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
Comments
-
-
OutlawPete wrote: »Think it's the other way around actually, but I guess people that don't take the time to read the whole thread, will just listen to your bleatings and think their might be some truth in it, there isn't
Do I really have to go through your 180 odd posts on this thread and quote everytime you threw a dig at me?
I'm done with the thread, keep patronzing people as much as you want.
I clicked your username and went through your posts in this thread. There were 3-- just 3-- that couldn't be construed as being flippant, churlish, smug, or condescending. Every single other post of yours sniped. You contributed basically nothing, disappeared whenever we offered to engage in legitimate debate, and came back in just to snipe and disappear again.
Odd behaviour for someone who claims to be all about respect. Or whatever it is you're going for.OutlawPete wrote: »You'd do well to read the thread a little more throughly and you just might see that I was involved in the debate form the beginning and that that particular user has done nothing but insult and post condescending tripe to almost every poster that has disagreed with him.
188 posts on the thread and not once has he shown respect for someone that has not had the same opinion as himself.
Not that he has been the only on that side of the debate to speak down to other users and so when that happens, you can hardly blame people for replying in kind.
Eh, MrStuffins was fine with anyone who was actually respectful. Check out our discussion with Jakkass, he was nothing but polite.OutlawPete wrote: »Well, that's how I tend to use the Internet, online for a few hours, offline for a few, sorry if you live online.
Must be a drag to live like that I really, especially when that's all the existence that you think you'll ever have, you not believing in an afterlife and all.
Seriously, dude? Look at what you're crying out against and compare it to what you're saying. When you come in, throw out snipes like this, what are you expecting the response to be, hm? Of course you're getting negative reactions, because, quite frankly, you're coming across as an arrogant, bitter person in this thread. I don't think you're like that but I have to say I'm pretty shocked altogether.
[QUOTE=OutlawPete;68441223]Thread has now evolved into the usual Circle jerk.
Why, all aspects of evolution must indeed be true.[/QUOTE]
Again, more completely unnecessary flippancy. The thread wasn't even heated, they were all making jokes and taking the piss, and yet you STILL can't let your bitterness drop.OutlawPete wrote: »Really?
You have accused me of being condescending quite a few times, which I find laughable to be quite honest with you.
Take this recent post from you:
You are quite simply the most arrogant and condescending poster on this thread and have been from the start.
You Sir, are the poster boy for what the OP was complaining about.
I won't bother pointing out the hypocrisy.OutlawPete wrote: »Quite sad.
You, among others, are making the error of thinking that because you have stated something on this thread and posters who disagreed, then did not return, that this must then mean that you were right and that they have somehow accepted what you have said as being fact.
Arrogance in the extreme.
Calling someone else "quite sad" is also pretty arrogant.OutlawPete wrote: »There two quotes do NOT contradict each other,in as you are so smugly trying to imply.
I don't believe the latter, precisely because I don't accept the former.
More flippancy.. for no apparent reason at all, at that.OutlawPete wrote: »Of FFS!!!
When will you people get it into your head, that just because there are some people that do not accept ALL aspects of the Theory Of Evolution, DOES NOT mean that they do not believe that humans, plants and animals are evolving.
COMPLETELY uncalled for reaction tbh, and the fact that you keep coming in with these hysterical responses and yet REFUSE to tell us what your point of view is so we can include it and debate it isn't doing you any favours.
We would be well willing to engage in respectful debate with you as we did with Jakkass, who I'm sure holds far more extreme religious views than yourself. But not if you keep overreacting and flipping out and completely acting the way you're chastising.OutlawPete wrote: »Aye, I believe they put that 'report post' button there for such occasions.
Oh sorry, where you speaking of MrStuffin's Theory of Evolution?
I don't sneer and laugh at people who believe things and go about their business as atheists do.
Well most condescending atheists sound as obnoxious as him, so they'll have to excuse the misunderstanding that they must in fact be members of his fan club.
Most atheists have a boner for Dawkins, so you'll just have to get used to be tarred with the same brush for awhile.
Are you serious?
I have already stated that I believe humans are evolving, just as all animals and plants are and also that I believe 99% of all religions are a nonsense.
No doesn't that tell you that I am not a creationist?
Yet, you still think that because I don't buy all aspects of the 'Theory of Evolution', then I must put forth a "counter reason"???
Okay, here's one.
Creatures from another plant came down and took samples of Chimpanzee DNA and mixed it with their own and created us, kinda like how we stick human ears on mice and shit.
Will that do?
Not if you fully read people's post you won't.
Not if you fully .. you get the picture.
He asked you to specify which theory of evolution you were so vehemently decrying in your hysterical responses, and yet again you return with an utterly flippant, childish response. If you had just honestly answered without the attitude problem, again, I'm sure he would've returned in kind and the debate could've gone an awful lot nicer.
