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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Most annoying theist lines of argument?
Comments
-
You're more than welcome to start such a thread and we will be delighted to correct you if we feel you've misrepresented us
The very nature of the thread means that one can say that nothing has been misrepresented. You simply say, 'well I've heard that said before by a theist'.
Its this general 'Theists' that I take issue with and the context of its usage. It pidgeon holes and has a distinct flavour of guilty by association. Bigging up ones own worldview, and ones own intellect by slagging off someone elses. I don't buy the whole, 'well not every theist'. As I said, If i started an anecdotal thread on the arguements Atheists have used which revealed stupidity or lack of depth, I could use the same defence, 'Well I didn't say all atheists, but some have used these arguments'. All in all, its disingenuous IMO. Again though, I've derailed this enough.0 -
The very nature of the thread means that one can say that nothing has been misrepresented. You simply say, 'well I've heard that said before by a theist'.
Its this general 'Theists' that I take issue with and the context of its usage. It pidgeon holes and has a distinct flavour of guilty by association. Bigging up ones own worldview, and ones own intellect by slagging off someone elses. I don't buy the whole, 'well not every theist'. As I said, If i started an anecdotal thread on the arguements Atheists have used which revealed stupidity or lack of depth, I could use the same defence, 'Well I didn't say all atheists, but some have used these arguments'. All in all, its disingenuous IMO. Again though, I've derailed this enough.
My response in your hypothetical thread would be to say that the theist misrepresenting the position most likely misunderstood the argument being put forward. I would acknowledge the possibility that they might have been talking to a very stupid atheist who gave a very stupid argument but regardless, one of the two of them had the wrong understanding of the argument so I would then go on to give the correct interpretation so that the theist would no longer think it was stupid and would be left thinking either he or the person he was talking to were stupid
But of course I could only do that if the argument was actually a logical argument being misrepresented and not just a bad argument 0 -
My response in your hypothetical thread would be to say that the theist misrepresenting the position most likely misunderstood the argument being put forward. I would acknowledge the possibility that they might have been talking to a very stupid atheist who gave a very stupid argument but regardless, one of the two of them had the wrong understanding of the argument so I would then go on to give the correct interpretation so that the theist would no longer think it was stupid and would be left thinking either he or the person he was talking to were stupid
But of course I could only do that if the argument was actually a logical argument being misrepresented and not just a bad argument
'OR' I could realise how useless such a backslapper of a thread would be, and not start it in the first place. Just a thought.;) I'm more into the constructive educational element. If I was to start such a thread, it would more likely be, 'Arguments that had had me stumped, or Arguments that were good, what would be your retort'.
If Theists make no arguments that provoke such a reaction, then you can be safe in the knowledge that they've got nothing. No point in asking your friends over for a boasting party.0 -
"Atheism is a religion/faith too, who's to say which one of our 'faiths' is right"
Oh boy does that one p*ss me off!Then I proceeded to state rare arguements or misrepresented arguements etc that most atheists around here would not use, I'm pretty sure some of the atheist folk would give me more than a telling off.
Not as rare as you may think
:
Atheism would need to be included in this for any honest assesment to take place, as atheism is of itself a doctrine.0 -
-
'OR' I could realise how useless such a backslapper of a thread would be, and not start it in the first place. Just a thought.;) I'm more into the constructive educational element. If I was to start such a thread, it would more likely be, 'Arguments that had had me stumped, or Arguments that were good, what would be your retort'.
If Theists make no arguments that provoke such a reaction, then you can be safe in the knowledge that they've got nothing. No point in asking your friends over for a boasting party.
JimiTime, it's a bit of craic taking the piss out of the "other side". You shouldn't take yourself so seriously. I'm sure you've seen some awful arguments yourself that you can contribute, not every reason given to be a theist is a good one.
Something I often say, not just about religious people, is that those who are capable of rebutting an argument do so and those who aren't get offended and defensive. If, when someone makes fun of something you've said, instead of explaining exactly why they're wrong you get angry and lash out at them, maybe you should ask yourself if your position is valid 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
JimiTime, it's a bit of craic taking the piss out of the "other side".
Its all well and good reducing it to that, but a quick look about this forum and its anything but tbh. Some of the vitriol is quite serious IMO.You shouldn't take yourself so seriously.
I don't even get this phrase tbh.I'm sure you've seen some awful arguments yourself that you can contribute, not every reason given to be a theist is a good one.
Completely agree, which is why context is important.Something I often say, not just about religious people, is that those who are capable of rebutting an argument do so and those who aren't get offended and defensive.
