Athiests - Who cares

constance tench

smash wrote: »

If you play connect the dots with his/her posts you could almost make a sentence

Good man...

TheChizler

RobertKK wrote: »

Some believe in a God.
Others believe no God exists.
Believing in God is a definite position.
Believing in no existence of God is a definite position.
Neither side can be sure they are correct, they just presume they are correct, whether through faith or belief in their position.

I'm not agnostic but surely this is the most balanced approach if you don't believe in a God, given neither side can be 100% sure their position is correct.

You're forgetting the basic atheist position, not believing in a God. Not the same thing as your second position.

Peist2007

constance tench wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

Did they issue a formal apology to Galileo in 1936 on the formation of their science faculty?

Akrasia

vicwatson wrote: »

Atheists have symbols of christianity shovelled down their throats everyday in this country - from bongs at 12.00 noon to bongs at 18.00 on our national tv and radio stations to joe Duffy thanking "God" every 2 minutes

If everyone on RTE is doing bongs at 12 noon and 6pm every day, that actually does explain quite a lot

TheChizler

Akrasia wrote: »

All agnostics are atheists, no agnostics are nontheists, all nontheists are atheists

Apart from agnostic theists and nontheists, agnostic nontheists, the third one is correct though.

constance tench

Peist2007 wrote: »

Did they issue a formal apology to Galileo in 1936 on the formation of their science faculty?

I'm pretty sure he was dead by then.

Grayson

TheChizler wrote: »

You're forgetting the basic atheist position, not believing in a God. Not the same thing as your second position.

It's also down to the definition of belief. In his first statement "Some believe in a God" He's using belief in a religious way. That belief implies religious faith

However when atheists say they believe there is no God they are not saying they believe in the same way. It's more like the first definition below whereas religious usage is like the 4th definition

noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.

RDM_83 again

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And it only gets worse once you have kids.

I'd say if that religious ethoses were dropped by publicly-funded schools, baptisms would drop too by at least 30%.

See this is exactly what I mean by the Anti-theist Atheist thing, your concern isn;t just sending you kids to a school you like, you hope by reducing the amount of religious schools you'l reduce the amount of religious people. Its similar to the proselyting done by theists but I'd argue that its actually more common as you actually don;t encounter any mainstream christians or Muslims trying to convert you (fringe groups yes)

Peist2007

constance tench wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he was dead by then.

Did they though?

Grayson

btw, I'm actually disappointed I was to busy to contribute to about 20 pages of this discussion.

I have degrees in philosophy and I never get to use them. This is the only time I get to think that 50% of my college time was worth it

papu

RDM_83 again wrote: »

See this is exactly what I mean by the Anti-theist Atheist thing, your concern isn;t just sending you kids to a school you like, you hope by reducing the amount of religious schools you'l reduce the amount of religious people. Its similar to the proselyting done by theists but I'd argue that its actually more common as you actually don;t encounter any mainstream christians or Muslims trying to convert you (fringe groups yes)

I don't see anything wrong with religion being thought in schools , as long as it covers all religions equally and is an optional class. If my son wants to worship Thor I will let him.

constance tench

Peist2007 wrote: »

Did they though?

They might have said a prayer for him.

Tar.Aldarion

Your degrees in philosophy don't really exist man.

smash

constance tench wrote: »

They might have said a prayer for him.

In the words of Ricky Gervais: My thoughts and prayers are with those who think that thoughts and prayers can actually make a difference.

Sofiztikated

papu wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with religion being thought in schools , as long as it covers all religions equally and is an optional class. If my son wants to worship Thor I will let him.

It's ok, my Mrs worships Chris Helmsworth already.

RDM_83 again

papu wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with religion being thought in schools , as long as it covers all religions equally and is an optional class. If my son wants to worship Thor I will let him.

Why though? if the core curriculum is covered and you have your choice to send your kids to the education you want why does it make a difference where they send their kids and why would you like to make it more difficult for them?
If you could show religion is actively harmful to children or adults I might see your point but apart from some fringe nutters (who would be nutters anyway) I haven't seen anything to associate a some-one being religious to having a worse situation.
Atheism might correlate well with intelligence and working in STEM but it doesn' correlate so well with well being and mental health (not saying its God doing it I personally think we're evolved to have religious type beliefs as a coping mechanism for our runaway intelligence and over advanced consciousness)

Peist2007

constance tench wrote: »

They might have said a prayer for him.

So, nothing then.

:rolleyes:

smash

papu wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with religion being thought in schools , as long as it covers all religions equally and is an optional class. If my son wants to worship Thor I will let him.