You claim many times you weren't condescending at all in this entire thread but I would seriously, seriously like to beg to differ based on this little collection here.OutlawPete wrote: »None of my posts have been condescending, neither the ones I posted before going to see Mr Nice, nor the ones after.
My last post, where I was accused of being condescending , was made in response to a condescending post asking me if I had read two particular books but yet said they most likely knew the answer.
Think the sarcasm in that post was lost on some, but hey - you do your best.
Course, if I was up my own arse, as most Atheists appear to be, I would of course say that in that post I was being ironic
Possible or not, they are entitled to their opinion and should be allowed to post without being labeled a troll.
Are you kidding?
You have been spouting on about it being "fact" and "proven, without a shadow of a doubt" from the very start of the thread:
Seriously? You claim you've not been condescending and try to defend when you were, and then follow up with calling us up our own arses?
Do you have any idea how self-defeatist you're being? Be reasonable, like!OutlawPete wrote: »Yes.
Hence the reply in the tone of intellectually challenged slack jawed sister shagging hillbilly.
When atheists and Dawkins sycophants start treating those on the opposite side of the debate with a little respect, instead of the usual patronizing comments, maybe that won't be necessary.
It's not an "atheists and Dawkins sycophant" problem. It's a HUMAN PROBLEM. Condescension belongs to both religion and atheism. Stop pretending like we're the only ones doing it, it's been incredibly evident from both sides since the beginning of the thread.OutlawPete wrote: »Ah, ya gots me.
No flies on you fellers.
I be thinking I knows a things or too, but I guess y'all folks with yer darn book smarts and all, be too darn clever for my sorts.
I'll be on my way now, maybes I should do me some book learning, like you city folk.
Y'all be taking care now, y'hear.
More flippancy and churlishness.OutlawPete wrote: »Ah, its 'nit picking' when somebody says something that shows your points to be invalid, but yet it's then fine for you to argue semantics about the use of the word 'theory'.
:rolleyes:
Users are not trolls just because they don't roll over and agree with you.
'Evolution' is not just a loose term that is saying humans, plants and animals evolve over time but we are not sure why and that there is a possibilty that they could all be connected in some way.
If that was the case, then nobody would have a problem with that 'Theory'.
However, Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution' is much much more than that.
Darwin puts forth the "fact" that ALL life stems from a single source!
This is the absolute backbone of the Theory of Evolution and there is NO EVIDENCE to back this up, perhaps there may never be.
Hey, that's something that you may have in common with Christians actually, you both believe in something that can quite possibly never be proven.
There is more than one theory of evolution and Darwin's is not the universally accepted one. It was the backbone for further exploration on the subject, yes, but since you refuse to tell us in any lucid way which theory of evolution you're actually talking about, and are continually bringing up Darwin, it's only fair for us to assume you're talking about that one (making your argument invalid as there has been proven, documented evolution and it is very much a "fact" in the way that gravity is a fact) because you refuse to offer anything else. Then you get mad because we're "assuming" so many things, and yet keep making blanket statements about what we atheists do/don't do/say/don't say/act/don't act.
You're just making it harder for yourself and CONSTANTLY fighting with us. You're not helping to remedy the situation at all and just making yourself look like a total hypocrite. I thought you were far more reasonable and level-headed than this. I'm well shocked.OutlawPete wrote: »"Explained" to me?
More condescension, lets stick to this thread, yeah.
Cop out.
Answer these points, should be no bother to you, what with Evolution (and all that term entails) being an irrefutable fact:- Tell us who our common ancestors were, you know - the species that humans and apes evolved from.
- Tell us were that 'common ancestor' is today.
- If they have died out - tell us why they died out and how.
- Is there hard scientific proof (of course there is, right?)
All your questions were answered and yet you refused to accept it. Don't blame us for getting frustrated with your continual sniping and refusing to accept things or debate them in any intelligent way that we could work with.OutlawPete wrote: »No it is not, far from it.
It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that we are evolving, but that is not even remotely the same thing.
It's called the 'Evolution Theory' for a reason.
When people talk about Evolution and whether or not they believe in it, there are so many different claims that have to be taken into consideration and claims touted as facts, that they have to accept.
For that reason I say that I don't believe in evolution.
NOT because I don't think we have evolved as humans, but that I don't believe EVERYTHING that is claimed.
Science whores regularly get blinded by what science shoves down their throats, a healthy dose of common sense would do most people who participate in the usual circle jerks, the world of good.
Of you go and tell me who our common ancestors were, you know - the species that humans and apes evolved from.
While you're at it, can you tell us were that 'common ancestor' is now.
If they have died out, can you tell us why and how.
Oh and can you include some hard scientific proof of that also.
Cheers.
