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…3940424445…71

Comments

  • Options
    #1232
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Chairman Meow wrote: »
    Beliefs of any kind are like a penis. Its great to have one, and its cool to be proud of it, but dont try and stick it down my throat.

    Unless atheists are coming to your house and shouting in your letter box, what's the difference between "sticking their opinions down your throat" and "expressing an opinion just like everyone else"?


  • Options
    #1233
    Scanlas The 2nd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    Bookworm85 wrote: »
    Scanlas, I don't feel inferior in any way to this man. Yes, he is obviously very intelligent and a hell of lot smarter than I am. Superior intelectually yes, but as a human being? It's just I find him to be very aggressive. This man relishes in hammering his opinions down others throats and (just my opinion) seems to actively seek out opportunities to do so.

    He wants people to to think for themselves and not to be brainwashed.

    I don't know what you mean by hammering down people's throats, he doesn't do it Jeremy Kyle style. He has relatively calm discussions, sometimes he gets annoyed at times, and I don't blame him. He gets people with their agendas trying to twist and spin what he says and it must get frustrating.

    As for him being a superior human being?no he isn't,not to me anyway. No one is superior or inferior to anyone else. we just are as we are. Forget the labels.


  • Options
    #1234
    Shenshen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    prinz wrote: »
    Referring to parents "labelling" their children by religion as child abuse.

    It's not a stone's throw from telling people not to believe what your parents tell you to believe.

    Actually, that he does do.
    He likes to refer to a letter he once wrote to his 10-year-old daughter in which he tells her not ever to believe anything just because somebody says so, and he includes himself in that.

    Pretty sound advise, if you ask me.


  • Options
    #1235
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »
    He wants people to to think for themselves and not to be brainwashed....

    Once you keep buying his books of course.


  • Options
    #1236
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    prinz wrote: »
    Referring to parents "labelling" their children by religion as child abuse.

    It's not a stone's throw from telling people not to believe what your parents tell you to believe.

    I was responding to the line "so we'll all just believe what you tell us will we Richard?", which Chairman Meow used to label him a hypocrite. Telling people not to believe whatever their parents tell them is a good thing and not even a little bit like telling them they should believe what he tells them to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1237
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭optogirl


    prinz wrote: »
    Referring to parents "labelling" their children by religion as child abuse.

    It's not a stone's throw from telling people not to believe what your parents tell you to believe.


    Nobody, parents or otherwise, should tell you what to believe


  • Options
    #1238
    Shenshen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    prinz wrote: »
    Once you keep buying his books of course.

    Why not? I find "The blind watchmaker" and "The selfish gene" absolutely fascinating and insightful reads...


  • Options
    #1239
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »
    Dawkins is an honest man trying to do his part to make the world a better place in my opinion. He states that he thinks people are deluded on the subject of religion, if that makes him pompous and aggressive then so be it. He is a very intelligent man, so it I think some people can feel inferior to him when he makes his points so they call him arrogant. He is probably a lot smarter than me and I have no problem with that. I like to learn from people of superior intelligence and I wouldn't get defensive for him pointing out how I'm deluded about certain things. I love finding out things I'm deluded about.

    I don't think anyone would argue that Dawkins is a highly intelligent man BUT being highly intelligent does not preclude you from being arrogant and agressive.

    I respect that he is an athiest and that is beliefs are firm and strong. I admire anyone with strong conviction and belief. But I find the way he puts his arguments (when it comes to religion) across very condescending and pompus though in no way do I feel inferior, I have no reason to. Nor, I suspect, do most who critise him.

    It's a shame he's dictatorial on religion because in other areas I admit I find him very entertaining and interesting. i saw a program by him on Darwin called Darwin's dangerous idea and I loved it. It was informative and in no way arrogant or agressive.


  • Options
    #1240
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    Noreen1 wrote: »
    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: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.

