Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheist Vs. Conscience

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    JCB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JCB


    Depeche_Mode wrote: »
    The very same thing that changed Christian minds that its not right to kill heretics, destroy priceless works of art and literature by pagans, burn women at the stake for being witches, keep slaves or imprison scientist who disagree with Church teachings. Society changes and human morality constantly evolves. It was not finalised in Bronze age Judea. Humanity did not reach its moral peak then and there and we should stick by it. That is the problem with the Bible, it doesn't change. It is becoming increasingly stagnant as more and more of it is recognised as immoral and it holds back the morality of those who believe in it. It is like a weight around their neck. The believers attempt to hold back the tide by making excuses such as "God didn't really mean that" or "Jesus changed all that", but at the end of the day those are just excuses, and weak ones at that. They are happy enough to accept the Bible as the word of God when it suits them, and dismiss the bits that don't suit as misinterpretations.

    But when did this change of view for Jews occur? You said 'no longer', am I to take that as the coming of Jesus or what?


  • Options
    #93
    JCB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JCB


    pH wrote: »
    yes you did:
    =>gay people getting married (no effect on me at all)
    => I don't agree with it
    => therefore shouldn't be allowed

    So either you believe.
    A) your morales are superior to everyone else's and everyone should follow them (I don't know why, maybe 'just because')
    or
    B) Everyone has the right to force other people to live by their morals.

    which?

    Well neither really.
    I seem to have to clarify once more that I have no problem with any two people making commitments to each other, whether sex is involved or not.

    But I see 'marriage' different to 'civil partnership', as no doubt you should see by now.
    'Marriage' can involve raising children and to give anyone a right to marry implies a right to raise children.
    pH wrote:
    I don't know, why would two homosexuals getting married be wrong?

    Because marriage implies a right to raise children. other than that I have no problems with it.
    pH wrote:
    Oh dear, back to THINK OF TEH CHILDREN!!!

    Let's say a mother dies, should we have a law to take the children off a man who's trying to bring them up alone? What about if the father died, should we take kids from single mothers?

    Of course not.
    pH wrote:
    If not, if you're happy with one man or one woman raising children as best they can, what possible objection could you have to there being an additional person of the same sex in the household?

    So like two sisters, brothers, friends, mother/daughter raising children?

    It's not ideal, since a child should have a male and female influence, but because the child can potentially not be raised in a sinful environment then I have no problems with it.


  • Options
    #94
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    JCB wrote: »

    'Marriage' can involve raising children and to give anyone a right to marry implies a right to raise children.



    Because marriage implies a right to raise children. other than that I have no problems with it.




    I will have to inform my parents to marry so as they clearly didn't have the right to bear me...


    A dangerous opinion. it wasn't too long ago in this country "illegitimate" children couldnt get passports.


  • Options
    #95
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Personal Experience
    JCB wrote: »
    But when did this change of view for Jews occur? You said 'no longer', am I to take that as the coming of Jesus or what?

    I haven't got a clue when it occured. I'm not a historian and I don't think it is important in the slightest when it happened, just that it did happen. If I was to guess I would expect it ended around the time that the Jewish people consolidated their position in the region and so felt that it was no longer neccessary for their survival. I'm pretty sure they changed well before Jesus arrived on the scene though. I doubt Jesus himself had any effect on Judaism at all, if he existed he would have been just another minor event lost among any number of minor events of the time.


  • Options
    #96
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JCB wrote: »
    Because marriage implies a right to raise children.
    Does that mean that, as an unmarried father, I don't have a right to raise my child?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    JCB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JCB


    SDooM wrote: »
    I will have to inform my parents to marry so as they clearly didn't have the right to bear me...


    A dangerous opinion. it wasn't too long ago in this country "illegitimate" children couldnt get passports.
    More like a dangerous misinterpretation.

    The child should never suffer - such as your example of children not being allowed passports which was terrible.

