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

Those who argue those who don't?

Options
  • 08-12-2008 11:46pm
    #1
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭


    Hello!
    I was just thinking about something. I don't know about anyone else but I know some Christians who just couldn't be bothered arguing their beliefs.
    They just go to Church / Mass come home, don't talk about and if you press them on something they'll give you "yeah I am not so sure about so and so" or "I told you before, I'm not sure what I believe in" or "I just like going to Church".

    Basically they are religiously active but don't seem to care about what's true what isn't true.

    Then there's the likes of friends in the Christian forum, who will argue but bend logic, engage in word play and tell you about amazing co-incidences of meeting their friend when they needed to get a spare tyre on a highway. They are adamant they are right. They are adamant you are lost.

    But what's more annoying?
    People who are religiously active but couldn't be bothered really thinking if it's true or all fluff, or people who have thought about it (or think they've thought about it) and just live off bad arguments but are convinced they are right?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    you've got a point, i think the ones who wont speak up for themselves are more annoying.

    its rare to find anyone who'll admit to being roman catholic, never found one over on that board.


  • Options
    #3
    komodosp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭komodosp


    I love the whole argument so I don't find the bible-thumpers the least bit annoying!

    BUt yes the ones who just won't listen (just as with any argument) and dismiss you are annoying.

    Also the "everyone's entitled to their belief" ones are annoying. Probably mainly the same people


  • Options
    #4
    8kvscdpglqnyr4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭8kvscdpglqnyr4


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    They just go to Church / Mass come home, don't talk about and if you press them on something they'll give you "yeah I am not so sure about so and so" or "I told you before, I'm not sure what I believe in" or "I just like going to Church".
    Practically every Christian I know in the real world are like this, my parents included. I consider this group to be the most annoying (even though it doesn't really annoy me as such). They don't really believe Jesus is God when asked directly yet they insist on baptising their kids, first communion, confession ... etc. I don't understand what goes on in their heads. When pushed they define God as "love". The people I have spoken to in this category think there may have been a guy called Jesus 2000 years ago who was a great philosopher and was an all round good guy ... but when I ask did he perform miracles and was he born of a virgin ... the answer is NO!
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Then there's the likes of friends in the Christian forum, who will argue but bend logic, engage in word play and tell you about amazing co-incidences of meeting their friend when they needed to get a spare tyre on a highway. They are adamant they are right. They are adamant you are lost.
    I admire this group much more than the first. They have thought about their beliefs, and even though I disagree with them, at least they have given it some though.

    I would love to see a comprehensive poll done in this country where the questions asked were not just what is your religion but questions that find out what people actually believe. In my opinion, the results of such a poll would result in the majority of people labelling themselves as Christian, but when the questions on their beliefs were analysed, the majority would actually be diest/pantheists.

    I think most people in this country fall into the first category.
    http://religiousrant.blogspot.com/2006/09/irish-catholic-over-50s-dont-all.html
    An Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll found 62 percent of over-50s, Ireland's fastest-growing demographic sector, agree there is life after death, 12 percent disagree, 21 percent say they don't know and 5 percent have no opinion

    http://www.secularism.org.uk/irishpollshowsparentsnolongerwan.html
    22% do not think there is an afterlife

    But the CSO figures show 93% labelling themselves as Christian. Go figure!


  • Options
    #5
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    People like the shared sense of community that things like the church can offer.
    In the end of the day if they're happy with it and getting something from it, which we can assume they are since they're staying with it I can't see what the issue is.

    Perhaps a bit of intolerance which is the common accusation levelled at the believers is also evident here as well.


  • Options
    #6
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    People like the shared sense of community that things like the church can offer.
    In the end of the day if they're happy with it and getting something from it, which we can assume they are since they're staying with it I can't see what the issue is.

    Perhaps a bit of intolerance which is the common accusation levelled at the believers is also evident here as well.

    Rev Hellfire, you one of the most tolerant posters here, why do you think this is?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Rev Hellfire, you one of the most tolerant posters here, why do you think this is?

    Old age and kids have taken the fight out of me :D


  • Options
    #8
    UU
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭UU


    Yeah my friend's grandmother is a bit like that. She goes to Church, not Roman Catholic, but Anglican because some friends of hers go there and she was raised Protestant. I think for her it's more of a social thing and when asked about her beliefs she's rather vague to be honest. She said she wasn't too sure whether God exists or not, she said she has her doubts but she said she likes. Whilst prescribing to a form of agnosticism, I do respect her sincerity that she only goes to church as a social and traditional thing rather than the actual theology and beliefs. Although, I'm not that harsh of a person to condemn her for it (and I wouldn't) because at least she's sincere in that the whole church thing is merely a social thing and she does live alone, her husband is long dead and her children rarely make enough time for her.


