Thanking 'god' but not the medical staff

battle_hardend

marty1985 wrote: »

It varies between a belief that there is no god, a (positive) disbelief or rejection in the belief of God.

The passive lack of belief has traditionally been agnosticism.

The idea that agnosticism is also not to be tolerated is associated also with New Atheism and militant atheism.

Anthony Flew tried to redeploy the word atheist to mean a passive lack of belief. This was picked up by the New Atheism.

It probably will be redefined by dictionaries to be a passive lack of belief, if that becomes the established common usage.

It still doesn't appear to be - outside of the current atheist 'movement'. (I use the word movement for lack of a better word, not to irk anyone.) But that can change.

a rejection of the belief in or idea of god can also be called anti thiesm , christopher hitchens saw himself as an anti thiest first and foremost , even thier was is a god , he finds the idea unappealing

i have to say i share his view

marty1985

Jimoslimos wrote: »

If you make an assertion that something exists, then the burden of proof lies with you. Not me, otherwise my supposed 'beliefs' would run to infinity.

Thread to be closed soon.

And that's why Flew wanted to define atheism as a lack of belief even though it "goes arbitrarily against established common usage." Burden of proof.

Atheism in the traditional sense is a brilliant philosophical position worthy of the best intellectuals. Now, the New Atheism just seems to attract so many bigots. Probably because they moved the goal posts and by their definition my dog and my cup of coffee are atheists.

Min

Anthony Flew, an advocate for atheism who then converted to theism.

take everything

The irony is doctors would readily accept that survival from cardiac arrest is one aspect of medicine that's "in the lap of the Gods/luck" as it were than most other aspects.

Of course early intervention is crucial (ABC etc) but still, it's kinda funny reading posts pronouncing on the exact factors which helped him pull through.

Chuck Stone

I get the distinct feeling that religious people who decry 'militant' atheism would have been the ones setting fire to the tinder at the ankles of non-believers a few centuries ago.

Dave!

Min wrote: »

Anthony Flew, an advocate for atheism who then converted to theism.

Awesome

So?

dixiefly

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

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

Tbh, I didnt read the whole thread as I didnt really have the time but I read them since and, fair enough, we all make mistakes.

Min

Dave! wrote: »

Awesome

So?

So he was mentioned in a previous post, that's so...

take everything

xsiborg wrote: »

"hubris" then... geez, did you miss the top sticky in AH about spelling nazi's? :rolleyes:

Hubristic is what you're going for FWIW.
No offence. Just thought it was kinda funny.

Ghost Buster

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

But you have insulted deep beliefs ( also you have the typical new atheists non- understanding of transubstantiation) and you have used deliberately joking language. You do that here because, given the demographic profile, you hope for thanks from fellow travellers.

I urge internet atheists to get out of the basement, and wipe their arses with the Koran outside the Finsbury mosque, since it is only a book and nobody could be reasonably offended.

Deep beliefs are no different to shallow beliefs Im afraid. If you decide to take a deep belief in the writings of Kylie Minogue then is it suddenly wrong of me to point out the fact that "The locomotion' was kinda crappy because it may offend you?
And I am not a 'new atheist' what ever that it. Neither am i a teenager having a wee rebellion. Im well into my 40's and grew up, like most, in a catholic family, with a catholic education and a deep interest in religion. I know exactly what transubstantiation is .
Neither am i an internet atheist (* see below). I defected the moment this became a possibility. I dont go through the sham of a la carte catholicism as the easy route.

* unless you personally know any of the atheistic posters here how do you know they are just 'internet atheists'. They may well be card carrying baby eaters. perhaps Michael Nugent, Richard Dawkins, Ray Darcy, Eamon Gilmore
and Ivana Bat**** are all active here!!!;)

Ghost Buster

Min wrote: »

So do atheists believe God doesn't exist.

If they do, is that not a belief?

No.......

briantannam

galwayrush wrote: »

Best of luck to him.
You have a right to be an Atheist, he has a right to believe in God.
It's called free will, i'd prefer if it was called mind your own affairs and stop being annoyed at others, whatever they want to believe.

I doubt anyone has a RIGHT to believe and worse to peddle complete archaic nonsense.

mloc

Ghost Buster wrote: »

No.......

You are quite right.

Not to be a pedant, but atheism specifically refers to a lack of a belief in the existence of a god; it does not refer to any claim to know whether or not it exists, nor a positive belief that one does not exist. To claim a knowledge of whether a god exists or not is Gnosticism. Most atheists, including myself, are agnostic atheists. This means I don't claim to know whether or not a god exists, but based on the evidence, I don't believe one exists.

There is a difference between not believing a god exists, and believing one does not exist.

The King of Moo

briantannam wrote: »

I doubt anyone has a RIGHT to believe and worse to peddle complete archaic nonsense.

Originally posted by The Irish Constitution
The Constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) guarantees your freedom in Ireland to practise your religion and your freedom of conscience. The state guarantees not to endow or favour any religion and not to discriminate on the grounds of religion.

State aid for schools cannot discriminate between schools of different religious denominations. Every child has the right to attend a denominational school receiving State funding without having to participate in religious instruction in the school.

Your right to religious liberty may be limited to protect public order and morality.

The right of citizens to religious liberty in Ireland is set down in Article 44 of the Constitution.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I get the distinct feeling that religious people who decry 'militant' atheism would have been the ones setting fire to the tinder at the ankles of non-believers a few centuries ago.

So you're essentially accusing a couple of people on this thread of being murderous?

Big accusations need sound support. What is it about people who decry militant atheism that makes you say they'd be the ones "setting fire to the tinder at the ankles of non-believers a few centuries ago"? Other than trying to get in a snide insinuation as a dig of course.

BackScrub

Look, God made the earth and all of us who live on it, let's leave it at that.

The King of Moo

BackScrub wrote: »

Look, God made the earth and all of us who live on it, let's leave it at that.

I guess he made the can of worms you've just opened too.

BackScrub

The King of Moo wrote: »

I guess he made the can of worms you've just opened too.

Threads need fuelling.

marty1985

mloc wrote: »

You are quite right.

Not to be a pedant, but atheism specifically refers to a lack of a belief in the existence of a god; it does not refer to any claim to know whether or not it exists, nor a positive belief that one does not exist. To claim a knowledge of whether a god exists or not is Gnosticism. Most atheists, including myself, are agnostic atheists. This means I don't claim to know whether or not a god exists, but based on the evidence, I don't believe one exists.

There is a difference between not believing a god exists, and believing one does not exist.

Atheism specifically refers to a lack of belief? Again, this is not the traditional and common usage of the term, nor does it fit the definition recorded by most dictionaries.

Gnosticism is a scholarly term for a particular set of beliefs and rituals among a particular group of early Christians.

And there is indeed a difference between a passive lack of belief, and a positive disbelief. The problem is that modern atheism or New Atheism argues that there isn't.

marty1985

briantannam wrote: »

I doubt anyone has a RIGHT to believe and worse to peddle complete archaic nonsense.

It's as if you grew up hidden from reality with Boards.ie as your only connection to the outside world.

padd b1975

Well fair play to Fabrice and anyone who played a part in saving his life and his recovery.






He seems to have been forgotten amongst all this point scoring.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So you're essentially accusing a couple of people on this thread of being murderous?

That's one impressive exaggeration right there.

Ellis Dee

BackScrub wrote: »

Look, God made the earth and all of us who live on it, let's leave it at that.

I don't think it's really fair to blame a non-existent entity for so much.:):):)

marty1985

I think partyatmygaff is making a point that you can throw out a comment like the one about people who dislike militant atheists wanting to burn them at the stake, but if someone was to, for example, say something like a lot of atheists here would be the type to vandalise and bomb churches as in the League of the Militant Godless in Soviet Russia you would be up in arms. Lots of heat, little light.

padd b1975

marty1985 wrote: »

I think partyatmygaff is making a point that you can throw out a comment like the one about people who dislike militant atheists wanting to burn them at the stake, but if someone was to, for example, say something like a lot of atheists here would be the type to vandalise and bomb churches as in the League of the Militant Godless in Soviet Russia you would be up in arms. Lots of heat, little light.

And no action from the mods.

IM0

The King of Moo wrote: »

Look a bit harder.

Religion-bashing thread fail.

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/news/1101855/muamba-thanks-doctors-after-release

well thank god fuck for that

Chuck Stone

First of all this is AH, not Humanities, so perhaps people should chill the fuck out a bit.

marty1985 wrote: »

I think partyatmygaff is making a point that you can throw out a comment like the one about people who dislike militant atheists wanting to burn them at the stake,

I didn't say that. I said...

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I get the distinct feeling that religious people who decry 'militant' atheism would have been the ones setting fire to the tinder at the ankles of non-believers a few centuries ago.

but if someone was to, for example, say something like a lot of atheists here would be the type to vandalise and bomb churches as in the League of the Militant Godless in Soviet Russia you would be up in arms. Lots of heat, little light.

Except that history is full of examples of people being tortured and murdered by religious fanatics. You quote the examples of religious people being killed by soviets but you miss the point. The soviets simply replaced one unquestionable doctrine with another. No doctrine should be beyond questioning and ridicule.

I think religion is kinda daft but I sure as hell support people's freedom to practice their daftness as long as it doesn't harm others around them.

marty1985

I was just giving my interpretation of partyatmygaff's post. Heads will all be nodding sagely at the wicked things humanity had to endure before we break free of its stranglehold or whatever enlightened historians like Gibbon tell us etc etc, but history is full of examples of people suffering for their faith too, being oppressed for their faith whether by people trying to convert them to another, or by people trying to exterminate religion to impose a strictly scientific atheistic mindset, and so on. In short, selectively quoting history adds nothing - that was my point, and I think partyatmygaff was alluding to that too.

We don't have to godwin the thread or go into history. I was just giving an example to make a point, but it wasn't of religious people being killed, it was of churches being desecrated and destroyed in order to exterminate religion and establish a scientific and anti-religion mindset. Now, thankfully, we don't have to oppress religion as such, we just have to be smug and treat them with ridicule and contempt.

I don't think religion is daft, but I admire your "tolerance".

lividduck

BackScrub wrote: »

Look, God made the earth and all of us who live on it, let's leave it at that.

Since she doesn't exist she couldn't have, lets leave it at that!:D

bwatson

As a totally non-religious person I have no problem with someone thanking their god if they have thanked the medical staff for their skill and professionalism, but I always wonder - surely if they are in part attributing a god for assisting their recovery then they must believe that god either caused it to happen or allowed it to happen in the first place? Doesn't sound like a very kind deity to do such a thing to a young man in the prime of his life to me!

Chuck Stone

marty1985 wrote: »

I was just giving an example to make a point, but it wasn't of religious people being killed, it was of churches being desecrated and destroyed in order to exterminate religion

Well yeah. I don't think anyone should be killed for their beliefs unless of course their beliefs are a threat to your life.

and establish a scientific and anti-religion mindset.

That's a bit of a false dichotomy. Science need not be anti-religion. Politicians and ideologues may seek to stifle the freedom of people and use (pseudo) science as an excuse.

HITLER, NAZIS, HOLOCAUST. Godwinned

Now, thankfully, we don't have to oppress religion as such, we just have to be smug and treat them with ridicule and contempt.

Well that should go with the territory for religious types. If I claimed socialism was one one true path for humanity I'd full expect a deluge of questions and ridicule so I don't see why we should create a special category that is exempt from ridicule.

I don't think religion is daft, but I admire your "tolerance".

I don't think religious people are daft but I think some of the things they believe in are daft.

battle_hardend

BackScrub wrote: »

Look, God made the earth and all of us who live on it, let's leave it at that.

even stink beetles ?

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

First of all this is AH, not Humanities, so perhaps people should chill the fuck out a bit.
....

AH or Humanities. It doesn't matter all that much. Claiming that large swathes of people would have been murderers had they been born in the past just isn't on.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's one impressive exaggeration right there.

Exaggeration? I'm just removing the obfuscation from what you said. What else could you possibly have meant by the following?
"I get the distinct feeling that religious people who decry 'militant' atheism would have been the ones setting fire to the tinder at the ankles of non-believers a few centuries ago."

All that means is "Had the current people who denounce/complain about militant atheism been born in the past, they would have been the ones burning non-believers alive".

battle_hardend

bwatson wrote: »

As a totally non-religious person I have no problem with someone thanking their god if they have thanked the medical staff for their skill and professionalism, but I always wonder - surely if they are in part attributing a god for assisting their recovery then they must believe that god either caused it to happen or allowed it to happen in the first place? Doesn't sound like a very kind deity to do such a thing to a young man in the prime of his life to me!

to a believer , everything god does is good from presenting you with a cake made of pie to punching you in the face

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

All that means is "Had the current people who denounce/complain about militant atheism been born in the past, they would have been the ones burning non-believers alive".

The more fervent ones?