I am neither offended nor defensive. What have I to defend or to be offended at?If, when someone makes fun of something you've said, instead of explaining exactly why they're wrong you get angry and lash out at them, maybe you should ask yourself if your position is valid
And those who are insecure need to keep harping on about how right they are, usually by pointing fingers at people who they think are stupid. Throwing mild insults is hardly constructive is it?0 -
-
-
-
Lucky It wasn't an impression of an atheist then. Rather an impression of a groupthinker generalising. Some of you really need to get your heads out of each others @rses. It will benefit you tenfold. Who knows, you may even learn something, and develop wisdom.
Weird, when I read that post earlier it was just the first sentence. Just couldn't resist poking at the beehive huh?The Mad Hatter wrote: »I loved Dara O'Briain's response to this:
"Of course science doesn't know everything, because if it did, it'd stop."
1:45I would not be moved to do such a thing. It would be fairly useless, as is this one IMO. i suppose my point is made, so I wont spoil the thread anymore.
And yet, you continue to make posts where you imply we are a bunch backslappers...0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
I read every comma of that thread, and I actually quite like how it turned out. Or at least, the way it was at page 15. When yourself and Sam Vines seem to find some kind of common ground with PDN, it always makes me hopeful for a peaceful solution between Israel and Palestine!
Israel and Palestine have nothing on us
On a side note, everyone thinks my name is vines
It's Vimes0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Wow, sorry!
Don't worry about it, everyone thinks it's vines. No one's ever seen the word vimes except people who read Terry Pratchett books so they just see what they expect to see. The m hides away in plain sightstevejazzx wrote: »..which is Douglas Adams...wait no..the other guy! damn?
The other guy indeedWell i'll be damned... When did you change it?
This might be a joke going over my head but it was always Vimes......
It's this guy:
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_VimesDaftendirekt wrote: »Didn't realise they had internet in Ankh Morpork :pac:
I'm posting by clacks :pac:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Funglegunk wrote: »That's what's annoying about it, it's not an argument at all (it's more of an anti-argument designed to shut the conversation down there and then, there must be a word for that?) and it's seen by them as a satisfactory answer. It's more an acknowledgement of 'I don't want to think about it' rather than wishful thinking.
Stonewalling???
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I agree with Sam, but I disagree with Emma:p
Gravity was, until Newton, just there no one really noticed it at all because it fit their reality common sense based view of reality at the time. There was no ridiculous ideas of "floating" in space (It's actually terrifying falling btw) or "weightlessness" on the roller coaster. People took the world as it was on blind faith and the idea of being stuck to the rock hardly crossed any of their minds.
The reason I suggested "protons" to Jimi is that now that we have been in space people are well aware of gravity and it's effects anyone who has seen a film shot/based in space knows, conceptually at least, as to what gravity pertains.
So belief in gravity is no longer necessary : it's there and we've all seen its effects.
Em, so maybe I agree with Emma after all? 0 -
I agree with Sam, but I disagree with Emma:p
Gravity was, until Newton, just there no one really noticed it at all because it fit their reality common sense based view of reality at the time. There was no ridiculous ideas of "floating" in space (It's actually terrifying falling btw) or "weightlessness" on the roller coaster. People took the world as it was on blind faith and the idea of being stuck to the rock hardly crossed any of their minds.
The reason I suggested "protons" to Jimi is that now that we have been in space people are well aware of gravity and it's effects anyone who has seen a film shot/based in space knows, conceptually at least, as to what gravity pertains.
So belief in gravity is no longer necessary : it's there and we've all seen its effects.
Em, so maybe I agree with Emma after all?
You don't have to make me feel better I'm simply trying to differentiate between what is a theory and what is a fact and how god and gravity can't be compared. 0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree with Sam, but I disagree with Emma:p
Gravity was, until Newton, just there no one really noticed it at all because it fit their reality common sense based view of reality at the time. There was no ridiculous ideas of "floating" in space (It's actually terrifying falling btw) or "weightlessness" on the roller coaster. People took the world as it was on blind faith and the idea of being stuck to the rock hardly crossed any of their minds.
The reason I suggested "protons" to Jimi is that now that we have been in space people are well aware of gravity and it's effects anyone who has seen a film shot/based in space knows, conceptually at least, as to what gravity pertains.
So belief in gravity is no longer necessary : it's there and we've all seen its effects.
Em, so maybe I agree with Emma after all?
And PS. I think there are several scientists who might be annoyed that apparently, nobody thought of gravity before Newton Aristotle had something to say about it and that predated Newton by nearly 2000 years. Albeit, his theory of gravity is pretty ridiculous compared to today's standard but he still tried to address it. Not to mention Galileo... 0 -
doctoremma wrote: »And PS. I think there are several scientists who might be annoyed that apparently, nobody thought of gravity before Newton Aristotle had something to say about it and that predated Newton by nearly 2000 years. Albeit, his theory of gravity is pretty ridiculous compared to today's standard but he still tried to address it. Not to mention Galileo...
I was kinda referring to the general population, but I really should have said Galileo.
The principle of my point is still the same though.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE
Advertisement