Jump to content

Smart people don't believe in god...


Recommended Posts

EDIT:  So, Drakron, we agree on the welfare of the child being the primary concern.  The question is, are homosexual couples the equivalent of heterosexual couples in our society.  Will an adopted child face challenges as a result of going to a homosexual couple and at one point are those challenges outweighed by other factors?

 

I dont think so, I am not going to say gay couples would grow up gay people but it would confuse the child at some point over the sexuality (that is unavoidable) witn makes less preferable as a single person wanting to adopt.

 

Adoption is not (and sould not be) easy, there is a list and a bunch of requirements that dictate

drakron.png
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I said:

 

If the purpose of the democracy is to protect the right to freedom of thought and speech, then giving homosexuals the right to adopt children, while against my moral beliefs, is fine by me. As long as that rule is ingrained in the psyche of the populace, the minorities should be safe.

 

Here's what you said.

 

Adoption is not a right, its a privilage.

 

No diferent that driving, you dont have the right to drive a car, you have the privilage of being allowed to drive a car.

 

Some people cannot have a privilage, a blind person cannot drive.

 

In adoption there is the fact the welfare of the child is of upmost importance.

 

You're misquoting again. Homosexuals don't have the "right" (are not allowed) in many places to marry or adopt children.

 

I said that if society decides they should have the "right" (be allowed) to adopt children, then I'm not going to lobby against it, because limiting freedom is dangerous.

 

Your point about Adoption not being a right totally misses the point of what I was saying...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not misquoting.

 

There are rights there are privilages.

 

You dont have the right to adopt a child, you have the privilage to adopt a child.

 

There are many issues with legal adoptation, the issue comes with the idea of going to adoption agency and register to adopt a child.

 

Some people dont have that right, if I have a history of child abuse there is no way in hell I am going to be allowed to adopt a child but I could adopt a adult.

drakron.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
Me, I don't have God and I'm doin' just fine!

 

Really? Why attack something so violently that you are convinced isn't real? Guilt? :("

 

You just have a tremendous psychological need for him to exist because a world without purpose and an everlasting death are too much for you to handle.

 

Without purpose? So, in your philosophy, everything is meaningless? If you truely believe that, I pity you. You essentially said that you, your morality and your knowledge are purposeless and futile.

 

I have no problem comprehending oblivion, it is rather simple. If you are right, I will have lived a very happy life, and die knowing I tried to make the world a better, happier place - even if in vain.

 

What if I'm right, A.S.V?

Wow, this thread has grown since I was last here, so I'll just touch on these bits...

 

First, why attack something so violently? Guilt has nothing to do with it. Fear has everything to do with it. While many religious people are good, decent folk, religion itself is dangerous. As long as people adhere to the Bible, Koran, whatever, there are going to be fundamentalists who feel stonings are just fine. While I've had the belief for some time, what turned my approach more militant was September 11 and the Bush presidency. That really opened my eyes to religious fanaticism and the danger it brings.

I'm not talking more insidious dangers like the social pressures that drive gay teens to suicides or doing what it takes to drive women back to 1955 (or 1855 for that matter), I'm talking real danger like the fanaticism it takes to fly an airplane into a building. No sane atheist, no matter how fanatical, would do that. Or the fanaticism that sees us in the End Times and will work diligently to help usher forth the Apocalypse within our lifetimes (I can provide you with some links for this if you want, you know I can).

So not guilt, no. Fear pure and simple.

 

As to purpose, I said a "world without purpose". As a species we have a purpose, continue the species. As individuals we give ourselves purpose in life and don't hope that some invisible being has a purpose in store for us. Self-determination, dang, it's fun.

And if you're right about the afterlife (which is no reason to believe), then I hope that hell is separation from God, because as he's portrayed in the Bible, well, he's too much of a jerk to spend eternity with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not misquoting.

 

Yes, you are. :(

 

There are rights there are privilages.

 

Yes, there are.

 

You dont have the right to adopt  a child, you have the privilage to adopt a child.

 

Homosexual's don't have the privilage if you've banned homosexual couples from adopting...