  • Options
    #9
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Why is it so important to you though?

    Is everything not hard to follow to the letter?

    Who do you know supports their football team at every single match?
    What about people who support a political party but dont follow and support their every movement?

    Im not saying religious people are correct if they dont follow their religion to the letter, but I'm asking why does it get to you that much?

    Why do you find it so annoying. Is it because you want an exact scientific answer and hate the vagueness, is that it?


  • Options
    #10
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    just wondering to myself: how would you define love. Is it not impossible to put an emotion into words? You can't scientifically break it down


  • Options
    #11
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Just wondering what the colour blue smells like myself. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    I'm saying it is hard for people to explain what I see as an emotive belief in religion. Right Dades see if you can put love into words for me!


  • Options
    #13
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Why is it so important to you though?

    Is everything not hard to follow to the letter?

    Who do you know supports their football team at every single match?
    What about people who support a political party but dont follow and support their every movement?

    Im not saying religious people are correct if they dont follow their religion to the letter, but I'm asking why does it get to you that much?

    Why do you find it so annoying. Is it because you want an exact scientific answer and hate the vagueness, is that it?

    I think it's more the extent of vagueness there. I think we can safely say that religions are usually rather more meaningful to adherents than football clubs or political parties. They potentially dictate morality and certainly dictate how we think about life and death. So while naturally failing to follow a religion "to the letter" is expected, the very loose following and mixing/matching of standard faiths with incompatible philosophies and ritualistic behaviour is quite curious. I don't personally find it annoying, though I do think it suggests a person's faith is uncertain and possibly in question.


  • Options
    #14
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    just wondering to myself: how would you define love. Is it not impossible to put an emotion into words? You can't scientifically break it down

    Love is the release of pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin which together act in a manner similar to amphetamines. Usually it is triggered by a strong bond of affection which comes in many forms. It's a lot more complex than that but it can be scientifically broken down. There is a lot more research to be done in this area and it's a slow process because it strongly relates to many areas of behavioural science such as neural psychology and social neuroscience which are only in the early stages of development.


  • Options
    #15
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    just wondering to myself: how would you define love. Is it not impossible to put an emotion into words? You can't scientifically break it down

    You can really....as I put it in this thread (also by Tim)http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055423474.


  • Options
    #16
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    sink wrote: »
    Love is the release of pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin which together act in a manner similar to amphetamines. Usually it is triggered by a strong bond of affection which comes in many forms. It's a lot more complex than that but it can be scientifically broken down. There is a lot more research to be done in this area and it's a slow process because it strongly relates to many areas of behavioural science such as neural psychology and social neuroscience which are only in the early stages of development.

    Problem is that some people see this and think that it devalues love. As if it were a magicians trick that we've spoiled. We're such party poopers. But we still feel it the same for all our knowledge of it. Its emotional value is not changed. Scientific understanding does not damage things, in my view. Of course, what MLM might mean is that we can't reduce the full extent of feeling into text, but centuries of literature tell me otherwise.


  • Options
    #17
    Whispered
    Registered Users Posts: 14,772 ✭✭✭✭Whispered


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I don't know about anyone else but I know some Christians who just couldn't be bothered arguing their beliefs.....................
    Basically they are religiously active but don't seem to care about what's true what isn't true.
    Maybe they just don't feel the need to explain themselves to you?
    komodosp wrote: »
    Also the "everyone's entitled to their belief" ones are annoying.
    So in your opinion people are not entitled to hold their belief?


  • Options
    #18
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    sink wrote: »
    Love is the release of pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin which together act in a manner similar to amphetamines. Usually it is triggered by a strong bond of affection which comes in many forms. It's a lot more complex than that but it can be scientifically broken down. There is a lot more research to be done in this area and it's a slow process because it strongly relates to many areas of behavioural science such as neural psychology and social neuroscience which are only in the early stages of development.

    the world's last big romantic! :D:D:D


  • Options
    #19
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    you've got a point, i think the ones who wont speak up for themselves are more annoying.

    its rare to find anyone who'll admit to being roman catholic, never found one over on that board.

    lostexpectation,

    The roman catholic church is an organisation which interprets the bible.
    They have 'interpreted' many things to suit their own hierarchy: e.g. to further the power of the people they have in command.