Again, this was all covered, but you still refused to accept it.OutlawPete wrote: »They do in their arse
They talk down to people at any given chance, usually in the most condescending of manners.
I have seen them compare people that believe human beings have souls, to those that have mental illnesses.
You can't get much more condescending than that.
Do you not have ANY idea what you have done throughout the entire thread?OutlawPete wrote: »Have to agree with the OP here.
People just can't wait to tell you that they are atheists these days.
I really don't care if people are or not.
It's the fact that they titter and sneer at anyone who happens to believe in any kind of spirituality, that I find so contemptible.
Go and masturbate to Dawkins and his ilk as much as you want, I couldn't care less.
Just stop being so obnoxious about it in the process, it's boorish in the extreme to be quite honest.
We'll stop when you stop.
I'm done with this thread. Ridiculously disappointed with an awful lot of things in it right now and I'm just done with it.
Good luck, and sorry to anyone I didn't get around to responding to.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Darren J. Prior wrote: »God is The All- everything. We are all part of God and we are all individuations of God. As Deepak Chopra said when being interviewed by Gay Byrne on RTÉ last night "I was an atheist until I found out that I was God."
If there's one thing I admire about Deepak Chopra, it's his utter shamelessness when spouting that nonsensical word-salad without a shred of proof or even a half-effort at explaining it in metaphysical terms. He makes me laugh with derision every single time I see him on TV. Yet he is no worse than any other fraud trying to steal people's money by making absurd claims like that.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I don't know if fossils of the exact point of divergence have been found or if it would be possible to definitively point to a fossil as the point where the species diverged. You can however look up a great number of fossils that show the progress along the way. As for how and why they died out, again that's something that's very difficult to determine but 99% of species that have ever lived are now extinct so the idea that this species is now extinct really isn't that amazing. It would be more amazing if it wasn't.
I can give you one good example though to show that we had a common ancestor with apes (sorry if it's already been covered). One of the major problems facing the theory of common descent was that the great apes have 48 chromosomes and we have 46. What scientists found was that our chromosome 2 is nearly identical to two chromosomes in chimpanzees. The chromosome also has telomeres in the middle of it that are normally only found at the ends of chromosomes. The conclusion is that two chromosomes in apes fused end to end to form our chromosome 2.
You don't have to go digging in the ground to find evidence of common descent, it's not even the best way. The evidence is right there in our DNA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29
Not that digging in the ground has been completely unproductive
http://microecos.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hominid-tree.jpg0 -
Caesar Augustus wrote: »If there's one thing I admire about Deepak Chopra, it's his utter shamelessness when spouting that nonsensical word-salad without a shred of proof or even a half-effort at explaining it in metaphysical terms. He makes me laugh with derision every single time I see him on TV. Yet he is no worse than any other fraud trying to steal people's money by making absurd claims like that.
It's called faith and the sad people don't have it. The happy people do. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Darren J. Prior wrote: »It's called faith and the sad people don't have it. The happy people do.
It would appear indeed, that ignorance is bliss. Especially for those who sell it in bulk. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Darren J. Prior wrote: »It's called faith and the sad people don't have it. The happy people do.
Faith without reason..
I lack faith and I'm happy. Have I just disproved your argument ?0 -
-
scientific1982 wrote: »Noreen1 im not trying to be disrespectful to you but how can you and your church believe in evolution when thats not how the bible recounts creation. If you take the story of genesis as a metaphore, where does the metaphore end and where does the church begin to take the bible literally. Are the miracles mention in various books of the bible also metaphores or are they taken as fact.
It's pretty simple really. A day in the Bible usually refers to a period of time, or what we might now describe as an "era".
It may be a year, and it may be tens of thousands of years.
I could go off and dig up the information on what parts of the bible refer to as "a day", and what we know from referencing other historical documents means a different period of time - but I'd definitely get accused of "proselytising".
:D
Miracles are pretty much taken as fact, but with an allowance for "poetic licence". For example, Moses took 40 years to lead people through a (generally accepted as an impassable) swamp - not 40 days, with a literal parting of a sea.
The miracles performed by Jesus, on the other hand, are accepted as fact.
By the way, your post didn't come across as being in any way disrespectful.
I honestly have no problem with someone asking a question in a reasonable manner - I even enjoy the debate.
I do, however, generally avoid discussing Religious issues on Fora, because such debates inevitably lead to insults/condescending posts (Often from both sides).
And there's still the issue of "Proselytism".
Or to put it another way - I have no desire to try to impose my views/beliefs on anyone else, and even less desire to have someone try to impose their beliefs on me, or belittle my beliefs.
I'm not accusing you personally (or even most atheists/agnostics) of this - but there are some objectionable people who post regularly on boards who take every opportunity to ridicule religious belief, and, I refuse to sink to their level.
It's as simple as that. No offence intended, and hopefully, none taken?
Noreen0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement