What religion are you? Page 3

  • Page

    of 18 First / Last

  • mcmonkeyplc 20 Aug 2010 10:30:47 39,387 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I agree Blerk, there is actually nothing wrong with an atheist. However unfortunatly the term has developed a stigma due to the militant few. Perhaps a little like Islam?

    Edit: Actually not just Islam. Every major religion has it's militant twats.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • MetalDog 20 Aug 2010 10:31:23 23,708 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    That's agnosticism with personal flavour, Deckard =)

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • MiniAmin 20 Aug 2010 10:31:42 3,390 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Cause his followers are as retarded as those they claim to be better than.

    I have no problem with Dawkins, it's the atheists that use him as a messiah that I have a problem with.

    Oh okay. Many of his "followers" don't engage in any metaphysical debate themselves. They blindly accept the things Dawkins has to say. I'm not sure they realise the irony...

    @ Metaldog + 1
  • LionheartDJH 20 Aug 2010 10:32:56 19,359 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I don't generally have a problem with atheists, even though I'm a believer myself. I'm not an evangelist and don't think it's my job to spread the word of God or convert people. I just live and let live, don't mind at all what other people believe or don't believe. It's only those that castigate my beliefs that I have a problem with.

    She dives for cheese pasties

  • RyanDS 20 Aug 2010 10:33:20 9,062 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I dislike the term atheist as well, as it is defined against something, placing the importance on that which is denied. ie not religious.

    In the same vein I am...

    Asantaclausist
    Afairyist
    Ahighlandersequelist
    Acthulhuist.

    /minor gripe. I have the same issue with non-fiction being non-fiction. I would rather have Real and non-real books. (Or a less clunky term.) Or Fiction and Real sections.
  • MiniAmin 20 Aug 2010 10:34:08 3,390 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    I agree Blerk, there is actually nothing wrong with an atheist. However unfortunatly the term has developed a stigma due to the militant few. Perhaps a little like Islam?

    Edit: Actually not just Islam. Every major religion has it's militant twats.

    I'm an atheist. I tend to disengage myself from the term and simply say "I don't believe there is a God". There are many people who call themselves Atheists because they wish to be perceive as intelligent, which is quite pathetic really.
  • Deckard1 20 Aug 2010 10:35:36 27,220 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Afairyist sounds like like a childs name for a lesbian.
  • MetalDog 20 Aug 2010 10:37:48 23,708 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    ryandsimmons wrote:
    /minor gripe. I have the same issue with non-fiction being non-fiction. I would rather have Real and non-real books. (Or a less clunky term.) Or Fiction and Real sections.

    Wouldn't be very accurate, though - there's a lot of 'real' stuff in fiction, it's just not 'stuff that actually happened'.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • MiniAmin 20 Aug 2010 10:38:19 3,390 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LionheartDJH wrote:
    I don't generally have a problem with atheists, even though I'm a believer myself. I'm not an evangelist and don't think it's my job to spread the word of God or convert people. I just live and let live, don't mind at all what other people believe or don't believe. It's only those that castigate my beliefs that I have a problem with.

    I think people are entitled to criticise your beliefs, but it depends on the situation. If someone is impertinently castigating/mocking your beliefs then that's wrong. If someone cheaply invokes a situation whereby they can criticise your beliefs ("but I thought you Christians don't do x") then they're gauche and obnoxious.

    However I think it's fine to criticise other's beliefs given the right forum, such as a debate or a discussion piece in a newspaper, provided it isn't unnecessarily inflammatory.
  • matt6666 20 Aug 2010 10:39:56 2,620 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Think the Darwin guy crosses the line with regard to this.
  • mcmonkeyplc 20 Aug 2010 10:42:08 39,387 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    ryandsimmons wrote:
    /minor gripe. I have the same issue with non-fiction being non-fiction. I would rather have Real and non-real books. (Or a less clunky term.) Or Fiction and Real sections.

    Wouldn't be very accurate, though - there's a lot of 'real' stuff in fiction, it's just not 'stuff that actually happened'.

    How can it be real if it didn't happen?

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • JohnnyWashnGo 20 Aug 2010 10:43:30 1,544 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    matt6666 wrote:
    Think the Darwin guy crosses the line with regard to this.

    Don't start having a go at Charles Darwin now - what did he ever do to you ;)
  • boo 20 Aug 2010 10:44:02 11,706 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    ryandsimmons wrote:
    Mr-Brett wrote:
    I guess I'm atheist but that's not actually a religion but a lack of, so that doesn't answer your question :)

    Everyone is an atheist. Some people just add one extra god onto the list.

