"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Horus, Horus more than likely did predate Jesus, but there is no evidence that the story is in any way similar to Christianity. If you could find a manuscript that claims what you would like it to claim dated before Christianity that would be good. If they date, post Christianity, this is not sufficient evidence, as pagan groups could have easily modified their beliefs as Christianity came on the scene.

I'm not making a positive claim about gods, go look it up for yourself. Here's a useful start:http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5d.htm

Some texts suggest that the Horus as a Savior story emerged during the Amarna Period 1353-1336 BC.

Scanlas The 2nd

OutlawPete wrote: »

Other way around my friend.

It is ME that put questions to people earlier in the thread, yourself in fact - and you said you didn't know the answers to them.

Which is of course why I put the questions in the first place, think that might have gone over your head at the time though.

To accept Evolution, I believe - is to accept ALL that Evolutionists declare as fact and that is just something that I am not willing to do.

You can swallow all the hypothesis you wish and declare them facts as much as you like, but at the end of the day, they are anything but.

Now, I must go out, but please don't think I have "disappeared"

How do you think humans formed as we are today?

philologos

Caesar Augustus - then this isn't a discussion, and quite honestly I'm out if that is the case. If you wish to discuss, your viewpoint is subject to whatever scrutiny I happen to give it, if not, let's not.

I've given you what I need in order to take Horus, Mithra and so on as serious competitors to Jesus.

sponsoredwalk

OutlawPete wrote: »

Come on Liah, an apology would be the decent thing, don't you think?

You've got to be joking What do you want her to apologise for, for
calling you out on periodically leaving the thread at interesting times and
then coming back with vacuous claims about evolution? Quoting a load of
posts from the back and forth you had with a poster in an attempt to give
a one-sided view of your role in the thread is just bad, bad, I mean it's
just so obvious what you're attempting to do when you do that.

From your latest post it's apparent you see evolution as adhering to some
doctrinal belief, that's just ridiculous but please if you have questions
why don't you ask them properly and question the theory of evolution
rather than accepting it on faith. Throw all the questions you want at
us and see if we can show you there is very little taken on assumption
with this theory, seriously. However it takes specific questions, no matter
how ignorant of the facts they are, in order to learn something. I haven't
seen you write anything specific on the theory as of yet so can't
go any further until you do.

Johro

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

I for one am interested in what you have said/have to say, just because other's are ignorant and rude, doesn't make us all that way.

I'm not. He lost me right here:

"no, I'm actually an athiest"
These days, it seems everyone is tearing about the place mouthing off about "being an athiest".

Is this some sort of snobbish "new, new Ireland" thing that has passed me bye?

No bible basher myself, however I don't ever want to be confused with an athiest. I don't pride myself on "the scientific method", or believe in evolution for that matter.

One thing always bothered me about evolution, according to the theory the people around you are the fittest "best of the best" after two million years of dog eat dog. Now looking at this lot, what must the prototype have been like, a right clown I'd say.

(paedo this, paedo that, blah, blah, catholic church, blah, had enough, blah, superstition, blah, we're so educated, blah.)

Are you a smug little athiest?

Way too much wrong with the whole post. If you're gonna rant, have a point to make.

mike65

far too many use actually too often to be cool (or right)

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

Caesar Augustus - then this isn't a discussion, and quite honestly I'm out if that is the case. If you wish to discuss, your viewpoint is subject to whatever scrutiny I happen to give it, if not, let's not.

I've given you what I need in order to take Horus, Mithra and so on as serious competitors to Jesus.

It would indeed be preferrable to do this in more detailed individual topics, that are simply not possible here. Perhaps we can both agree to discuss these things at another time in another place? I will consider what you've said and try to reply in detail at some later stage when the topic arises again?

MagicMarker

OutlawPete wrote: »

Other way around my friend.

It is ME that put questions to people earlier in the thread, yourself in fact - and you said you didn't know the answers to them.

Which is of course why I put the questions in the first place, think that might have gone over your head at the time though.

To accept Evolution, I believe - is to accept ALL that Evolutionists declare as fact and that is just something that I am not willing to do.

