atheist wins right to wear pasta strainer on Drivers license

Pushtrak

keith16 wrote: »

I do think peoples attitudes are changing and civil partnerships (that confer all the benefits of marriage, without the religious element) are becoming much more common and it's about time.

No, they don't.
http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

What is Civil Partnership?

The Irish Government enacted the Civil Partnership Act in 2010.

Civil Partnership is not marriage. It will not automatically apply all the rights of marriage to civil partners, and therefore same-sex couples will not have equality. It will give partners who register their partnership some legal rights and protections in relation to succession rights and property rights.

However, Civil Partnership:
does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent.

does not recognize same sex couples' rights to many social supports that may be needed in hardship situations and may literally leave a loved one out in the cold.

defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted.

For a more in-depth analysis of the Civil Partnership Act and what it means for same sex couples and families, please read our Summary Analysis of Civil Partnership.

Marriage Equality recently published a marriage audit, called "Missing Pieces". The report compares the rights, protections and responsibilities afforded to married couples with those afforded to Civil Partners. "Missing Pieces" identifies 169 differences between Civil Partnership and civil marriage.

keith16

Pushtrak wrote: »

No, they don't.
http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

Really???

What more is there to getting married then singing a piece of paper and associated tax benefits???

EDIT: Reading your edit now

MrStuffins

keith16 wrote: »

Despite that, I think the complaints that most atheists have about religion in Irish society are for the most part "first world problems" and religion in places like Iran is used in a much more sinister way...

First World Problems?

Not at all! The Iran comparison does nothing for this statement either. of course it's worse there, but that doesn't lessen the impact religion has here just like the fact that murder is worse lessens the impact of the crime of assault!

keith16

Pushtrak wrote: »

No, they don't.
http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

Holy shít, never realised that. Surely a reflection on how heavily influenced the government still are by the church??

Pushtrak

keith16 wrote: »

Holy shít, never realised that. Surely a reflection on how heavily influenced the government still are by the church??

Yes, now you get it. Abortion legislation should be in place because of the X case. Catholic schools giving special placement on grounds of religion. Perhaps it is becoming clearer why atheists take issue with religion?

To call it first world problems shows a disregard or lack of understanding of the issues.

Helix

keith16 wrote: »

I suppose you are right. Either way they both annoy me. I guess religion is much more ingrained in our society.

It's funny how something like marriage, a fundamentally religious institute, has come to be important in many other aspects of life outside of religion itself.

I do think peoples attitudes are changing and civil partnerships (that confer all the benefits of marriage, without the religious element) are becoming much more common and it's about time.

Despite that, I think the complaints that most atheists have about religion in Irish society are for the most part "first world problems" and religion in places like Iran is used in a much more sinister way...

the thing with marriage is that a civil partnership doesnt carry with it the same benefits as marriage. for gays it's not a religious thing. after all, their lifestyle is at odds with the church, so essentially they're told they're not welcome to be a part of it, and that's fine if that's the line the church wants to take

but to have it so that a lifelong gay couple can't have the same benefits as a married straight couple is nonsense. i dont think itd be an issue if the state said keep marriage for religion, but we'll make a civil partnership carry the exact same benefits

while you're right, that irish religion problems aren't as bad as they are elsewhere in many cases, that's not to say religion shouldn't be challenged. should the man who is beaten daily say nothing because the men in another country are being tortured instead?

keith16

MrStuffins wrote: »

First World Problems?

Not at all! The Iran comparison does nothing for this statement either. of course it's worse there, but that doesn't lessen the impact religion has here just like the fact that murder is worse lessens the impact of the crime of assault!

First world problems; for want of a better phrase. Admittedly the choice to raise your child in the absence of a religious influence is one that many people here don't have and isn't exactly a first world problem.

However, the other things like not being able to drink on two days of the year could only cause uproar in a country like Ireland and as I mentioned in another post is surely more indicative of the ongoing influence of the church on lawmaking in this country?

PhlegmyMoses

Tori Whining Publisher wrote: »

Internet atheists needs to talk about their beliefs (or lack of, whatever) more. I don't think enough people realise how intelligent and enlightened they are yet.

It's actually important for atheists to make their views heard. There is no pulpit and they have no voice in schools. No harm in them getting their viewpoint across.

Helix

keith16 wrote: »

Holy shít, never realised that. Surely a reflection on how heavily influenced the government still are by the church??

that's pretty much the reason why many people have such a problem with religion

there would be no "militant" atheists if the religious kept their religion exclusively to themselves and only applied their religion's rules to other members of their religion, rather than trying to impose them on the entire population

MrStuffins

keith16 wrote: »

However, the other things like not being able to drink on two days of the year could only cause uproar in a country like Ireland and as I mentioned in another post is surely more indicative of the ongoing influence of the church on lawmaking in this country?