I wouldn't have an issue if religion was taught in class, but only from secondary school as an optional subject and the class was about the history of religions rather than the teachings and ramming opinions and beliefs down the throats of our youth. Example being than schools should not talk about god and the devil without going into the history behind it of the sun(light) vs moon(dark) and how this transcribed and evolved over centuries to become a man made myth of god vs the devil, and the equivalent in other religions. The subject should also have a strong focus on the dangers of religions causing wars etc. Education is what's required, not a direct and forced belief system which is stated as fact.

PopePalpatine

RDM_83 again wrote: »

See this is exactly what I mean by the Anti-theist Atheist thing, your concern isn;t just sending you kids to a school you like, you hope by reducing the amount of religious schools you'l reduce the amount of religious people. Its similar to the proselyting done by theists but I'd argue that its actually more common as you actually don;t encounter any mainstream christians or Muslims trying to convert you (fringe groups yes)

I have no problem with a religion class in schools if it's something along the lines of "Christians believe A, Muslims believe B, Hindus believe C etc." The problem is that's not the case in religious schools. Why must my (hypothetical) childrens' rights to a secular education, as is guaranteed in this country's constitution, be trampled?

The state should not fund religious indoctrination in schools, because that inherently creates discrimination.

TheChizler

Grayson wrote: »

It's also down to the definition of belief. In his first statement "Some believe in a God" He's using belief in a religious way. That belief implies religious faith

However when atheists say they believe there is no God they are not saying they believe in the same way. It's more like the first definition below whereas religious usage is like the 4th definition

noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.

I'm not sure how you got that was objectively what was being said. I would have thought it was the common definition, #1 above. We'll have to wait for clarification. And again, the minority of atheists would state that they believe there is no god. This is something quite a lot of people misunderstand. Since we're using dictionaries...

dictionary.com wrote:

atheist
[ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Though this definition seems to bridge the division we're trying to make, the thing in common between denying and disbelieving is disbelief. Disbelief the more inclusive of the two definitions, and in my experience, so I'm open to correction, the one that a greater number of atheists use.

papu

smash wrote: »

I wouldn't have an issue if religion was taught in class, but only from secondary school as an optional subject and the class was about the history of religions rather than the teachings and ramming opinions and beliefs down the throats of our youth. Example being than schools should not talk about god and the devil without going into the history behind it of the sun(light) vs moon(dark) and how this transcribed and evolved over centuries to become a man made myth of god vs the devil, and the equivalent in other religions. The subject should also have a strong focus on the dangers of religions causing wars etc. Education is what's required, not a direct and forced belief system which is stated as fact.

Well yes I should have clarified , secondary schools , children are far too gullible. History of religion does sound like a better topic

smash

papu wrote: »

Well yes I should have clarified , secondary schools , children are far too gullible. History of religion does sound like a better topic

Exactly. If you're going to teach about beliefs of a religion or of various religions then you can't say "The book says". You have to discuss where it all came from in the first place.

Peist2007

Genuinely doubt the church would allow the history of religion to be taught. Too bloody, too many pointless deaths; all of which would only reinforce home to any young inquisitive mind just how stupid and pointless it all was once it outlived its usefulness three or four hundred years ago.

papu

smash wrote: »

Exactly. If you're going to teach about beliefs of a religion or of various religions then you can't say "The book says". You have to discuss where it all came from in the first place.

It makes it all seem much more preposterous an implausible anyway. Religion in history has had a very violent and negative impact on mankind.

constance tench

Peist2007 wrote: »

So, nothing then.

:rolleyes:

n 1939 Pope Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, within a few months of his election to the papacy, described Galileo as being among the "most audacious heroes of research ... not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments"

Sounds like an apology and a prayer to me!


Do you not like the fact that a Jesuit schooled priest
was the first known academic to propose the big bang theory
and the expansion of the universe?

RDM_83 again

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I have no problem with a religion class in schools if it's something along the lines of "Christians believe A, Muslims believe B, Hindus believe C etc." The problem is that's not the case in religious schools. Why must my (hypothetical) childrens' rights to a secular education, as is guaranteed in this country's constitution, be trampled?

The state should not fund religious indoctrination in schools, because that inherently creates discrimination.

Why though? If the program of educate together or similar schools is rolled out to meet demand how does the presence of publicly funded religious schools trample your childrens rights? Its not a zero sum game, you don't have to remove options from parents that would like a religious ethos to satisfy your demands?

papu

constance tench wrote: »

What, you don't like the fact that a Jesuit schooled priest
was the first known academic to propose the big bang theory
and the expansion of the universe?

And the church held onto a solid belief in a geocentric universe almost up until the 19th century in parts , anyone who opposed Church doctrine was branded a heretic, and that would destroy your reputation, put you in prison, or even sentence you to death.

It really doesn't matter if priests or religiously educated scientists were pioneers in their work , the fact that the church had such a narrow-minded view and censorship of many issues makes them more of a hindrance than a help.