    I never said that people who aren't married don't have a right to raise children. FFS, didn't I just say that I had no problem with two sisters (who OBVIOUSLY cannot get married) to raise children. But no, I guess you forgot to include that part because it wasn't convenient.


  • Options
    #98
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JCB wrote: »
    'Marriage' can involve raising children and to give anyone a right to marry implies a right to raise children.
    ...
    Because marriage implies a right to raise children.

    And ...?

    Are you saying that a homosexual couple should not have the right to raise children?


  • Options
    #99
    JCB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JCB


    robindch wrote: »
    Does that mean that, as an unmarried father, I don't have a right to raise my child?
    /Sigh

    Do you agree that someone who gets married should ALWAYS have the right to raise children? Yes/No

    I said nothing about the rights of those who are not married - it is irrelevant to this conversation as you well know -
    Only that IF someone does get married, they always have this right.


  • Options
    #100
    JCB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JCB


    Wicknight wrote: »
    And ...?

    Are you saying that a homosexual couple should not have the right to raise children?

    No I am not saying that.

    I am saying that marriage always implies a right to raise children.


  • Options
    #101
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Personal Experience
    JCB wrote: »

    It's not ideal, since a child should have a male and female influence, but because the child can potentially not be raised in a sinful environment then I have no problems with it.

    Once upon a time there was this teenage girl who was engaged to a bloke called Joe, but she had it away with some other chap and got knocked up, when Joe found out he was well p1ssed off, but forgave her. They had the kid but Joe probably died before the kid grew up, making his missus a single mum. Anyways the kid grew up, hung around with prostitutes, and generally became a trouble maker, turns out he was got into trouble with the authorities and was given the death penalty.

    This message was brought to you by the Chritian Family Movement. Parents, provide a stable family background for your child. You don't want him turning out like that kid, do you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    JCB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JCB


    Depeche_Mode wrote: »
    Once upon a time there was this teenage girl who was engaged to a bloke called Joe, but she had it away with some other chap and got knocked up, when Joe found out he was well p1ssed off, but forgave her. They had the kid but Joe probably died before the kid grew up, making his missus a single mum. Anyways the kid grew up, hung around with prostitutes, and generally became a trouble maker, turns out he was got into trouble with the authorities and was given the death penalty.

    This message was brought to you by the Chritian Family Movement. Parents, provide a stable family background for your child. You don't want him turning out like that kid, do you?
    I am horrified that you are implying that children raised outside of marriage are somehow inferior. That is disgusting.


  • Options
    #103
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    JCB wrote: »
    No I am not that.

    I am saying that marriage always implies a right to raise children.

    I'm not being smart but, if you state that marriage implies the right, it implies that other people don't have the right, surely?


  • Options
    #104
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Personal Experience
    JCB wrote: »
    I am horrified that you are implying that children raised outside of marriage are somehow inferior. That is disgusting.

    Its times like this I wish Boards had some way of showing up sarchasm. I really don't know whether I made my post too vague or this is sarchastic :confused:.


  • Options
    #105
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    JCB wrote: »
    So like two sisters, brothers, friends, mother/daughter raising children?

    No, like 2 gay men or 2 lesbians raising children. Exactly what effect does that have on the children they raise?

    If a single man or woman can raise a child, what exactly do you think is the effect of another person of the same sex in that household?
    It's not ideal, since a child should have a male and female influence, but because the child can potentially not be raised in a sinful environment then I have no problems with it.

    Why 'should' a child have a male an female influence? And even if it wasn't ideal, what difference would that make. Most parts of most of our lives are not 'ideal' should everything not ideal be banned?


  • Options
    #106
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Other source ~ please explain
    JCB wrote: »
    I am saying that marriage always implies a right to raise children.
    If that is you only objection consider this:

    Marriage laws deal with civil unions not the raising of children. Therefore if two men marry, and want to raise a child - they will be subject to rigorous adoption laws like anyone else. A marriage certificate does not give them a licence to adopt. Two women, on the other hand aren't subject to any such laws as nature has provided both of them with the opportunity to start a family regardless of whether they are married to each other or not.

