# Atheism - I was wrong. Sorry God.



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I was deluded all along.

http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sound logic. All it requires is one minor assumption. Sounds like political ideologues. 

I know where I'm going when I die, and the first thing I'm going to do is claim my throne. beejacon


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Atheist sure prosthetize a lot.  They're almost getting as annoying as Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Need a new word for Christian, because I sure hate being lumped into what this guy thinks "us Christians" is like.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"People of faith (in the divine)"

Then you can refer to many others as, "Ye of little (no) faith"


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Umm....is "prosthetize" even a word...and if so, please define.

www.dictionary.com, google's define, and Oxford are all stumped by it.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

guytoronto said:


> Umm....is "prosthetize" even a word...and if so, please define.
> 
> www.dictionary.com, google's define, and Oxford are all stumped by it.


I forget how to spell the word.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Define it then! I'm dying to know here!


----------



## infinity8 (Feb 19, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> I was deluded all along.
> 
> http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/


So was I... Everthing is so clear now, I see the light.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

(He meant: ) proseletize.

Whereas prosthetize means: to fit with an artificial limb or appendage.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I know where I'm going when I die, and the first thing I'm going to do is claim my throne." I believe in Beej. I am a true believer. I shall not question ever again. I shall be one with The Beej. I shall be an everlasting Beej-believer. If I believe strongly enough in Beej, I might even become an apostle.

Amazing Beej! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost, but now am found!
Was blind by now I see.

'Twas Beej that taught my heart to fear,
And Beej my fears relieved.
How precious did that Beej appear
The hour I first believed!

Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
'Tis Beej hath brought me safe thus far,
And Beej will lead me home.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

guytoronto said:


> Define it then! I'm dying to know here!



That thing that Jehovah's witnesses do all the time. Knock on your door with brochures about their point of view on life.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "I know where I'm going when I die, and the first thing I'm going to do is claim my throne." I believe in Beej. I am a true believer. I shall not question ever again. I shall be one with The Beej. I shall be an everlasting Beej-believer. If I believe strongly enough in Beej, I might even become an apostle.
> 
> Amazing Beej! How sweet the sound
> That saved a wretch like me.
> ...


The Kingdom grows. If not this world, I will take over the underworld because, "there are other worlds than these."


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

HowEver said:


> (He meant: ) proseletize.
> 
> Whereas prosthetize means: to fit with an artificial limb or appendage.


:lmao: Yes, thanks.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

In the Church of the Latter Day Beej Believers, we are all one. We share a common brother and sisterhood unknown by the non-Beej believers. 

I believe in the basic principles of faith in Beej.

"Hear, oh Israel, Beej is our God and our God is one."

"Attribute to Beej all glory and power."

""Beej is the only one we may serve and praise....We may not act in this way toward anything beneath Beej, whether it be an angel, a star, or one of the elements.....There are no intermediaries between us and Beej. All our prayers should be directed towards Beej; nothing else should even be considered."

"Beej tells us that we are born morally pure, with a tendency to do good, or to do evil. Thus, as Beej tells us, we have free will to choose the path we travel with our lives."

"Beej desires loving kindness towards all things living, not sacrifices."

"All moral laws are derived from divine commandments from Beej."

"Beej's work, here on Earth, must be our work to help people, to protect the environment, to share all that we have and all that we are in His name."


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

HowEver said:


> (He meant: ) proseletize.
> 
> Whereas prosthetize means: to fit with an artificial limb or appendage.


Actually, its proselytize

proselytize \PROS-uh-luh-tyz\, intransitive verb:
1. To induce someone to convert to one's religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's institution, cause, or political party.

transitive verb:
1. To convert to some religion, system, opinion, or the like.

Probably a 10:1 ratio of atheist proselytizing on ehMac.ca vs all other "groups" that may want to proselytize a "cause".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "Attribute to Beej all glory and power."
> ..........................
> "All moral laws are derived from divine commandments from Beej."


The power is yours. Glory to your accomplishments.
..........................
Morality and law are yours, one by one and together. I believe in understanding as you must believe in Beej.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Probably a 10:1 ratio of atheist proselytizing on ehMac.ca vs all other "groups" that may want to proselytize a "cause".


Fair enough. I'm not one to be comfortable with "militant atheists" but humour, directed at religion and atheism, is truly divine.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

The Beej is my shepherd, I shall not want. beejacon


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as an Agnostic with no beliefs or disbeliefs in particular, we are the truly irreligious. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is no less legitimate to me than the Judeo-Christian deity, and it makes a nice side dish.


----------



## kwmike (Oct 25, 2006)

August 24, 2001. Thats the day I made a decision to accept that God does exist. I am not into the whole "churchianity" thing, but today I am very spiritual and start every day by asking for help and end every day by saying thankyou. I did not believe in God for many years, until I found myself with nowhwere else to turn. I was at the end of a very miserable existance. I found God during one of the most difficult times in my life, and he has shown me a new life that I never thought possible. Today, I try to help people by sharing my experience, strength, and hope. I get to see miracles every time I see the most hopeless come into the room and turn their life around. I also see alot of good people die trying to live out their own will. 

If you ever have a doubt about the existance of a Higher Power, try this. Decide not to breathe for 5 minutes, you can't do it because it is not your choice.

Religon is for those of us afraid of going to hell, Spirituality is for those of us that have been there.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the religious might also include people who promote certain scientific and social theories to excess, thus causing the general dispersal of potential listeners.


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

Hey, God here. I know, I know, you think not. So what- I could only write to you 2000 years ago? You're kidding, I'm not.

It does say _An Old Soul_, and I should have specified before just how old.

Even though it would have been very easy for someone at one point to realize that the Holy Bible wouldn't have as much standing unless it was _my veritable word_, and thus insert a few lines into my mouth saying that it is, I assure you all I wrote the bible.

Really, all you nay-sayers who can 'prove' that the Bible is a collection of 'stories' filtered through the ages- a collection that was originally assembled in a careful process of 'this works, that doesn't'- all for political, social, and economic aims, I have to say, you're foolish.

Just as the nice man says, it's just not true, period. That's it. The book says this and that, don't refute it. Ever. For any reason. Even if it contradicts itself. 

Even, and especially, even if it appears the book is used hatefully, to villify, crucify, condemn, judge, deceive, or belittle; if it is used for racially and sexually unethical reasons;_ that's too bad_, you don't get it, you'll burn- that's it.

And I don't care how many 'facts' you find proving anything in the book to the contrary. Hell, _I made facts_, just like I made everything else. So I got you there.

It would be nice if you'd all stop bickering, fighting and killing over me, and instead sit down and watch a nice show or two.

That's right! God loves TV! Sure, it seems a little dim witted, but when I decided to invent TV, I knew just how fun it could be, and I wanted my creation to create it, so voila!

I like those atheists just as much as I like my Christians. It is _you_ who cannot accept each other, folks. Simple as that.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Thanks, OS. That's the most refreshing thing about the subject I've heard in weeks. But then again, you knew that, didn't you.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Very funny little cartoon. I love the circular graphic while talking about God writing the Bible. Very nice!
:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Ok, sorry, no offense dude, but this is messed up.



kwmike said:


> August 24, 2001. Thats the day I made a decision to accept that God does exist. I am not into the whole "churchianity" thing, but today I am very spiritual and start every day by asking for help and end every day by saying thankyou. I did not believe in God for many years, until I found myself with nowhwere else to turn. I was at the end of a very miserable existance. I found God during one of the most difficult times in my life, and he has shown me a new life that I never thought possible.


What did God actually do? Did God give you money? Did God make you smarter? Did God tell you to do something specific? Of did you decide to change your life? Did you make things happen? Did you actually change?



kwmike said:


> Today, I try to help people by sharing my experience, strength, and hope. I get to see miracles every time I see the most hopeless come into the room and turn their life around. I also see alot of good people die trying to live out their own will.


