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

Do you believe in A God?

Options
1…1112141617…19

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    kickoutthejams wrote: »

    Quite honestly, the whole "Atheists are intelligent" argument annoys me.

    I wish Id thought of that - thats why the whole creationist debate keeps getting debated.

    Its like the movie "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray each morning he gets up but its a rerun of the same day.


  • Options
    #393
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Nah the creationism thread is so active because some atheists are extremely masochistic.


  • Options
    #394
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dave! wrote: »
    Nah the creationism thread is so active because some atheists are extremely masochistic.

    Nah - havent seen that thread- probably dont have GSOH in their profiles then


  • Options
    #395
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,029 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Well Creationists are idiots. It's one thing to believe in something with no scientific evidence but another to start ignoring science.
    CDfm wrote: »
    I wish Id thought of that - thats why the whole creationist debate keeps getting debated.

    Its like the movie "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray each morning he gets up but its a rerun of the same day.
    What?


  • Options
    #396
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    Well Creationists are idiots. It's one thing to believe in something with no scientific evidence but another to start ignoring science.

    What?

    The whole "Atheists are intelligent " argument -class that one

    Im not a creationist.

    The atheists had me baffled - I had no idea why I was getting creationist thrown at me. I thought it was an in-joke that I wasnt getting.

    The Dawkins heads fit well in there with the creationists.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    Thomas_S_Hunterson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,151 ✭✭✭Thomas_S_Hunterson


    CDfm wrote: »
    Funnily enough while thats a very simplistic reading of Catholic thought on the subject and it is also a very good example.
    'Catholic thought' on a subject seems to only ever be applied retrospectively any time a hole is highlighted in their argument.

    Why, instead of making a solid argument would they merely want to cover up holes in a very vague one?

    eg.
    Atheist: "Certain passages in the bible would indicate that getting of your tits on alcohol and giving your daughter a good f*cking is perfectly acceptable behavior"
    Catholic: "God has implied otherwise...bible...not to be taken literally"
    Atheist: "It also says Adam lived to be nine hundred and something"
    Catholic: "God has implied otherwise...bible...not to be taken literally"
    Atheist: "Do Catholics really agre with all the incest that must have been going on after the creation?"
    Catholic: "God has implied otherwise...bible...not to be taken literally"
    /continues ad infinitum

    Seems that every time there is a plot-hole in the bible or a conflict with the modern morals of the church, we can put the discrepancy down to those particular passages in the bible working on an allegorical level.


  • Options
    #398
    Thomas_S_Hunterson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,151 ✭✭✭Thomas_S_Hunterson


    Dave! wrote: »
    Nah the creationism thread is so active because some atheists are extremely masochistic.

    I think it's quite healthy to question your beliefs and have them questioned regularly.

    If you can't satisfy yourself in arguing on the side of what you believe, then something is sorely wrong.

    That said, all discussion on creationism seems to descends to silliness quickly enough.


  • Options
    #399
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sean_K wrote: »
    'Catholic thought' on a subject seems to only ever be applied retrospectively any time a hole is highlighted in their argument.

    Why, instead of making a solid argument would they merely want to cover up holes in a very vague one?

    eg.
    Atheist: "Certain passages in the bible would indicate that getting of your tits on alcohol and giving your daughter a good f*cking is perfectly acceptable behavior"
    Catholic: "God has implied otherwise...bible...not to be taken literally"
    Atheist: "It also says Adam lived to be nine hundred and something"
    Catholic: "God has implied otherwise...bible...not to be taken literally"
    Atheist: "Do Catholics really agre with all the incest that must have been going on after the creation?"
    Catholic: "God has implied otherwise...bible...not to be taken literally"
    /continues ad infinitum

    Seems that every time there is a plot-hole in the bible or a conflict with the modern morals of the church, we can put the discrepancy down to those particular passages in the bible working on an allegorical level.
    Sean I am typing this slowly so you can understand it.

    Catholic theology applies a plato-ist(the famous greek guy) reading to the bible not a Dawkins reading which is literalist and what the fundamentalist sects use. No matter how many times you bring this up in different guises its still the same.

    Catholics are not creationists.

    If you have a particular issue with Catholicism say it.

    I suppose Adam lived to a ripe old age beacause he had no hereditary diseases and flawless DNA. Lucky guy.Now if you want to discuss Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah in that context of moral theoligy and its social contruct. Or wider reading of Genesis taking in writings from Rabbinic litterature and other sources that is a completely different issue.

    Then that is not do you believe in God - its what parts of Catholic teaching causes you a problem - so you should post on the Christian thread.


  • Options
    #400
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,414 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    CDfm wrote: »
    Catholic theology applies a plato-ist(the famous greek guy) reading to the bible not a Dawkins reading which is literalist and what the fundamentalist sects use. No matter how many times you bring this up in different guises its still the same.
    Seriously, CDfm, you really should read Dawkins sometime coz you keep spitting out these hopelessly inaccurate rants about him, and it's doing your credibility no good at all :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #401
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    robindch wrote: »
    Seriously, CDfm, you really should read Dawkins sometime coz you keep spitting out these hopelessly inaccurate rants about him, and it's doing your credibility no good at all :rolleyes:


    I have read some of Dawkins efforts - yep I lowered myself.In my defense I was at the train station and in a bit of a rush and just picked up the first thing.

    THen he got serialised in the Sunday Times for a bit.

    But now I know that he knows very little about religious and theological matters if he ever brings out a book on car maintainance that I know nothing about I for one wont buy it.I would buy a book by a mechanic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    CDfm wrote: »
    Sean I am typing this slowly so you can understand it.

    Catholic theology applies a plato-ist(the famous greek guy) reading to the bible not a Dawkins reading which is literalist and what the fundamentalist sects use. No matter how many times you bring this up in different guises its still the same.

    Catholics are not creationists.

    If you have a particular issue with Catholicism say it.
    I think he made his point quite clearly. The catholic religion believes the bible is somehow correct yet when pushed on particular sections of the bible they suggest that bit shouldn't be considered as it is contradicted later on.

    It is a really strange argument that I personally think is never explained in a theological sense. The fact the current bile was agreed by committee and then the reading of the resulting book is also interpreted by committee suggests no hand of God. As we know sections of the bile are inaccurate why would anybody believe any of it is true or which parts are true.


  • Options
    #403
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    CDfm wrote: »
    But now I know that he knows very little about religious and theological matters...
    Could you give an example of an argument of Dawkins' that you disagree with?


  • Options
    #404
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Could you give an example of an argument of Dawkins' that you disagree with?

    POst one and I will tell you if I agree or not. In its entirety. Then it will be open to others to give their views.


  • Options
    #405
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    kickoutthejams wrote:
    Quite honestly, the whole "Atheists are intelligent" argument annoys me.
    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    Well Creationists are idiots. It's one thing to believe in something with no scientific evidence but another to start ignoring science.

    Fully agree with those two points! :)

    Just because someone believes in God (and I don't necissarily mean the Christian God, I mean any God) doesn't mean they ignore science. I love science but that doesn't mean I can't also have an element of faith.

    All this stuff about "oh, we'd still be in the stone age if more people believed in God" is irritating. Yes, I realise the Church in the past was fundamentalist and unwilling to embrace science (particularly with their horrific treatment of Galileo) But thankfully we are not in that age anymore.


  • Options
    #406
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    square_igloo wrote: »
    Just because someone believes in God (and I don't necissarily mean the Christian God, I mean any God) doesn't mean they ignore science. I love science but that doesn't mean I can't also have an element of faith.

    Does that just mean you enjoy the technology that science affords and the interesting facts that it presents to us but approach it with skepticism as it can't have all the answers?

    Which is fine, but the problem is than that to jump to such a conclusion about a divine creator contradicts this respect for science because it shows a bias against it.

    It would be better were to say science is the best tool we have, by trying to explain as many of the facts as possible with as few assumptions as possible it has given us so much. I cannot possibly know if a god or gods exist so I cannot consider it rationally with out evidence.

    No more, its as simple as that.


  • Options
    #407
    Plug
    Registered Users Posts: 9,248 ✭✭✭Plug


    I stopped believing in God before I found out there was no such thing as Santa.
    On the topic what do you call a black angel?
    A bat.


  • Options
    #408
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,414 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    square_igloo wrote: »
    I realise the Church in the past was fundamentalist and unwilling to embrace science (particularly with their horrific treatment of Galileo) But thankfully we are not in that age anymore.
    Try visit Kentucky sometime :)


  • Options
    #409
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,414 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    CDfm wrote: »
    I have read some of Dawkins efforts
    What specific bits do you disagree with?


  • Options
    #410
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    robindch wrote: »
    What specific bits do you disagree with?