 

There are many issues with legal adoptation, the issue comes with the idea of going to adoption agency and register to adopt a child.

 

Thanks for the info!

 

Some people dont have that right, if I have a history of child abuse there is no way in hell I am going to be allowed to adopt a child but I could adopt a adult.

 

Are you equating Homosexuals with Child Abuse? I still think you've missed the point...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Yes. Libertarianism is the best way to prevent open warfare between people in the same society, and indeed make the society more attractive than other, more restrictive ones.

I almost laughed out loud at this one. :( Come on, if there ever was a system that was guaranteed to bring about open warfare, it's libertarianism. Unless the poor all starve to death first and there are robots to do the menial labour, then it should be just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think factoring in as many variables as reasonably possible is the equivalent of saying homosexuals are restrained from adopting.

 

No matter what else, adoption is, indeed, a privilege. There is no God given, man given, natural right to adopt. It is a responsibility that a person willingly undertakes. It is not something to take lightly and we should always consider the welfar of the child before the adopting couple or person.

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back...

 

First, why attack something so violently? Guilt has nothing to do with it. Fear has everything to do with it. While many religious people are good, decent folk, religion itself is dangerous.

 

So is Athiesm, thats why the right of the individual to chose their own path is so important.

 

As long as people adhere to the Bible, Koran, whatever, there are going to be fundamentalists who feel stonings are just fine. While I've had the belief for some time, what turned my approach more militant was September 11 and the Bush presidency. That really opened my eyes to religious fanaticism and the danger it brings.

 

I empathise with your fear - really I do, but you must understand that I grew up persecuted for my parent's beliefs by anti-christians. Are you worried that someone like me will become president and have you stoned for living in defiance of my moral code? I'm worried that someone like you will come to power again and throw me and my family into a prison camp for believing in the Bible as Literal, and choosing to disagree with your moral code.

 

I'm talking real danger like the fanaticism it takes to fly an airplane into a building. No sane atheist, no matter how fanatical, would do that.

 

But they would torture and kill millions of christians, burn our churches and outlaw my religion on pain of death.

 

So not guilt, no. Fear pure and simple.

 

I wish you freedom from fear...do you think that because I disagree with your lifestyle I some how wish you harm? I don't. I would willingly defend your freedom to live free even if it endangered myself. And I will always vote against anyone who seeks to enforce the Bible's moral code on an unwilling person.

 

As to purpose, I said a "world without purpose". As a species we have a purpose, continue the species.

 

Continue to let them live in a purposeless world? For what purpose?

 

And if you're right about the afterlife (which is no reason to believe), then I hope that hell is separation from God, because as he's portrayed in the Bible, well, he's too much of a jerk to spend eternity with.

 

Hmm, well, I know you don't believe he died for you, but if you were born at the bottom of a pit, and God lowered you a rope, which you refused to take hold of, even though he said a flood was coming that would drown you, and so he died making an easier way to escape, and you still refused, cause the pit really ain't so bad, and because he should have just snapped his fingers and got you out...does he still seem like a jerk to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Welcome back...

 

First, why attack something so violently? Guilt has nothing to do with it. Fear has everything to do with it. While many religious people are good, decent folk, religion itself is dangerous.

 

So is Athiesm, thats why the right of the individual to chose their own path is so important.

 

As long as people adhere to the Bible, Koran, whatever, there are going to be fundamentalists who feel stonings are just fine. While I've had the belief for some time, what turned my approach more militant was September 11 and the Bush presidency. That really opened my eyes to religious fanaticism and the danger it brings.

 

I empathise with your fear - really I do, but you must understand that I grew up persecuted for my parent's beliefs by anti-christians. Are you worried that someone like me will become president and have you stoned for living in defiance of my moral code? I'm worried that someone like you will come to power again and throw me and my family into a prison camp for believing in the Bible as Literal, and choosing to disagree with your moral code.

 

I'm talking real danger like the fanaticism it takes to fly an airplane into a building. No sane atheist, no matter how fanatical, would do that.

 

But they would torture and kill millions of christians, burn our churches and outlaw my religion on pain of death.

 

So not guilt, no. Fear pure and simple.