It doesn't cause uproar. People use Good Friday as an excuse to drink even more.

I was using it as an example of how religion effects you whether you let it ot not.

keith16

Pushtrak wrote: »

Yes, now you get it. Abortion legislation should be in place because of the X case. Catholic schools giving special placement on grounds of religion. Perhaps it is becoming clearer why atheists take issue with religion?

To call it first world problems shows a disregard or lack of understanding of the issues.

As I mentioned in another post, perhaps "first world problems" was a poor turn of phrase on my behalf so apologies for that.

I think there is a slight subtlety here in so far as the point I was initially trying to make was aimed at the "know it all types" who just brand any other type of "believers" as idiots which I take issue with, because, in spite of all the issues you have raised above, I am still happy to let others live as they chose.

This applies equally to atheists who I also think should be free to drink on a certain Friday (first world problem ) or raise their child free from religious influence. As such, I think the problem lies more with the out-dated laws in this country and atheists attacking believers way of live aint gonna change that.

keith16

Helix wrote: »

that's pretty much the reason why many people have such a problem with religion

there would be no "militant" atheists if the religious kept their religion exclusively to themselves and only applied their religion's rules to other members of their religion, rather than trying to impose them on the entire population

But it never has been the lay person on the ground doing that, rather, the powerful religious elite at the top.

keith16

MrStuffins wrote: »

It doesn't cause uproar. People use Good Friday as an excuse to drink even more.

I was using it as an example of how religion effects you whether you let it ot not.

Doesn't effect you if you use it as an excuse to choose to drink even more! Which I do :pac:

MrStuffins

keith16 wrote: »

Doesn't effect you if you use it as an excuse to choose to drink even more! Which I do :pac:

Best day of the year :P

God...

dirtyden wrote: »

How come so many atheists are so obsessed with religion?

They can't get there head around why seemingly intelligent people could be so ridiculously stupid.

Helix

keith16 wrote: »

But it never has been the lay person on the ground doing that, rather, the powerful religious elite at the top.

no, it's the laypeople. do you see the pope on the street with pictures of aborted foetuses? or the dali lama with a microphone in the middle of grafton street telling everyone they're going to hell?

do you see rabbi ovadia yosef floating around handing out fliers about being saved?

course you dont

that's the laypeople. it's the people who tsk tsk when someone says they're not religious. it's the voters who won't change things. it's the oul lads and oul ones who had the church bet into them who insist that their religion is the right one, and anyone who tries to do anything that's not allowed in their magic book needs to be stopped

keith16

Helix wrote: »

no, it's the laypeople. do you see the pope on the street with pictures of aborted foetuses? or the dali lama with a microphone in the middle of grafton street telling everyone they're going to hell?

do you see rabbi ovadia yosef floating around handing out fliers about being saved?

course you dont

that's the laypeople. it's the people who tsk tsk when someone says they're not religious. it's the voters who won't change things. it's the oul lads and oul ones who had the church bet into them who insist that their religion is the right one, and anyone who tries to do anything that's not allowed in their magic book needs to be stopped

Ah come on. Everyone knows these are select group of nutjobs. Maybe your second point on people tsk tsking is vaild however and I would agree with that to a certain extent.

Helix

keith16 wrote: »

Ah come on. Everyone knows these are select group of nutjobs. Maybe your second point on people tsk tsking is vaild however and I would agree with that to a certain extent.

compare the amount of nutjobs you've seen spouting in the street about religion, to the amount of atheists you've seen doing it

then pop over to the christianity forum here and take a look at some of the threads and posts. it's terrifying

keith16

Helix wrote: »

compare the amount of nutjobs you've seen spouting in the street about religion, to the amount of atheists you've seen doing it

then pop over to the christianity forum here and take a look at some of the threads and posts. it's terrifying

the problem is the lack of an atheist institute that has had a chance to shape the law over the decades.

Atheists energy would be better spent lobbying the gov (which I'm sure they do) rather than making noise about "idiot" believers. Even if some irrefutable proof was produced (smart Homer accidentally proving God doesn't exist and telling Flanders comes to mind ), it would likely be ignored and even if it wasn't, the law would remain unchanged.

PS: Heading over to troll the fcuk out of the Christianity forum. The beginning is nigh, STOP REPENTING.

PPS: Good night

crazy cabbage

For me all religions are just different pages of the same book. I have read bits of the bibal and the koran and was interested in buddism for a while. while i dont believe the dali lama is a walking god, he seem to be a stand up guy who has only ever preached peace. Other pages of this 'book' include spirtuality and being a member of the universe and athism and pritty much anything.

