Forum menu
It is ALWAYS necessary to listen to someone before judging their intelligence.
Oh I dont know, in some cases I would be prepared to take a flyer!
Yes but it is implied that you have listened to them if you know wether they believe in god or not, otherwise how do you know if they believe in god to judge them as stupid?
I don't need to speak to anyone who claims believes in god (other than to ask if they do or do not believe) to know that they are stupid
Wow.
Yes but it is implied that you have listened to them if you know wether they believe in god or not
Well no, you are aiming the insult at all religious people without having listened to them.
This is called prejudice btw, and is usually frowned upon.
ernie_lynch - Member.... I would be grateful if someone could save me the time and bother and give me a brief summary of who's changed their minds as a result of powerful and irrefutable counterarguments.
well TJ admitted that not everything connected with organised religion is bad and that at some less fortunate stage in his life he accepted charity from "The Church"
Other than that it's "as you were" 😕
Clapton is a Sod.
Well no, you are aiming the insult at all religious people without having listened to them.
I have listened to them, otherwise how do I know if they are relgious or not?
I don't object to being frowned upon.usually frowned upon
It isn't prejudice anyway, as I have not made my judgment without any pre knowledge of the supject (thats the pre in pre-judice) I have pre knowledge, they believe in some form of deity. That is enough to mark them out as stupid. Unless they have evidence that I do not, then fine they are not stupid. But seeing as no one has ever been able to show or replicate any evidence of a god then that makes them people of faith, believers without evidence, and hence stupid.
with molgips on this 7
the belief is stupid the believer is not necessarily stupid.
Scientology though
you seriously need to switch off some critical faculties to swallow that account by a scoence fiction writer tbh.Scientology teaches that people are immortal beings [from aliens who have lived elsewhere and have reincarnated here]who have forgotten their true nature.[7] Its method of spiritual rehabilitation is a type of counselling known as auditing, in which practitioners aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in their past in order to free themselves of their limiting effects.[8] Study materials and auditing courses are made available to members in return for specified donations
toys19 - Member
.....makes them people of faith, believers without evidence, and hence stupid.
So people of faith who are well respected in their professional fields (such as science, education, philosophy, art, literature etc) are stupid, really !
So if you need to ever use the services of a professional, would you first ask them their religious beliefs and base their competency on the answer ?
the belief is stupid the believer is not necessarily stupid.
Guy at work is a Christian (an actual, real, chuch-going Christian rather than a census-form box ticker). He's one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. He's probably reasonably far down the Aspie scale, but I wouldn't for a second ever refer to him as stupid.
I really must have a theological discussion with him at some point; I can't imagine he'd be the sort of person to buy into circular reasoning, I'd love to know how he rationalises it all.
you seriously need to switch off some critical faculties to swallow that account by a scoence fiction writer tbh.
Even if the theory behind it made perfect sense, you'd surely question a religion created by a scifi author. Surely?
well TJ admitted that not everything connected with organised religion is bad and that at some less fortunate stage in his life he accepted charity from "The Church"
Fantastic !.....confession is excellent for the soul. Although to fully repent you must change your previous wicked ways. I look forward to witnessing TJ's new enlighten attitude on future stw religious threads.
the belief is stupid the believer is not necessarily stupid.
I'll happily acccept that, they can be stupid in one way and clever in another.
TBH though anyone I've ever come across who is religious I automatically distrust as either disingenuous, of limited emotional development (so far) or just thick. A good example is Tony "God will judge me" Blair. Not thick or emotionally retarded..
Of those believers I know well my feelings have either been proven or as yet not seen enough to be sure.
Edit I'll happily modify my definition to include mentally ill as an option.
Double edit I'll also include brainwashed/ignorant too.
Ok, here are some general points following on from the recent points:
a) there is no doubt that being an atheist is incredibly fashionable, hence why as a faith it attracts so many people
b) the video posted on McGrath vs Dawkins - you might want to watch the entirety of that video, rather than select clips. You might also want to google Lennox vs Dawkins for a situation when the great Darwinian comes up short
c) The opportunity for us to debate these issues is a result of our Christian heritage, specifically the clause about forgiveness. If you think secularism will usher in a new world of tolerance then frankly you are delusional. Look at Soviet Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin.
a) there is no doubt that being an atheist is incredibly fashionable, hence why as a faith it attracts so many people
Are you deliberately trolling, or just trying to prove Toys19 correct?
[i]badnewz - Member
Ok, here are some general points following on from the recent points:
a) there is no doubt that being an atheist is incredibly fashionable, hence why as a faith it attracts so many people
b) the video posted on McGrath vs Dawkins - you might want to watch the entirety of that video, rather than select clips. You might also want to google Lennox vs Dawkins for a situation when the great Darwinian comes up short
c) The opportunity for us to debate these issues is a result of our Christian heritage, specifically the clause about forgiveness. If you think secularism will usher in a new world of tolerance then frankly you are delusional. Look at Soviet Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin.[/i]
You be a trollin' for Jesus!
The opportunity for us to debate these issues is a result of our Christian heritage, specifically the clause about forgiveness. If you think secularism will usher in a new world of tolerance then frankly you are delusional. Look at Soviet Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin.
could you highlight this in respect to Galileo who was threatened with death unless he recanted the heliocentric view of the universe and the church stifled publication of the book for 2 centuries.
you may use the blashphemy laws and prosecutions if you prefer to highlight how we can only debate this because christianity lets us.
these are battles that have been won in the face of resistance from christian heritage.