You can swallow all the hypothesis you wish and declare them facts as much as you like, but at the end of the day, they are anything but.

Now, I must go out, but please don't think I have "disappeared"

Call me condescending if you wish, but your questions were pretty stupid, and are typical of people who don't really have a clue about evolution.

But, I'll bite...

Tell us who our common ancestors were, you know - the species that humans and apes evolved from.

I don't know. Tell me the names of your great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents. I bet you can't, but just because you don't know who they were, what they looked like or what their names were, doesn't mean they never existed.

Tell us were that 'common ancestor' is today.

Where are your great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents? Do you seriously think this is an intelligent question?

If they have died out - tell us why they died out and how.

How did your great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents die?

Is there hard scientific proof (of course there is, right?)

Proof of what? That we share a common ancestor? Yes. Just like there's proof you and your cousins share a common grandparent, great grandparent, great great grandparent etc.

So, back to a question you've ignored. Do you deny that your cousins are your cousins even though there is DNA evidence?

DOC09UNAM

Johro wrote: »

I'm not. He lost me right here:

"no, I'm actually an athiest"
These days, it seems everyone is tearing about the place mouthing off about "being an athiest".

Is this some sort of snobbish "new, new Ireland" thing that has passed me bye?

No bible basher myself, however I don't ever want to be confused with an athiest. I don't pride myself on "the scientific method", or believe in evolution for that matter.

One thing always bothered me about evolution, according to the theory the people around you are the fittest "best of the best" after two million years of dog eat dog. Now looking at this lot, what must the prototype have been like, a right clown I'd say.

(paedo this, paedo that, blah, blah, catholic church, blah, had enough, blah, superstition, blah, we're so educated, blah.)

Are you a smug little athiest?

Way too much wrong with the whole post. If you're gonna rant, have a point to make.

He didn't write that, the OP did

witnessmenow

I dont actually care either way, but I cam across this image on reddit and I thought it was topical

Typical Athiest:
http://i.imgur.com/iWIT5.jpg

squod

Science declares there's no such thing as a fish.

if we go back to most recent common ancestor of everything we now call fish, we find that they also were the ancestor of all four-legged land vertebrates, which obviously aren’t fish at all

Linky

TPD

OutlawPete wrote: »

If you read the thread you would know that I have already stated the areas of Evolution that I do not accept as fact.

Liah asked me specific questions, it was them that I said I would address if she took back her earlier comments.

The specific questions being your side of the argument that you won't explain. Which areas do you believe are fact, which do you disbelieve, and why the distinction. If you've already stated them earlier in the thread, why withhold them now?

OutlawPete wrote: »

I was speaking of my only wanting an apology for accusing me of replying to MrStuffins, in the way that I had: "for no apparent reasons".

Sure don't let any of that get in the way of your white knighting though.

:P I don't think Liah needs or wants 'white knighting', and I'm definitely not the person to do it. I was just expressing my amusement at what the argument has descended into.

Johro

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

He didn't write that, the OP did

Yeah, fair enough, I did quote your reply to a post about the OP. Apologies.

There is only one thing better than being smug.

Being smug and right at the same time.

Guill

If anyone can show me physical prrof that God exists i'll believe it.
There is actually some proof for evolution and none for God.
And saying you have to have faith is a bullsh*t way of avoiding the fact that a book compiled by a congress of Romans is the basis for any arguement for religion.

Flygimp

You'd think old Jesus would have had the presence of mind as he sent his wee Apostle maties out into the heathen yonder to tell them the following:

"by the way lad's, dad tells me after creating the heavens the world ain't f*cking flat after all... so you'll need two pairs of rat skin sandals for the round about journey... as for you Judas you little b@stard you won't need sandals where your going mate"

Homo habilis was the first split away from the great apes by Genus Homo in answer to a question above... basic enough stuff.

By the way does anyone else out there classify themselves as agnostic or a humanitarian?

johnny_ultimate

Wow, over 100 pages of this. Not a debate that's easy to join in :pac:

But I must say this in response to the OP.

