|
Post by guillaume on Feb 2, 2010 20:36:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 3, 2010 11:38:38 GMT
That is certainly an interesting read. I notice that nozzferatu (who is apparently the same as Hazelireland) is still claiming that I banned him, and when "superstitious fool" who is presumably Michael G says I didn't ban him but he may have done so, nozzferatu assumes I, Hibernicus am "superstitious Fool" and am contradicting myself. For the record I have NEVER posted on atheist.ie, and I did not ban Hazel to start wtih, though I banned him when he accused me of being a liar. I also notice that Eccles and Hemingway assume that I would ban them simply for being atheists, and that my clear statement that I banned Hazel and Ezigbotutu for violating the rules of debate has made no impression on them. Here's a hint - if you start off by despising everyone who disagrees with you you are more likely to be rude and break the rules of debate, and that is more likely to get you banned.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 3, 2010 15:40:49 GMT
I read the thread and it is not permeated by reason as the atheists might have us believe. To be quite honest I couldn't care less what the atheists thinks except it does seems quite a number came on this board out of no great hunger after truth.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Feb 4, 2010 11:46:55 GMT
I read the thread and it is not permeated by reason as the atheists might have us believe. To be quite honest I couldn't care less what the atheists thinks except it does seems quite a number came on this board out of no great hunger after truth. And whats "the truth" alaisdir6.........
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Feb 4, 2010 12:11:11 GMT
Ye robbed that one straight out of John's Gospel, Hemmingway.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 4, 2010 12:15:50 GMT
You Roman Catholics can't handle the Truth
(Thanks to Jack Nicholson: "A Few Good Men")
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 4, 2010 13:30:20 GMT
I understand alasdair to mean that the atheist.ie thread is marked by stultifying arrogance and complacency; the posters seem to think that rationality and atheism are coterminous and that they ahve nothing to learn from anyone. They have not learned the Socratic lesson - that the first step towards wisdom is to realise your own ignorance. Incidentally, "Nozzferatu" suits its author a great deal better than "hazelireland". Anyone who has seen Max Shreck in the Murnau film or Klaus Kinski in the Herzog will get the resemblance immediately.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 4, 2010 14:04:34 GMT
I might add that eccles' "you Roman Catholcs can't handle the truth" seems to me to reflect a very significant element of atheist sensibility - a belief that it is a sign of strength, courage and clear-sightedness to be a nihilist and that religious faith is the product of cowardice and evasive suburban sentimentality.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 4, 2010 15:28:36 GMT
With regard to Hemmingway and Eccles' remarks, did I use the definite article in respect of truth? You'll find I did not.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 4, 2010 15:33:11 GMT
I take Hibernicus's point (res Hibernici, sine dubio) regarding the Atheist forum. Yes, the arrogonce and complacency of some of the posters did strike me, as well as the purility of some of them (I emphasise that I am using the term 'some', not all or even most). It is a tragedy that it was the presence of a few extremists in our own camp who attracted them in and provided them with entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 5, 2010 12:02:30 GMT
INdeed; fideism is the other side of the atheist coin. The trouble with our atheists here is that most of them seem to have come to this with the assumption that we are all like Redmond and when we try to explain what we really beleive they pay no attention.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Feb 5, 2010 15:20:09 GMT
Ye robbed that one straight out of John's Gospel, Hemmingway. Hee hee.... very good! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Feb 5, 2010 15:22:05 GMT
With regard to Hemmingway and Eccles' remarks, did I use the definite article in respect of truth? You'll find I did not. What is the "Truth"........... There.... I moved the inverted commas for you. Thats the kinda good natured and accomodating guy I am. So anyway........ What is (quote) "truth" (end quote) Alisdair?
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Feb 5, 2010 15:45:32 GMT
INdeed; fideism is the other side of the atheist coin. The trouble with our atheists here is that most of them seem to have come to this with the assumption that we are all like Redmond and when we try to explain what we really beleive they pay no attention. I would pull you up on that hibernicus. I do read your posts and for the most part they can be interesting up to a point. This cannot be said about Redmonds rather odd posts. You have made a false assumption here. I do not think you are anything like him at all. I think I have a fair idea about what you believe in a ball-park manner of speaking. The thing is, and here is the thing, I just find it difficult to comprehend how someone as intelligent as you are can accept stories about talking snakes, walking on water, the virgin birth, prophets’ living for 100's of years etc, as the truth. I don’t refer to these stories in particular, but the general gist of what I am saying is, the book people of the christian faith hold up as being the word of god (be it the actual words he muttered or be it divinely inspired by him and written by men) is a book full of stories that were circulating in other texts before they were ever in the bible. Having researched the book itself, it seems to me that it contains no information at all that was not already present in other contemporary books. All these stories of floods, walking on water, prophets’ being taken up to paradise are all contained within many other books of that time period, with different characters of course. It seems to me that it contains no information within it that would not have been known to Iron Age people. Nothing about DNA, Electricity, or any other marvels that have made life better for human kind. It contains many stories with morals. Some are good stories and some are downright barbaric. However, in this way, it is the same as any other book of the time period. They all have stories like these. It does not support the existence of a divine creator one iota in my opinion. However it is a good read. I still pick it up now and again and have a flick through. Not so much the old testament but more the new. Its an easier read in my opinion. Not so much gore and revenge etc. I seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent here…… what I’m really trying to say is that I don’t think you are the same as people like Redmond. That is not my position regarding you and for you to say so is incorrect. My actual position is one of incomprehension that intelligent people still, in this day and age, believe in a divine creator when there is absolutely no evidence (in my opinion) for such a being/entity. Even more unbelievable is the fact that they hold up an iron age book full of inaccuracies, mistranslations and plagiarisms as evidence for this being/entity. I hope I haven’t offended anyone by posting the above, but these are my feelings on the matter. I hope we can agree to disagree civilly and move one with the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Feb 5, 2010 22:59:54 GMT
That is certainly an interesting read. I notice that "superstitious fool" who is presumably Michael G says I didn't ban him but he may have done so, nozzferatu assumes I, Hibernicus am "superstitious Fool". No, our moderator is blameless; I am "Superstitious Fool" on www.atheist.ie. I get in there from time to time to challenge the thicker ones. In all fairness, some of the others are well up to debating with us and are open-minded, and will argue a point without resorting to the standard atheist bag of insults. But just to wind up the less gifted over there, can I say that we on this forum are all praying for them?
|
|