 

I wish you freedom from fear...do you think that because I disagree with your lifestyle I some how wish you harm? I don't. I would willingly defend your freedom to live free even if it endangered myself. And I will always vote against anyone who seeks to enforce the Bible's moral code on an unwilling person.

 

As to purpose, I said a "world without purpose". As a species we have a purpose, continue the species.

 

Continue to let them live in a purposeless world? For what purpose?

 

And if you're right about the afterlife (which is no reason to believe), then I hope that hell is separation from God, because as he's portrayed in the Bible, well, he's too much of a jerk to spend eternity with.

 

Hmm, well, I know you don't believe he died for you, but if you were born at the bottom of a pit, and God lowered you a rope, which you refused to take hold of, even though he said a flood was coming that would drown you, and so he died making an easier way to escape, and you still refused, cause the pit really ain't so bad, and because he should have just snapped his fingers and got you out...does he still seem likea jerk to you?

Using Communist dictatorships as a blueprint for an atheist nation is bad, because they didn't base their cruel governments on atheism. Atheism was just a tool to try and enforce complete allegience to The State. That's different than being a fanatical atheist. I'd never say that Nazi Germany was a nation based on Christianity, but Hitler used religion to try and get the people to do what he wanted. I can understand how it affected you though.

Besides that, there is no Atheist Handbook that tells me to burn your church and throw you in jail for believing in God. There is a Bible though, and it proscribes some pretty horrible punishments for me.

 

To make this clear however, as much as I do not like religion, I would never want to see it banned either. I would vote against anyone wanting to do such. It's up to us as a species acting under our own free will to open our eyes and see the wrongness in religion. To try to ban atheism under law would be a little hypocritical of me.

By the way, do you know there are areas of the United States where it's illegal for an admitted atheist to hold public office?

 

I don't see the need for the world to have purpose. Why does it need one? Why can't it just be? Again, that's not the same as people finding their own purposes in life. The world is just a place for us all to get along together and make as good a place to live our short lives as we can.

 

And finally, for your God/rope/pit analogy, it depends. If God stuck a firehose in the pit and was causing the flood (he supposed created everything, after all), and would only lower the rope if I said I loved him and really meant it or at least sleep with him, then yes, he'd be a jerk. He'd be less of a jerk if he didn't cause the flooding, but making so many emotion demands before lowering the rope isn't just jerky, it's needy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Using Communist dictatorships as a blueprint for an atheist nation is bad, because they didn't base their cruel governments on atheism.

 

Sorry, but your totally wrong...Atheism was and is the cornerstone of Communism, Marxism, etc.

 

I'd never say that Nazi Germany was a nation based on Christianity, but Hitler used religion to try and get the people to do what he wanted.

 

Actually, Nazi Germany is a very good example of what happens when people don't protect the rights of those who disagree with them. The Christian majority in Germany let the Nazi's lock up the gays, jews and communists and then had no one to blame but themselves when they were themselves turned on.

 

There is a Bible though, and it proscribes some pretty horrible punishments for me.

 

The NT tells me to love you as myself, to show God's love by acting in a loving manner, and even says that it is wrong for me to try and separate myself from people who live against my moral code! (1st Corinthians).

 

By the way, do you know there are areas of the United States where it's illegal for an admitted atheist to hold public office?

 

How sad...Christians face the same persecution in other parts of the world.

 

but making so many emotion demands before lowering the rope isn't just jerky, it's needy.

 

The rope has been lowered already...you just need to grab it. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism is a cornerstone of marxism. For a poltitical thinker concerned primarily with economics, Marx was particularly hostile to religion.

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, in that case, the adoptee's welfare is the primary concern. Hence, and until clear evidence is presented to support the idea that couples of the same gender can provide the same as any heterosexual couple, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, or at least, have less priority. Just to be on the safe side, because since children cannot be naturally born in a gay couple, it is at the very least an anomalous situation.

