through proactive secularism
    The thread is open, and the pro-choicers are gathering with banners held high.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #210
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Yes - through proactive secularism
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Perhaps a mod could step in here.
    Not sure what you want me or Asia to do here, Tim.
    I was hoping for détente, tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Yes, except for my religion.
    Dades wrote: »
    Not sure what you want me or Asia to do here, Tim.
    I was hoping for détente, tbh.

    Unfortunately it wont happen. Tim and I have hit an impass and its the reason I have stopped responding and arguing. After a while things start getting silly and it winds up in verbal assault.

    With my mouth it could probably get me sued. ;)


Advertisement