Thanking 'god' but not the medical staff

EuropeanSon

I think the description of "easily led", as somebody put it, could be considerably more easily argued to apply to one who follows the beliefs of the majority despite there being no evidence or reasonable basis for their assertions, and the frankly ridiculously implausible nature of many of their claims. Just a thought.

Low intelligence is not exclusive to any particular belief system, obviously, as Father Damo and the OP have so convincingly shown.

On the issue of thanking god after a very unlikely escape from what seemed to be imminent death, I think that if one holds strong religious belief (which for the record, I don't, I am an atheist), given the assumption implicit to that that god or gods has or have influence over major events in ones life, it would, frankly, be quite rude not to thank him/her/it/them. The OP's purpose, then, would have been equally served by an "Isn't religion stoopid??!!" thread. :rolleyes:

Duggys Housemate

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Father Damo wrote: »

Why?

I regard militant atheism like Scientology. A joke of a belief for easily led people of low intellect.

I regard being a religious catholic as....I dont know really, given the fact that in 12 years of apparent Catholic run school education, a baptism, a communion, and a confirmation, I was educated absolutely fcuk all as regards the tenets of Catholic belief.

First of all, as others have pointed out, atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of one. And secondly, you are saying that atheists are "people of low intellect"? Yeah okay, those who believe in science, over a man who is his own father and also happens to be a spirit and ghost, are the ones lacking in intellect :rolleyes:

Who said anything about science. I've met atheists who were Druids, into spiritualism, believed in ghosts and/or alien visitations or were cult followers of Rand, Marx or Freud. Historically, on the other hand a lot of science was produced by Christians although their Christianity is rarely mentioned in the new Atheist historical narrative.

( try find a reference to Maxwell being a presbyter)

Modern atheists are of average intelligence, no more no less.

marty1985

Nice thread OP.

krudler wrote: »

atheism isnt a belief, seriously how many times must people point this out to you, its a lack of one.

Ah, the old "lack of belief" chestnut. And when I say old, I mean relatively new.

This was introduced by Anthony Flew in his book The Presumption of Atheism.

Anthony Flew wrote: »

The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively.

It's a useful debating trick, because it's all to do with burden of proof.

My point is just that dictionaries exist to reflect common usage and dictionaries still go with the traditional meaning of atheism as either a positive belief, or a positive disbelief, but I am yet to see one that defines it as a passive lack of belief. This might change, considering how successful New Atheism has been among young people, especially online. And yes, people are free to identify anyway they wish (see the census, for example) and to give meaning to the terms that describe them. But, getting annoyed at people for following the still common and traditional usage of the word is pointless.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism*, going arbitrarily against established common usage.

*

Lewis Carroll in Through The Looking Glass wrote: »

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument"', Alice objected.
"When I use a word". Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

xsiborg

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

First of all, as others have pointed out, atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of one. And secondly, you are saying that atheists are "people of low intellect"? Yeah okay, those who believe in science, over a man who is his own father and also happens to be a spirit and ghost, are the ones lacking in intellect :rolleyes:

do you believe in aliens UBF, or do you believe we are alone in what we know as our universe? im catholic, but im not so huberous as to believe we are alone either, i can separate science and scientific fact from my faith, they don't need to be intertwined. some of the more modern militant atheists fail to make that distinction or understand that it's actually possible. as i said in another thread- human beings and their thought processes are not so black and white as some people think or would have you believe.

lividduck

xsiborg wrote: »

do you believe in aliens UBF, or do you believe we are alone in what we know as our universe? im catholic, but im not so huberous as to believe we are alone either, i can separate science and scientific fact from my faith, they don't need to be intertwined. some of the more modern militant atheists fail to make that distinction or understand that it's actually possible. as i said in another thread- human beings and their thought processes are not so black and white as some people think or would have you believe.

I'm not being a smartass but wtf is a Militant Athiest?

krudler

Father Damo wrote: »

Are you honestly stating that you think Scientology believers are people who are mentally sound?

Let me break it down

I regard Tom Cruise as retarded

I regard John Travolta as retarded

I regard the late Isacc Hayes as having been retarded

I regard Mel Gibson as a fcuking right wing Catholic nutjob with violent tendencies....but I dont regard him as clinically retarded or of low intellect.

whats the difference? they all believe in something they can't prove exists, one is seen as a cult, one started out as a cult. the only difference between a cult and a religion is tenure and member numbers.

marty1985

There's a good book called The Year Of Living Biblically. A New Yorker follows all the Old Testament rules for a year. It's pretty funny. He's a non-believer but reflects on many of the beliefs and rituals, for example, how he feels better and more humble for thanking God for each meal he eats. I have no problem with religious people being grateful to God for their food. And I definitely have no problem with religious people being grateful to God for surviving after their heart effectively stopped for such a long time.

