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

"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Options
1…2829313334…71

Comments

  • Options
    #902
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Saganist wrote: »
    He doesn't. EVER.. Why would he.

    Well he wouldn't. And i don't believe "he" did.

    But that's not what you asked.
    Helix wrote: »
    there still needed to be a start point and an end point

    and again, i created time

    Is there some sort of point you're supposed to be making? I must be missing it!


  • Options
    #903
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Helix wrote: »
    its because he's a journalist who likes to disregard grammar rules on his down time

    fun it seems like

    carry on helix


  • Options
    #904
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Is there some sort of point you're supposed to be making? I must be missing it!


    that the logic being used in this thread is laughably altered to suit believer's arguement?

    im using the same ridiculous logic


  • Options
    #905
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Helix wrote: »
    that the logic being used in this thread is laughably altered to suit believer's arguement?

    im using the same ridiculous logic

    Ah, ok!


  • Options
    #906
    franklyshocked
    Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭franklyshocked


    PAULWATSON wrote: »
    I don't pride myself on "the scientific method", or believe in evolution for that matter.

    So this is how its all seperated? Atheists believe in the scientific method and religious people dont, therefore you don't believe in science or evolution.

    I know plenty of catholics who are smart enough to understand both the scientific method and how it relates to evolution and also who understand that evolution is a natural force.
    The term survival of the fittest does not refer to physical fittness. It means that the organism (animal) is most suited or most adapted to live in its surroundings. Your surroundings shape you.
    Pride in ignorance baffles me. I thought pride was a sin?

    If you don't understand something pick up a book and learn about it, don't assume it must be wrong just because you don't understand it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #907
    scientific1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    Noreen1 wrote: »
    I got to page 36, and decided to skip the rest!:D

    Some atheists seem to go out of their way to sneer at believers at every opportunity. I tend to ignore their posts.

    Some believers are equally annoying. I ignore them, too.

    Personally, I don't care what anyone believes, or disbelieves.
    It's when any one group tries to infringe on the rights of another that I get annoyed.

    Sadly, there are people in both categories who assume they have a right to do so - based on the notion that fighting for "their" rights gives them "carte blanche" to trample all over everyone else.....

    Whenever all of us learn the basic courtesy of showing respect for others, then genuine problems in society can start to be addressed.
    "Militants" in either group can only delay this, however.

    Noreen
    Noreen1 can you give me an example of when atheists infringe upon the rights of others. Ill give you an example of when some religious people infringe upon the rights of us all, its called the blasphemy law. It infringes upon my freedom of speech.


  • Options
    #908
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    Holy **** this is still going?


  • Options
    #909
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    Holy **** this is still going?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTxr2NJHa0


  • Options
    #910
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    You don't have to believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean you should believe in creationism.

    My ex-girlfriend was a theologian and she used to tell me every priest she knows (and she knew a lot) understood that the bible wasn't supposed to be interpreted literally. "God created man in his own image" doesn't mean we magically appeared on earth exactly the way we are now and hung out with dinosaurs.


  • Options
    #911
    Angron
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Music Moderators, Regional Midlands Moderators Posts: 24,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭Angron


    I'm what some would call atheist (though I identify more with nihilism), but I don't feel overly smug about it. Don't see why I should really..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #912
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    scientific1982 wrote: »
    Noreen1 can you give me an example of when atheists infringe upon the rights of others. Ill give you an example of when some religious people infringe upon the rights of us all, its called the blasphemy law. It infringes upon my freedom of speech.

    Can you give an example of the last time blasphemy was applied to a case which would set precedent against your freedom of speech? Using a seldom applied law to rally against religion is pretty much the same as what you're trying to show is avoided.


  • Options
    #913
    SquirrelFace
    Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭SquirrelFace


    Just out of curiosity, has anyone looked at the tags on this thread?? (Maybe its been mentioned before but im not checking 60 pages..:o)

    my favourites are Atheists eat babies, babies are delicious....