    This is why people do not call themselves roman catholic. Why would I want to associate myself with them?


  • Options
    #20
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    helena.ryan wrote: »
    Maybe they just don't feel the need to explain themselves to you?
    They don't even feel the need to explain themselves to themselves.
    We are talking deep visceral thought here.


  • Options
    #21
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Rev Hellfire, you one of the most tolerant posters here, why do you think this is?

    no he not, he's the most dismissive, he tries to suggest that claiming there a supernatural god isn't a big deal or something to be questioned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    lostexpectation,

    The roman catholic church is an organisation which interprets the bible.
    They have 'interpreted' many things to suit their own hierarchy: e.g. to further the power of the people they have in command.

    This is why people do not call themselves roman catholic. Why would I want to associate myself with them?

    im assuming your sort of evangical, im just wondering where all the roman catholic people are, there must be some.


  • Options
    #23
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    komodosp wrote: »
    Also the "everyone's entitled to their belief" ones are annoying. Probably mainly the same people
    Everyone is entitled to their belief. Even beliefs you don't think make sense. A lot of people have their beliefs and it makes sense to them, but have no skills to argue it.

    I am a highly critical thinker (and a Christian) and so are many people on this forum (though they may be atheists). Not everyone thinks the same way, and it is better to accept this difference, and learn to tolerate it rather than being annoyed. Peoples' psychological setup is different - what's why the belief that everyone reacts to the same way to the same information is obviously false.

    What advantage is there to proselytising atheism anyway? THe amount of self-righteousness here is insane.
    Belen Dirty Tic-tac-toe wrote: »
    Practically every Christian I know in the real world are like this, my parents included. I consider this group to be the most annoying (even though it doesn't really annoy me as such). They don't really believe Jesus is God when asked directly yet they insist on baptising their kids, first communion, confession ... etc.

    I don't understand what goes on in their heads. When pushed they define God as "love". The people I have spoken to in this category think there may have been a guy called Jesus 2000 years ago who was a great philosopher and was an all round good guy ... but when I ask did he perform miracles and was he born of a virgin ... the answer is NO!
    They are not Christians, they are traditionalists. Not the same. It may seem terribly important to you that they get their terminology right, but it is not so important to them.

    It works from the other side too. There are numerous atheists, especially young people, who cannot justify their atheism any better than the people you speak of can defend their Christianity.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    They don't even feel the need to explain themselves to themselves.
    We are talking deep visceral thought here.
    I know how you feel, and as a Christian I also am sometimes confounded by the behavious you are talking about it. However, rather than just branding them as idiots, or thoughtless, I prefer to actually look at them as equals to my intelligence, and as humans in a particular social context.

    Do not assume that because they do not explain themselves to you, and do it poorly when pressed, that they don't explain themselves to themselves.

    There are powerful social pressures that make most religious people very nervous when it comes to explaining their beliefs. One wrong move and they'll be judged as irrational or fundamentalist, uncool, etc. Nervous people don't explain things too well.


  • Options
    #24
    EamonnKeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 950 ✭✭✭EamonnKeane


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Why is it so important to you though?

    Is everything not hard to follow to the letter?

    Who do you know supports their football team at every single match?
    What about people who support a political party but dont follow and support their every movement?

    Im not saying religious people are correct if they dont follow their religion to the letter, but I'm asking why does it get to you that much?

    Why do you find it so annoying. Is it because you want an exact scientific answer and hate the vagueness, is that it?
    His point is that they claim to be religious yet clearly are not. Either God exists and he created a son who died to purge the sins of mankind and rose from the dead, or he did not. And if you genuinely believe this happened, its significance surely dwarfs to a colossal degree anything else that has ever happened, and you would make it the centre of your life and identity. The fact that people do not do this shows that they see religion as having just a social, community function, which it does.


  • Options
    #25
    8kvscdpglqnyr4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭8kvscdpglqnyr4


    Húrin wrote: »
    Everyone is entitled to their belief. Even beliefs you don't think make sense.
    I agree.
    Húrin wrote: »
    They are not Christians, they are traditionalists. Not the same. It may seem terribly important to you that they get their terminology right, but it is not so important to them.
    Again, I agree - they are not Christian. The main reason I think it's important that they get their name right is so that Ireland can become a more secular country. For example, if it turned out that 40% of the population are Christian (i.e. followers of Jesus), and the rest were a mix of diests/agnostics/atheists, then it would be a huge step towards getting religion out of 95% of our schools.
    Húrin wrote: »
    It works from the other side too. There are numerous atheists, especially young people, who cannot justify their atheism any better than the people you speak of can defend their Christianity.
    This is where I disagree completley. I don't think people should have to justify their atheism just like you don't have to justify your lack of belief in the invisible pink unicorn that sits beside Mary Harney in the Dail everyday:pac:


