Atheist experiences of religious apparitions

kelly1

Robindch, your last last post is not befitting of a moderator. It comes across as quite bitter/caustic.

So I'm asking you nicely to withdraw your accusation that I lied. I didn't lie. My first post was unclear and I subsequently clarified it.

Zerbini Blewitt

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

....
Later we went as a family to mass on holiday (there were no more depressing words than 'we're going to mass' when on holiday in the late 70s/early 80s) and in the wonderful parish of Fethard-on-Sea we went to a mass celebrated by the one and only Fr. Sean Fortune! Again my spidey sense activated and I felt there was something very creepy about him and the early-teens 'folk mass group' he was close to...

what a memory - the closest thing to seeing a performance by a real life demon!

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

My first post was unclear and I subsequently clarified it.

I don't immediately see the clarification, but I'm going to assume it's in there somewhere. As for caustic, well, like begets like

Would you like to reply to the point that in "testing" believers in the way you propose, that essentially, he's acting as a needy, low-self-esteem soon-to-be-ex-partner might?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Would you like to reply to the point that in "testing" believers in the way you propose, that essentially, he's acting as a needy, low-self-esteem soon-to-be-ex-partner might?

Sure, after you withdraw the liar accusation.

gctest50

kelly1 wrote: »

Robindch, your last last post is not befitting of a moderator. It comes across as quite bitter/caustic.....

When the mods are modding, they put it in bold type like this so they do

kelly1 wrote: »

So I'm asking you nicely to withdraw your accusation that I lied. I didn't lie. My first post was unclear and I subsequently clarified it.

kelly1 wrote: »

So I'm asking you nicely

What are going to do if he doesn't do whatever it is you want him to do ?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Sure, after you withdraw the liar accusation.

For the record, I said that you had posted a lie, an intentional falsehood. I did not call you a liar as you claim. The "lie" text was removed over an hour ago.

looksee

Neither Robindch nor I are posting responses to you as mods, Kelly1. We are posting as regular posters and as individuals. If this situation changes, as the poster above says, we will be typing in bold.

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

Neither Robindch nor I are posting responses to you as mods, Kelly1. We are posting as regular posters and as individuals. If this situation changes, as the poster above says, we will be typing in bold.

I think moderators should set good example.

looksee

You are changing the subject Kelly1, how about you come up with some coherent replies to some of the questions you have been asked?

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

I think moderators should set good example.

One more question for the back of the queue. Why post these arguments on an atheist forum as opposed to a Christian one? Only two reasons that I can think of are that you're either insecure in your beliefs and interested in investigating atheism, or more likely, you're on a one person crusade to try and convert a few heathens and score some brownie points with your God. That said, I could have missed something, so why here?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I think moderators should set good example.

Moderators - like everybody else - lost patience with posters who stonewall other forum posters - quite apart from your occasionally unhelpful comments which we've generally ignored, you've also failed to answer questions, avoided issues, played language games and engaged in the kind of religious silliness with which we're familiar.

You said you'd answer my question when the comment about lying was removed. Regardless of whether the comment was appropriate or not in the context of repeating untruths, the comment was removed hours ago and we're still waiting for your reply.

Hope this clarifies things.

1123heavy

kelly, when you get a chance I would genuinely like a reply to my question about whether the apostles Mark, Luke and John could read and write ancient Greek.

These gospels are marketed as eye witness accounts of Jesus by people who walked by his side and named after them because it was said to be them who wrote it. But everything I can come across suggests that not only could they not read or write ancient Greek (somewhat of a superior/fancy language at the time), but they couldn't even read or write their OWN language, Aramaic. So how did they write the 3 gospels that are attributed to their names? And if they didn't then who did? Someone else who walked with Jesus? Or someone else decades later who never actually met the man?

kylith

1123heavy wrote: »

kelly, when you get a chance I would genuinely like a reply to my question about whether the apostles Mark, Luke and John could read and write ancient Greek.

These gospels are marketed as eye witness accounts of Jesus by people who walked by his side and named after them because it was said to be them who wrote it. But everything I can come across suggests that not only could they not read or write ancient Greek (somewhat of a superior/fancy language at the time), but they couldn't even read or write their OWN language, Aramaic. So how did they write the 3 gospels that are attributed to their names? And if they didn't then who did? Someone else who walked with Jesus? Or someone else decades later who never actually met the man?

Greek was something of a lingua franca at the time, but the question that whether Judean fishermen would have been literate is a good one.

Deusexmachina

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

One, the female party, has to bear it. And often, in practice, one the female party is left to rear it too.

Seeing as though she is the one who has to put her health and indeed life on the line during pregnancy and birth, and then is literally left holding the baby when relationships go wrong, it's only right that she has control over what happens inside her uterus.