    So basically if what the Book says doesn't fit the point you're trying to make or what you want it to say, you can just use a bit of poetic licence and reinterpret it as you wish?

    Is there an official list somewhere of what parts of the Bible (down to the chapter/verse level) are 'poetic licence' and what is to be taken literally?? I'm genuinely interested.


  • Options
    #1241
    Shenshen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I don't think anyone would argue that Dawkins is a highly intelligent man BUT being highly intelligent does not preclude you from being arrogant and agressive.

    I respect that he is an athiest and that is beliefs are firm and strong. I admire anyone with strong conviction and belief. But I find the way he puts his arguments (when it comes to religion) across very condescending and pompus though in no way do I feel inferior, I have no reason to. Nor, I suspect, do most who critise him.

    It's a shame he's dictatorial on religion because in other areas I admit I find him very entertaining and interesting. i saw a program by him on Darwin called Darwin's dangerous idea and I loved it. It was informative and in no way arrogant or agressive.

    Ok, I admit I haven't read all his books nor seen all his TV shows. But I must have missed some really significant ones, because I've never ever seen him being "dictatorial"... all I've ever seen him do is ask questions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1242
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭optogirl


    prinz wrote: »
    Once you keep buying his books of course.


    I don't think Dawkins has forced anyone into reading his books and he isn't standing on the corner of the street shouting at people unlike some good christians I have had the misfortune to come across. Good grief - there is so much paranoia out there among the religious. Slamming somebody for expressing their opinion when invited to do so and even, perish the thought, writing books about his research and findings, just shows you up to be intimidated by what is being said. You don't like people saying there is no god because it scares you. If you were truly comfortable in your beliefs, atheism wouldn't upset you so much.


  • Options
    #1243
    thebigbiffo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,941 ✭✭✭thebigbiffo


    Noreen1 wrote: »
    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: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.

    i like your style noreen ;)

    then i'll ask this though: you've pretty much accepted that the bible is rife in (at best) exaggeration and bluster. would you not accept that these stories, regardless of any factual basis, were composed for the simple reason of converting the 'dumb' masses to this religion?

    also, if you accept that this level misinformation was included, why does it not stand to reason that jesus' 'miracles' were not miracles at all? he could have just sent a lackey off to buy a few jars of wine at cana, maybe seeing for himself there wouldn't be enough...then presented them when the s'hit hit the fan...then its wrote into a book like a supreme magic trick...

    anyway you're with me, surely if you think one part was 'metaphorical', why not everything?


  • Options
    #1244
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So you agree with what they're saying, just not the way they're saying it?

    Or do you think they just shouldn't say it at all because you think people will inevitably get offended?

    I'm reminded of a quote from Mohammed Ali: "It's not bragging if you can back it up". Say someone says something like "you clearly don't understand evolution, go and read up on it". That might sound condescending but what if the person actually doesn't understand it? Surely there's only so far you can go trying to explain something to someone who has an ideologically motivated desire not to listen to you, be it with evolution or anything else?

    I think the unrelenting nature of those on both sides is what annoys me. You say yourself that you can only go so far to try and persuade someone to look at evidence, so why go beyond that point when it's obvious that the people you're trying to persuade have no interest in changing their minds?
    How would you respond to "you can't prove god doesn't exist" in a non-condescending and bearable way?

    Why do I need to respond in any way that suggests that God doesn't exist. I'm an Atheist, I reject the belief that God exists, but have no interest in trying to change the minds of those who want to believe. If people are interested in the evidence which reinforces the reasons why it's unlikely that God exists then I'll link to it and allow them to make up their own minds on how they interpret it.

    The other thing that irks me about the more vocal of Atheists is that some appear to almost relish the idea that bad things happen within the church.. as true as that is, pointing it out and pinning it on individual believers is a bit much. Attack the Pope, not the parishioners!

    Or when someone says that the belief in a God gives them strength, others jump on it and call them weak, insecure or simply pathetic. Tearing down someone's way of dealing with life is not an attack on religion.. it's an attack on that person.