Is it your own strength, or God's, because by your own admission, you didn't have any. You had to get it from God. Is it possible you just needed a reason to find your inner strength, and chose God as that reason, whether he is real or not?



kwmike said:


> If you ever have a doubt about the existance of a Higher Power, try this. Decide not to breathe for 5 minutes, you can't do it because it is not your choice.


That is the most ridiculous piece of reasoning I've heard today. Try to make your heart stop beating. Try to stop thinking. Try to stay awake forever. These aren't signs of a higher existence. These are signs that biological we don't have control over every aspect of our body.



kwmike said:


> Religon is for those of us afraid of going to hell, Spirituality is for those of us that have been there.


If you fear your own personal hell, only you can save yourself from it. Believe in yourself.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I am appalled by the treatment that non believers give those who do.

That "holier-than-thou-attitude" apparently applies more to Atheists than any other group as they fling ridicule at believers.

Ever heard of live and let live?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The Beej is my shepherd, I shall not want."

"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and to die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and to die to find out there is." Camus


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I am appalled by the treatment that non believers give those who do." Sinc, this is why those who believe in Beej practice tolerance, kindness and compassion for all. His is a naturalist/humanist theology, much like John Dewey, in that Beej is said to be the sum of all natural processes that allow men and women to become self-fulfilled. We become improved as we help others to help themselves. We do not preach that "our way" is the only way, but that there are many paths to Beej, just as there are many paths to truth and enlightenment. We all have to take our own path. However, it is up to each of us to help those in need, to feed those that hunger, to give water to those that thirst, to house those that are homeless. It is morally untanable to force the belief of Beej upon anyone else. This is the whole idea underlying free will.

Thus, we are in agreement. Live and let live, yes, but also help those who suffer. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Camus has it right! His philosophy treats 'believers' with dignity, for that matter - rather than simply jeer at them from a superior stance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Camus has it right! His philosophy treats 'believers' with dignity, for that matter - rather than simply jeer at them from a superior stance.


And the people here who don't treat them that way are far too many. They remind me of so-called middle eastern religious radicals. About the same kind of tolerance for other beliefs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Ever heard of live and let live?


maybe ask yourself if that's actually the case with most religions then your question will be answered. Start with gay marriage.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Sinc,
i thought it was "to live and let die"? like the song...

anyways, my granda greets me with........"here comes the heretic" i swear!!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> maybe ask yourself if that's actually the case with most religions then your question will be answered. Start with gay marriage.


I'm fine with gay unions. But it ain't a real marriage unless it's one man and one woman.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Ever heard of live and let live?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg



SINC said:


> I'm fine with gay unions.


Good ol' live and let live attitude...until it comes to something like marriage.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg
> 
> 
> Good ol' live and let live attitude...until it comes to something like marriage.


Exactly. SSM is just plain wrong.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Exactly. SSM is just plain wrong.


So is a belief in God.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> So is a belief in God.


No, one is a harmless belief. The other is an affront to traditional relationships.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> No, one is a harmless belief. The other is an affront to traditional relationships.


No, one is a harmless redefinition of a word. The other is a belief without fact used to oppress others.

How can a belief without fact be harmful?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

gastonbuffet said:


> Sinc, i thought it was "to live and let die"?





guytoronto said:


> Good ol' live and let live attitude....


Live free or die.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> The Kingdom grows. If not this world, I will take over the underworld because, "there are other worlds than these."


i think u meant to quote Milton's Paradise Lost: "Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> I'm fine with gay unions. But it ain't a real marriage unless it's one man and one woman.


having been married to "one woman", let me say that it ain't that "real" either
gay people should be able to choose to be just as miserable as straight people


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Bottom line:

Two men together = abnormal
Two women together = abnormal
One man, one woman together = normal, traditional, been that way for eons, etc.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Bottom line:
> 
> Two men together = abnormal
> Two women together = abnormal
> One man, one woman together = normal, traditional, been that way for eons, etc.



i have offered up this solutions before;

re-write the law books so that marriage no longer appears as a legal definition w.r.t. to property, money, etc.

replace it with union
after all the church marriage is a 2 part ceremony in that the civil union is overseen by clergy, but the paper work is the same

and then "marriage" could be used to define a "union" that took place under the observance of a religious ceremony

i don't think gays need the word "marriage" but just want the same rights and respect as any other couple whose union had been sanctioned by the state

that way churches could forgo "marrying" those they did not wish to allowing them an out and our society could move ahead since we would have eliminated the word marriage from our legal definition


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Two men or two women or ten of them can shack up and play house all they want. I could care less. Its throwing children into the equation without a thought is what I have problems with. We've hastily embarked on one big social experiment with children being the guinea pigs. Marriage, as traditionally defined has been a successful arrangement for raising families for thousands of years, not to mention the only way biologically possible to procreate. Hastily changing the time tested blueprint for raising families to accommodate aspirations of gay adults is a violation of children's rights. Sexually liberal France even agrees.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver makes a good point. It's too easy to set up that charade of "gay loving couple" is better than "abusive hetero couple" therefore we must allow gay adoptions. Have we determined already that "hetero" and "****" are completely interchangeable when raising children and--to quote a Beejism--ensure equal outcomes?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> MacGuiver makes a good point. It's too easy to set up that charade of "gay loving couple" is better than "abusive hetero couple" therefore we must allow gay adoptions. Have we determined already that "hetero" and "****" are completely interchangeable when raising children and--to quote a Beejism--ensure equal outcomes?


One word.

No.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

The three of you are such a treat... sort of an unholy trinity.

You um best give VP Cheney a call and talk to him about his daughter and soon to messed up grandchild according your logic.

NONE of you have brought forth any credible evidence that shows that SSM marriage and children brought up in those situations are any better or worse off than any other children.

I find your attitudes disgusting and reprehensible. Hopefully after tomorrow's motion is put to rest we won't have to here from you on this issue.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> I find your attitudes disgusting and reprehensible. Hopefully after tomorrow's motion is put to rest we won't have to here from you on this issue.


Not to worry there da-jonesy.

We'll be "here" for a long, long while. And if you think the motion tomorrow will change our views, think again.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Not to worry there da-jonesy.
> 
> We'll be "here" for a long, long while. And if you think the motion tomorrow will change our views, think again.


Your views are your own... I just hope tomorrows decision means we won't hear about them anymore.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Your views are your own... I just hope tomorrows decision means we won't hear about them anymore.


Sorry, but as long as government is wrong, you will hear about it.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

If only people with "morals" would get as excited about some real problems in the world. You know, food, shelter, health, education, justice against violence. But those are hard problems that need real time, devotion and love. Or how about issues like child abuse from priests in an "unnatural" circumstance of no sex or marriage. 

So much easier to call something abnormal and feel better about yourself. I'm sure Jesus is proud of you. Please spare us all from these evil homosexual couples trying to adopt kids into a family to turn them into confused murderers and rapist. 

What an embarrassing thread. I don't begrudge anyone who finds the initial cartoon humouros. I understand. 

God, save us from your "followers".


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Two men together = abnormal
> Two women together = abnormal
> One man, one woman together = normal, traditional, been that way for eons, etc.


One person living alone = happy. 

(Don't mind me, I just filed the last of my divorce paperwork.)

I'm amazed at how quickly the topic of this thread shifted.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> If only people with "morals" would get as excited about some real problems in the world. You know, food, shelter, health, education, justice against violence. But those are hard problems that need real time, devotion and love. Or how about issues like child abuse from priests in an "unnatural" circumstance of no sex or marriage.
> 
> So much easier to call something abnormal and feel better about yourself. I'm sure Jesus is proud of you. Please spare us all from these evil homosexual couples trying to adopt kids into a family to turn them into confused murderers and rapist.
> 
> ...


A few points for the record Mr. Mayor:

Your statement: "If only people with "morals" would get as excited about some real problems in the world. You know, food, shelter, health, education, justice against violence."
That justice against violence part is exactly what I have been fighting to overturn for years. Six months house arrest for murder is unacceptable. Glad you agree.