  • Options
    #26
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Belen Dirty Tic-tac-toe wrote: »
    Again, I agree - they are not Christian. The main reason I think it's important that they get their name right is so that Ireland can become a more secular country. For example, if it turned out that 40% of the population are Christian (i.e. followers of Jesus), and the rest were a mix of diests/agnostics/atheists, then it would be a huge step towards getting religion out of 95% of our schools.
    If they define themselves as Christian, then Christian they are. There's only one requirement to be a Christian which is naturally to believe (how ever passively) in the idea of Christ.
    That's it, nothing more. Going to mass/service, believing or not believing the bible, etc is all purely optional as is putting any thought into the matter.


  • Options
    #27
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Húrin wrote: »
    It works from the other side too. There are numerous atheists, especially young people, who cannot justify their atheism any better than the people you speak of can defend their Christianity.
    Unable to justify their disbelief in the one god out of hundreds that you believe in? No doubt you can offer justifications for not believing in all those other gods you dismiss.
    Húrin wrote: »
    THe amount of self-righteousness here is insane.
    We keep forgetting that Christians are the chosen ones!


  • Options
    #28
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Húrin wrote: »
    I am a highly critical thinker (and a Christian) and so are many people on this forum (though they may be atheists).
    What makes you think you are a higher critical thinker? What critical thinkers do you read or have you read?
    They are not Christians, they are traditionalists. Not the same. It may seem terribly important to you that they get their terminology right, but it is not so important to them.
    There is no precision, objective, agreed definition for a Christian that all people who call themselves Christians agree on. Where's your critical thinking there?

    However, rather than just branding them as idiots, or thoughtless, I prefer to actually look at them as equals to my intelligence, and as humans in a particular social context.

    Do not assume that because they do not explain themselves to you, and do it poorly when pressed, that they don't explain themselves to themselves.

    There are powerful social pressures that make most religious people very nervous when it comes to explaining their beliefs. One wrong move and they'll be judged as irrational or fundamentalist, uncool, etc. Nervous people don't explain things too well.
    I disagree. They are in this position, because one part of their brain knows it's irrational and another part of their brain longs for it.


  • Options
    #29
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Dades wrote: »
    We keep forgetting that Christians are the chosen ones!
    Thought that would be the Jewish people!


  • Options
    #30
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Thought that would be the Jewish people!
    Ahem... the important thing here is that it won't be you or me. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Belen Dirty Tic-tac-toe wrote: »
    Again, I agree - they are not Christian. The main reason I think it's important that they get their name right is so that Ireland can become a more secular country. For example, if it turned out that 40% of the population are Christian (i.e. followers of Jesus), and the rest were a mix of diests/agnostics/atheists, then it would be a huge step towards getting religion out of 95% of our schools.
    It would also require not only terminological awareness among the people, but also actually caring about the fact that the catholic religion is taught in the schools. Most people don't seem to see it as a problem even if they don't believe.
    This is where I disagree completley. I don't think people should have to justify their atheism just like you don't have to justify your lack of belief in the invisible pink unicorn that sits beside Mary Harney in the Dail everyday:pac:
    I believe in Brian Cowen!

    Seriously though, I didn't mean that people should have to justify their atheism. I'm just trying to refute the assumption that I get in this thread, that all atheists are so because they have applied rigorous logic and reasoning to their information about the world, are well read on the subject, etc.

    There are people who call themselves Christian who are vague, uncertain and who seemingly have not thought much about it; and there are people who call themselves atheists who are vague, uncertain and who seemingly have not thought much about it.
    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    If they define themselves as Christian, then Christian they are. There's only one requirement to be a Christian which is naturally to believe (how ever passively) in the idea of Christ.
    No, the requirement to be Christian is to follow Christ. A passive intellectual acceptance of his claims does not suffice.
    Dades wrote: »
    Unable to justify their disbelief in the one god out of hundreds that you believe in? No doubt you can offer justifications for not believing in all those other gods you dismiss.
    I can, but there is no point in getting into the debate on the reality of the Christian God here.
    We keep forgetting that Christians are the chosen ones!
    This is not self-righteousness. Christians cannot take any credit to themselves for being Christian, nor does it confer any special moral authority on them.


Advertisement