    I'm only speaking in general terms here, and not trying to suggest that you or anyone else in the thread displayed those things


  • Options
    #1245
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I was responding to the line "so we'll all just believe what you tell us will we Richard?", which Chairman Meow used to label him a hypocrite. Telling people not to believe whatever their parents tell them is a good thing and not even a little bit like telling them they should believe what he tells them to.

    When the above coincides so frequently with insults and arrogance then they become quite a bit alike in fact. He does not provide a neutral alternative, which could be admired.


  • Options
    #1246
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    prinz wrote: »
    He wants people to to think for themselves and not to be brainwashed....

    Once you keep buying his books of course.

    Are you serious? Is there anything at all that Dawkins can do without earning the ire of the religious?!


    Writer earning money from his book, the b@stard...


  • Options
    #1247
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    optogirl wrote: »
    I don't think Dawkins has forced anyone into reading his books and he isn't standing on the corner of the street shouting at people unlike some good christians I have had the misfortune to come across. Good grief - there is so much paranoia out there among the religious. Slamming somebody for expressing their opinion when invited to do so and even, perish the thought, writing books about his research and findings, just shows you up to be intimidated by what is being said. You don't like people saying there is no god because it scares you. If you were truly comfortable in your beliefs, atheism wouldn't upset you so much.

    No, what upsets believers is the way in which some athiests like Dawkins look down their noses at us and insist on patronising and condescending towars us.

    I for one don't care if some-one doesn't believe in God, that'd entirely up to them. It's the manner in which those beliefs are expressed that's the problem.

    I'm certainly not scared or intimidated by athiesm, I've no reason to be. I'm as secure in my beliefs as they are.


  • Options
    #1248
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    optogirl wrote: »
    If you were truly comfortable in your beliefs, atheism wouldn't upset you so much.

    It doesn't. As you'd cop on to if you'd notice I have thanked quite a lot of posts by atheists on this very thread.


  • Options
    #1249
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    prinz wrote: »
    When the above coincides so frequently with insults and arrogance then they become quite a bit alike in fact. He does not provide a neutral alternative, which could be admired.

    I don't see how to be honest. Can you please explain how a statement like "don't just believe what anyone tells you, including me" changes to "believe whatever I tell you" if you have a perception that the person is speaking in an insulting way?


  • Options
    #1250
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭optogirl


    My name is URL wrote: »

    The other thing that irks me about the more vocal of Atheists is that some appear to almost relish the idea that bad things happen within the church.. as true as that is, pointing it out and pinning it on individual believers is a bit much. Attack the Pope, not the parishioners!


    I agree that it is unfortunate for many church-goers and believers that their church has let them down so badly but I do find it hard to see why anyone would want to continue to be a member of the catholic church. You can believe in god without subscribing to that particular brand with all its contempt for women, children, homosexuals, people who use contraception etc.


  • Options
    #1251
    Shenshen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    prinz wrote: »
    When the above coincides so frequently with insults and arrogance then they become quite a bit alike in fact. He does not provide a neutral alternative, which could be admired.

    Hang on... being insulting and arrogant turns your opinions into facts?

    You'll have to explain that one, I don't get it.

    And how much more neutral than "I see no evidence, nor need for this hypothesis, so I will regard it as improbable" can you possibly get?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1252
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    optogirl wrote: »
    I agree that it is unfortunate for many church-goers and believers that their church has let them down so badly but I do find it hard to see why anyone would want to continue to be a member of the catholic church. You can believe in god without subscribing to that particular brand with all its contempt for women, children, homosexuals, people who use contraception etc.

    I can only speak for myself but the way I look at it is I am not going to let a minority of sick-mided mosnters, whose beliefs really have nothing to do with what they did, turn me away from my faith.


  • Options
    #1253
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    c_man wrote: »
    Are you serious? Is there anything at all that Dawkins can do without earning the ire of the religious?! Writer earning money from his book, the b@stard...