    Hence, allowing gay men to marry has no bearing on raising a family. Those questions are covered by different laws -adoption. And the law has no say in the case of gay women who look at conception options.

    JCB, do you believe gay people are doing wrong solely because your book tells you it's a sin? What is your own opinion, and why would a God that condemns it make people gay anyway?


  • Options
    #107
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JCB wrote: »
    No I am not saying that.

    I am saying that marriage always implies a right to raise children.

    Well as has been pointed out, that is a very confusing statement, since people who are not married also have the "right" to raise children. Single parents don't have their children removed from them because they are not married. And as Dades points out being married isn't a license to adopt, a person still has to be approved to be an adopted parent.

    Anyway, you were asked why two homosexuals getting married is wrong and you answered that it is wrong because marriage implies the "right to raise children".

    Can you clarify what you mean by that. What is wrong with two homosexuals getting married?


  • Options
    #108
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JCB wrote: »
    I am horrified that you are implying that children raised outside of marriage are somehow inferior. That is disgusting.

    He is talking about Jesus :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #109
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Its funny how when someone like you JCB runs up against a brick wall like "evidence" or "logic" or "fact" that they come out swinging with the usual intellectual detritus like the following.

    "but really are you suggesting that you don't have 'proof' of this altrusitic evolutions for humans thing? Then why so dogmatic?"

    The above just goes to show how much of a hyprocrite you are. Firstly, I made no claim to "proof", I made a claim to evidence. Something that your religion seems unable to do. But thats right, you dont need to, you have "faith". Enjoy your "faith" when you need an antibiotic.

    You also dont seem to be able to follow a simple concept. Emotion has the tendency to blind people to reality. Emotion is fickle, it can be manipulated.

    "The point is that you said that people could distinguish crimes such rape/murder from crimes such as racism, when 'emotion is left out of the equation'. This I had a problem with."

    Yes. You can distinguish between the crimes. Not be removing the emotion of the perpetrator (which I never implied) but by approaching the judgement of the crime without emotional investment.

    This last one though, is a real doozy.


    It's funny I don't they occured in a vacuum, but then again I don't think that communication from God to anyone be they any of the religions you mentioned is in fact wrong. Sure, I may think certain misinterpretations may be wrong, but generally people have interpreted the basics right, hence the similarities you mentioned.

    Have you ever been told that you have circular logic? Because you do. Let me explain something to you in very simple terms. The "morality" you are so fond of was not given to man by your god. Your God does not and never did exist. No god ever existed. Man, invented him to be able to explain things he could not. Giving credit to a specific deity for inventing something that several other peoples had several thousand years before he graduated from beinig the totem of a small tribe of nomads to a global power is little more than wishful thinking on your part.

    The rest of what you have to say is frankly so childish and devoid of worth that I refuse to dignify it with a response save to say, "and the horse you rode in on ..."

    Edit: I know I said I wouldnt dignify it with a response but you have annoyed me quite a bit so I am indulging my ire.

    YOU came into the ATHEISM forum and now YOU (a christian fundamentalist) are going to get in MY (atheist) face for comments made in ANOTHER thread. You seriously need to think before you mouth off. Dont learn the hard way, trust me, its no fun.


  • Options
    #110
    JCB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JCB


    SDooM wrote: »
    I'm not being smart but, if you state that marriage implies the right, it implies that other people don't have the right, surely?
    Well as has been pointed out, that is a very confusing statement, since people who are not married also have the "right" to raise children. Single parents don't have their children removed from them because they are not married. And as Dades points out being married isn't a license to adopt, a person still has to be approved to be an adopted parent.

    Anyway, you were asked why two homosexuals getting married is wrong and you answered that it is wrong because marriage implies the "right to raise children".

