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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Anti Religion.

2»

Comments

  • #52
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    I have because

    Except you have not, and your inability to write your own posts but to only quote mine back at me only further erodes your credibility.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    there is a war of ideas there.

    There is. And I can substantiate my side of that war. The theists can not because they can not offer a shred of evidence, argument, data or reasoming that there is a god. Whereas the secularists have no case to make except to point out that the godists can not substantiate what they say. Learn the difference.

    Because therein lies the difference, and therein lies where you are making my point for me. Not only can you not substantiate theistic ideas, you can not even write your own posts. You can only rehash mine and badly too.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    The difference is that the atheists and the secularists are not in general making unsubstantiated nonsense claims about religion at that level of society

    I agree! They are not! Again making my point for me. Or in your crass attempt to reverse my post did you forget to edit this part correctly? Because atheists and secularists are, as you say here, NOT making unsubstantiated nonsense claims about religion. Their claims are in fact well substantiated when they discuss religion.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    If you, by re-quoting your own post back at me

    Where did I do any such thing? I did not. Once. Ever. So now you are simply outright lying about reality and history.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    have an issue with me wishing to keep anti-religion out of those halls

    Except I did not once suggest putting anti religion into those halls. So your useless attempt to rehash my own post back at me has failed because you are now making no sense, and not replying to anything I ever did or said.

    Because the fact is I am not anti religion. At the level of people having and practising and enjoying their religion. I am merely secularist in keeping religion out of our halls of power, education, science and communication. But that is not "anti religion" though you might wish to desperately pretend otherwise.

    And I, unlike you, can argue why I am for that point. Where theists can not argue why god claims and religion should be taken seriously at that level. Though maybe some day one of you might try.


  • #53
    sonny.knowles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 607 ✭✭✭sonny.knowles


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Because it's a negative concept?

    Atheism: "without God"
    Agnosticism: "without knowledge (about God)"
    Anaemia: "without blood"
    Amorphous: "without shape"
    Anhydrous: "without water"
    Anonymous: "without a name"

    Are we seeing a pattern here yet

    They all start in A? Is that the pattern?


  • #54
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,371 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    kneemos wrote: »
    Why the facination with religion ?
    Two reasons for me.

    1. Education. State education secular, religion should be a private matter and when it becomes something that's kept to the family and the church. I'm happy.

    2. Iona Institute, et al. The day a talking head from that organisation, or similar, don't automatically get a seat at every debate on private matters of conscience, I'm done. And happy.

    End of. Once that happens.


  • #55
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Except you have not

    Except you have not.

    Your inability to read your own posts, but to only quote your own back at me only further erodes your credibility.

    There is. And I can substantiate my side of your war. The anti-theists can not because they can not offer a shred of evidence, argument, data or reasoming supporting their anti-theism. Whereas the secularists have no case to make except to point out that the anti-theists can not substantiate what they say. Learn the difference.

    Because therein lies the difference, and therein lies where you are making my point for me. Not only can you not substantiate anti-theistic ideas, you can not even read your own posts. You can only rehash your own and badly too.

    I agree! They are not! Again making my point for me. Or in your crass attempt to reverse your own posts did you forget to edit this part correctly? Because theists and secularists are, as you say here, NOT making unsubstantiated nonsense claims about secularism. Their claims are in fact well substantiated when they discuss secularism.

    Where did I do any such thing? I did not. Once. Ever. So now you are simply outright lying about reality and history.

    Except I did not once suggest putting religion into those halls. So your useless attempt to rehash your own post back at me has failed because you are now making no sense, and not replying to anything I ever did or said.

    Because the fact is I am not anti secular. At the level of people having and practising and enjoying their atheism. I am merely secularist in keeping anti-theism out of our halls of power, education, science and communication. But that is not "religion" though you might wish to desperately pretend otherwise.

    And I, unlike you, can argue why I am for that point. Where anti-theists can not argue why anti-theism claims and anti-religion should be taken seriously at that level. Though maybe some day one of you might try. :)


  • #56
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    High alc/vol in the communion wine this evening?


  • #57
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    High alc/vol in the communion wine this evening?

    I think he gets his posting style from the "Chewbacca defense"


  • #58
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Except you have not.

    Try replying to something I wrote for once. Your dodge tactics are getting transparent and trolling.


  • #59
    Osgoodisgood
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭Osgoodisgood


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Try replying to something I wrote for once. Your dodge tactics are getting transparent and trolling.

    I recommend no more food for Trolly McTrollster


  • #60
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,748 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Except you have not. [SNIP]

    I didn't expect much from this thread, but you have set a new low for idiotic juvenile nonsense.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    kneemos wrote: »
    Why the facination with religion ?

    Gotta be honest here...couldn't be arsed reading the whole thread, but in answer to your question here....

    Because of religion's fascination and domination of anyone who doesn't follow their credo to the letter. A somewhat (:rolleyes:) irritating trait of religions and very much to be battled.


Advertisement