    I think you missed my point entirely. Dawkins is not some selfless humanitarian who only wants what's best for x, and only wants y... the man is making money, he's a remarkably good self-publicist. More power to him. He's hit on a gold mine.


  • Options
    #1254
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭optogirl


    prinz wrote: »
    It doesn't. As you'd cop on to if you'd notice I have thanked quite a lot of posts by atheists on this very thread.


    That really doesn't prove anything - you seem to have a problem with people buying Dawkins books. Why?


  • Options
    #1255
    Shenshen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    prinz wrote: »
    I think you missed my point entirely. Dawkins is not some selfless humanitarian who only wants what's best for x, and only wants y... the man is making money, he's a remarkably good self-publicist.

    And you, of course, never took any money for any of your work and efforts?


  • Options
    #1256
    Bookworm85
    Registered Users Posts: 247 ✭✭Bookworm85


    @Shenshen,Scanlas The 2nd & thebigbiffo

    Okay, maybe aggressive is the wrong word to be using, and I will admit that Dawkins has done more for the atheist community in the last 10 years than anybody else I can think of. But I hate to see this man being 'worshipped' by the atheists all over the world.

    Mention the word atheist to anybody, and more than likely the first person that will pop into their minds is Dawkins. The man is everywhere and has turned into something of a media whore. He is quickly being associated with everything atheist, and I don't 'connect' with this man on many levels. The idea that we should aspire to be like him just doesn't sit well with me.


  • Options
    #1257
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭optogirl


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I can only speak for myself but the way I look at it is I am not going to let a minority of sick-mided mosnters, whose beliefs really have nothing to do with what they did, turn me away from my faith.


    but your faith teaches that women are inferior to men and homesexuality & using contraception is a sin. It's not as simple as saying - well, I agree with some of it and I just concentrate on those bits and ignore the others


  • Options
    #1258
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭optogirl


    Bookworm85 wrote: »

    Mention the word atheist to anybody, and more than likely the first person that will pop into their minds is Dawkins. The man is everywhere and has turned into something of a media whore. He is quickly being associated with everything atheist, and I don't 'connect' with this man on many levels. The idea that we should aspire to be like him just doesn't sit well with me.


    Try Christopher Hitchens - much less, forgive the term, preachy than Dawkins


  • Options
    #1259
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    optogirl wrote: »
    but your faith teaches that women are inferior to men and homesexuality & using contraception is a sin. It's not as simple as saying - well, I agree with some of it and I just concentrate on those bits and ignore the others

    Yes but using a bit of common sense I know those teachings are wrong. There is no reason why I can't believe but think critically too. It's quite simple actually.


  • Options
    #1260
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I don't see how to be honest. Can you please explain how a statement like "don't just believe what anyone tells you, including me" changes to "believe whatever I tell you" if you have a perception that the person is speaking in an insulting way?


    It's like this, let's say there are two boxes on a table, one blue one red one of which you could choose. It would admirable enough for someone to come along and tell people to think for themselves, not to be influenced etc. That's fine. If Dawkins did that I would have no issue with the man.

    What's disingenuous is to claim that that is what Dawkins does, when concurrently with telling people not to be swayed to either red and blue, he informs you that people who choose red are deluded, misguided, blinkered fools. It is just as much a case of influencing the choice.

    Perfectly fine from Dawkins: Believe in god(s) etc or don't. Personally I don't. The choice is there.

    Rubbish from Dawkins: Believe in god(s) etc or don't. Personally I don't, because people who do are x, y and z.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1261
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭optogirl


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Yes but using a bit of common sense I know those teachings are wrong. There is no reason why I can't believe but think critically too. It's quite simple actually.


    My point is that you call it your 'faith' yet you think the teachings are wrong. I don't get that and couldn't be a member of a club with rules and teachings I fundamentally disagreed with


Advertisement