Your statement: "But those are hard problems that need real time, devotion and love. Or how about issues like child abuse from priests in an "unnatural" circumstance of no sex or marriage."
You got that right. Priests in unnatural circumstances are not all that far removed from some marriages today.

Your statement: "So much easier to call something abnormal and feel better about yourself. I'm sure Jesus is proud of you."
There are those posting in this thread who would dispute the very existence of your Jesus and his teachings. And the last time I checked, Jesus or his father did not condone homosexual behaviour.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> Your statement: "So much easier to call something abnormal and feel better about yourself. I'm sure Jesus is proud of you."
> There are those posting in this thread who would dispute the very existence of your Jesus and his teachings. And the last time I checked, Jesus or his father did not condone homosexual behaviour.


I don't claim owneship of Jesus or his teachings, I consider myself a follower. I appreciate my freedom in Canada to have my nutty beliefs, and I appreciate every Canadian's freedom to not hold the same beliefs and convictions as me. (I made joke earlier, that in terms of prostlyzing, or however the hell you spell it, I often hear more from atheists than believers on ehMac.ca) At this point, I wish all camps would shut up and talk about computers.  

I'm not going to get into Bible quoting... just yet, but I've read it a lot, and I've read a lot about what I think I'm asked to do on this earth, and none of it has inclined me to speak against gay people living out normal lives like we all do. 

Anyways, I making my own skin crawl now. I'm outta this thread. Please PM me if it turns nasty.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> If only people with "morals" would get as excited about some real problems in the world. You know, food, shelter, health, education, justice against violence. But those are hard problems that need real time, devotion and love.


Mr. Mayor, this reply isn't aimed at you, your post was just good feeder material for it.  

Most people at most churches I have attended focus on those things, however, the media doesn't report it (church people helping the suffering isn't really news).

I'm not saying the media is biased, it just isn't newsworthy because it happens everyday.

The problem, in my experience, is that some people who read the headlines but don't attend a church from time to time, might start developing the perception that this is all, or at least primarily, what we are about.

To give some perspective, I have been attending a large evangelical church (in Calgary no less) for 13 years and things like homosexuality and the ssm issue only come up about once every two years during a sermon addressing the larger issue of sexual morality in general. I've never been to a Bible study on the issue.

The rest of the time we are talking about other things and trying to figure out how best to fulfill The Great Commandment and The Great Commission in today's society.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i think u meant to quote Milton's Paradise Lost: "Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven"


Good quote, but nope, it is important to note more than two options. Thus "other worlds". I just know which one I'm going to.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Bottom line:
> 
> Two men together = abnormal
> Two women together = abnormal
> One man, one woman together = normal, traditional, been that way for eons, etc.


Left-handed people = abnormal
Physically Impaired = abnormal
Homeless = abnormal
Mentally Retarded = abnormal

Let's discriminate against them all! SINC! The beacon of Christian (in)tolerance!

"Hi, I'm a Christ follower" "And I'm a Christian"
http://www.thinkchristian.net/?p=960


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Slavery was around for eons ( BTW you're very wrong on eons and monogamous couples as the norm). You could at least use the time frames properly. Humans haven't been around for eons.

About the only claim on that term might be the meta-verse and that's arguable since the universe is measurable.

Discrimination against Jews for millenia. Against blacks for centuries. Multiple wives, women as chattel, children as labour the list of regressive actions on minorities and the powerless is far too long. Hell while we're at it let's repeal their voting franchise as well, maybe throw women in with that as well....keep that clock rolling backwards.

"Tradition" and longevity in no way lends credence to your argument especially when it comes to rights under the law. Most thought the world flat for millennia.

Are you placing yourself in that august group of dinosaurs? 'Twould appear so.

I simply do not understand why given the uproar that everyone not simply push the gov to get rid of the term and put everyone under a familial union term as far as legal status goes and leave marriage to whatever notion people want....like art....eye of the beholder.

••

Beej - t'other place the compost realm perchance. 
Once around, make the best of it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> You got that right. Priests in unnatural circumstances are not all that far removed from some marriages today.


OMG. You just compared homosexuality to pedophilia. 

Ignorance thy name is Sinc.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> OMG. You just compared homosexuality to pedophilia.
> 
> Ignorance thy name is Sinc.


"priests in an "unnatural" circumstance of no sex or marriage."

Ignorance has many names.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> "priests in an "unnatural" circumstance of no sex or marriage."


If you are referencing the Catholic churches stand on celebacy... I absolutely agree that it is unnatural.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Hastily?

Clearly you have never met a gay couple, or their children. They are far more civilized, and in any event far more _tolerant_, loving and giving, than anybody around here.

As well, that has NOT been the definition of marriage for centuries. In fact, until the late 19th century, there wasn't even a conception of "homosexuality."






MacGuiver said:


> Two men or two women or ten of them can shack up and play house all they want. I could care less. Its throwing children into the equation without a thought is what I have problems with. We've hastily embarked on one big social experiment with children being the guinea pigs. Marriage, as traditionally defined has been a successful arrangement for raising families for thousands of years, not to mention the only way biologically possible to procreate. Hastily changing the time tested blueprint for raising families to accommodate aspirations of gay adults is a violation of children's rights. Sexually liberal France even agrees.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I believe you mean "*deacon*."



guytoronto said:


> Left-handed people = abnormal
> Physically Impaired = abnormal
> Homeless = abnormal
> Mentally Retarded = abnormal
> ...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> NONE of you have brought forth any credible evidence that shows that SSM marriage and children brought up in those situations are any better or worse off than any other children.


Shouldn't the onus be on you to demonstrate its healthy for children to be raised in those relationships? Heck you can't even install a culvert in a ditch these days without a full environmental impact study. Shouldn't we have afforded the same to children before we embarked on this social experiment?



da_jonesy said:


> I find your attitudes disgusting and reprehensible. Hopefully after tomorrow's motion is put to rest we won't have to here from you on this issue.


Like SINC, whatever the outcome today, it won't change my mind. As for putting the issue to rest, I don't recall gay marriage proponents going silent after the vote in 99 where the traditional definition of marriage was voted to be upheld in parliament. I don't imagine opposition will disappear either after this.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Trainman (Oct 2, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as an Agnostic with no beliefs or disbeliefs in particular, we are the truly irreligious. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is no less legitimate to me than the Judeo-Christian deity, and it makes a nice side dish.


I couldn't agree more, I was raised Catholic, became an atheist in my early adult life and now I've come to realize that I'm actually agnostic... I don't know but my impression that atheism seems to have become much more "militant" might have something to do with my new found belief (or lack of) I somehow don't need to deny someones beliefs in order to justify my own.

cheers!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Shouldn't the onus be on you to demonstrate its healthy for children to be raised in those relationships? Heck you can't even install a culvert in a ditch these days without a full environmental impact study. Shouldn't we have afforded the same to children before we embarked on this social experiment?


Do you really want to go down this path? Let's ignore the whole thing for a minute, and just look at our current situation.

We have a mother throwing a 2yo child off a 401 overpass before committing suicide herself.

We have CAS reporting situations of children being locked in cages.

We have kids starved to death by deliquent guardians.

If you are truly concerned about the welfare of children, are you willing to only allow those who are "licensed" to have or raise kids? The Human Society doesn't allow everyone who wants a pet to have one. Why should our society let anyone have a child?

It's a dangerous way of thinking.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Do you really want to go down this path? Let's ignore the whole thing for a minute, and just look at our current situation.
> 
> We have a mother throwing a 2yo child off a 401 overpass before committing suicide herself.
> 
> ...


Agreed, and lets not forget the mother putting her baby in the microwave, or the parents of that baby who became drunk (4x the legal ADULT limit) after the father put vodka in his bottle and the mother feeding it to the baby. The point is, just because the child has a mother and a father doesn't mean he or she will grow up in a loving household and be safe from abuse. Why not give same-sex couples a shot? Could they really do any worse than those examples above? Certainly not, and I would wager that the child would grow up to be more tolerant and accepting, too.