If any man is unhappy with the decision of his sexual partner, I suggest he find some other willing party to impregnate.

You are suggesting that the father should have no say in whether his child is born or is terminated.
its incredible. The sad thing is you probable think women will find you more attractive and desirable for holding this viewpoint.

looksee

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You are suggesting that the father should have no say in whether his child is born or is terminated.
its incredible. The sad thing is you probable think women will find you more attractive and desirable for holding this viewpoint.

That comment really says more about your attitude to women than about HD's.

Deusexmachina

looksee wrote: »

That comment really says more about your attitude to women than about HD's.

Yes I agree. It says that most women want the fathers of their children to play an active and equal part in the parenting and not just play the role of passive sperm doner.

smacl

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Yes I agree. It says that most women want the fathers of their children to play an active and equal part in the parenting and not just play the role of passive sperm doner.

So by implication you're saying that if you impregnate a woman or girl it becomes your right to compel them to have the baby regardless of their wishes. You do realise how incredibly callous that stance is?

Deusexmachina

smacl wrote: »

So by implication you're saying that if you impregnate a woman or girl it becomes your right to compel them to have the baby regardless of their wishes. You do realise how incredibly callous that stance is?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the father should have a say in the decision.
There is a new tendency toward 'bodily autonomy' - which seems to mean the father is not to be involved in the decision at all. I think that is a sinister development.
What do you think?

GritBiscuit

Deusexmachina wrote:

Yes I agree. It says that most women want the fathers of their children to play an active and equal part in the parenting and not just play the role of passive sperm doner.

I'm going to go out on limb and suggest blokes supporting some real life version of the Handmaids tale is not most women's idea of gallantry...

Deusexmachina

GritBiscuit wrote: »

I'm going to go out on limb and suggest blokes supporting some real life version of the Handmaids tale is not most women's idea of gallantry...

No idea what you mean. Sounds like nonsense though

looksee

So do you have 'bodily autonomy' D? If your wife decided you should have a vasectomy should she have equal rights in insisting you have one? Who gets the casting vote?

Deusexmachina

looksee wrote: »

So do you have 'bodily autonomy' D? If your wife decided you should have a vasectomy should she have equal rights in insisting you have one? Who gets the casting vote?

I am not asking for anyone to be sterilised - male or female. Poor analogy

looksee

I am not talking about sterilisation, I am talking about bodily autonomy.

smacl

Deusexmachina wrote: »

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the father should have a say in the decision.
There is a new tendency toward 'bodily autonomy' - which seems to mean the father is not to be involved in the decision at all. I think that is a sinister development.
What do you think?

A couple of things. Firstly I personally don't really think there is a father until such time as a child is born. I entirely support what I'm guessing you mean by bodily autonomy in that as an adult I don't think anyone else should be able to dictate what you can or cannot do with your own body. I find it sinister in the extreme that you think otherwise, as from my point of view, it bears stark similarities to slavery. FWIW I'm the father of two fantastic girls myself and the notion that anyone could dictate to them how they deal with a pregnancy is entirely abhorrent.

Deusexmachina

looksee wrote: »

I am not talking about sterilisation, I am talking about bodily autonomy.

Wooo - 'bodily autonomy'. To answer your question then - yes my wife should have an equal say in whether I should have a vasectomy or not. Indeed she did!

Deusexmachina

Honestly. Stop hating yourself for being a man

Deusexmachina

smacl wrote: »

A couple of things. Firstly I personally don't really think there is a father until such time as a child is born. I entirely support what I'm guessing you mean by bodily autonomy in that as an adult I don't think anyone else should be able to dictate what you can or cannot do with your own body. I find it sinister in the extreme that you think otherwise, as from my point of view, it bears stark similarities to slavery. FWIW I'm the father of two fantastic girls myself and the notion that anyone could dictate to them how they deal with a pregnancy is entirely abhorrent.

You are being ridiculous. I never used the term 'dictate'. Answer what I posted, not some guess work.
I said the father should have a say in what happens? Do you not agree?

smacl

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You are being ridiculous. I never used the term 'dictate'. Answer what I posted, not some guess work.
I said the father should have a say in what happens? Do you not agree?

A father says to me there is a child. A pregnancy is not a child. My belief is that having kids is something best planned, not a matter of happenstance. Where an unplanned pregnancy happens my belief is that the ultimate decision whether the pregnancy is continued or not lies withthe woman.

Deusexmachina

smacl wrote: »

A father says to me there is a child. A pregnancy is not a child. My belief is that having kids is something best planned, not a matter of happenstance. Where an unplanned pregnancy happens my belief is that the ultimate decision whether the pregnancy is continued or not lies withthe woman.