Why I don't like this is the (purposefully or not) implicit notion that homosexuality is a communicable disease: the children will somehow "catch" homosexuality from their gay parents. That is prejudice. Lord knows ( :rolleyes:" ) (I spent most of my early adult life in nightclubs, which are de facto immersed in the gay scene (thankfully, otherwise they wouldn't be enjoyable) and I didn't "catch" homosexuality.) And there is another darker corollary to your premise, too: that it is possible to socially engineer homosexuality out of the society.

 

The primary concern for parents is to make sure that their children are happy and capable of living in society and thriving.

 

I understand your issues with the unknown long term effect on the wellbeing of children brought up in non-standard, non-nuclear families; I agree we should be exceedingly cautious about who can adopt children, but I don't see gender as a deal-breaker. (It presents a neat catch-22 impasse: sort of like testing medication of humans; how can you determine if something is safe for human consumption without testing it on them first?)

 

I see good parenting skills as the most important -- and I've seen far too many heterosexual who were poor parents.

 

What we really need is a madatory individually-reversible mass sterilisation programme at birth, with licenced procreation. Now flame that!

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT:  So, Drakron, we agree on the welfare of the child being the primary concern.  The question is, are homosexual couples the equivalent of heterosexual couples in our society.  Will an adopted child face challenges as a result of going to a homosexual couple and at one point are those challenges outweighed by other factors?

 

I dont think so, I am not going to say gay couples would grow up gay people but it would confuse the child at some point over the sexuality (that is unavoidable) witn makes less preferable as a single person wanting to adopt.

 

Adoption is not (and sould not be) easy, there is a list and a bunch of requirements that dictate

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
As to purpose, I said a "world without purpose". As a species we have a purpose, continue the species.

 

Continue to let them live in a purposeless world? For what purpose?

My self-determined purpose is the pursuit of knowledge. No idea what yours is. :rolleyes:

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Yes. Libertarianism is the best way to prevent open warfare between people in the same society, and indeed make the society more attractive than other, more restrictive ones.

I almost laughed out loud at this one. :rolleyes: Come on, if there ever was a system that was guaranteed to bring about open warfare, it's libertarianism. Unless the poor all starve to death first and there are robots to do the menial labour, then it should be just fine.

So you propose some flavour of autocracy? I don't understand.

 

Sure the poor get a raw deal: they always have (and probably always will -- though I do hope for a Star Trek future). The point is the underclasses should have mobility opportunities. (And, more controversially, the rich too: though a fool and his money are easily parted anyway :cool: ) this is seperate from the ability to express ideas without prejudice and live with the minimum constraints possible. That's what I want: no one telling me what to do. (It's pathological. :D )

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Atheism is a cornerstone of marxism.  For a poltitical thinker concerned primarily with economics, Marx was particularly hostile to religion.

Marx, Stalin, and to a lesser extent Lenin, were against organised religion because it represented a potential threat to the authority of the State. That's why Stalin threw all the Russian Orthodox priests in the Glag -- until he needed them to stamp their legitimacy on his doctrine.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're all drawing far too much of a distinction between atheist fanatics and theist fanatics. A Communist might throw religious figures in jail because such people pose a threat to the authority of their philosophy. At the same time, said Communist might throw an Objectivist (another strongly Atheistic philosophy) in jail for the very same reason.

A Fundamentalist Muslim might advocate the execution of all Atheists, because such people do not accept his beliefs. At the same time, said Muslim might do the same to a fundamentalist Christian.

The fanatics in either case aren't doing such things along a black and white atheist-theist distinction. It's them vs. everyone else.

 

It's not being Atheistic or Theistic that matters. What matters is the fanatacism. Whether the particular brand of fanatacism posits belief in God or not is six of one, half a dozen of the other. You should stop drawing the distinction between theists and atheists and saying that one is naturally prone to worse fanatacism. You should instead draw the distinction between fanatics of any colour and everyone else be they theist or atheist.

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why I don't like this is the (purposefully or not) implicit notion that homosexuality is a communicable disease: the children will somehow "catch" homosexuality from their gay parents. That is prejudice. Lord knows ( :lol:" ) (I spent most of my early adult life in nightclubs, which are de facto immersed in the gay scene (thankfully, otherwise they wouldn't be enjoyable) and I didn't "catch" homosexuality.) And there is another darker corollary to your premise, too: that it is possible to socially engineer homosexuality out of the society.