    Theres a really pithy quote to that effect I can't find.

    I think it was Dawkins. He was talking to a Christian and asked 'Do you believe in Odin, or Ganesh?' 'No', they replied. 'Right.' he said 'Well I just don't believe in one more god than you.'

    As you say, there was probably more pith involved in the original conversation.


    I do remember a nice one from somewhere...

    "The battle between science and religion ended the day the first lightning conductor was installed on a church."

    Just Another Lego Blog

  • matt6666 20 Aug 2010 10:44:54 2,620 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Meant that Cambridge Prat that goes about shitting on Muslims :D
  • Deleted user 20 August 2010 10:45:04
    The problem with the Dawkins breed of atheist is that they seem to all be convinced that religious people want to actively be challenged on their religion. They don't.
  • LionheartDJH 20 Aug 2010 10:46:33 19,359 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    MiniAmin wrote:
    LionheartDJH wrote:
    I don't generally have a problem with atheists, even though I'm a believer myself. I'm not an evangelist and don't think it's my job to spread the word of God or convert people. I just live and let live, don't mind at all what other people believe or don't believe. It's only those that castigate my beliefs that I have a problem with.

    I think people are entitled to criticise your beliefs, but it depends on the situation. If someone is impertinently castigating/mocking your beliefs then that's wrong. If someone cheaply invokes a situation whereby they can criticise your beliefs ("but I thought you Christians don't do x") then they're gauche and obnoxious.

    However I think it's fine to criticise other's beliefs given the right forum, such as a debate or a discussion piece in a newspaper, provided it isn't unnecessarily inflammatory.

    No I understand that MA, and that's okay, I wouldn't mind talking with people about it if they make constructive criticisms and want to understand exactly why I believe what I do, and I'd be interested in the reverse, like a debate. But yeah I was talking more about the kind of people who are obnoxious and on their high horse about it with inflammatory criticism who just think that religion is big and dumb, and have very stereotypical views about religious/spiritual people.

    She dives for cheese pasties

  • Fab4 20 Aug 2010 10:47:18 5,980 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    JohnnyWashnGo wrote:
    matt6666 wrote:
    Think the Darwin guy crosses the line with regard to this.

    Don't start having a go at Charles Darwin now - what did he ever do to you ;)

    He made a monkey out of him ;)
  • glaeken 20 Aug 2010 10:47:30 11,102 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Post deleted
  • glaeken 20 Aug 2010 10:48:17 11,102 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    The problem with the Dawkins breed of atheist is that they seem to all be convinced that religious people want to actively be challenged on their religion. They don't.

    I find its more that they want to feel more intelligent by having a group they think they can look down on. In my experience the same type who loves Dawkins will also be the type to be very interested in joining Mensa. They are basically just after an I am special badge.
  • Deleted user 20 August 2010 10:52:15
    glaeken wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    The problem with the Dawkins breed of atheist is that they seem to all be convinced that religious people want to actively be challenged on their religion. They don't.

    I find its more that they want to feel more intelligent by having a group they think they can look down on. In my experience the same type who loves Dawkins will also be the type to be very interested in joining Mensa. They are basically just after an I am special badge.
    Pretty much, challenging someone on their religious beliefs in the idiot proof way of making oneself feel intellectually superior for a moment. Regardless of the fact that the person being challenged is probably a thousand times more intelligent than the Dawkins atheist, s/he just has no interest in debating or defending the issue.

  • MetalDog 20 Aug 2010 10:53:27 23,708 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    MetalDog wrote:
    ryandsimmons wrote:
    /minor gripe. I have the same issue with non-fiction being non-fiction. I would rather have Real and non-real books. (Or a less clunky term.) Or Fiction and Real sections.

    Wouldn't be very accurate, though - there's a lot of 'real' stuff in fiction, it's just not 'stuff that actually happened'.

    How can it be real if it didn't happen?

    Because there are certain fundamental truths about the human condition that are explored heavily in fiction, for a start. On the more mundane side of things, if I write a story and set it somewhere that exists and the story happens amongst accurate events and setting, there is your 'real' within the fiction. You can also get your arse sued off for borrowing a little too heavily from reality in regards to your characters and events =) I can't think of a single (decent) work of fiction off the top of my head that did not heavily reflect reality, even if through a lot of colourful filters. The number one thing that makes bad fiction bad is lack of realism, especially in characters.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Fab4 20 Aug 2010 10:54:15 5,980 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I like Dawkins...although I've never 'followed' him. I first started to like him after reading The Blind Watchmaker for a dissertation work while at uni, and since then i've seen several of his lectures and read 3 more of his books, all of which were quite enjoyable.