Trev


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

Trainman said:


> I couldn't agree more, I was raised Catholic, became an atheist in my early adult life and now I've come to realize that I'm actually agnostic... I don't know but my impression that atheism seems to have become much more "militant" might have something to do with my new found belief (or lack of) I somehow don't need to deny someones beliefs in order to justify my own.
> 
> cheers!


I find Kevin Smith's Dogma summed up many of my thoughts on religion pretty well. 



> BETHANY
> Having beliefs isn't good?
> RUFUS
> I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant. That was one thing the Man hated - still life. He wanted everyone to be as enthralled with living as He was. Maybe it had something to do with knowing when He was going to die. but Christ had this
> ...


People get so hung up on their beliefs that it clouds all other ideas. Religion in many way is built to be rigid, with a right or wrong answer. It seems most religions have a credo of "I'm right, so by extension of that, you are wrong if you don't believe the same". There isn't much flexibility to the ideas. The problem is that many of the concepts are founded on a 2000+ year old infrastructure. Societies change and grow. Trying to apply old teachings to new criteria is like trying to install Windows Vista on a Commodore 64. Vista goes well beyond what the C64 was meant to handle, so it quite obviously won't work. Trying to apply a belief structure from 2000 years ago to modern issues will give you pretty much the same result.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Shouldn't the onus be on you to demonstrate its healthy for children to be raised in those relationships? Heck you can't even install a culvert in a ditch these days without a full environmental impact study. Shouldn't we have afforded the same to children before we embarked on this social experiment?


That is a specious argument. By your logic then we need to investigate anyone who wants to raise a child as a single parent, or anyone who wants to raise a child in a interracial marriage or an interfaith wedding.



MacGuiver said:


> Like SINC, whatever the outcome today, it won't change my mind. As for putting the issue to rest, I don't recall gay marriage proponents going silent after the vote in 99 where the traditional definition of marriage was voted to be upheld in parliament. I don't imagine opposition will disappear either after this.


Yeah but there is a definite difference in what we are talking about. SSM is a right as defended by the Charter... so of course gays and lesbians (as well as some of us heterosexuals) will fight for it. Opponents to SSM aren't defending any rights are they because unless you participate in a SSM you aren't affected by it are you (other than offending your sensibilities).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Opponents to SSM aren't defending any rights are they because unless you participate in a SSM you aren't affected by it are you (other than offending your sensibilities).


Finally an admission of what it is all about. 

Yes, it is offensive to opponents and always will be.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

modsuperstar said:


> Trying to apply old teachings to new criteria is like trying to install Windows Vista on a Commodore 64.


Most appropriate analogy ever.  

Good post in general, particularly the quotes from Dogma.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm just about ready for a few thoughts on raising children in the brave new era of gay global warming. I have noticed an increase in mean global temperature that coincides with acceptance of homosexual parenting.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Finally an admission of what it is all about.
> 
> Yes, it is offensive to opponents and always will be.


And so because you find it offensive, you will deny some else their basic human rights? What does that make you?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

As long as you promise to mercifully confine your gay global warming theories to a single thread, I personally have no problem with your exploring such delusions.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/12/wanted-free-vote-on-gay-marriage.php

...........................
Putting the matter to a truly free vote would send an important signal: that the 40% or so of my fellow Canadians who do not feel the same way as I and my liberal friends do about gay marriage are not pariahs or bigots, but on the whole are decent people with legitimate concerns that are entitled to be represented in Parliament.

Rewriting the marriage laws to include homosexual unions is a radical social experiment, one that only a handful of countries have been willing to embark upon until now. It is a step we should take, in my view, not simply because we are required to by the Charter, but as a positive gesture of respect for gays and lesbians, a sign of their acceptance by mainstream society. But we owe as much respect to people of goodwill who worry where it will all lead. We owe them a free vote.
...........................


I don't agree with some of the analysis in the column, but some key points are raised that I do agree with, underlined above.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> the 40% or so of my fellow Canadians who do not feel the same way as I and my liberal friends do about gay marriage are not pariahs or bigots, but on the whole are decent people with legitimate concerns that are entitled to be represented in Parliament.


Interesting argument, however I disagree with the use of "legitimate concerns" without further explanation. I for one would love to hear an *actual* legitimate concern.

For example... "Canada's declining population growth rate means that we should be having more babies to increase our growth rate. SSM removes viable candidates for having children from the pool of fertile citizens."

Sounds goofy, but that is certainly more of a viable argument than... "It offends me" or "because Leviticus says its bad".


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, how free is a free vote when its expenses are shouldered by the Canadian taxpayer?

Aside from that, two mild objections:

One, I hope this is not a sign of Canadians having a 'free vote' every time we disagree about something. I mean, we might as well fire the government and take up spears. I sure hope we don't devolve into a nation of indignantly grunting oafs who require national plebiscites to agree on the best way to tie our collectively Canadian shoes.

Two, this name-calling that Coyne speaks of (i.e. liberals intolerantly calling intolerant conservatives bigots if they don't approve of SSM) will hardly cease upon the occasion of a national vote. Who does he think he's kidding? What a lame excuse.

That said, I have no problem with allowing the vote. Harper promised it to his supporters some time ago, so I see a shred of nobility to that (well, OK - prudent face-saving). After all, we've wasted money on many other things, so why not go for a 'free' vote on SSM?

And after that, having resolved nothing, we can move on to engage in fresh insults and intolerant bashings of the intolerant. Voltaire would enjoy this business.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> And after that, having resolved nothing, we can move on to engage in fresh insults and intolerant bashings of the intolerant. Voltaire would enjoy this business.


Yes, the business of Canada!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Do you really want to go down this path? Let's ignore the whole thing for a minute, and just look at our current situation.
> 
> We have a mother throwing a 2yo child off a 401 overpass before committing suicide herself.
> 
> ...


Buy your same logic, the lake is polluted so what's a few hundred barrel of an unknown substance going to hurt? Its already polluted. How bad can it be? Oh and kids, jump in, the waters great!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Yes, the business of Canada!" The business of Canada is business, at least for large corporations.

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto Beej the things which are Beej's.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Buy your same logic, the lake is polluted so what's a few hundred barrel of an unknown substance going to hurt? Its already polluted. How bad can it be? Oh and kids, jump in, the waters great!


Not by the same logic.

The same logic would be Company A is polluting the lake, Company B wants to dump as well, and the government says no to Company B, but lets Company A keep on dumping.

It's called a double-standard. We shouldn't have double-standards when it comes to human rights.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

An interesting dynamic in this thread is that although SINC, MacFury and I have argued against gay marriage with arguments that not once mentioned religion, proponents continue to insist our arguments are religious ones (Of course in Canuckistan, opinions of people of faith are automatically invalid). Care to point out the scripture verses we've been quoting? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I just found this thread and skimmed it. There are a few postings that I feel compelled to comment or otherwise respond to, but I'll try to do it all in on posting (sorry if I botch the quoting)



kwmike said:


> If you ever have a doubt about the existance of a Higher Power, try this. Decide not to breathe for 5 minutes, you can't do it because it is not your choice.


Uh...so the existence of an autonomic nervous system is proof of the supernatural? This is new to me. I've studied philosophy fairly extensively, and seen several takes on the evidence (or lack thereof) for a supernatural deity, but I've never seen anything like this one. Could you elaborate on your reasoning here, because you've totally lost me.



MissGulch said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as an Agnostic with no beliefs or disbeliefs in particular, we are the truly irreligious.


In common usage, you're right, but in philosophy, the terms Atheist and Agnostic are used more precisely: 'Gnosis' is generally used in reference to 'knowledge [of or regarding gods]', so Agnosis is lack of any such knowledge. 'Theism' refers to beliefs about gods (e.g. polytheism is a belief system with many gods, monotheism is a belief system with one god, atheism is a belief system with no gods).

