John Waters attacks atheist.ie as 'puerile reactionaries'

[Toland]

_. P .., .S.
. .:............. ....
....:.................._ ....,
............ .............., .:..
....... . . _:........ :..
_...... . .<........ ....
,...... ....... ..._.
_..... ..:...) .....
:.... ..:.... .....
.... _:..... .....
...... .....U..._.
..... _:..... (
O..... ......
:... ) .......
....._ . ...E:..),
.:.... ).... . _.....
..... ,...... .:....
) ..... ...:.._ .....
....... ..:..... ...+,
. :...... )..:...,. ....
.:....... ..+......., _:...
............?. .............. .....
. .......:............,. :...
. :..............) ...
.. I. .. ,D.

[markeys]

Ah, but the reason we are talking about it now is because of the cultists in FF who are trying to impose a 25k fine on reason.

Atheists are generally a passive bunch. You have to do something really stupid to get us annoyed enough to even meet each other, never mind take action.

I believe in a God. And I don't agree with the 25k fine either. Thats FF. I have no idea why FF have chosen to implement such a rubbish bill.

And as you can see from the posts where I've been quoted above, the old Atheist defence of abuse is as alive and well as ever. Good going huh? Its no wonder atheists are so up in a heap about the bill - if they cannot insult and deride anothers beliefs (despite not having one shred of evidence to back up their own beliefs) how are they going to defend themselves?!

[Utopian Hermit Monk]

Because only the nature of the bread changes, not the substance.

([SIZE="1"]don't blame me, I don't make this sh[SIZE="1"]i[/SIZE]te up)[/SIZE]

Well, you seem to have made up that little gem!

Don't blame me either, but I think you'll find that the doctrine of transubstantiation holds that the substance does indeed change.
It is the accidents of the bread that remain unchanged.
(Check out Aristotle on 'substance' and 'accidents'.)

[COLOR="White"]. [/COLOR]

[seabhcan]

I believe in a God. And I don't agree with the 25k fine either. Thats FF. I have no idea why FF have chosen to implement such a rubbish bill.

And as you can see from the posts where I've been quoted above, the old Atheist defence of abuse is as alive and well as ever. Good going huh? Its no wonder atheists are so up in a heap about the bill - if they cannot insult and deride anothers beliefs (despite not having one shred of evidence to back up their own beliefs) how are they going to defend themselves?!

If you wish to speak of evidence - what evidence do religious people have for their beliefs?

[Loch Garman]

I wrote a letter to the IT:

Would this be an example of the puerile reactionism Mr Walsh spoke of?

[Toland]

_. P .., .S.
. .:............. ....
....:.................._ ....,
............ .............., .:..
....... . . _:........ :..
_...... . .<........ ....
,...... ....... ..._.
_..... ..:...) .....
:.... ..:.... .....
.... _:..... .....
...... .....U..._.
..... _:..... (
O..... ......
:... ) .......
....._ . ...E:..),
.:.... ).... . _.....
..... ,...... .:....
) ..... ...:.._ .....
....... ..:..... ...+,
. :...... )..:...,. ....
.:....... ..+......., _:...
............?. .............. .....
. .......:............,. :...
. :..............) ...
.. I. .. ,D.

[kevinsmith]

I'd agree with most of above, however I'd like it to be possible for an atheist to give evidence in court. Currently you can only give evidence if you swear to god.

I actually had the following in my original post but took it and some other stuff out to try and be brief (for once!):

"Oaths in court are an empty formula."

I wouldn't be intimidated by the Oath; it's just an attempt to give solemnity and gravitas to the occasion. Any punishments for perjury will be secular, so to speak.

[Nodin]

Well, you seem to have made up that little gem!

Don't blame me either, but I think you'll find that the doctrine of transubstantiation holds that the substance does indeed change.
It is the accidents of the bread that remain unchanged.
(Check out Aristotle on 'substance' and 'accidents'.)

[COLOR="White"]. [/COLOR]

Aye, I got it arseways.

that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[seabhcan]

I actually had the following in my original post but took it and some other stuff out to try and be brief (for once!):

"Oaths in court are an empty formula."

I wouldn't be intimidated by the Oath; it's just an attempt to give solemnity and gravitas to the occasion. Any punishments for perjury will be secular, so to speak.

So there should be no problem removing this requirement.

[markeys]

I'd agree with most of above, however I'd like it to be possible for an atheist to give evidence in court. Currently you can only give evidence if you swear to god.

That's not true. I administer oaths, and if someone doesn't believe in God I don't tie their hand to the bible and pour wax down their throat until they do. They simple swear that its the truth.