What bugs the OP and many others, I think, is that Muamba has committed a secular sin by not keeping his religious faith locked up in a cupboard at home where nobody can see it. God knows how your heart must sink when you see Drogba blessing himself during a match against Barcelona, live on TV across the world, or Kaka removing his shirt to display his I Belong To Jesus t-shirt, etc etc.

Duggys Housemate

lividduck wrote: »

xsiborg wrote: »

do you believe in aliens UBF, or do you believe we are alone in what we know as our universe? im catholic, but im not so huberous as to believe we are alone either, i can separate science and scientific fact from my faith, they don't need to be intertwined. some of the more modern militant atheists fail to make that distinction or understand that it's actually possible. as i said in another thread- human beings and their thought processes are not so black and white as some people think or would have you believe.

I'm not being a smartass but wtf is a Militant Athiest?

Someone who is militant about his atheism. Like getting upset at a fairly benign use of language ( thank God)

dixiefly

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

This pisses me off.

Muamba, the footballer who collapses on the football pitch, was struck with a heart attack. His heart stopped beating naturally for over 78 minutes, and it was 'a miracle' that he did not have brain damage.

But the thing is, instead of thanking the medical staff who actually saved his life, he thanks an imaginary friend in the sky. How disrespectful can you get to the medical staff? They are in the most under-appreciated profession anyway without these loons disregarding them like this.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gamBDX-WS1VUzcevQbV-FtKBL2og?docId=N0461171335075052442A

Get your facts right before you go off on a rant. I saw the report on him leaving hospital and he thanked the staff and 2 doctors in particular......and there was a photo of him with 2 of them.

Did you actually check the reports before going on the rant or are you basing it on pub talk?

marty1985

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

But the thing is, instead of thanking the medical staff who actually saved his life, he thanks an imaginary friend in the sky. How disrespectful can you get to the medical staff? They are in the most under-appreciated profession anyway without these loons disregarding them like this.

What a horrible post.

My name is URL

lividduck wrote: »

I'm not being a smartass but wtf is a Militant Athiest?

I think it refers to people that attack the person holding religious views as opposed to the specific views which they hold.

The word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and is usually used to mean vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause

To be fair, this site has a few people who I would consider to be militant in their views on religion. I'm an atheist myself, but I don't see much point in ridiculing or belittling others who are religious. Especially when it comes in the form of threads like this. It's just completely unnecessary and misplaced diatribe.

Dave!

marty1985 wrote: »

There's a good book called The Year Of Living Biblically. A New Yorker follows all the Old Testament rules for a year. It's pretty funny. He's a non-believer but reflects on many of the beliefs and rituals, for example, how he feels better and more humble for thanking God for each meal he eats. I have no problem with religious people being grateful to God for their food. And I definitely have no problem with religious people being grateful to God for surviving after their heart effectively stopped for such a long time.

What bugs the OP and many others, I think, is that Muamba has committed a secular sin by not keeping his religious faith locked up in a cupboard at home where nobody can see it. God knows how your heart must sink when you see Drogba blessing himself during a match against Barcelona, live on TV across the world, or Kaka removing his shirt to display his I Belong To Jesus t-shirt, etc etc.

I generally just roll my eyes when I witness those things tbh

That followers of modern religions would probably laugh at someone who wore an "I belong to Zeus" t-shirt is pretty funny in and of itself

krudler

Dave! wrote: »

I generally just roll my eyes when I witness those things tbh

That followers of modern religions would probably laugh at someone who wore an "I belong to Zeus" t-shirt is pretty funny in and of itself

Let Poseidon into your heart, and he will show you the light.