    Oh, and I've never joined Mensa...not that I couldnt :p

    I think what many people do when it comes to the 'followers' of Dawkins is what many people do to the 'followers' of Islam...lump everyone in together out of laziness.
  • matt6666 20 Aug 2010 10:54:30 2,620 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    @the mensa comment:

    Yeah, do this rubiks cube in a minute and you're technically the same animal as Einstein... Err.. My ass.
  • MetalDog 20 Aug 2010 10:55:02 23,708 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I don't think dragging up the most obnoxious examples of atheism to whip upon is very helpful here. Any more than dragging up the vilest examples of religion generally leads to a well-thought out discussion of the subject of spirituality.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • MiniAmin 20 Aug 2010 10:56:21 3,390 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    The problem with the Dawkins breed of atheist is that they seem to all be convinced that religious people want to actively be challenged on their religion. They don't.

    I find its more that they want to feel more intelligent by having a group they think they can look down on. In my experience the same type who loves Dawkins will also be the type to be very interested in joining Mensa. They are basically just after an I am special badge.

    I understand you said "in my experience" which is all well and fair. But I think it's a bit harsh to say people who love Dawkins are after an "I am special badge". I absolutely love Dawkins because I have a keen interest in Genetics and Memetics (which he originated). Dawkins is a tremendous biologist and populariser of science. It's a shame that he's widely associated with Atheism (which is largely his own doing, admittedly) but there are many reasons why someone could love Dawkins.

    I think it's unfair to judge people in Mensa as well. One of the most humble people I know is in Mensa, and as I understand it they simply wish to have their own community and form friendships with other high-iq people.
  • Mr-Brett 20 Aug 2010 10:58:53 12,723 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    xkcd always tells it like it is.

    Portable view - Never forget.

  • mcmonkeyplc 20 Aug 2010 10:58:53 39,387 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    MetalDog wrote:
    ryandsimmons wrote:
    /minor gripe. I have the same issue with non-fiction being non-fiction. I would rather have Real and non-real books. (Or a less clunky term.) Or Fiction and Real sections.

    Wouldn't be very accurate, though - there's a lot of 'real' stuff in fiction, it's just not 'stuff that actually happened'.

    How can it be real if it didn't happen?

    Because there are certain fundamental truths about the human condition that are explored heavily in fiction, for a start. On the more mundane side of things, if I write a story and set it somewhere that exists and the story happens amongst accurate events and setting, there is your 'real' within the fiction. You can also get your arse sued off for borrowing a little too heavily from reality in regards to your characters and events =) I can't think of a single (decent) work of fiction off the top of my head that did not heavily reflect reality, even if through a lot of colourful filters. The number one thing that makes bad fiction bad is lack of realism, especially in characters.

    Surely then it's based on realilty and not real?

    My head hurts :S

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • RyanDS 20 Aug 2010 10:59:44 9,062 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    glaeken wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    The problem with the Dawkins breed of atheist is that they seem to all be convinced that religious people want to actively be challenged on their religion. They don't.

    I find its more that they want to feel more intelligent by having a group they think they can look down on. In my experience the same type who loves Dawkins will also be the type to be very interested in joining Mensa. They are basically just after an I am special badge.
    Pretty much, challenging someone on their religious beliefs in the idiot proof way of making oneself feel intellectually superior for a moment. Regardless of the fact that the person being challenged is probably a thousand times more intelligent than the Dawkins atheist, s/he just has no interest in debating or defending the issue.


    Very broad brush there.

    Some beliefs do need to be challenged. As an example the catholic adoption paper in the paper at the moment. They need to be challenged as they are violating certain expectations of acceptance that should be part of a civilised society. To say that the only reason to challenge beliefs is for ones self aggrandisment is insulting and disingenious.
  • dogbot 20 Aug 2010 11:00:09 2,272 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I don't believe in sky pixies.
  • craigy Staff 20 Aug 2010 11:00:35 7,539 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I am not part of any group (either believers or non-believers). Not religious, but am spiritual in my own personal way.
  • Page

    of 18 First / Last

Log in or register to reply