    Can you clarify what you mean by that. What is wrong with two homosexuals getting married?

    This is the typical a car is a vehicle, but a vehicle need not be a car situation.
    If marriage implies a right to raise children that does not mean others do not have this right.

    I have to agree with Dades point about raising children ~ adoption. I find it very difficult to reconcile not allowing a married couple (of good standing) to adopt (thus raise) a child, considering it's supposed to be the ideal family unit. Now, I do not mean that alternatives should somehow be illegal (which was what pH was suggesting), but other things being equal, I think an adopted child has the right to be raised in this way, over any other alternative.

    This is my only objection to homosexuals getting married. I couldn't give a hoot about property, succession rights or anything else.

    Now to address Dades point about reconciling these views with religious views.

    Christianity follows a very simple maxim: Hate the sin and Love the Sinner

    Therefore, every (sinning) person who comes from God, should be allowed equal rights regardless of their sex, race, orientation etc.... e.g. to raise a child.

    What (my view of) Christianity has an objection to is giving rights to sinful actions (as outlined in the Bible, compatable with the teachings of Jesus).

    Therefore, I could not in good conscience vote for a proposal which overules the rights of the person who comes from God (in this case the child) with 'rights' of the sinful action. It is just totally incompatible.

    I really have nothing further to say on this matter.
    Wicknight wrote:
    He is talking about Jesus

    Your point being?


    Hivemind wrote:
    "but really are you suggesting that you don't have 'proof' of this altrusitic evolutions for humans thing? Then why so dogmatic?"

    The above just goes to show how much of a hyprocrite you are. Firstly, I made no claim to "proof", I made a claim to evidence. Something that your religion seems unable to do. But thats right, you dont need to, you have "faith". Enjoy your "faith" when you need an antibiotic.

    Sad.:(
    Firstly, I quoted 'proof' the word you used.
    Secondly, I enjoy the benefits of faith and antibiotics (when needed of course:D)
    Thirdly, I could only be judged to be a hypocrite by the quote, if I was acting arrogant and was intolerent of other peoples ideas. Something I'm sure you're unfamiliar with.:rolleyes:
    As I keep saying, if that's what you believe then good for you!:)

    Hivemind wrote:
    "The point is that you said that people could distinguish crimes such rape/murder from crimes such as racism, when 'emotion is left out of the equation'. This I had a problem with."

    Yes. You can distinguish between the crimes. Not be removing the emotion of the perpetrator (which I never implied) but by approaching the judgement of the crime without emotional investment.

    I was always more interested in your apparent removing the emotion of the victim than the perpetrator.
    Hivemind wrote:
    The "morality" you are so fond of was not given to man by your god. Your God does not and never did exist. No god ever existed. Man, invented him to be able to explain things he could not.

    Which is your opinion and i'm okay with that. Really I don't think that this should stop us being friends. :)
    Hivemind wrote:
    Edit: I know I said I wouldnt dignify it with a response but you have annoyed me quite a bit so I am indulging my ire.

    YOU came into the ATHEISM forum and now YOU (a christian fundamentalist) are going to get in MY (atheist) face for comments made in ANOTHER thread. You seriously need to think before you mouth off.

    :D:D Really, if only I was of your mindset, you're making it too easy!:D:D

    In all honesty though, if it is your will to keep spewing bile from your bubbling cauldron of resentment and rage, then I have to respect that as a decent person.

    The whole point of Christianity is to be filled with God's hope, love and joy, not to be full of spite and indignant remarks (e.g. aidan's f**king idiots remark earlier in the thread and some of your own).

    I will remember you in my prayers,

    God bless,
    JCB


  • Options
    #111
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    JCB wrote:
    This is my only objection to homosexuals getting married. I couldn't give a hoot about property, succession rights or anything else.

    Well you've made it quite clear that you're concerned about children being brought up in such an environment.

    here's one:
    And no, it's not saying the same thing as saying gay couples being able to get married is wrong - it's the involvement of children I have a problem with - because such an environment has an effect on them.