Greek and Roman gods were way cooler anyway.

xsiborg

lividduck wrote: »

I'm not being a smartass but wtf is a Militant Athiest?

as one of the more reasonably minded atheists i've seen lividduck, i wouldnt think you were being a smartass at all. a militant atheist though is one who comes across as having an awful bugbear about why more people didnt put down atheist on a census form or aggressively questions another persons right to choose what they believe in as their faith.

people i suppose like the OP who seek to denigrate those of a religious persuasion by calling them "loons". boards.ie gives posters like the OP a platform to air their views, but by that same token they should surely have some respect for those that do not share their views, instead of dismissing them as "loons". on this particular occasion, the OP got egg on their face, and rightly so! they do atheism a dis-service tbh, and i for one then dismiss their point of view as "trendy nonsense", whereas if they make a reasonable argument without feeling the need to disrespect my opinion, then we could have some great discussions on boards about religion and atheim instead of all this back and forth sniping nonsense!

battle_hardend

lividduck wrote: »

I'm not being a smartass but wtf is a Militant Athiest?

i could be wrong but i think its someone who is serious when they say they dont believe thier is an afterlife or a creator instead of just taking the piss when they say it

battle_hardend

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Someone who is militant about his atheism. Like getting upset at a fairly benign use of language ( thank God)

can you distinguish between someone raising the issue on an internet forum than in a pub or a social function

marty1985

lividduck wrote: »

I'm not being a smartass but wtf is a Militant Athiest?

To me, militant atheists are the ones that do not tolerate religion.

British philosopher Julian Baggini postulates an atheistic active hostility to religion as militant and says hostility "requires more than just strong disagreement with religion – it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief."[2] Militant atheists, Baggini continues, "tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful."[2] According to Baggini, the "too-zealous" militant atheism found in the Soviet Union was characterized by thinking the best way to counter religion was "by oppression and making atheism the official state credo."[20]

I don't know if I would go that far. But I would say militant atheists are a big part of the New Atheist wave that refuses to respect or tolerate religion, and insist religious believers must be subjected to ridicule. Not hard to see why most people would see militant atheists as being d*cks.

xsiborg

battle_hardend wrote: »

can you distinguish between someone raising the issue on an internet forum than in a pub or a social function

that's easy, you cannot communicate as effectively on the internet as you could if you were there in person.

UglyBolloxFace

dixiefly wrote: »

Get your facts right before you go off on a rant. I saw the report on him leaving hospital and he thanked the staff and 2 doctors in particular......and there was a photo of him with 2 of them.

Did you actually check the reports before going on the rant or are you basing it on pub talk?

You must have ignored the posts where I admitted my mistake.

Ghost Buster

Kiera wrote: »

Because to him and his faith, god helped those people save his life. What's the big deal? I saw the pictures of him thanking the staff too so get over it!

But as the old saying goes "prevention is better than cure" so why didnt the God in question prevent the heart attack in the first place?
Oh yeah
Good stuff = God diddit
Bad stuff = God didnt do it.

padd b1975

Leeg17 wrote: »

Because you're implying that because of their atheist "beliefs" people are of low intellect.

By all means have a discussion but leave out the small digs

Looking forward to seeing mods call atheists on their small digs and insults to Christian beliefs.

This could be the start of a new dawn for After Hours.

You can make it happen.

Guy:Incognito

Kiera wrote: »

Because to him and his faith, god helped those people save his life.

Did he? How come they dont need gods help saving a non believer?

marty1985

Ghost Buster wrote: »

But as the old saying goes "prevention is better than cure" so why didnt the God in question prevent the heart attack in the first place?
Oh yeah
Good stuff = God diddit
Bad stuff = God didnt do it.

Or the atheist argument:

Bad stuff: religion

Good stuff, including stuff done in the name of religion: nothing to do with religion, you just think it's something to do with religion, because, like, virus, latching itself on, delusion of the mind, you're deluded.

Micky Dolenz

padd b1975 wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing mods call atheists on their small digs and insults to Christian beliefs.

This could be the start of a new dawn for After Hours.

You can make it happen.

Report it where you see it.

I for one don't care what others believe or don't believe as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Live and let live and all that jazz.

Ghost Buster

padd b1975 wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing mods call atheists on their small digs and insults to Christian beliefs.

This could be the start of a new dawn for After Hours.

You can make it happen.

The difference being that to infer someone is thick insults the individual.
To mock a belief does not.
For example:
Smoking is stupid = Non offensive to an individual
Smokers are stupid = Offensive to an individual.

This is not to say that individual atheists AND Religious dont call each other names and be personally offensive.

Dave!

marty1985 wrote: »

To me, militant atheists are the ones that do not tolerate religion.