If being a member of a religion makes you a better person or you think you have something to learn from it then no one has the right to convince you otherwise. I learned alot from reading about some buddist beliefs. Some of the catholic storys make execlent fabels that one can learn from (sheperd who called wolf and what-have-ya). I do not follow any religion but i wouldn't consider myself an athist either. Whatever religion one chooses to follow is great. Let them be. For all you know that religion could have had a very positive impact on there livies. I myself am considering going to one of them monesteries for a month when i am older (dont care what religion it is really). Think the experience with the strict code of conduct and constant medatation would be bennifical to me.

what i dont think is fair however is the hold that the catholic religion has over people in ireland. People are baptised without question often so it will be easier for them to get into school. People then get married within the church. burried by the church. Chatolism is ingrande within us and i think that needs to change.
Nothing against chatolism. i just think people would think more of it if they turned to it in there own time

my 2 cents

MrStuffins

crazy cabbage wrote: »

If being a member of a religion makes you a better person or you think you have something to learn from it then no one has the right to convince you otherwise.

99.9% don't do it for this reason or anything close though!

They do it because they have been indoctrinated as a child and are scared into believing what they believe. They then take that forward into adult life and have been programmed to believe that there is a man watching you all day every day and their kids learn the same, the cycle starting again.

Also, nobody wants to stop religious people believing what they want.

crazy cabbage

MrStuffins wrote: »

99.9% don't do it for this reason or anything close though!

They do it because they have been indoctrinated as a child and are scared into believing what they believe. They then take that forward into adult life and have been programmed to believe that there is a man watching you all day every day and their kids learn the same, the cycle starting again.

Also, nobody wants to stop religious people believing what they want.

hence why i said this

what i dont think is fair however is the hold that the catholic religion has over people in ireland. People are baptised without question often so it will be easier for them to get into school. People then get married within the church. burried by the church. Chatolism is ingrande within us and i think that needs to change.
Nothing against chatolism. i just think people would think more of it if they turned to it in there own time

but yes i agree with you. I was brought up in a primary shcool that only thought the catholic religion. The exact same in secondary school. Principle was a devout catholic. He made the whole class walk down to church once a month for mass during school hours.

I dont agree with this but i have nothing against any religion. I dont like it being forced down people necks though

a5y

keith16 wrote: »

the problem is that there is not atheist institute that has had a chance to shape the law over the decades.

Considering the church can't overtly demonise gay people in Ireland anymore and has to resort to cowardly interference on civil rights legislation dressed up as safeguarding family values, there is evidence that change is happening.

Atheists energy would be better spent lobbying the gov (which I'm sure they do) rather than making noise about "idiot" believers.

I disagree. Every time a debate happens its a chance to ask for proof concerning why religious organisations can claim additional rights when they're based on beliefs unbacked by hard evidence, purely by faith alone. That its absolutely OK to question authority, and the "noise" continually reinforces how acceptable it is progress.

Even if some irrefutable proof was produced (smart Homer accidentally proving God doesn't exist and telling Flanders comes to mind ), it would likely be ignored and even if it wasn't, the law would remain unchanged.

I can't see why it'd be beneficial to eliminate religion. But I think see it'd be beneficial to prevent religious indoctrination of young children, or to prevent religious education only teaching one single faith.

If classes instead taught the similarities and differences between the major faiths I think it'd be a great benefit to a generation that increasingly are in contact with people from all walks of life and from all over the world. After all its no harder for me to talk to a Hindu or a Sheik on the internet.

More understanding of where others are coming from, their beliefs and tradition might do wonders for reducing bigotry and the effectiveness of propaganda and hate speach. I think that's a goal more worthy of striving for than some erradication of religion, but it won't be possible unless children are not raised to believe one religion is "right".

Persuading parents not to choose their children's religion for them, and to let them decide when they're old enough to do all the other stuff that young adults have to for themselves (the sex, alcohol, drugs, even learning to do their own laundry), well, that's going to be a major challenge.

Helix

crazy cabbage wrote: »

If being a member of a religion makes you a better person or you think you have something to learn from it then no one has the right to convince you otherwise.

so long as religious people preach and try to recruit, atheists will debunk

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Whatever religion one chooses to follow is great. Let them be.

that wouldn't be a problem if they would let others who aren't members of their religion be, but they don't. that's the issue.

--Kaiser--

dirtyden wrote: »

How come so many atheists are so obsessed with religion?

Pastafaraians and the like are merely highlighting the utter ridiculousness of blind faith in a mystical higher power

Bad Panda

Could you bothered?!