Of course there is a father. The old immaculate conception is a rarity

kylith

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Yes I agree. It says that most women want the fathers of their children to play an active and equal part in the parenting and not just play the role of passive sperm doner.

And in situations where he isn't inclined to be an active part of parenting? Or where his feelings on the matter are diametrically opposed to hers? Should he be able to force her to continue with a pregnancy against her will?

Deusexmachina

kylith wrote: »

And in situations where he isn't inclined to be an active part of parenting? Or where his feelings on the matter are diametrically opposed to hers?

If he's not bothered then he's not bothered. If his feelings are diametrically opposed to hers then I dont think she should be forced to abort, do you?

looksee

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Honestly. Stop hating yourself for being a man

Jumping to a few conclusions there!

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Wooo - 'bodily autonomy'. To answer your question then - yes my wife should have an equal say in whether I should have a vasectomy or not. Indeed she did!

And that's fine when you are both on the same side of opinion. But if she had said - you need to get a vasectomy, and you didn't want to have one, what then?

kylith

Deusexmachina wrote: »

If he's not bothered then he's not bothered. If his feelings are diametrically opposed to hers then I dont think she should be forced to abort, do you?

No, because of her bodily autonomy. Should she be forced to continue with a pregnancy against her will?

smacl

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Of course there is a father. The old immaculate conception is a rarity

You clearly have a different notion of fatherhood to me. Getting someone pregnant only makes you a father if that person decides to have a baby. That decision is their's.

looksee

Ok, leaving vasectomies out of it, woman is pregnant and says to partner 'I am very worried about having this baby, the doctor says that with my medical history it could be dangerous for me' and partner says 'I really want us to have this baby, I want you to go ahead with the pregnancy' who gets the final say? Do they toss a coin? There are people self-absorbed enough to think only of what they want.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

Ok, leaving vasectomies out of it, woman is pregnant and says to partner 'I am very worried about having this baby, the doctor says that with my medical history it could be dangerous for me' and partner says 'I really want us to have this baby, I want you to go ahead with the pregnancy' who gets the final say? Do they toss a coin? There are people self-absorbed enough to think only of what they want.

Thing is the woman could equally well say 'I don't want to have a baby' which is also entirely valid. She doesn't need any excuse beyond that.

looksee

Well yes, but I am trying to get through to someone who does not understand 'bodily autonomy' and get them to think about male bodily autonomy.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

Well yes, but I am trying to get through to someone who does not understand 'bodily autonomy' and get them to think about male bodily autonomy.

Fair enough, but to my mind anyone who thinks they have any rights (God given?) to anyone else's body is already fcuked up beyond belief.

Deusexmachina

looksee wrote: »

Well yes, but I am trying to get through to someone who does not understand 'bodily autonomy' and get them to think about male bodily autonomy.

The arrogance. Because I don't agree with you, I don't understand the concept?
Cop yourself on mate.

Deusexmachina

smacl wrote: »

Thing is the woman could equally well say 'I don't want to have a baby' which is also entirely valid. She doesn't need any excuse beyond that.

What does the father do if the woman decides to destroy the foetus based on a trivial reason - such as an upcoming holiday?
Happy with that? Father has no say??

looksee

Possibly choosing not to impregnate such a flea brained woman would have been a better bet.

smacl

Deusexmachina wrote: »

What does the father do if the woman decides to destroy the foetus based on a trivial reason - such as an upcoming holiday?
Happy with that? Father has no say??

Her choice, simple as that.

Deusexmachina

smacl wrote: »

Her choice, simple as that.

Wow. Sad. Why not chop them off now - you don't need them.

kylith

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Wow. Sad. Why not chop them off now - you don't need them.

Careful there. Your true colours are starting to show.

looksee

kylith wrote: »

Careful there. Your true colours are starting to show.

Funny how often that happens!

kylith

Apparently it's manly to force women to continue with unwanted pregnancies.





How in seven hells did we get here from dancing statues?

Deusexmachina

kylith wrote: »

Careful there. Your true colours are starting to show.

Really? Sperm not required? Mother only conception now?

We need to be careful. The role of fatherhood is important in a child's life. I cannot understand men who refuse to see this. There is some sort of self hate going on?

Imagine the respons a man would receive if he argued that a woman should have no say in whether her child gets born or not.

Deusexmachina

kylith wrote: »

Apparently it's manly to force women to continue with unwanted pregnancies.





How in seven hells did we get here from dancing statues?

Who said 'force'???

Please quote me where I wrote that.

Deusexmachina

looksee wrote: »

Funny how often that happens!

Funny how?

kylith

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Who said 'force'???

Please quote me where I wrote that.

For the third time of asking: if you believe that the man deserves an equal say what should happen if the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy and he does not?