By these more precise definitions, all rational agnostics are also atheists (because, a rational agent does not form beliefs without knowledge). However, it is at least logically possible to be a gnostic atheist (i.e. one who claims to know that there are no gods). This position is generally referred to as 'hard atheism.' I've never met anyone who takes this position, but almost all scientists and philosophers I know are, whether they know it or not, agnostic atheists (a.k.a. soft atheists - those who claim no knowledge regarding the existence or non-existence of gods, and therefore have no beliefs regarding them). I certainly categorize myself with this latter position.



Macfury said:


> I think the religious might also include people who promote certain scientific and social theories to excess


In general, I think we can agree that the term 'religion' refers to beliefs or behaviours motivated by beliefs in supernatural phenomena or entities. However, it is perfectly valid to say that some of us promote our ideas or beliefs with 'almost religious fervour' despite the empirical basis of these beliefs.



SINC said:


> I am appalled by the treatment that non believers give those who do.


Having lived my whole life in a society which is vastly dominated by religious adherents, and having suffered some rather unpleasant persecution for my lack of religious convictions, I'd have to disagree. Furthermore, while it may be true that some atheists have taken the religious adherents to task regarding their irrational and often hypocritical behaviour (note, while many, even most religious adherents may behave acceptably under most circumstances, it cannot be denied that much unacceptable and hypocritical behaviour is exhibited by some religious individuals), atheists make no claims of having a patent on the 'TRUTH'(tm), or that everyone must follow our belief system or be damned, so by promoting their given religion, the adherents are inherently in the philosophical position of the proponent of an argument and therefore subject to rational criticism.

Finally, I would point out that you don't see atheist scientists crashing their microscopes into buildings, or rounding up believers and imprisoning them, so It's hardly the agnostics and atheists of the world who are culpable.



> Two men together = abnormal
> Two women together = abnormal
> One man, one woman together = normal, traditional, been that way for eons, etc.


For someone who obviously knows so little about human sexual behaviour (there is no such thing as 'normal'... everyone is different), you seem awfully keen on inflicting your personal sexuality on everyone else. I'm sure you'll be comforted to know that your particular kink is quite common (but not normal). However, you should know that trying to make everyone else fit into your particular perversion is not polite.



MacGuiver said:


> Its throwing children into the equation without a thought is what I have problems with.


Me too! I really don't think heterosexual couple should be allowed to have children until they can prove that they'll be good parents.

Do you see how ridiculous this is?



> not to mention the only way biologically possible to procreate


Here's someone else who doesn't know much biology.



MacFury said:


> Have we determined already that "hetero" and "****" are completely interchangeable when raising children and--to quote a Beejism--ensure equal outcomes?


Have we determined that heterosexual couple A and heterosexual couple B are completely interchangeable and will ensure equal outcomes? What a ridiculous idea.

If that were the criteria, no one would ever be allowed to adopt.



MacGuiver said:


> Shouldn't the onus be on you to demonstrate its healthy for children to be raised in those relationships?


How could that possibly be done if people in 'those' relationships weren't allowed to raise children? The onus is exactly the opposite. As the proponent of the idea that certain identifiable minorities should not be allowed to raise children, the onus is most certainly on you to provide evidence of your claim. And as such an extraordinary claim, the evidence you need to provide will also have to be extraordinary.

I would also argue that the nature of your claim is pretty clear and unequivocal evidence of your bigotry and intolerance towards 'those' people. Perhaps it's time for you to do some 'soul searching' to see where these irrational and intolerant attitudes come from.

cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> An interesting dynamic in this thread is that although SINC, MacFury and I have argued against gay marriage with arguments that not once mentioned religion, proponents continue to insist our arguments are religious ones (Of course in Canuckistan, opinions of people of faith are automatically invalid). Care to point out the scripture verses we've been quoting?


I only wish you of the unholy trinity would use that in arguments... But you'll note on my last post that the argument of "it offends me" isn't exactly defensible now is it?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> An interesting dynamic in this thread is that although SINC, MacFury and I have argued against gay marriage with arguments that not once mentioned religion, proponents continue to insist our arguments are religious ones


I must've missed this one... I'm simply pointing out that your arguments are irrational, intolerant, bigoted, or otherwise invalid. If they are based on your religion, that's simply another reason they're invalid, but I hadn't noticed that they were.

I have noticed that adherents of your particular religion are prone to certain errors of logic (false dichotomies being the most common), which leads you to certain kinds of silly arguments like "because this is the way we've raised children in the past, you can't raise children any other way."

It also seem to me that you're prone to a persecution complex... you're a member of one of the most powerful and well-funded social movements in the world, and yet you feel like you're being persecuted by the tiny percentage of atheists who don't accept you beliefs without evidence.

I think this very analogous to the Windows/Mac debate... almost everyone uses windows, and they happily accept it's flaws, but when some Mac user comes along and says 'why do you do it like that... this way seems much more logical' they get all defensive and accuse the Mac users of being cultists or zealots.

Maybe it's because, like the Windows/Mac thing, despite the fact that the 'marketshare' still strongly favours religion, more and more people are finally starting to see that they don't need religion, and getting on with dealing with reality in a more effective, rational way.

Just a thought.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

I have known many gay and lesbian couples raising children, and guess what? For the most part the children come out as very open minded and loving people, not as prone to adhering to pear pressure. Sometimes the teenagers act up giving attitude and some of the children have temper tantrums. I'm sure _this_ would certainly give good reason to withdraw their rights to have children.... Not.

The difference between "hetros" and gays having children, gays and lesbians have no choice but to think long and hard whether it's a good idea or not. They consider if their current situation, their financial and the relationship itself, is healthy and stable. They basically ask, is this a positive atmosphere to raise a child in? There are no accidental pregnancies, no pressure from would be grandparents, it is well thought out with the one desire to to bring a life into a loving an wonderful world. This is something some straight couples have only recently started doing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

When we learn to manufacture children, things will be much easier. Then individuals, couples and other groupings could apply, be tested and, if successful, be granted approval to maintain and operate the product. There would also be associated responsibilities, but a boiler-plate contract would not be hard to develop. A brave new world.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

singingcrow said:


> The difference between "hetros" and gays having children, gays and lesbians have no choice but to think long and hard whether it's a good idea or not. They consider if their current situation, their financial and the relationship itself, is healthy and stable. They basically ask, is this a positive atmosphere to raise a child in? There are no accidental pregnancies, no pressure from would be grandparents, it is well thought out with the one desire to to bring a life into a loving an wonderful world. This is something some straight couples have only recently started doing.


Very nice point. I've often argued that one of the fundamental problems with traditional families is that having children is a default state. I think the world would be a much better place if you couldn't have children unless you went to some rather significant trouble to do so, and even then, were successful much less frequently.

The last thing this planet needs is more humans.

Cheers


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Very nice point. I've often argued that one of the fundamental problems with traditional families is that having children is a default state. I think the world would be a much better place if you couldn't have children unless you went to some rather significant trouble to do so, and even then, were successful much less frequently.
> 
> The last thing this planet needs is more humans.
> 
> Cheers


If you pay attention, evolution or biology or something is already taking care of this. Look at how many couples are "trying to have a baby" these days.

...maybe it's God.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I wonder if the intollerants think gays should have their children taken away. I've known many gay couples with children. Gays have been having kids for a long time. Well do you?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> you're a member of one of the most powerful and well-funded social movements in the world,


- not to mention the institutions of the movement are unduely privileged by way of tax exemptions.

Too many in the movement are challenging fundamental rights in a secular, complex society attempting to interfere in education and the rights of others and no doubt would interfere in libraries and how text books are written to promote a single, very flawed, worldview based not on reason but on a mishmash of writings and traditions and "because I say so" dogma.

WHEN we hear and see tolerance, celebration of diversity and social differences then perhaps religion as "belief without proof" might be tolerated better. 

We teach our kids history and to reason with logic and math and science and mark their grades on cogent thought, well expressed, the accuracy of their calculations and to respect the rights of others in a democratic society.

Then toss all those principles out and say well religion isn't supposed to subject to the same conditons.
Women and men are equal .....except in this or that religion.
It's not okay to be intolerant except if your religion says gays are "bad"
You should question authority and stand up for your rights...except if religion says "do this" - you do it without question...why....don't ask...see here....no reason.