I'm an atheist, but like to think I'm not smug about it. I've made my decision based on looking at what I consider fairly substantial and persuasive evidence and arguments. I've decided to base my major world view and philosophy on science and the theories (like evolution, which to me is the best argument I've heard put forward about how we got here, substantiated by plenty of what I consider evidence) and facts (and some things are fact). Religion does not fit in with this world view I have chosen. I shall happily alter that stand the second I see any conclusive evidence of the existence of a higher power.

I'm not as militant as Richard Dawkins and the like, but I am a fan of the man because I feel he argues with great passion and knowledge of his subject. My opinion is people are free to believe what they want to believe, as long as it does not negatively affect other people. My only major criticism of religion is when it comes to fundamentalist, and people who are willing to kill or hurt others based on their beliefs. They are free to have their belief systems, but when any sort of logic is replaced by violence it becomes a genuine menace. However, the vast majority of people with religious belief are more grounded and sensible, and I have no issue with those people having their own philosophy and worldview.

So, basically, atheism isn't suddenly so hot right now just because. It's something many of us have come to after looking at the topic and reached a conclusion that this is for us. To write us off as 'smug' is insulting and damaging. I don't consider all religious people ignorant (although many are, although many atheists are likely ignorant too), because generalisations don't help anything. I have my opinion, you have yours? Can't we all get on in harmony?

These points have probably been made over the course of 100 pages that I don't have time to read right now. But I'm a proud atheist. If you're a proud Catholic, you are as entitled to that position as I am to mine. I don't believe God exists, you do. Now, it would be great if we could just get on with things

squod

Richard Dawkins isn't he a mason?

strobe

squod wrote: »

Richard Dawkins isn't he a mason?

Biologist, I think. Could always ask him for a quote on that garden wall though, never know your luck.

deise go deo

KeithAFC wrote: »

Im a human being.

Stop exaggerating :rolleyes::D

Greentopia

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But why should anyone have to hide away their beliefs as though they are something to be ashamed of?

The problem I have is where does secularisation end?

You want religion removed from the public sphere so you start by taking religion from schools, from the media but what next? If religion should be a private thing should the churches, cathedrals, monasteries, abbies and chapels both modern and old be gotten rid of? What about catholic grave yards? Or any building that bears any kind of religious mark?

Should we be forced to remove any religious emblems from our homes just in case a non-religous person sees it and becomes offended?

Do you exact punishment whenever some-one says in public things like 'Oh my god' 'For god's sake' or 'Jesus, Mary and Joseph'. How about 'Bless you' when some-one sneezes

Do you deny people the right to have religious weddings, funerals and christenings? Do we stop celebrating Easter, Christmas etc? Do we remove wedding/funeral/christening annoucements from the media if they are religious in nature?

Do we stop pilgrimages to places like Knock or Croagh Patrick?

Do we stop people wearing crosses around their necks?

Do you ban religous greeting cards, books, paintings?

Do you make mass illegal? Do you force priests, brothers and nuns away from their vocation? Do we ban chaplains in hospitals, colleges etc.

Do we get rid of any relics of Saints both modern(in churches etc) and old (in museums etc)

Do you make stating your religion outside your front door either verbally or on paper a crime or something at the very least to be sneered at?

Maybe you could even go as far as stopping religious people having any involvement in public life if they make the mistake of making their faith known outside their homes?

Let's face it, as extreme as it sounds you would need to do all of these to completely remove religion from the public sphere.

Straw man. By jumping to such extreme conclusions you are not refuting a position that I've ever seen taken by any of my non-believer friends either IRL or various internet fora I'm a member of.
Please quote me some atheists who say they want to get rid of churches, monasteries, abbeys chapels etc., who want to cancel xmas, Easter and so on, who would stop people wearing crosses on their necks, and the rest of your points.

If you want to see very secular countries where religion is a predominantly private matter yet have not gone to the extremes you mention here of destroying religious building, icons, preventing people from practicing their religion freely I suggest you take a trip to any of the Scandinavian countries.

While Sweden for example (the country I'm most familiar with) does have Lutheranism as a state religion which most people are by default members of and pay tithes to unless they opt out, most ethnic Swedes don't practice any religion (immigrants being the exception, especially from Muslim countries).

It is one of the most secular and irreligious country in the world (as well as one of the most democratic) with over 80% of the population either agnostic or atheist, yet freedom of religion is guaranteed and there are no policies such as you describe to proscribe religion or persecute religious people.

deise go deo

I am A catholic

Personally I don't know much about evolution other than what I have heard in passing etc. From what I do know it seams to be a logical attempt to explain the process of how life developed and certainly makes much more sense than creationism. As for whether it is fact or not, I am really not qualified to say but it is logical enough and widely accepted so I am happy to go along with it.

One interesting thing I have heard though is that there is a book just after coming out based on disproving Evolution. Along with it the publishers are offering a 50,000 euro prise to anyone who can biologically prove that one species ever 'evolved' into another.

squod

deise go deo wrote: »

I am A catholic

Personally I don't know much about evolution other than what I have heard in passing etc. From what I do know it seams to be a logical attempt to explain the process of how life developed and certainly makes much more sense than creationism. As for whether it is fact or not, I am really not qualified to say but it is logical enough and widely accepted so I am happy to go along with it.

One interesting thing I have heard though is that there is a book just after coming out based on disproving Evolution. Along with it the publishers are offering a 50,000 euro prise to anyone who can biologically prove that one species ever 'evolved' into another.

There's about twenty people on here who believe they can win that prize

zuroph

lol. don't mind that nutjob. he published it himself.

deise go deo

zuroph wrote: »

lol. don't mind that nutjob. he published it himself.

Interesting challenge though, Is it possible?

Sam Vimes

OutlawPete wrote: »

It is ME that put questions to people earlier in the thread, yourself in fact - and you said you didn't know the answers to them.

The thing about your questions is that if someone doesn't know the specific answers to them it doesn't in any way detract from the reliability of the theory, they're typical of someone who doesn't understand it. As someone already pointed out, it's like me asking you the name of your great great great great great great great great grandfather and when you can't answer, concluding that you didn't have one. There is plenty of evidence for common descent, e.g. my post about chromosome 2 http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68446518&highlight=chromosome#post68446518

sponsoredwalk

deise go deo wrote: »

Interesting challenge though, Is it possible?

We spent nearly 1600 posts and about three weeks taking apart the mans
claims in this thread. If you read it you'd learn all about creationism, evolution
and the total dishonesty of creationist arguments. A good healthy read

Sam Vimes

deise go deo wrote: »

One interesting thing I have heard though is that there is a book just after coming out based on disproving Evolution. Along with it the publishers are offering a 50,000 euro prise to anyone who can biologically prove that one species ever 'evolved' into another.

It's called "The Origin of Specious Nonsense" and it is quite the load of nonsense itself. He doesn't actually understand evolution which is immediately apparent from a brief read of his website www.darwinsdeadidea.com so, as with most such offers of money for "proof" of evolution, if someone actually managed to find "proof" that he would find acceptable it would most likely completely disprove evolution, e.g. t's usually stuff like a cat giving birth to a dog

edit:

deise go deo wrote: »

Interesting challenge though, Is it possible?

Yes it is possible and it has been done to the standard that is possible in science.

Queen-Mise

I have a theory kinda based on opening post. In some instances there is a direct corollary between peoples 'dislike' of christianity and 'like' of atheism. Not hard to understand in ireland today.

My lack of belief in a god is not linked necessarily to evolution. A christian/judaic understanding of god doesnt make sense when looking up at a star filled night sky. A universe vs an earth centric view. A bit self-serving methinks:-)

The most ill acknowledge in a 'god' sense is balance. That balance may be viewed as evolution!!!

Greentopia

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's called "The Origin of Specious Nonsense" and it is quite the load of nonsense itself.

Yep. I always think it should more correctly be titled "The Propagation of Specious Nonsense" whenever I come across that fallacious pile of horse manure.