    I wouldn't waste your time Robin, he hasn't got a notion of what Dawkins is about and is merely trolling.


  • Options
    #411
    Myxomatosis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭Myxomatosis


    In this day and age I'm surprised 27.32% of the people who voted believe in a God.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    robindch wrote: »
    What specific bits do you disagree with?
    Robin this is a "Do you believe in God thread"

    All I am saying if you dont believe in God and post a reason citing a particular reason even quote Dawkins - Dawkins 20** P134 - if you want - just go ahead and throw it open for discussion.

    Many wont post here because they feel atheist posters are not precise enough and use creationist as a pejorative term of derision and apply it to all christians -even those whose views dont encompass a creationist viewpoint.You may or may not be like that- I dont know.

    So when I post replies I want to know if I am posting to a " im an atheist because Im cool" or is this just another Atheist Mutual Admiration Society thread masquerading as a discussion thats all.It sure looks like that.

    Thats not trolling thats just ascertaining who I am dealing with and if you and they are serious in their views they should not be afraid to post them.


  • Options
    #413
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    Myxomatosis wrote: »
    In this day and age I'm surprised 27.32% of the people who voted believe in a God.

    Don't be. The only reason it's so low at all is that the majority of boards users are in the 18-35 age bracket, and there is a drop-off in religious belief among young people. If the poll took the whole population into account, the % of god believers would be higher.

    And that's just Ireland, were the poll conducted in parts of the US you could be looking at 90% in the believer camp.


  • Options
    #414
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    CDfm wrote: »
    All I am saying if you dont believe in God and post a reason citing a particular reason even quote Dawkins - Dawkins 20** P134 - if you want - just go ahead and throw it open for discussion.

    You have a seriously bizarre hang up with Dawkins.


  • Options
    #415
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Zillah wrote: »
    You have a seriously bizarre hang up with Dawkins.

    Me - you cant be serious- where did you get that idea from.


  • Options
    #416
    nij
    Closed Accounts Posts: 256 ✭✭nij


    Dawkins isn't the only mainstream atheist you know. It seems that you're trying to subtley turn the tables and make out the atheists are the ones with their heads screwed on backwards.


  • Options
    #417
    Myxomatosis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭Myxomatosis


    aidan24326 wrote: »
    Don't be. The only reason it's so low at all is that the majority of boards users are in the 18-35 age bracket, and there is a drop-off in religious belief among young people. If the poll took the whole population into account, the % of god believers would be higher.

    And that's just Ireland, were the poll conducted in parts of the US you could be looking at 90% in the believer camp.

    Oh no you misunderstand, I'd consider 27% very high.


  • Options
    #418
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    CDfm wrote: »
    Me - you cant be serious- where did you get that idea from.

    I...don't understand your brain. You're a little crazy or trolling, I don't know which.


  • Options
    #419
    0utpost31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 469 ✭✭0utpost31


    Anyone who believes in a God in the traditional sense is missing some important part of their brain. Their ma's probably smoked 40 major a day when they were pregnant.


  • Options
    #420
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    CDfm wrote: »
    Robin this is a "Do you believe in God thread"

    All I am saying if you dont believe in God and post a reason citing a particular reason even quote Dawkins - Dawkins 20** P134 - if you want - just go ahead and throw it open for discussion.

    Many wont post here because they feel atheist posters are not precise enough and use creationist as a pejorative term of derision and apply it to all christians -even those whose views dont encompass a creationist viewpoint.You may or may not be like that- I dont know.

    So when I post replies I want to know if I am posting to a " im an atheist because Im cool" or is this just another Atheist Mutual Admiration Society thread masquerading as a discussion thats all.It sure looks like that.

    Thats not trolling thats just ascertaining who I am dealing with and if you and they are serious in their views they should not be afraid to post them.

    On the contrary you seem to be very quick to judge us atheist lot based on very little information at all. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing a position to you, as you seem to have your mind already made up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    CDfm wrote: »
    POst one and I will tell you if I agree or not. In its entirety. Then it will be open to others to give their views.

    L.O.L

    you suggested that you disagree with some of dawkin's arguments but won't give any examples. instead you want him to go through all of dawkin's works looking for arguments that you might be likely to disagree with and keep posting likely looking ones until he happens across one that you disagree with?

    reminds me of the father ted episode where mrs. doyle spent hours trying to guess someone's name :D


Advertisement