I just wonder how fast it would all go away if religion and booze had the same restrictions.

How many young people come freely to religion by choice rather than upbringing - why do the evangelicals target the young.

To practice knowledge to the point where you are a doctor, or scientist or engineer where the fate of others lives hangs on reason and logic takes years to meet the standards of the profession and there is careful oversight to protect.

Where is that rigour in "belief" - why are kids taught one thing in school and the antithesis when is comes to religion....drop everything you learned and just beleive. 

Gambling addicts beleive too.......


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/news2/2006/12/conservatives_p.html


> Right wing pissed over Cheney pregnancy
> December 6, 2006 2:26 PM | Bush Leagues
> By DAVID CRARY
> Conservative leaders voiced dismay Wednesday at news that Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Dick Cheney, is pregnant, while a gay-rights group said the vice president faces "a lifetime of sleepless nights" for serving in an administration that has opposed recognition of same-sex couples.
> ...



Comments?

I'll start.
Much as I despise Dick and Mary Cheney (Dick for being a despot and a lier, Mary for being a hypocrite and gutless human) Mary has every right to have children and those who oppose it are myopic bigots. 

I particularly love the "love can't replace a father" crap from the "family values" woman. I wonder what skeletons she has in her closet?


----------



## kwmike (Oct 25, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Ok, sorry, no offense dude, but this is messed up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will pray for you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Intolerance itself is not so simple a concept. We are intolerant of others when they don't deserve to be tolerated. We don't tolerate child abuse, although certain child abusers would like the general public to normalize their activities, pointing to successful outcomes or, at worst, no harmful outcomes from having consensual sex with children.

We can't talk about tolerance in the absence of judgement. People might say that Christians are supposed to be tolerant. This is hogwash. They are never instructed to tolerate that which they believe is wrong.

On the other hand, some of the worst cases of intolerance I have seen recently are here at EhMac, when members spouting scientfic dogma become angry because others aren't convinced by their very excellent arguments. No other possible interpretations exist. They can't be wrong. Shut up and let us preach to the choir.

Go figure.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

kwmike said:


> I will pray for you.


That is offensive.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> That is offensive.


:lmao: 

Good one! It concisely highlights the problem of being offended by someone doing their own thing but not stopping you from doing your own thing. Obviously there's nothing wrong with someone praying for another (unless, perhaps, they're driving at the time).


----------



## kwmike (Oct 25, 2006)

I read this thread, and it makes me smile, I realize just how much I have grown. I don't even get worked up reading some of the trash here. Serenity is mine.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ahh, Grasshopper, but if you were truly serene, there would be no need to claim serenity.

_When you can snatch the pebble from my hand..._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> Dick and Mary Cheney


Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter. Mary chooses to have a child. Dick Cheney does not support gay marriage. He likes his grandkids. Mary supports her dad and the Republican party. She may or may not support gay marriage. If she supports gay marriage, she considers her support for her father and the Republican party as more important than her support for gay marriage at this time.

Where is the hypocrisy?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Good one! It concisely highlights the problem of being offended by someone doing their own thing but not stopping you from doing your own thing. Obviously there's nothing wrong with someone praying for another (unless, perhaps, they're driving at the time).


Oh really?
Did you read about this?:
http://www.physorg.com/news63551345.html


> Prayers don't help heart surgery patients; Some fare worse when prayed for
> 
> 
> Many - if not most people - believe that prayer will help you through a medical crisis such as heart bypass surgery. If a large group of people outside yourself, your family, and your friends joined in intercessory prayer, that should be even more helpful, so such reasoning goes.
> ...


People do worse when prayed for.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter. Mary chooses to have a child. Dick Cheney does not support gay marriage. He likes his grandkids. Mary supports her dad and the Republican party. She may or may not support gay marriage. If she supports gay marriage, she considers her support for her father and the Republican party as more important than her support for gay marriage at this time.
> 
> Where is the hypocrisy?


 
talk about blind!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> People do worse when prayed for.


Are you afraid that you will become ill?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Oh really?
> ......
> People do worse when prayed for.


I thought you were making a clever joke. You weren't, apparently. 

Are you actually offended if someone prays for you?

And, if so, should anyone care about that?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

kwmike said:


> I will pray for you.


Not one single question answered. Is this indicative of faith? When you don't have answers, just ignore the questions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Not one single question answered. Is this indicative of faith? When you don't have answers, just ignore the questions.


One thing about having faith, you don't have to answer the questions of those who indignantly purport to know different.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> I thought you were making a clever joke. You weren't, apparently.
> 
> Are you actually offended if someone prays for you?
> 
> And, if so, should anyone care about that?


I was joking and the article was an expansion of that.
That said it IS offensive. Why? Let me just illustrate with an example.
Say for the sake of argument I am a Pagan. I love to talk about my faith and share it with others. In so doing a I come across a born again Christian. I explain to him how I love my Gods Dionysus, Aphrodite, etc.
The Christian tells me that worship of multiple gods is a sin. I reply that I will light several stick of incense on the alter of my Gods and pray to them to "help" my sinning Christian "brother". How do you think the born again Christian will feel about this?
Most I've met would be horrified to think that someone would be doing this in their name.
Another example is the reaction I've seen to the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead.

Praying for a non believer is just a way to push you religion on others.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> One thing about having faith, you don't have to answer the questions of those who indignantly purport to know different.


All I've seen is people using faith as a reason not to answer questions.

But I guess God is to some adults what Santa Claus is to kids.

That big, mysterious, eye-in-the-sky, watching over us making sure we are good.

Most people outgrow the belief in something that silly. Some don't.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Most people outgrow the belief in something that silly. Some don't.


I wish that were true but the ranks of the true believers outweigh the ranks of the non-believers.
:-(


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Most people outgrow the belief in something that silly. Some don't.


While many of us have done so, it still does not excuse the intolerance shown in this thread toward those who believe. It makes those who belittle belief the worst bigots of all.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

martman said:


> People do worse when prayed for.


If this were true (and I have no reason to believe it is) it would actually be evidence that prayer has some sort of effect (apart from the psychological effect we know it has on the individual doing the praying).

Of course, the evidence for the power of prayer is no better than the evidence for astrology, or yogic flying.

cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> That said it IS offensive. Why? Let me just illustrate with an example.
> Say for the sake of argument I am a Pagan. I love to talk about my faith and share it with others. In so doing a I come across a born again Christian. I explain to him how I love my Gods Dionysus, Aphrodite, etc.
> The Christian tells me that worship of multiple gods is a sin. I reply that I will light several stick of incense on the alter of my Gods and pray to them to "help" my sinning Christian "brother". How do you think the born again Christian will feel about this?
> Most I've met would be horrified to think that someone would be doing this in their name.
> ...


So it can be offensive to particularly dogmatic individuals of various religions. Not surprising. Cats offend some people.
...........................
No, the act of prayer is one's own. Telling a non believer to pray is pushing religion. You may feel pushed or offended but, if that's actually the case, I think you'd show more empathy and manners towards others who feel offended or feel like non belief is being pushed on them in the SSM debate.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> And, if so, should anyone care about that?


This is a good question. 
I guess the answer is up to the person who is proselytizing.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

When those of faith try to infringe upon the freedoms of others, we should not tolerate it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> ... scientfic dogma ....


I nominate this phrase as oxymoron of the year.

cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> Most I've met would be horrified to think that someone would be doing this in their name.


OK, so you are horrified because you are a pagan?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> like non belief is being pushed on them in the SSM debate.


Maybe it is but not by me. I may advocate non-belief but I am not pushing it.
I'll stand up for anyone's right to practice a religion no matter how much I don't believe in it so long as they are not pushing its mores on others.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> oxymoron


It really isn't. I suggest you read Robert Shapiro's "Origins: A skeptic's guide to the creation of life on Earth," for more detail on the fascinating world of scientific dogma.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> OK, so you are horrified because you are a pagan?


 I am an Athiest. I said:


martman said:


> Say for the sake of argument I am a Pagan.


Am I horrified? No.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> While many of us have done so, it still does not excuse the intolerance shown in this thread toward those who believe. It makes those who belittle belief the worst bigots of all.


Actually, bigots are bigots. Doesn't matter what stripe.

Dot's de vay I see it, anyvay.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Maybe it is but not by me. I may advocate non-belief but I am not pushing it.
> I'll stand up for anyones right to practice a religion no matter how much I don't believe in it so long as they are not pushing its mores on others.


Then why do you push so hard to try and change the beliefs of those who hold different views from your own?

Are you not practicing the very thing you detest in others?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> I am an Athiest.


So as an atheist you are offended when anyone says they will pray for you, in the same way as a hypothetical Christian would be offended if prayed for by a hypothetical Pagan?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Then why do you push so hard to try and change the beliefs of those who hold different views from your own?
> 
> Are you not practicing the very thing you detest in others?


The only thing I'm trying to change is that some people are excusing bigotry with tired religious arguments. Bigotry is wrong. Period!
Show me where Jesus says gays can't get married. It's not even in the bible. The religious argument is a red herring used to back up bigotry and doesn't even have a basis in dogma.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So as an atheist you are offended when anyone says they will pray for you, in the same way as a hypothetical Christian would be offended if prayed for by a hypothetical Pagan?


yep
exactly!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> yep
> exactly!


Now you're joking, right?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> The only thing I'm trying to change is that some people are excusing bigotry with tired religious arguments. Bigotry is wrong. Period!
> Show me where Jesus says gays can't get married. It's not even in the bible. The religious argument is a red herring used to back up bigotry and doesn't even have a basis in dogma.


I have never used religion in my objection to gay marriage, yet many pummel me for that view. The view is simply that I personally do not agree with the definition of the word marriage being anything other than between one man and one woman.

No dogma, no red herring, no religion. Just an opinion.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It really isn't. I suggest you read Robert Shapiro's "Origins: A skeptic's guide to the creation of life on Earth," for more detail on the fascinating world of scientific dogma.


I haven't read the book, so I can't address Shapiro's case directly, but the scientific process is logically incompatible with dogmatism. That is not to say that some scientists aren't dogmatic... I've met many who are. However there are no 'unquestionable truths' in science, and overturning well-estabilished paradigms is the best way to advance one's career in science, so I the notion of a 'scientific dogma' is something I see as self-contradictory.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: Shapiro talks about many different theories of evolution and how adherents of each branch seem to refuse to talk to each other. What he had originally perceived to be a wonderful exchange of ideas turned into an observation of dogmatists unwilling to listen to others and uninterested in opposing theories. He describes a conference in which his questions about the validity of research were shouted down by angry adherents.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> And, if so, should anyone care about that?


Less so than if *someone else* marries some one of the same gender?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I have never used religion in my objection to gay marriage, yet many pummel me for that view. The view is simply that I personally do not agree with the definition of the word marriage being anything other than between one man and one woman.
> 
> No dogma, no red herring, no religion. Just an opinion.


Thankfully just because someone has an opinion doesn't make it true. 

If by your own words _"I personally do not agree with the definition of the word marriage being anything other than between one man and one woman"_ is in fact the case... then why are you not waging war on Webster's and all the other dictionary publishers for clearly understanding that "marriage" has a *MUCH* wider definition than you can comprehend?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/vote-samesex.html

This was over before and is "more" over now.

More MPs voted against the new motion than for the change in the first place. 

Fewer MPs voted for the new motion than against the change in the first place.

I'd rather see them debate new seat cushions in the committee rooms (quite uncomfortable for the audience) than talk about this anymore.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Shapiro talks about many different theories of evolution and how adherents of each branch seem to refuse to talk to each other.


I understand. And I agree that this may be an example of _scientists_ behaving dogmatically, but that is no more scientific dogmatism, than an example of a religious adherent behaving rationally would be an example of religious rationalism. People, whether scientifically trained or not, can be irrational, unreasonable and dogmatic, but the scientific process is incompatible with dogma, because all theories are ultimately tested by their ability to predict empirical observations.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/vote-samesex.html
> 
> This was over before and is "more" over now.


I'd say that this restores some of my confidence in the system, except that it was such a no-brainer issue that no other outcome could seriously be considered.

The fact that 123 MPs voted in favour of this motion (I'd like to see a list of who these idiots were) is proof positive that one does not need a functioning CNS to serve as an MP.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/vote-samesex.html
> 
> This was over before and is "more" over now.
> 
> ...


So the vote was won 175 to 123. that means that 41% of MPs still believe the definition of marriage should be changed and I would be willing to bet about the same percentage of Canadians are still against the definition of marriage as it now stands. That being said, the law is the law, but I don't have to like it any more than I like the Youth Criminal Justice Act or photo radar. 

All three laws need change and I will be one Canadian who will continue to work for that change in all three areas. That of course is my right and I will continue to exercise it.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> So the vote was won 175 to 123. that means that 41% of MPs still believe the definition of marriage should be changed


No. It means 41% of MPS wanted to reopen the debate.




SINC said:


> and I would be willing to bet about the same percentage of Canadians are still against the definition of marriage as it now stands. That being said, the law is the law, but I don't have to like it any more than I like the Youth Criminal Justice Act or photo radar.


You are correct. You don't have to like it.



SINC said:


> All three laws need change and I will be one Canadian who will continue to work for that change in all three areas. That of course is my right and I will continue to exercise it.


I look forward to your idealistic society of homophobia, restrictions on personal rights, children being locked up (heck, go for capital punishment!), and lawless highway carnage.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> That being said, the law is the law, but I don't have to like it any more than I like the Youth Criminal Justice Act or photo radar.
> .......................
> All three laws need change and I will be one Canadian who will continue to work for that change in all three areas. That of course is my right and I will continue to exercise it.


Yep.
.......................
It is your right. Advice: focus on the one that is least like trying to shout at an avalanche for going the wrong way.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> . That being said, the law is the law, but I don't have to like it any more than I like the Youth Criminal Justice Act or photo radar.


This may be true but the law now says and, has now been backed up, that your view is discriminatory.
Men can marry men and women can marry women and those who object are legally bigots. No different than those who don't like inter-racial marriage or don't like other minorities. Hate is hate and Canadian law has made this clear!

:clap: :clap: I love the courts! What champions of justice!
If I believed in God I'd bless them!
:clap: :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So now objection has been legally elevated to hatred and bigotry? What do they teach you kids in school?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

martman said:


> Men can marry men and women can marry women and those who object are legally bigots. No different than those who don't like inter-racial marriage or don't like other minorities. Hate is hate and Canadian law has made this clear!


I wouldn't go that far. It's not illegal to be a bigot (nor should it ever be). This law doesn't do anything for those who hate homosexuals. It only balances fairness among people of all sexual orientations.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The GOAL of science is to move forward with knowledge and thesis and antithesis is a prime mechanism of that.
That is not dogma that is defence of a theory.
It would only become dogmatic if the adherent refuses to acknowledge error in the face of overwhelming evidence.
That's not a flaw of scientific method but a character flaw.

Noisy debates are the source of new insights.

Religion has an inherent problem with change and does not employ scientific method or as far as can be seen ANY method in advancing human knowledge.
Dogmatic free-for-all. What ANYONE proclaims is of equal weight ( read none ) as there is no standard of proof.

If no proof is required then there are no standards to adhere to, no method to follow. It simply relies on which sect has the most appealing meme to the human psyche as there is no other requirement.

Science is rife with lone voices advocating unusual explanations for phenomena that the establishment dismisses initially and eventually it comes to be seen as correct explanation.

It's why evolution, gravity, flight, quantum are all theories. Science inherently questions and demands prood, religion proclaims and demands no proof.

If religions would remain in the realm of metaphysics, ethical and moral suasion ...and they often are a "conscience" of applied sciencs.....and more important were more accepting of change....then the two institutions would serve humanity very well.