Sad little crusade if you ask me.

For the record, I'm not at all religious.

Pushtrak

Bad Panda wrote: »

Could you bothered?!

Sad little crusade if you ask me.

Crusade? Good one.

a5y

Bad Panda wrote: »

Could you bothered?!

Yes. Because logic is still important, even if organised religion would rather it wasn't whenever it becomes an inconvenience.

Sad little crusade if you ask me.

For the record, I'm not at all religious.

I think its odd that when a Pastafarian does something with a rather carefully thought out element of parody tyou ask why they bothered and you call it sad; yet you can't not keep your unsolicited opinion to yourself even though you are not at all religious, and presumably don't consider yourself just as sad.

Do you enjoy talking about stuff that you can't be bothered with? :P

laoch na mona

dirtyden wrote: »

How come so many atheists are so obsessed with religion?

because they cant stay the f8ck out of other peoples business

a5y

laoch na mona wrote: »

because they cant stay the f8ck out of other peoples business

The atheists, the religious or both groups?

Pushtrak

a5y wrote: »

The atheists, the religious or both groups?

The religious. The "my religion says adherents should behave in a certain way, so it is preferable to me that I vote in such a way non adherents should live that way too". Of course, I know there are some religionists who are happy with secularism to varying degrees, which means my issues with religious people has similar variation.

a5y

Pushtrak wrote: »

The religious. The "my religion says adherents should behave in a certain way, so it is preferable to me that I vote in such a way non adherents should live that way too". Of course, I know there are some religionists who are happy with secularism to varying degrees, which means my issues with religious people has similar variation.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but I was replying to laoch na mona's comment because I was asking laoch na mona that.

So you're kinda telling me what laoch na mona's opinion is, and simultaneously demonstrating the kind of thing you take issue with from religious people.

You realise that's hypocrisy, right?

Pushtrak

a5y wrote: »

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but I was replying to laoch na mona's comment because I was asking laoch na mona that.

So you're kinda telling me what laoch na mona's opinion is, and simultaneously demonstrating the kind of thing you take issue with from religious people.

You realise that's hypocrisy, right?

What, answering on someone elses behalf is hypocrisy? I'd suggest that this being a forum, I'm offering an opinion. Could you clarify how what my post said was hypocritical in content? I'm not seeing it.

laoch na mona

a5y wrote: »

The atheists, the religious or both groups?

both but any atheists I know can't tolerate religion but I know plenty people who believe in a religion who don't care about other peoples faith



pushtrak in no way represents the views of laoch na mona or its affiliated partners

a5y

Pushtrak wrote: »

What, answering on someone elses behalf is hypocrisy? I'd suggest that this being a forum, I'm offering an opinion. Could you clarify how what my post said was hypocritical in content? I'm not seeing it.

OK.

I asked laoch na mona to clarify his comment.

laoch na mona wrote: »

because they cant stay the f8ck out of other peoples business

Because as only laoch na mona knows what he meant precisely by they, only he/she could do that. You replied, presuming to know exactly what the comment meant:

laoch na mona said some people can't stay of other other's business; and you replied even though you couldn't speak with authority on his/her opinion. You couldn't demonstrate that you could stay out of others business.

I never asked "could anyone her offer an opinion who laoch na mona precisely meant when he/she said "they"? "

So you accused some religious groups of not being able to stay out of others' business, yet demonstrated you do the same thing. That is why I consider what you did a demonstration of hypocrisy.

biko

Merged with older thread on this

Good for him, looks silly though, which I suppose was the intention all along.

a5y

laoch na mona wrote: »

both but any atheists I know can't tolerate religion but I know plenty people who believe in a religion who don't care about other peoples faith



pushtrak in no way represents the views of laoch na mona or its affiliated partners

Hey, sorry to ask a personal question thats a bit off topic, but would you mind telling me if you're male or female or prefer to be called he or she or it or sir or whatever? It'd be really helpful because honestly if we have to continue talking I'd prefer to dump the he/she stuff already, its really, really tiresome.

Pushtrak

a5y wrote: »

OK.

I asked laoch na mona to clarify his comment.

So thats hypocrisy?

Because as only laoch na mona knows what he meant precisely by they, only he/she could do that. You replied, presuming to know exactly what the comment meant:

Wouldn't have predicted people would genuinely think I was attempting to post for another. Ought one point out that what follows is their take? If I see a question that is worth answering, that is what I'll do. If I was to see people answer questions like that, I'd know it was them voicing their opinion not trying to channel another person.

Edit:

laoch na mona said some people can't stay of other other's business; and you replied even though you couldn't speak with authority on his/her opinion. You couldn't demonstrate that you could stay out of others business.