  • Options
    #914
    scientific1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Can you give an example of the last time blasphemy was applied to a case which would set precedent against your freedom of speech? Using a seldom applied law to rally against religion is pretty much the same as what you're trying to show is avoided.
    Doesnt matter if it hasnt been applied. The law is still there and could be applied in the future. Its still illegal to make blasphemous comments.


  • Options
    #915
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    You don't have to believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean you should believe in creationism.

    That's because Evolution is not something which requires belief, it's a fact.

    it's like saying "You don't have to believe in water". Water exists whether you believe it or not. It's a fact!


  • Options
    #916
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Can you give an example of the last time blasphemy was applied to a case which would set precedent against your freedom of speech? Using a seldom applied law to rally against religion is pretty much the same as what you're trying to show is avoided.

    then what about getting non catholic kids into school in ireland being so bloody tough?

    or taxpayers money paying off abuse victims?


  • Options
    #917
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    That's because Evolution is not something which requires belief, it's a fact.

    it's like saying "You don't have to believe in water". Water exists whether you believe it or not. It's a fact!

    It's not a fact. It's a theory. Theories are often proven to be wrong.

    Personally I think it's the best we have and is probably right.


  • Options
    #918
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    It's not a fact. It's a theory. Theories are often proven to be wrong.

    Personally I think it's the best we have and is most probably right.

    FYP.:)


  • Options
    #919
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    It's not a fact. It's a theory. Theories are often proven to be wrong.

    Personally I think it's the best we have and is probably right.

    Oh my Gosh!!!!!!

    You haven't read the thread either!

    What do you mean "Just a theory"? You do know there is more than one definition of the word theory right? And the one you are using is not the one being used for the "Theory" of Evolution!

    So many circles with people in this bloody thread!

    READ THE THREAD!!!! :mad::mad::mad:


  • Options
    #920
    Evil Phil
    Registered Users Posts: 7,468 ✭✭✭Evil Phil


    JohnathanM wrote: »
    Tell me more...

    It's called going Skyclad. Wiccans worship in the nude, well their religious rites are practiced in the nude by some wiccan groups. Now, some dismiss wiccans as evil witches commited to hell spawn etc, but it's really a nature religion I believe. Although the do call themselves witches, and practice ritual magick. They worship an earth goddess and her consort the god (if he's an earth god I don't know). Anyway, The point for this thread is that they believe in gods and godesses. My point is they are generally condemned by numerous other religions for doing so.


  • Options
    #921
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Oh my Gosh!!!!!!

    You haven't read the thread either!

    What do you mean "Just a theory"? You do know there is more than one definition of the word theory right? And the one you are using is not the one being used for the "Theory" of Evolution!

    So many circles with people in this bloody thread!

    READ THE THREAD!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

    What?

    You said evolution is a fact. (Which is incorrect).

    Don't be as close minded as the religious folk... theories can be wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #922
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    What?

    You said evolution is a fact. (Which is incorrect).

    Don't be as close minded as the religious folk... theories can be wrong.

    Mr.Loverman, if you are going to engage the thread, the least you can do is read it.

    "Theories" can be wrong. But Evolution is not a theory in the way you are using the word.

    Please try to keep up. You are about the 6th different person so far who has had to have this explained to them

    Please read the thread.


  • Options
    #923
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    What?

    You said evolution is a fact. (Incorrect).

    Don't be as close minded as the religious folk... theories can be wrong.

    Evolution is of course factual, it is supported by tons and tons of evidence, through paleontology, molecular biology and plain evolutionary biology.

    It happened, that's a fact. Whether it explains ALL life on earth remains to be seen, as we haven't studied ALL life yet. But for all the millions of species the Earth has borne, it is obviously the case that life evolved.

    And that isn't going to change.


  • Options
    #924
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Mr.Loverman, if you are going to engage the thread, the least you can do is read it.

    "Theories" can be wrong. But Evolution is not a theory in the way you are using the word.

    Please try to keep up. You are about the 6th different person so far who has had to have this explained to them

    Please read the thread.