TwoShedsJackson

Peist2007 wrote: »

So, nothing then.

:rolleyes:

If Wikipedia is to be believed, Galileo was pardoned in 1992.

Grayson

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Your degrees in philosophy don't really exist man.

but if I can construct a philosophical argument that they do exist, does that mean they exist?

Now I'm talking like Kneemos.

Zubeneschamali

The youungfella came home yesterday and said he dropped marks in Religion in the Christmas test because he didn't know Gandhi was married.

And I was, like, huh?

constance tench

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

If Wikipedia is to be believed, Galileo was pardoned in 1992.

See edited post above. 426

osarusan

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why though? If the program of educate together or similar schools is rolled out to meet demand how does the presence of publicly funded religious schools trample your childrens rights? Its not a zero sum game, you don't have to remove options from parents that would like a religious ethos to satisfy your demands?

That's just a hypothetical at the moment though, isn't it?

If there were enough multi-denominational schools, it probably wouldn't be an issue. The whole problem is that there are only a handful in the country, and there are places where the only feasible option is a publicly funded religious school.

Grayson

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not sure how you got that was objectively what was being said. I would have thought it was the common definition, #1 above. We'll have to wait for clarification. And again, the minority of atheists would state that they believe there is no god. This is something quite a lot of people misunderstand. Since we're using dictionaries...



Though this definition seems to bridge the division we're trying to make, the thing in common between denying and disbelieving is disbelief. Disbelief the more inclusive of the two definitions, and in my experience, so I'm open to correction, the one that a greater number of atheists use.

When atheists use it they say "I believe there is no God". When that happens a religious people jump on it and say "ahh... but you have a belief". they seem to think then that because both people have a belief they are both on an equal footing.

The difference between the religious persons belief and the atheists is that the religious persons belief is not founded on knowledge but rather on faith.
If an atheist says it it's based on a lack of knowledge. They are both stating that they "believe" but the belief has different foundations.

That's why, as you point out, most atheists will prefer to say that they have a lack of belief in a God. When they do that they are using belief in the same manner as a religious person.

RDM_83 again

osarusan wrote: »

That's just a hypothetical at the moment though, isn't it?

If there were enough multi-denominational schools, it probably wouldn't be an issue. The whole problem is that there are only a handful in the country, and there are places where the only feasible option is a publicly funded religious school.

True enough but I find it interesting how many internet atheists aren't simply for more educate together schools but the complete removal of funding towards schools with a religious ethos.

Jester252

Some people are atheist. Some people are Ricky Gervais atheist. The ones who think their cool & edgy because their atheist. I know both.

smash

osarusan wrote: »

That's just a hypothetical at the moment though, isn't it?

If there were enough multi-denominational schools, it probably wouldn't be an issue. The whole problem is that there are only a handful in the country, and there are places where the only feasible option is a publicly funded religious school.

The even bigger problem is that there are no multi-dom schools which are feeder schools for secondary level.

PopePalpatine

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why though? If the program of educate together or similar schools is rolled out to meet demand how does the presence of publicly funded religious schools trample your childrens rights? Its not a zero sum game, you don't have to remove options from parents that would like a religious ethos to satisfy your demands?

At the moment, the RCC controls c.90% of all schools in the country. I live in a town of about 6,000 people in Meath, and yet the closest ET school is 15km away. I would hazard a guess this situation would deteriorate in rural Connacht/Munster.

IIRC, c.2-3 hours a week is spent teaching religious instruction in primary schools, and that excludes time spent preparing for First Communion and Confirmation - in my own experience, the latter involved going to mass once a week during school hours on top of the additional Confirmation classes.

Icepick

Oh no, they talk to people. Those bloody extremists!

Icepick

Jester252 wrote: »

Some people are atheist. Some people are Ricky Gervais atheist. The ones who think their cool & edgy because their atheist. I know both.

Knee jerk reactions in this thread to people simply saying they don't believe in gods suggests they are (unintenionally) edgy.

Saipanne

McG wrote: »

In the same way you have a "faith position" about leprechauns or unicorns.

Atheism doesn't state that a god doesn't exist, simply there is no belief that a god exists.

Yes, correct.

There is scarcely a difference.

Michael OBrien

Kalani Scrawny Aunt wrote: »

Why is it that all they do in the atheist forum is take pot shots at those who believe in God, no matter how misguided they think they are.

Have they nothing else to talk about.

Might have something to do with the atheists having to live with theists that believe atheists deserve eternal torture and still those same theists worship a god that set that system up, while passing on the blame to the atheist, and seeks to spread that message to the atheist's children, relatives, parents, friends and community, plus push it into politics where ever possible.
Plus most atheists have left a previous faith, and have amusing stories to share and we all like a laugh.
Adults that believe in invisible friends are going to get some jokes told about them. That is just the way life works.

