32: Godless

[wibskey]

I'm sorry, I think I've waded in over my head. I'm not from the US so I don't think I can truly understand the emotions involved in this discussion. Gay marriage has been legal here since 2005, so I just don't think religion affects me in a way that I feel particularly passionate about.

Keep fighting the fight.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by wibskey

My point is that it's like watching a documentary from an obviously biased source. Sure I can look at the information "presented" but what information is dismissed to make his point? As I said, he's obviously biased so I'm sorry if I dismiss him just as I would dismiss a Christian scholar proving that Christ was shooting loaves and fishes out his ass.

Fair point but isn't everyone who believes in their argument biased?

Originally Posted by wibskey

Pardon? Some dude named Jesus started something pretty serious. Myth or real person, Christianity is still a thing.

I was saying that Jesus didn't start Christianity, he believed he was following the Jewish religion. His followers broke off from Judaism to create Christianity. A bit pedantic maybe.

Originally Posted by wibskey

And I get that. My point is that it just doesn't matter. No Christian is going to be convinced based on the investigation of a strict atheist.

Many, many Christians have been converted by the works of strict atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. I hear these stories on a regular bases.

Originally Posted by wibskey

Christ probably called people out on bullshit in his lifetime, so sure. Argue against the message not the man/legend/myth.

That's not how the faith is setup. People believe Jesus was the savior because of the false account of his life. Jesus has a nice message but there are many followers of the Old Testament which has a more brutal message. I'm not trying to argue against a message, I don't care about the message. I'm trying to argue against the belief in a supernatural being. The message is irrelevant to my point.

Originally Posted by wibskey

Thank you. I realize my response was worded harshly but I'm on your side. I just have a general distaste for trying to force beliefs on other people, whether they be atheist, Christian or Pastafarian.

Cheers.

Nah it's cool and good to have another voice. Text on a forum can sometimes take a harsher tone than is meant. We all know that and no one should take offense in this discussion. It's good to see you post again. I just want to make sure you know we great all first time posts with a "fuck you and welcome to the forums."

Originally Posted by wibskey

I can safely say that all all morals are wrong because they are work works of fictions written by humans.

That's a flawed analogy. The Bible and other religious text purports itself to be a factual account of history. It pretends to be the word of a supernatural being. It can not be the word of a supernatural being because it was written and conceived of entirely by humans. That makes it a work of fiction.

The morals humans write are presented at face value. They are a code of conduct we have agreed to as a society. They are an opinion about how best to live as a community. No one is pretending it is anything else. To call it a work of fiction does not make sense.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by wibskey

I'm sorry, I think I've waded in over my head. I'm not from the US so I don't think I can truly understand the emotions involved in this discussion.

You're doing fine. Debate invokes thought and hopefully, rational conversation. Nobody is gonna oust you for expressing your beliefs. Some may disagree but the cool part is it's nothing personal.

Gay marriage has been legal here since 2005, so I just don't think religion affects me in a way that I feel particularly passionate about.

Yeah gay marriage is a different topic, although it obviously overlaps with how much interpretation one takes from the bible or other religious texts.

A general question to everyone - Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the term "marriage" have it's roots from religion itself? It seems like marriage and the opposition to same-sex marriages has become associated with religion.

I don't believe gay marriage should be called marriage for that reason alone. There absolutely should be civil protection between any 2 people regardless of their "physical sex or orientation", but calling that marriage only defeats the cause.

[DJQuad]

For those for same-sex marriages, are you also for polygamy? It's the same reasoning - consenting adults wanting civil union.

(lol I don't believe that, just trying to stir the pot. It's fun )

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

For those for same-sex marriages, are you also for polygamy? It's the same reasoning - consenting adults wanting civil union.

(lol I don't believe that, just trying to stir the pot. It's fun )

Yes. I'm for almost anything consenting adults want to do together. The issue with marriage is a bit more difficult than just decriminalizing. You have to change current laws related to tax, child custody, divorce, etc. to account for multiple partners.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

Yes. I'm for almost anything consenting adults want to do together. The issue with marriage is a bit more difficult than just decriminalizing. You have to change current laws related to tax, child custody, divorce, etc. to account for multiple partners.

I wasn't serious, but you do believe polygamy should be legal?

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

The issue with marriage is a bit more difficult than just decriminalizing. You have to change current laws related to tax, child custody, divorce, etc. to account for multiple partners.

Sorry, I didn't respond to this part directly.

That's why I don't think it should be called marriage and instead be termed as a civil union or something like that. As long as it's not termed "marriage" I think the LGBT community would get a lot further with their human rights. When they use the term marriage it invokes all sorts of opposition from the right-wingers.

Why the community doesn't just approach it from a civil rights point of view is beyond me. Don't call it marriage and we'll get what we deserve.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

I wasn't serious, but you do believe polygamy should be legal?

Sure, why not. Who the hell are we to tell consenting adults they can't do something that has no impact on anyone elses life?

Originally Posted by DJQuad

Sorry, I didn't respond to this part directly.

That's why I don't think it should be called marriage and instead be termed as a civil union or something like that. As long as it's not termed "marriage" I think the LGBT community would get a lot further with their human rights. When they use the term marriage it invokes all sorts of opposition from the right-wingers.

Why the community doesn't just approach it from a civil rights point of view is beyond me. Don't call it marriage and we'll get what we deserve.

Everything, as far as the gov't is concerned, should be a civil union. If you want to be married, go to your church or other spiritual center.

But that won't happen so everything should be called marriage. There should be no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

There should be no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Of course there shouldn't be, but right now, there is.

Until society accepts that there's no distinction, using terms like marriage doesn't do much more than perpetuate the division between both sides.

I think it would be much better to approach it as a civil union, at least for now. That in itself stops the debate about the term marriage which is clouding the minds of the religious-right.

[Scumhook]

here's a twist:

You gotta have faith: the rise of the church of non-believers

EDIT: actually it sounds like what Mike & mates are doing, so not so much a twist, although the Sunday AM thing is a nice touch