    You want me to read 60 pages so you can say incorrect things like "evolution is a fact"?

    It isn't. It's a theory. (A theory I think is probably correct).

    I am a scientist btw.


  • Options
    #925
    stevoslice
    Registered Users Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭stevoslice


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    It's not a fact. It's a theory.

    what about einstein's theories, can you justify some people choosing not to believe that the universe is expanding, even though it has pretty much been proven beyond reasonable doubt.


  • Options
    #926
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    You want me to read 60 pages so you can say incorrect things like "evolution is a fact"?

    It isn't. It's a theory. (A theory I think is probably correct).

    I am a scientist btw.

    And how would you define a theory? Is it not a hypothesis confirmed with sufficient evidence to both build the case and support it? If there was any decent evidence which destroyed the theory, it would no longer be used. Is that not the case?

    I am a microbiologist myself. You?


  • Options
    #927
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    thebhoy wrote: »
    what about einstein's theories, can you justify some people choosing not to believe that the universe is expanding, even though it has pretty much been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    Have you never read any science histoty books? Theories are constantly proven to be wrong. I'm surprised I have to explain this...


  • Options
    #928
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Caesar Augustus wrote: »
    Evolution is of course factual, it is supported by tons and tons of evidence, through paleontology, molecular biology and plain evolutionary biology.

    It happened, that's a fact. Whether it explains ALL life on earth remains to be seen, as we haven't studied ALL life yet. But for all the millions of species the Earth has borne, it is obviously the case that life evolved.

    And that isn't going to change.

    Time for me to quote myself again! Jeez, this is getting old.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    People here have been saying that evolution hasn't been 100% proven, others are saying it has; it hasn't. Science doesn't prove anything absolutely, it still hasn't been 100% proven that the Earth is smaller than the Sun. Or that Ice turns into water when melted. Science doesn't deal in proofs, yet what we can say is that it seems beyond reasonable doubt that the Sun is larger than earth, and in that sense it can be regarded as colloquial fact. Evolution can also be regarded as a colloquial fact, there is a debate alright, but not the kind of debate anti-evolutionists would like lay people to think there is. Scientists still debate mechanisms or aspects of evolutionary theory, what they don't doubt is that organisms changed over time via various selection processes. Anti- evolution is purely driven by people who think their holy books written thousands of years ago are to be taken literal and as a fact. Ask most modern day theologians about Exegesis and they'll tell you that parts of the bible are a poem and metaphor, not a fact. In fact, most modern day theologians accept evolution because it's quite simply a part of reality.


    Evolution cannot be 100% proven, therefore it can only be considered a fact in the colloquial sense that Earth goes around the sun is a fact. It's only a theory and that's all it ever will be. The only thing science can actually prove is that if a theory is wrong, never right.


  • Options
    #929
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    You want me to read 60 pages so you can say incorrect things like "evolution is a fact"?

    It isn't. It's a theory. (A theory I think is probably correct).

    I am a scientist btw.
    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    What?

    You said evolution is a fact. (Which is incorrect).

    Don't be as close minded as the religious folk... theories can be wrong.

    If you are going to contribute to the thread then yes, the least you could do is read it!

    Your contribution has been made numerous times already!

    You think the use here of Theory means this:
    hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"


    When in fact it means this
    (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"


  • Options
    #930
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Caesar Augustus wrote: »
    And how would you define a theory? Is it not a hypothesis confirmed with sufficient evidence to both build the case and support it? If there was any decent evidence which destroyed the theory, it would no longer be used. Is that not the case?

    I am a microbiologist myself. You?

    Maths, then stats, then computer science. I went to Stanford. I'm not some dummy.

    Theories are not facts. History tells us this. This is basic stuff.

    You are totally being as closed minded as the religious nuts if you think science theories are infallible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #931
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    For Christs sake, YES IT'S A THEORY, and in scientific terms a theory is something that has lots of evidence to support it. I for one am sick of saying this, Dawkins is right, we need a new word for scientific theories that we're almost sure of.


Advertisement