MarkY91

im an atheist and bible bashers shoving god down my neck is just as annoying as an arrogant atheist.

Michael OBrien

RobertKK wrote: »

Some believe in a God.
Others believe no God exists.
Believing in God is a definite position.
Believing in no existence of God is a definite position.
Neither side can be sure they are correct, they just presume they are correct, whether through faith or belief in their position.

I'm not agnostic but surely this is the most balanced approach if you don't believe in a God, given neither side can be 100% sure their position is correct.

Atheism is not a position where you must believe no god exists.
Anyone who does not believe in a god can hold beliefs that are stronger in nature, up to, and including the statement you made. They are still atheists.
An counter example that might help clarify this is that THEISM (a belief in a god or gods) does not mean you have to believe in the abrahamic god, but a believer in an abrahamic god would also be a theist because he is a subset of the greater label theism. Does that help?

Grayson

Jester252 wrote: »

Some people are atheist. Some people are Ricky Gervais atheist. The ones who think their cool & edgy because their atheist. I know both.

I actually like him. I'm not big into Tim Minchin. I think Jim Jeffries is hilarious although his very offensive. His God at a party routine is fantastic.

I don't particularly like Dawkins or Hitchins. A.C. Grayling was ok until he wrote the atheists bible. Even then his earlier work is worth a read.

It's the same with religious people though. The new pope is ok. Old pope was bad. And Pat Robertson is just bat-**** crazy He's "Beat children to make them believe in God" crazy.

Aongus Von Bismarck

The new breed of atheist is really excruciatingly annoying to be fair.

One of my cousins is this unfortunate breed (overweight, scraggly facial-hair, does something with computers).

He's always been a bit odd, but no one normally paid him too much attention. This year he was over in our house on Christmas morning as my mother normally hosts her family for a few nibbles and drinks after mass. He was obnoxiously wishing everyone a "happy winter festival" :rolleyes: Got into a huge argument and offended our dear old Grand Aunt who had the temerity to say "God Bless" to him. This caused him to go into a big tirade about sky fairies and sexual abuse yadda yadda yadda. He refused to attend mass with the rest of the family and instead sat outside playing Minecraft on his phone and listening to some God-awful heavy metal music. We were left in no doubt that he is an atheist anyway...

Michael OBrien

keithclancy wrote: »

If you believe there is no God then you do not believe in a God.

Hence under the term in the dictionary, you are an Atheist.

Yes, but one is a subcategory of the other, they are not the same thing.
An example would be if you are a catholic you are a christian, that does not mean all christians are catholic. Do you get my point. The positions are not equal and do hold different meanings.
So while both would be classed as atheist, one is a narrower definition than the other.

Michael OBrien

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

The new breed of atheist is really excruciatingly annoying to be fair.

One of my cousins is this unfortunate breed (overweight, scraggly facial-hair, does something with computers).

He's always been a bit odd, but no one normally paid him too much attention. This year he was over in our house on Christmas morning as my mother normally hosts her family for a few nibbles and drinks after mass. He was obnoxiously wishing everyone a "happy winter festival" :rolleyes: Got into a huge argument and offended our dear old Grand Aunt who had the temerity to say "God Bless" to him. This caused him to go into a big tirade about sky fairies and sexual abuse yadda yadda yadda. He refused to attend mass with the rest of the family and instead sat outside playing Minecraft on his phone and listening to some God-awful heavy metal music. We were left in no doubt that he is an atheist anyway...

Ok, so he did act a bit twatish on that occasion but sometimes a bit of an argument can be a good thing, provided it is civil. The idea that causing offence by NOT simply letting religious views have their way is somehow awful needs a bit of rethinking. Older people can be set in their ways, but that does not excuse them from being challenged, politely.
But there is such a thing as tact, which needs to be applied. The goal of a civil argument should be to expand and explore each others views, not to upset and antagonise them just for kicks.

Michael OBrien

Saipanne wrote: »

Yes, correct.

There is scarcely a difference.

You have admitted there is a difference then. Perhaps you can now clarify what that difference is, and perhaps understand our viewpoint at last.

smash

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

The new breed of atheist is really excruciatingly annoying to be fair.

One of my cousins is this unfortunate breed

.... ....

Your cousin sounds like a walking cliche.

veliktom

My position is atheism with an Irish catholic slant. I don't believe in any gods, religion or any of that stuff, but I like the odd mass every now and again, especially if the priest is a little bit crazy. I am a fully sacramented-up catholic apart from last rights (for now, allah willing) and holy orders (most unlikely) and to be honest I couldn't be bothered leaving it even if they let me.