I don't know if I would go that far. But I would say militant atheists are a big part of the New Atheist wave that refuses to respect or tolerate religion, and insist religious believers must be subjected to ridicule. Not hard to see why most people would see militant atheists as being d*cks.

Do you apply your tolerant attitude to all beliefs, or just religious ones? And to all religious beliefs, or just the popular ones?

Personally I think that silly beliefs are fair game to be ridiculed and criticised (in an appropriate context; i.e. I don't tell people on their deathbeds that there is no afterlife).

How intellectually 'tolerant' are you regarding the following?
- Scientology
- Elvis is real
- Psychics / Mediums
- The earth is flat

ejmaztec

lividduck wrote: »

for all other Jews it started on sundown on Friday

Everybody's more flexible in Ireland, even Catholics go to Sunday mass on a Saturday.

Ghost Buster

marty1985 wrote: »

Or the atheist argument:

Bad stuff: religion

Good stuff, including stuff done in the name of religion: nothing to do with religion, you just think it's something to do with religion, because, like, virus, latching itself on, delusion of the mind, you're deluded.

....but a religion doing good isnt god. Its individuals doing good stuff.
Try again this time comparing like with like.
But in the mean time ... Why is it ok to thank a god for curing you but not blame it for making you ill in the first place?

Overheal

krudler wrote: »

atheism isnt a belief, seriously how many times must people point this out to you, its a lack of one.

do people still get their tits in a twist over these semantics? Its a personal stance on spirituality. happy?

dirtyden

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Well I have certainly been put in my place - a lesson learned - research more before jumping to accusations. At least I hold my hand up and admit it.



But to you Damo - "militant atheism"? Would you ever ****ing cop on to yourself. "Militant"? Are you actually serious?

You attacked his belief in God. What else would you call it?
I dont remember seeing a thread here ever started by someone with a strong belief in religion/God attacking atheists or agnostics (I could be wrong though, I did not search for it).

Why does it bother atheists so much that others believe in God?

padd b1975

Ghost Buster wrote: »

The difference being that to infer someone is thick insults the individual.
To mock a belief does not.
For example:
Smoking is stupid = Non offensive to an individual
Smokers are stupid = Offensive to an individual.

This is not to say that individual atheists AND Religious dont call each other names and be personally offensive.

The tone of aethist posting and the moderation of same is there to be seen.

Ghost Buster

padd b1975 wrote: »

The tone of aethist posting and the moderation of same is there to be seen.

Show me.

Overheal

dirtyden wrote: »

You attacked his belief in God. What else would you call it?
I dont remember seeing a thread here ever started by someone with a strong belief in religion/God attacking atheists or agnostics (I could be wrong though, I did not search for it).

Why does it bother atheists so much that others believe in God?

In modern Irish culture I've found it has a lot to do with the catholic church and the widespread revelations on their abuses that have come about over the last few years. Lots of people are recent defectors, and bitter about it, imo.

mloc

dirtyden wrote: »

Why does it bother atheists so much that others believe in God?

For me, because it's a concern that even when presented with empirical evidence to the contrary, some people still accept the irrational line of thought that a supernatural force is responsible for everything.

The fact that they reject empiricism to such an extent doesn't just bother me; it worries and disappoints me.

padd b1975

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Show me.

Read any of the threads about religion in after hours and note what is allowed to slide and what is not.

Ash.J.Williams

Dave! wrote: »

Anti-atheism is the new anti-Catholicism

man.....i actually hate both equally

Dave!

Overheal wrote: »

In modern Irish culture I've found it has a lot to do with the catholic church and the widespread revelations on their abuses that have come about over the last few years. Lots of people are recent defectors, and bitter about it, imo.

Doubt it tbh. Most atheists in Ireland are pretty young, and they're not the generation that were the victims of abuse. I've a shocking lack of interest in the Catholic Church scandals. It's just a general generational move away from religion, which I suspect is evident in most countries in the west.

battle_hardend

Ghost Buster wrote: »

....but a religion doing good isnt god. Its individuals doing good stuff.
Try again this time comparing like with like.
But in the mean time ... Why is it ok to thank a god for curing you but not blame it for making you ill in the first place?

its assumed that compliments ( however genuine ) get your further than second guessing and criticism

Overheal

Dave! wrote: »

Doubt it tbh. Most atheists in Ireland are pretty young, and they're not the generation that were the victims of abuse. I've a shocking lack of interest in the Catholic Church scandals.

i mean the angry ones,mostly. not the likes of those who grew up without any belief in the stuff.

padd b1975

mloc wrote: »

For me, because it's a concern that even when presented with empirical evidence to the contrary, some people still accept the irrational line of thought that a supernatural force is responsible for everything.

The fact that they reject empiricism to such an extent doesn't just bother me; it worries and disappoints me.

Why should it either concern, worry or disappoint you that someone chooses to hold certain beliefs?

marty1985

Dave! wrote: »

Do you apply your tolerant attitude to all beliefs, or just religious ones? And to all religious beliefs, or just the popular ones?

Personally I think that silly beliefs are fair game to be ridiculed and criticised (in an appropriate context; i.e. I don't tell people on their deathbeds that there is no afterlife).

How intellectually 'tolerant' are you regarding the following?
- Scientology
- Elvis is real
- Psychics / Mediums
- The earth is flat

Of those four listed, I tolerate them all. By definition, to be tolerant is to accept the existence or practice of something of which one disapproves.

I don't remember ever ridiculing anyone for their beliefs, or saying that their beliefs must not be tolerated.

battle_hardend

xsiborg wrote: »

that's easy, you cannot communicate as effectively on the internet as you could if you were there in person.

i disagree , the internet is a very open and liberal place to discuss issues , the shackles are off and people tend to be much more forthcoming , i would never even raise the issue of religon ( let alone athiesm ) in the real world , in a pub or some social setting

Agricola

battle_hardend wrote: »

i disagree , the internet is a very open and liberal place to discuss issues , the shackles are off and people tend to be much more forthcoming , i would never even raise the issue of religon ( let alone athiesm ) in the real world , in a pub or some social setting

Why not?

dirtyden

mloc wrote: »

For me, because it's a concern that even when presented with empirical evidence to the contrary, some people still accept the irrational line of thought that a supernatural force is responsible for everything.

The fact that they reject empiricism to such an extent doesn't just bother me; it worries and disappoints me.

Can you actually use an empirical argument as evidence of lack of something that we currently do not understand.

Based on our current scientific understanding of the origins of life/existence a coherent/logical argument can be postulated for the non-existence of God. But that case was true for the world being flat once or a sun centred universe.

I must admit I have no strong convictions either way, but arguments like the orbitting teapot etc to me are worrying and disappointing and show a lack of inquisitiveness in what we dont understand.

Ghost Buster

padd b1975 wrote: »

Read any of the threads about religion in after hours and note what is allowed to slide and what is not.

I have done and there are dicks on both sides who get warned as much Mod' attention as each other.
However I can say that talking snakes, dead folk getting up and having a stroll, wafers becoming human flesh but magically / invisably so, ladies getting pregnant from magic cuddles from angels are all retarded notions .
But i have not insulted any individual.

Dave!

marty1985 wrote: »

Of those four listed, I tolerate them all. By definition, to be tolerant is to accept the existence or practice of something of which one disapproves.

I don't remember ever ridiculing anyone for their beliefs, or saying that their beliefs must not be tolerated.

Well then most posters on Boards are quite 'tolerant' of religion... I have no problem accepting the existence and practice of religion. I just think it's a silly belief and practice, and have no problem with pointing out why.

People can believe what they want, though.

Owen_S

Thank God for atheism.

battle_hardend

Agricola wrote: »

Why not?

im not popular enough to be different , i discuss the weather and football results in my local

marty1985

Ghost Buster wrote: »

But in the mean time ... Why is it ok to thank a god for curing you but not blame it for making you ill in the first place?

If you want a theological debate go to a religion forum or approach a religious person and ask them in a sincere way. If you really want an answer, you are in the wrong place. Otherwise you could be just throwing that out there to add heat but no light.

My guess is that Christians view God as being inherently good, the very definition of good, so the concept of "blaming" God might take some explaining. They might believe that God has a destiny for them, that they can grow spiritually through suffering and emerge stronger, that God can give them strength to endure suffering, that they exist in an imperfect world where suffering and decay is a part of life, or something like that.

What Christians don't do, AFAIK, is have this weird idea that they are so supreme in the eyes of God that he will not allow them to suffer.

In any case, this thread probably should have not been dignified by several pages of posts.

krudler

It bugs me how people who have a belief in something think it affords them some sort of special rights that puts them beyond criticism, sorry, it doesnt. Its an opinion, nothing more. You can believe anything you want, but if other see those beliefs as ridiculous then thats their right to poke holes in them.