    This clearly isn't about the 'sin' being committed by the homosexuals, you clearly state there is an effect, and your desire to protect children from it and the fact you use the word 'problem' leads me to believe you mean that such an effect is a negative one.

    Yet you still haven't described it. What effect on the children would you like to protect them from?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Personal Experience
    JCB wrote: »
    In all honesty though, if it is your will to keep spewing bile from your bubbling cauldron of resentment and rage, then I have to respect that as a decent person.

    I seriously think my head is going to explode. You are the one who is suggesting that two men or two women who love one another make bad parents and should be discriminated against just because they share the same XX or XY chromosome pair, you refuse to examine whether or not these people are good people who would show all the love and affection a child needs because of what your Holy Book tells you.


  • Options
    #113
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    JCB, with your grinning and sarcastic, "I know you are but what am I?" attitude is reminiscent of the purile and childish debate tactics used in secondary schools. You are here to do nothing more than aggravate others.

    You are exactly the beatifically smiling members of the "god fondled" that would tempt an otherwise peaceful man to comit a hate crime.

    I'm done being nice to you.


  • Options
    #114
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JCB wrote: »
    This is the typical a car is a vehicle, but a vehicle need not be a car situation.
    If marriage implies a right to raise children that does not mean others do not have this right.

    But then marriage "implies" the right to raise children in the same way that getting a car loan implies the right to raise children, because humans get car loans and humans have the right to raise children.

    Do you agree that all humans, married or unmarried, have the right to raise their own children, assuming they do so in a manner that ensures the love, safety and security of the child?

    If so then what has marriage got to do with anything?
    JCB wrote: »
    This is my only objection to homosexuals getting married.
    What is your only objection to homosexuals getting married? That they can adopt?
    JCB wrote: »
    Your point being?
    That Jesus was not raised in an ideal family group (an illegitmate child raised by his biological mother and an adopted father) and he turned out fine.
    JCB wrote: »
    I was always more interested in your apparent removing the emotion of the victim than the perpetrator.

    There is a very good reason, in modern society, why the punishment for a crime is not decided by the victim of the crime. Have a think about that for a bit.
    JCB wrote: »
    The whole point of Christianity is to be filled with God's hope, love and joy

    The history of Christianity would strongly suggest otherwise :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #115
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JCB wrote: »
    Do you agree that someone who gets married should ALWAYS have the right to raise children? Yes/No
    In short, I believe that the chance to raise children should not be denied to any group of people who can provide a loving environment for children in which they're able to reach their full potential as happy, productive, educated, honest human beings.

    Marriage -- as it's currently understood as a largely unwritten contract between two humans -- certainly does not confer that chance, nor the perceived right, to do so.

    So the answer to your question is "No".
    JCB wrote: »
    I said nothing about the rights of those who are not married - it is irrelevant to this conversation as you well know.
    On the contrary. By claiming that marriage creates a right to raise children, you imply that the right doesn't exist before marriage (the creation of a pre-existing right is pointless).

    Hence, you must believe that I, as an unmarried father, have no right to raise children. Is this your position, or do you believe that I have just as much a "right" to raise children as any one else?


  • Options
    #116
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Other source ~ please explain
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That Jesus was not raised in an ideal family group (an illegitmate child raised by his biological mother and an adopted father) and he turned out fine.
    Apart from the fact he thought he was God!

    Structured family units ftw. ;)


  • Options
    #117
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    As I'm still waiting for JCB to tell me what actual harm happens to a child living with a homosexual couple, here's something to read until he does.

    Europe: Gay Adoption Ruling Advances Family Equality

    This groundbreaking ruling means governments can’t use sexual orientation to stop someone from adopting a child
    http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=66&id=17959

    So JCB, turns out your vote or your permission wasn't needed after all.

    Now, how about telling us what harm comes to kids being brought up by gay people?


Advertisement