If you think secularism will usher in a new world of tolerance then frankly you are delusional. Look at Soviet Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin.
I prefer other examples of secularism if its all the same.
there is no doubt that being an atheist is incredibly fashionable, hence why as a faith it attracts so many people
Um it isn't a faith, by definition.
The opportunity for us to debate these issues is a result of our Christian heritage
If we didn't have a Christian heritage, what issues would there be to discuss?
Not trolling. Just making some points. The fact you think I'm trolling is revealing however - that anybody who would stand up for religion, and especially Christianity, must be trolling.
Britain in 2012 is an overwhelmingly secular society. A young person would do well to describing themselves as Christian.
But a liberal secularist, well then the world is your oyster.
The people who think that being an atheist is somehow radical on this forum are completely deluded. Try being Christian, that's as radical as it gets.
The opportunity for us to debate these issues is despite our Christian heritage.
Assuming we mean
Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.
the soviet states were atheist and tried to stamp out religion
Its not a great example
The opportunity for us to debate these issues is a result of our Christian heritage
If we didn't have a Christian heritage, what issues would there be to discuss?
I've absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What do you mean?
that anybody who would stand up for religion, and especially Christianity, must be trolling.
No. Just anyone who would spout such ill informed drivel.
But a liberal secularist, well then the world is your oyster.
How many leaders of western nations, in the past 20 years have proclaimed to hold religious views, and how many have proclaimed to be liberal secularists?
The people who think that being an atheist is somehow radical on this forum are completely deluded. Try being Christian, that's as radical as it gets.
I don't think any of the atheists here wish to be radical, or see it as some kind of cool statement, its just avoidance of being a moron.
Toys19
Um it isn't a faith, by definition.
Quote Christopher Hitchens, "Our Faith is not a Faith."
Of course atheism is a Faith - it is based around a belief that God does not exist.
[i]Not trolling. Just making some points. The fact you think I'm trolling is revealing however - that anybody who would stand up for religion, and especially Christianity, must be trolling[/i]
Give over!
Deliberately obtuse statements in the hope of eliciting a reaction is trolling. Your subject matter is immaterial, the way you go about it makes you a troll, not a christian martyr.
surfer - Member
"If you think secularism will usher in a new world of tolerance then frankly you are delusional. Look at Soviet Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin."
I prefer other examples of secularism if its all the same.
That's not an example of secularism it's an example of a totalitarian regime interested in eradicating all other methods of control over the population.
So, the Christians are still dodging the question re whether scientology should be treated with respect.
Yet again, I contend that most of them think it's silly nonsense at best, but don't have the balls to admit that this makes them hypocrites.
I don't think any of the atheists here wish to be radical, or see it as some kind of cool statement, its just avoidance of being a moron.
I would disagree. This forum is saturated with disappointed middle-aged men that are full of angst and want attention. Atheism is the perfect fit.
MSP - Member
"But a liberal secularist, well then the world is your oyster."
How many leaders of western nations, in the past 20 years have proclaimed to hold religious views, and how many have proclaimed to be liberal secularists?
THIS
it is based around a belief that God does not exist.
its not its the absence of a belief
is not collecting stamps a hobby then?
Quote Christopher Hitchens, "Our Faith is not a Faith."
Exactly
Of course atheism is a Faith - it is based around a belief that God does not exist.
Defintion of faith, is belief without evidence. We do not beleive without evidence, therefore not faith. You appear to be missing a few defintions and just making sentences without actually understanding the words that you put in them.
[i]I would disagree. This forum is saturated with disappointed middle-aged men that are full of angst and want attention. Atheism is the perfect fit.[/i]
Trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrololololololololoolllllin' fer the Lord, Hallelujah!
Give over!Deliberately obtuse statements in the hope of eliciting a reaction is trolling. Your subject matter is immaterial, the way you go about it makes you a troll, not a christian martyr.
The person who started this thread initiated a conversation. Why can't somebody who disagrees with their statement say so? You sound like a Stalinist, any view which is opposed to your's must be delusional or insincere, and therefore stamped out.
Any examples of these liberal secularists who control our daily lives yet?
I would disagree. This forum is saturated with disappointed middle-aged men that are full of angst and want attention. Atheism is the perfect fit.
This is a logical fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc ]here.[/url]
It's a classic symtom of relgious suceptability found amongst cargo cultists.
Defintion of faith, is belief without evidence. We do not beleive without evidence, therefore not faith. You appear to be missing a few defintions and just making sentences without actually understanding the words that you put in them.
You BELIEVE their is no God. It is a Belief. It is a Faith. Wake up poindexter.
badnewz - MemberYou BELIEVE their is no God. It is a Belief. It is a Faith. Wake up poindexter.
Oh teh ironing
[i]You sound like a Stalinist, any view which is opposed to your's must be delusional or insincere, and therefore stamped out. [/i]
You're still at it, trollboy.
badnewz you have proved my conclusions correct.
Any examples of these liberal secularists who control our daily lives yet?
In Britain we live in a world created by the liberal secularists of the 1960s. I would highlight Roy Jenkins as having a hugely secular influence.
I went to a secular secondary comp, with no mention of religion whatsoever, and that was the consequence of the 60s counter cultural revolutionaries.
yes der brain, no mention of religion is not secular, secular is separation of church and state, not mentioning religion at all is atheism, or just plain sensible.
" I smashed a 2000 year old religion, then I ate my tea..."
[img]//www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b00jmv1n_640_360.jpg[/img]
60s counter cultural revolutionaries
Those bastard oppressors and destroyers of freedom!