Your analogy is flawed. You didn't go to nightclubs that were "immersed in the gay scene" while you were a child. Thus, you weren't impressed in the same way a child would be. And while I don't see homosexuality as a "disease" (thank you for yet another delightful attempt at putting me down as an homophobe), I think that children should be allowed to have clear, traditional, distinguished sexual roles in order to develop their sexual identity in a normal manner. And since a great deal of homosexuals were born in and raised by heterosexual couples, this is not an argument against homosexuality, nor an attempt to "contain" it. So spare me the demagogy.

 

 

The primary concern for parents is to make sure that their children are happy and capable of living in society and thriving.

Following that definition, a parent who spent no time with their children but had plenty of resources to ensure their welfare would be a good parent.

 

 

I understand your issues with the unknown long term effect on the wellbeing of children brought up in non-standard, non-nuclear families; I agree we should be exceedingly cautious about who can adopt children, but I don't see gender as a deal-breaker. (It presents a neat catch-22 impasse: sort of like testing medication of humans; how can you determine if something is safe for human consumption without testing it on them first?)

Another flawed analogy. Medications are tested on a wide variety of animals, ranging from rats to chimpanzees, before it's safe to test them on human beings. And, at any rate, those upon which the medications are tested are adult, willing individuals.

 

 

I see good parenting skills as the most important -- and I've seen far too many heterosexual who were poor parents.

A rather blatant attempt to induce a logical fallacy. For starters, I have never denied that. And while many heterosexual parents are poor parents, the opposite isn't necessarily true. So, your point is? :shifty:

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are proceeding from a false premise, that there is a surfiet of supply of adopting parents. there isn't. There are many, many children in every country that are not being adopted. Anyone willing to adopt a child (and there is a higher chance of mind to severe behavioral problems before they are adopted) -- providing it is established that it is not a selfish reason -- then that already counts them as a better person than the average. (How many children have you adopted?)

 

Am I?

 

People want to a adopt a baby, the older s/he is the less likely there is someone willing to adopt him/her.

 

That is the problem, there are many childen wanting to be adopted but few babies and so the babies get adopted as the older children continue to wait.

 

I doubt gay couples are diferent, most want to adopt a baby and not a child.

drakron.png
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you did not lived in the system either, what CCCP had was no true comunism ... it was simply another form of dictatorship.

 

Comunism is not a evil system, its a utopia that cannot be made a reality because humans are too selfish and corrupted in order for it to work.

 

And yes I realize why you think that since they pushed religion out as much as they could but that was a stategy based in control, organized religion is a problem to the control of the state since its something they cannot control, in russia case there were other issues since russia was still in medieval age (people still OWNED villages) and was moving into the industrial age, its no suprise there was a uprising against religious leaders as well since they were part of the system (that also happened in europe but not as deep since most of the church autority and power have been sized by the monarchy before the anti-monarcy movements started to take place) and it continued.

drakron.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you did not lived in the system either, what CCCP had was no true comunism ... it was simply another form of dictatorship.

 

I merely state that the attempt to erase God and establish enforced humanism and enlightenment was a complete failure. The Soviet Union did fall short of Marx's vision in numerou ways...

 

Comunism is not a evil system, its a utopia that cannot be made a reality because humans are too selfish and corrupted in order for it to work.

 

Why doesn't this terrify the atheist? It is evidence that humanity is at its core "corrupted", and yet you still think that humanity would be better off without any higher authority...your logic follows that any system will be corrupted by humanity. Your vision of reality is very dark.

 

Your thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why doesn't this terrify the atheist?  It is evidence that humanity is at its core "corrupted", and yet you still think that humanity would be better off without any higher authority...your logic follows that any system will be corrupted by humanity.  Your vision of reality is very dark.

 

Your thoughts?

It's evidence that human beings are imperfect and complex, not that they are corrupted. We have created many decent societies that work for the benefit of most or all citizens, and we are striving to create more.

 

Atheists are hard to scare: I personally walk through thunderstorms without the slightest anxiety.

"An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...