Also, accusations of being a hypocrite can't really be thrown out there on the basis of X person says this and Y person does that.

laoch na mona

a5y wrote: »

Hey, sorry to ask a personal question thats a bit off topic, but would you mind telling me if you're male or female or prefer to be called he or she or it or sir or whatever? It'd be really helpful because honestly if we have to continue talking I'd prefer to dump the he/she stuff already, its really, really tiresome.

Im a man

a5y

Pushtrak wrote: »

So thats hypocrisy?

No. The full post explains why bemoaning others getting in other's business but yet doing something that amounts to the same is hypocrisy.

Wouldn't have predicted people would genuinely think I was attempting to post for another. Ought one point out that what follows is their take? If I see a question that is worth answering, that is what I'll do. If I was to see people answer questions like that, I'd know it was them voicing their opinion not trying to channel another person.

Why do you think I was asking for an opinion for any-and-everyone when I'd quoted the entire post of one specific person, and requested information that only that one specific person could provide?

Don't you think that was rather presumptuous?

That if you saw others continually do the same you'd judge them the same way you judge some specific religious people who use their votes to attempt to influence others lives to confirm to their morality?

Pushtrak

a5y wrote: »

No. The full post explains why bemoaning others getting in other's business but yet doing something that amounts to the same is hypocrisy.

Internet forum. You post something. People reply. This is my last, while an internet forum is more than private messages, it shouldn't devolve to chat room either.

Jester252

If he wore it as part of his religion does that mean he will have to ware it driving

Pushtrak

Jester252 wrote: »

If he wore it as part of his religion does that mean he will have to ware it driving

Nope, no pasta police.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Have to say the people who actually call themselves atheists really get on my nerves.I don't understand why they can't just let people get on with their faiths if they have any.
Im not religious myself but I don't force it down people's throats to be like me let people make their own minds up.
Also when giving out about schools be they Catholic,Protestant,Islamic or whatever else why shouldn't those schools accept people from their faiths first?

tldr: zealot atheists are more annoying than religious zealots.

MrStuffins

laoch na mona wrote: »

both but any atheists I know can't tolerate religion but I know plenty people who believe in a religion who don't care about other peoples faith

Posts like this always leave me baffled!

if you don't know the valid reasons why those who don't believe in God have a problem with the institutions such as the RCC, their influences etc etc then why are you commenting?

And if you DO, then why are you commenting?

Also, you may know plenty of people who don't care about other people's faith that good for you! But try to make the argument that MASSIVE conflicts don't arrise and have always arrisen through differences in peoples' religious beliefs, then I don't know what planet you've been living on!

MrStuffins

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

Also when giving out about schools be they Catholic,Protestant,Islamic or whatever else why shouldn't those schools accept people from their faiths first?

Oh God!!!!!

Mickeroo

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

Also when giving out about schools be they Catholic,Protestant,Islamic or whatever else why shouldn't those schools accept people from their faiths first?

I don't know of any atheists that have a problem with that. Its more about the state funded schools in Ireland that give preference to catholic students and in some cases won't take take non-baptised students at all. This is quite a big issue in some areas where there is no alternative schools.

a5y

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

Have to say the people who actually call themselves atheists really get on my nerves.I don't understand why they can't just let people get on with their faiths if they have any.

I'm an atheist. I call myself an atheist. What exactly have I done to get on your nerves?

Im not religious myself but I don't force it down people's throats to be like me let people make their own minds up.

Actually you don't have to. Since the overwhelming majority of schools in the Republic of Ireland are already Catholic children are already having religion forced down their throats.

Also when giving out about schools be they Catholic,Protestant,Islamic or whatever else why shouldn't those schools accept people from their faiths first?

Because there are no rational reasons why the education system in Ireland should dictate what religion a person should believe; yet the way the education system is in Ireland in present ensures that is exactly what is happening.

tldr: zealot atheists are more annoying than religious zealots.

I don't think you've proven that satisfactorily, but I'd invite you to continue to make the case, and use whatever length of post you feel comfortable with. For your sake I'll be brief in my responses if you prefer.

Incidentally zealot atheists is an oxymoron; it does not and cannot mean anything. It would be like suggesting that people who don't collect stamps could feel there is something sacred about not collecting stamps.

MrStuffins

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

tldr: zealot atheists are more annoying than religious zealots.

Also, name me ONE atheist who has killed someone in the name of Atheism.

Mickeroo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Also, name me ONE atheist who has killed someone in the name of Atheism.

In before anyone starts naming people who killed in the name of fascist totalitarian regimes :pac: