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

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Options
1…3839414344…106

Comments

  • Options
    #1202
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Atheist Ireland are promoting the separation of church and state, true. But I wouldn't consider them an irreligious group as they certainly aren't indifferent to religion and its place in society/the world.
    _Redzer_ wrote:
    Atheism is completely neutral and isn't bound to the bias of any religion... so if atheism is the only neutral step, why should it be separated from the state.
    Which is it guys ... is Atheism completely neutral on matters of religion ... or very concerned about religion and its place in society/the world?

    I think we all know the answer ... and that is why no exceptions should be made if religion/irreligion/anti-religion is to be separated from the state.


  • Options
    #1203
    el pasco
    Registered Users Posts: 353 ✭✭el pasco


    J C wrote: »
    Which is it guys ... is Atheism completely neutral on matters of religion ... or very concerned about religion and its place in society/the world?

    I think we all know the answer ... and that is why no exceptions should be made if religion/irreligion/anti-religion is to be separated from the state.

    Would it not make more sense for a secular group called say Secular Ireland to promote secularism and not atheist Ireland


  • Options
    #1204
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Irreligion is not the same as atheism. This discussion might go better if you didn't confuse the two.
    Irreligion and anti-religion is to Atheism what religion is to Christianity.

    ... so is it to be 'the separation of religion/irreligion/anti-religion from the state' then?

    ... or do still believe it should only be the Christian Church that should be 'separated', to use your 'colloquialism'?


  • Options
    #1205
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    Which is it guys ... is Atheism completely neutral on matters of religion ... or very concerned about religion and its place in society/the world?

    I think we all know the answer ... and that is why no exceptions should be made if religion/irreligion/anti-religion is to be separated from the state.

    Secularism strives to make everything equal for everybody. Atheists don't believe in anything, so why would we be bound to religious policies we don't adhere to? Same for a Muslim, Jew or Christian having to comply to religious rules they don't follow or believe in.

    Having a secular, non-religious state is in everybody's interest as no one group has a foothold or rung above the rest.

    And before you say otherwise, atheism is a complete lack of belief, not a belief in itself, so a secular state is the fairest option, then all beliefs have parity in society. Everybody wins, and everyone is happy, or should be anyway...


  • Options
    #1206
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Irreligion and anti-religion is to Atheism what religion is to Christianity.

    ... so is it to be 'the separation of religion/irreligion/anti-religion from the state' then?

    ... or do still believe it should only be the Christian Church that should be 'separated', to use your 'colloquialism'?

    You're the only one suggesting that the Christian church should be singled out.

    The rest of your suggestion is nonsense. How can the state be pro-,anti- and indifferent to religion all at the same time? Please explain how this is possible?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1207
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Secularism strives to make everything equal for everybody. Atheists don't believe in anything, so why would we be bound to religious policies we don't adhere to? Same for a Muslim, Jew or Christian having to comply to religious rules they don't follow or believe in.

    Having a secular, non-religious state is in everybody's interest as no one group has a foothold or rung above the rest.

    And before you say otherwise, atheism is a complete lack of belief, not a belief in itself, so a secular state is the fairest option, then all beliefs have parity in society. Everybody wins, and everyone is happy, or should be anyway...
    Nobody is suggesting that anybody should have to comply with religious or indeed, irreligious rules that they don't believe in ... but they should also not be prevented from the expression of their religion ... or irreligion.


  • Options
    #1208
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    You're the only one suggesting that the Christian church should be singled out.
    It is you (and not me) who continues to confine the 'separation' from state to the (Christian) church.
    ... or have you changed tack ... and have now widened it to religion/irreligion/anti-religion?


  • Options
    #1209
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    Nobody is suggesting that anybody should have to comply with religious or indeed, irreligious rules that they don't believe in ... but they should also not be prevented from the expression of their religion ... or irreligion.

    Yes, I agree, but the state should only have a neutral stance, because as pointed out here already, how could it possible for and against all at the same time? It doesn't make sense


  • Options
    #1210
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It is you (and not me) who continues to confine the 'separation' from state to the (Christian) church.
    ... or have you changed tack ... and have now widened it to religion/irreligion/anti-religion?

    Incorrect. You are the one saying that church refers to only Christianity. Something multiple posters have been attempting to explain where you're in error.

    Do you now accept that the separation between church and state does not only refer to only Christianity?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1211
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,946 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    FFS J C, look up "irreligion" in a dictionary so you have some idea of what you're arguing against.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1212
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    It is you (and not me) who continues to confine the 'separation' from state to the (Christian) church.
    ... or have you changed tack ... and have now widened it to religion/irreligion/anti-religion?

    And yet again JC is so blinded by his bible blinkers that he again confuses the word church to mean only Christianity.

    Church of Scientology

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology


  • Options
    #1213
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    bumper234 wrote: »
    And yet again JC is so blinded by his bible blinkers that he again confuses the word church to mean only Christianity.

    Church of Scientology

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology

    He doesn't confuse anything, he only cares about Christianity, nothing else matters or is relevant to him


  • Options
    #1214
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    FOLKS!

    If you can't disagree without being civil in your post DO NOT post. Take a breather and cool down.


  • Options
    #1215
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    From the OED:

    CHURCH
    NOUN

    1A building used for public Christian worship:
    the church was largely rebuilt at the end of the 15th century
    some people go to church every Sunday
    after church we went to a restaurant
    [IN NAMES]: St Luke’s Church

    1.1 (Church) A particular Christian organization with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines:
    the Church of England

    1.2 (the Church) The hierarchy of clergy within a particular Christian Church:
    Isobel would enter the Church as a deacon

    1.3 b]MASS NOUN[/b Institutionalized religion as a political or social force:
    the separation of church and state



    The word church in "the separation of church and state" refers entirely to the definition of 1.3. It is precise language and everyone knows what we're talking about when we say it. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. To pretend it only refers to the Christian church is dishonest.


  • Options
    #1216
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ardmacha wrote: »
    I object to the contention that I am not an honest and decent person. I did not make a mistake, so cannot own up to it. I wished to post a picture that raised the question that a US funded facility might have religious symbols. I posted such a picture, which was relevant to the debate, and not an occasion for apology.

    Please withdraw the allegation that I am not an honest and decent person.

    I was going to take your post apart, but then stopped and thought better. Do you know why? Because we'd be going around in circles for ever, me refuting your point, and you dodging evading those refutations, by firstly denying what you said, then attacking me for the "heinous crime" of pointing out your fallacy.

    So we're done, I'm never going to respond to anything you post again, and you're never going learn how act when in a debate, it is shown that you are wrong.


  • Options
    #1217
    sea_monkey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 755 ✭✭✭sea_monkey


    J C wrote: »
    The separation of Church and State, the belief that there is no God and therefore materialistic explantions are the only ones to be accepted and provided with state support, the belief that public expression of religious faith shouldn't be allowed, the belief that religious faith shouldn't be expressed in school. the belief that the state shouldn't financially support any school with a particular religious ethos, the belief that full respect shouldn't be accorded to religious beliefs in hospitals, the military and prisons including the provision of a chaplancy service ... and that's just a few off the top of my head.

    I'm sure that you guys can think of a few more.

    ... and if I'm wrong about any of these ... please feel free to correct me.

    All of those that you mentioned are religious in nature so why should the state pay for them?
    Let the religions pay for them if they are so important.
    Using state funds to further religious intent is wrong when those funds come from people who do not believe.

    As for the education thing, it would be wrong to educate children incorrectly.


  • Options
    #1218
    72DSpecial
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭72DSpecial


    '3. Behavioral (learning). Darwinian evolution does not address how organisms react to their environment, develop traits to respond to it and pass on these traits to their offspring. Anyone who looks at an ant hill will understand this point. The underlying mechanism here is not well understood yet, although it is clearly to do with neurological development.'

    Sorry - This is all wrong. It's a vague referral to Lamarckism. Of course Darwinian evolution addresses how organisms react to their environment and develop or favour traits which respond to it! - ie. make their survival and thus the passing on of their genes more likely. When it comes to evolution bashing there seems to be a wilful attempt to ignore the facts, or at the very least an inability to understand the underlying scientific principles.


  • Options
    #1219
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Sh1t just got interesting...

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html

    MrP


  • Options
    #1220
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Sh1t just got interesting...

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html

    MrP

    Will be interesting to see what the creationist side make of this.:D


  • Options
    #1221
    Bellatori
    Registered Users Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Will be interesting to see what the creationist side make of this.:D
    They will just ignore it as with everything else that is slightly problematic for them.

    Just like the following

    bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

    Scientists took the DNA out of a cell and ran it through an analyser. They then manufactured an identical DNA and put it back in the remnants of a cell. Now the remnants of the cell is a non-living artefact. All the chemicals used to make the artificial DNA are also non-living so the creation of the living cells represents living from non-living therefore the nature of life itself is not special but intrinsic to the chemical nature of the processes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1222
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by MrPudding View Post
    Sh1t just got interesting...

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...out-cells.html

    MrPbumper
    Will be interesting to see what the creationist side make of this.:D
    The relative difference between spontaneous glycolosis and the specified complexities and essential interactions observed in living organisms is akin to claiming that because static electricity has been observed being spontaneously generated ... that this explains the origins and spontaneous production of the 'Big Blue' computer.

    The fact that electricity is required to operate the computer doesn't explain how the computer was manufactured or programmed (which requires Intelligent Design) ... and ditto for life and spontantaneous glycolosis.

    We have actually been 'here' before with the Miller-Urey experiment which spontaneously produced certain amino acids, back in the early 1950's ... but again, its the massively complex and highly specified and intelligently designed combination of amino acids with other specific biomolecules that defies spontaneous generation ... and therefore proves the intelligent design of life.
    ... and the possibility of billions of years and the selection of mistakes also doesn't get us any futher in relation to explaining the origin of the tightly specified, complex and information-rich systems that we observe in life.


  • Options
    #1223
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sea_monkey wrote: »
    All of those that you mentioned are religious in nature so why should the state pay for them?
    Let the religions pay for them if they are so important.
    Using state funds to further religious intent is wrong when those funds come from people who do not believe.
    ... it's no less wrong than using state funds to further irreligious intent ... when over 90% of the funds come from the 90% plus people in Ireland who believe in the existence of God(s).

    As two wrongs don't make a right ... the only way that this can be resolved fairly and equitably is to present a fair and balanced educational programme of the views and the under-pinning assumptions of both un-believers and believers. On many issues, they will be identical, but where they differ about fundamental issues such as 'origins' and life ethics, for example, all sides (and their beliefs) should be respected.
    sea_monkey wrote: »
    As for the education thing, it would be wrong to educate children incorrectly.
    On this we can agree ... although I suspect I may disagree with your definition of 'incorrectly'.:)
    Atheist states (and single faith states) have been tried and found wanting.
    The modern thinking is for pluralist states respecting the beliefs and (non-beliefs) of their citizens - and a fair and balanced presentation of these beliefs and their under-pinning evidence is a key part of educating children to live respectfully and peacefully in these societies, when they become adults.


  • Options
    #1224
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Bellatori wrote: »
    They will just ignore it as with everything else that is slightly problematic for them.

    Just like the following

    bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

    Scientists took the DNA out of a cell and ran it through an analyser. They then manufactured an identical DNA and put it back in the remnants of a cell. Now the remnants of the cell is a non-living artefact. All the chemicals used to make the artificial DNA are also non-living so the creation of the living cells represents living from non-living therefore the nature of life itself is not special but intrinsic to the chemical nature of the processes.
    Human Beings are made in the image and likeness of the God who created life ... and they therefore are capable of artificailly copying and altering its various components using intelligently designed processes ... such as the process described in the link.


  • Options
    #1225
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    Human Beings are made in the image and likeness of the God who created life ... and they therefore are capable of artificailly copying and altering its various components using intelligently designed processes ... such as the process described in the link.

    Ok it must be true since you said so.


  • Options
    #1226
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    Human Beings are made in the image and likeness of the God who created life ... and they therefore are capable of artificailly copying and altering its various components using intelligently designed processes ... such as the process described in the link.

    *facepalm*


  • Options
    #1227
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Ok it must be true since you said so.
    It's true because the Bible says so ... and the production of artificial DNA is certainly in line with the idea that we are capable of Intelligent Design, just like God.


  • Options
    #1228
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    It's true because the Bible says so ... and the production of artificial DNA is certainly in line with the idea that we are capable of Intelligent Design, just like God.

    And just like the bible.

    Woah, hang on, that wasn't intelligent design. Never mind


  • Options
    #1229
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    It's true because the Bible says so ... and the production of artificial DNA is certainly in line with the idea that we are capable of Intelligent Design, just like God.

    So it is ok to stone a woman to death if she is not a virgin?


  • Options
    #1230
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It's true because the Bible says so ... and the production of artificial DNA is certainly in line with the idea that we are capable of Intelligent Design, just like God.

    The bible is true because the bible says so. :rolleyes:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1231
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    So it is ok to stone a woman to death if she is not a virgin?
    It's certainly not OK to do so.
    The fact that the Mosaic Laws were excessive ... just like King David's murderous adultery, for example, (which is also recorded in the Bible) doesn't invalidate the truth of the Bible.

    Indeed the recording of the very Human, 'warts and all' accounts of the behaviour of the Isrealites shows that the Bible isn't a 'sanitised' version of events ... and it is therefore the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    Human sin and hypocracy is there in the Bible for everyone to see ... and with no attempt made to hide the ugly truth of what sinful Humans can get up to.


Advertisement