Yeah. I think it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of imagination. Thankfully people like this have been stripped of power - in the western world at least.

You'd still get your bollocks chopped off in many places in the world for questioning religious dogma - that is a fact.

marty1985

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's a bit of a false dichotomy. Science need not be anti-religion. Politicians and ideologues may seek to stifle the freedom of people and use (pseudo) science as an excuse.

It's not a false dichotomy, it's not an either/or situation. They wanted to create a scientific and anti-religion mindset. You and I agree that if I were to say you can only be scientific or religious, but not both, that would be a false dichotomy.

kowloon

Kiera wrote: »

Maybe it was the devil who struck him down and god saved him.

That Devil can be an awful ***** at the best of times.

But better the Devil you know...

vard

and today's word of the day, kids, is Pseudo.

Duh dahhhh

marty1985

Anyway. Happy for Muamba.

He himself lived through serious civil wars and conflicts as a child and arrived in England as an asylum seeker. He's also deeply religious. In his profile provided in matchday booklets prior to his collapse: "Fabrice is an extremely strong believer in God and says that he is the reason for everything he has done and accomplished."

He extended that to his miraculous recovery. Hardly a surprise.

Why isn't he fuming at God for causing his heart attack? We'll never know. :rolleyes:

The first post in this thread was woeful but the OP held up his hands and admitted his mistake.

padd b1975

marty1985 wrote: »

It's not a false dichotomy, it's not an either/or situation. They wanted to create a scientific and anti-religion mindset. You and I agree that if I were to say you can only be scientific or religious, but not both, that would be a false dichotomy.

Dichotomy?? Thought that was a medical procedure to change the sex of someone from female to male.

Chuck Stone

marty1985 wrote: »

They wanted to create a scientific and anti-religion mindset.

The wanted to replace religious dogma with state dogma and replace god with a dictator.

The goals of the USSR were more analogous to those of religious fanatics than those of rational people.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The more fervent ones?

Yeah. I think it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of imagination.

In that case, it's not beyond the bounds of imagination that godless atheists such as yourself would have weekly baby-eating competitions if you had the opportunity.

What? You think that's offensive? Chill out man, it's not humanities. It's AH.

marty1985

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The wanted to replace religious dogma with state dogma and replace god with a dictator.

The goals of the USSR were more analogous to those of religious fanatics than those of rational people.

Chuck, I've got my left arm in my coat! I thought I'd bowed out already.

Referring specifically to the League of the Militant Godless:

Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party's orders with regards to religion, the League aimed at exterminating religion in all its manifestations and forming an anti-religious scientific mindset among the workers.

Oh, and referring to them as types of religious fanatics is unnecessary, and appears to be just having a dig at religion (again). Why not call them atheistic fanatics? Can open, worms everywhere.

KeithAFC

Well this is a thread typical of militant Atheism now. Trying to take away the liberty religious people enjoy to express the faith they have. I think all Christians should thank who they want.

Hopefully the days of people who don't believe and stop telling people 24/7 about it will come again.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What? You think that's offensive? Chill out man, it's not humanities. It's AH.

Lol, there's that word 'offensive'. Were you offended by what I said?

If I've offended your religious sensitivities I have one thing to say to you.

So fucking what?

battle_hardend

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well this is a thread typical of militant Atheism now. Trying to take away the liberty religious people enjoy to express the faith they have. I think all Christians should thank who they want.

Hopefully the days of people who don't believe and stop telling people 24/7 about it will come again.

i know your a staunch protestant ( loyal to ulster ) but didnt you claim to be an athiest recently

KeithAFC

battle_hardend wrote: »

i know your a staunch protestant ( loyal to ulster ) but didnt you claim to be an athiest recently

I don't believe in any god. But I can't stand militant Atheism. One day we will see them take up arms trying to change the constitutions of countries and taking the liberty away from religious people.

battle_hardend

KeithAFC wrote: »

I don't believe in any god. But I can't stand militant Atheism. One day we will see them take up arms trying to change the constitutions of countries and taking the liberty away from religious people.

seems unlikely , look around the world from the mid east to middle america and its religous people who are demanding special priveledge

KeithAFC

battle_hardend wrote: »

seems unlikely , look around the world from the mid east to middle america and its religous people who are demanding special priveledge

This is changing. Militant Atheism is determined to make sure that is the case.

battle_hardend

KeithAFC wrote: »

This is changing. Militant Atheism is determined to make sure that is the case.

example