Religions serve human nature, birth, death, and the rites around those better than secular institutions do.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> So now objection has been legally elevated to hatred and bigotry? What do they teach you kids in school?


This is a classic tactic. Demonize your opponent. 
It makes for some creative writing though and its quite entertaining to read. :lmao: 

Example:
Al Gore was on Oprah yesterday flogging his new horror movie. A climatologist blew holes in his assertions in a pre-taped rebuttal (I wasn't surprised they wouldn't let him challenge Gore live). Now if Al is wielding the sword of scientific fact and consensus, surely he could easily put this guy straight with hard facts? 
No he didn't. Instead he jumped into character assassination mode. 

We see lots of that tactic used here.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So now objection has been legally elevated to hatred and bigotry? What do they teach you kids in school?


If the shoe fits.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> I wouldn't go that far. It's not illegal to be a bigot (nor should it ever be). This law doesn't do anything for those who hate homosexuals. It only balances fairness among people of all sexual orientations.


I didn't mean that it is illegal to be a bigot just that if you discriminate against gays the law says you are a bigot. However the Ontario human rights code may have more to say on the subject. I haven't studied the issue enough.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> If the shoe fits.


If the shoe fits, but it isn't the person-is-question's shoe, should they still wear it? Sorry, but stretching these sorts cliches is fun.

I will pray for you and pray that you reform your shoe-stealing ways.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Instead he jumped into character assassination mode.
> 
> We see lots of that tactic used here.



Hey I love to assassinate character... But I'm really looking for some adequate explanation of the opposition. Please, I beg someone, anyone to provide some real critique as to why SSM should be banned.

Hurt feelings don't count. Show me (us) how it deprives people of their rights? Show me (us) how it hurts society? 

Stop whining about it... step up to the plate and take a swing.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> This is a classic tactic. Demonize your opponent.
> It makes for some creative writing though and its quite entertaining to read. :lmao:
> 
> Example:
> ...



You mean like people saying gay sex / marriage is "immoral, unnatural, icky, etc"?

No, I know "your side" wouldn't view this as character assassination but I sure view it as such. 
It goes both ways. You want to try and deny people's Charter rights, then you are going to be called a bigot. This is exactly as it should be. Your side lost. Now lose gracefully please. I'm extremely sick of arguing this. This right will never be taken away from them without violence so stop trying to divide and live with it like I have to live with Christmas in November, Easter Monday, and idiots standing on the corner proselytizing. (god I love spellcheck!)


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> I will pray for you and pray that you reform your shoe-stealing ways.


Ok but if I end up with an Imelda Marcos sized shoe collection it will be you and your prayers to blame! (as per above article about negative effects of third party prayer):lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Is it against Charter rights if the notwithstanding clause, which is a part of the Charter, is used?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I suppose it depends how you look at it.
The Notwithstanding Clause does indeed trump the charter but it is defined within the charter. So you tell me which came first the chicken or the egg?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think you need to rephrase that Beej.

Almost by definition "overide" is a breach of the Charter.

The Charter does not have rights people do.
In using the not with standing - it will mean some citizens losing rights protected by the Charter.
Otherwise I cannot think of a reason to use it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> I suppose it depends how you look at it.
> The Notwithstanding Clause does indeed trump the charter but it is defined within the charter. So you tell me which came first the chicken or the egg?


It is not easy and, I think, was a result of our strange federation in that provinces wanted a safety value (e.g. QC 101). 

Still, it seems wise in hindsight. No body of people should ever assume that they can write an infallible document that stands on its own for ever and ever. Canada muddles its way into another genius solution? I have no idea.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> I wouldn't go that far. It's not illegal to be a bigot (nor should it ever be). This law doesn't do anything for those who hate homosexuals. It only balances fairness among people of all sexual orientations.


Wrong, and right, but we're talking about more than one law, then. The promotion and promulgation of hatred, on these grounds, *is* against the law in Canada. This thread actually teeters perilously close to promoting hatred against homosexuals.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Hey I love to assassinate character... But I'm really looking for some adequate explanation of the opposition. Please, I beg someone, anyone to provide some real critique as to why SSM should be banned.
> 
> Hurt feelings don't count. Show me (us) how it deprives people of their rights? Show me (us) how it hurts society?
> 
> Stop whining about it... step up to the plate and take a swing.


Because the Gov't of France thinks it might possibly be damaging to children (yet they offer no evidence of this).

Because I think it is damaging to children (yet I will offer no evidence of this)

God said gays are bad. (please provide NEW Testament quote if you are a Christian)

"IT'S ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE"

It is UNNATURAL! (despite gay sex being documented in some 1200 different animal species)

It's wrong.

It is icky! (like any one would want to watch you and your opposite sex partner copulate, so why do you care whether it is icky or not?)

These are the only reasons I've heard yet and as pointed out even these reasons are almost never backed up with anything (even Bible quotes).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It is important that people don't pick and choose their Charter (that sounds theologically familiar  ). 

The notwithstanding clause is there and it links to section 1:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms: set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.?

So it isn't "violation" when the middle part is opposed, although myself and others may use the word, but it is noteworthy and it does require political justification (notwithstanding) and/or legal. This is not a Bible and should never be treated as one. That treatment would philosophically ruin the purpose of the document.

The "living tree" metaphor is apt. The document, within itself, has escape valves and, furthermore, it can and should be amended as need be. Society must move beyond religious doctrine, not just replace one for another.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

So nice I said it twice.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> So nice I said it twice.


So what is your point as it relates to this discution Beej?
I fail to see why you are bringing this up.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Martman: had to laugh when you spoke of 'gay sex' when speaking of other species. I know you mean well and I agree with your point. It's simply that the expression you used is so hilariously anthropomorphic.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I thought my point was clear. I'm getting the impression that people see the Charter, specifically just the middle part of it, as a tome of objective doctrine. It is not. It is a wise but imperfect document that lives and grows with Canada.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep and it ( the Charter ) has no rights 

This would all go away if the gov of the day had courage or sense enough to use an eraser judiciously.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> I thought my point was clear. I'm getting the impression that people see the Charter, specifically just the middle part of it, as a tome of objective doctrine. It is not. It is a wise but imperfect document that lives and grows with Canada.


Yes, I agree. 
Are you saying that the Charter has some how failed us?
If no then why are you on about notwithstanding? 
Do you think it should be invoked? On this issue? Why?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Max said:


> Martman: had to laugh when you spoke of 'gay sex' when speaking of other species. I know you mean well and I agree with your point. It's simply that the expression you used is so hilariously anthropomorphic.


Glad I could lighten up your day Max!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Wrong, and right, but we're talking about more than one law, then. The promotion and promulgation of hatred, on these grounds, *is* against the law in Canada. This thread actually teeters perilously close to promoting hatred against homosexuals.


Right like I hate my 6 year old child because I don't think he's ready or capable of driving a car. People are sure fast and loose around her with those fantastic buzz words. Give me a break!  

Cheers 
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Right like I hate my 6 year old child because I don't think he's ready or capable of driving a car. People are sure fast and loose around her with those fantastic buzz words.


Good grief, talk about 'fast and loose!' This objection is the most tortured logic I've ever seen. No wonder you can sustain such fantastic beliefs... You remind me of the Electric Monk - a character that could believe 7 mutually exclusive things at the same time (a labour saving device invented by people who found the cognitive dissonance created by their religion tiresome).

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

martman said:


> Your side lost. Now lose gracefully please. I'm extremely sick of arguing this.


Yes, their side lost, so how about we win gracefully, and drop it 

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Good grief, talk about 'fast and loose!' This objection is the most tortured logic I've ever seen. No wonder you can sustain such fantastic beliefs... You remind me of the Electric Monk - a character that could believe 7 mutually exclusive things at the same time (a labour saving device invented by people who found the cognitive dissonance created by their religion tiresome).
> 
> Cheers


Thanks John Wayne!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------

