| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2005 07:02:22 PM · #226 |
I find it amusing that people think that being agnostic is the same as being an atheist.
My skepticism about there being "One" god that is the creator of all is not the same as saying "God does not exist, period".
It would be foolish to state, as an absolute, that which has not been proven either way to be so.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 19:03:23. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:04:41 PM · #227 |
I see a lot of people answered to that.....
*shaking head*
I just have a hard time believing it....I've met a lot of people in my life and have not ever seen this....meaning happy...met a lot that thought they were happy but everything they did in their lives pointed in a different direction. Denial is very powerful...I should know...I've been there. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:05:11 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I find it amusing that people think that being agnostic is the same as being an atheist.
My skepticism about there being "One" god that is the creator of all is not the same as saying "God does not exist, period".
It would be foolish to state, as an absolute, that which has not been proven either way to be so. |
I know exactly what an agnostic is and what an atheist is, thank you.
Why do you find it "amusing"?
P
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:09:18 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
I know exactly what an agnostic is and what an atheist is, thank you.
Why do you find it "amusing"?
P |
I find it amusing because many people like that have such an air of superiority about them. Like saying you haven't met a "happy agnostic". As if you can only be happy with some focus of faith.
I am spiritual in the sense that I believe that there is some form of existance beyond the here and now, I just don't necessarily believe in a "God" or other such construct. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:10:02 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by colyla:
I see a lot of people answered to that.....
*shaking head*
I just have a hard time believing it....I've met a lot of people in my life and have not ever seen this....meaning happy...met a lot that thought they were happy but everything they did in their lives pointed in a different direction. Denial is very powerful...I should know...I've been there. |
I'm sorry but this reply did make me laugh out loud! Because I do not believe in God I must be in denial!
I don'trealise I am not happy . Sorry, but I am happy, my life is complete, satisfying, loving, even enviable to some. My children are happy, fulfilled, loved and in love and my husband is my soul mate and has been for 35 years.
I also do not need religion.
P
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:11:06 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I find it amusing that people think that being agnostic is the same as being an atheist.
My skepticism about there being "One" god that is the creator of all is not the same as saying "God does not exist, period".
It would be foolish to state, as an absolute, that which has not been proven either way to be so. |
They have similar qualities...IMO. Yes one doesn't believe in God at all....the other is unsure and would like more evidence. They're similar to me...again IMO....not the same...only similar.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:12:47 PM · #232 |
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue
somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I
don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a
lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory
of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be
endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer
before a football game.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there
reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a
God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the
players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country
founded on Christian principles. According to our very
own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others
better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody
chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem,
I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.?
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad,
I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.?
If I went to a ping pong match in China,
I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.?
And I wouldn't be offended.
It wouldn't bother me one bit.
When in Rome.
"But what about the atheists?" is another argument.
What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to
pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If
that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear
plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand.
Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or
two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.
I don't think a short prayer at a football game is
going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other
cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our
parents and grandparents taught us to pray before
eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a
handful of people and their lawyers are telling us
to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you,
well ... just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we
let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard. that the vast majority don't care what they want. It
is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't
have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance;
you don't have to believe in God or attend services that
honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your
right. But by golly, you are no longer going to take our
rights away. We are fighting back ...
and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all, especially those who denounce
Him. God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still
the greatest nation of all.
God bless our service men who are fighting to protect
our right to pray and worship God. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:12:47 PM · #233 |
Edit: never mind
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 19:16:32. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:15:26 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by colyla:
They have similar qualities...IMO. Yes one doesn't believe in God at all....the other is unsure and would like more evidence. They're similar to me...again IMO....not the same...only similar. |
\\
In my opinion, people of faith and atheists have more in common with each other than wither has with agnostics.
As an agnostic, I do not deny the possibility of "God" any more than the non-existence.
Athiests and people of faith both have this sense that they know without any proof. There conclusion is absolute. I find both sides interesting. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:18:31 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I find it amusing because many people like that have such an air of superiority about them. Like saying you haven't met a "happy agnostic". As if you can only be happy with some focus of faith.
I am spiritual in the sense that I believe that there is some form of existance beyond the here and now, I just don't necessarily believe in a "God" or other such construct. |
Can I assume you're implying that I'm presenting an air superiority because of my opinion? Just checking.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 19:21:45. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:24:03 PM · #236 |
Tom
If you have the right to say your prayers, have we not the right to silence? Can you not say your paryers in your head, to yourself? Your God will still hear you, you believe, so why should you infringe others' rights to secular public events?
P
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:25:37 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by colyla:
True. I just think it's sad....that if you don't have some kind of religion/spirituality in your life it's not much of a life. I have yet to meet a truly happy agnostic. :/ |
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:25:59 PM · #238 |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:28:15 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
 |
ROFL!
I have to say...I laugh my silly ass off when I see that gif!!!
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:36:23 PM · #240 |
| It's funny how reality TV Shows in North America like "Who Wants To Marry a Multi-Millionaire!" are able to slip by yet gay marriage is not allowed because it's not considered 'the way marriage is supposed to happen.' |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:40:09 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw |
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.
C. S. Lewis
okay...enough chit-chat have to make dinner!! :)
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 19:40:48. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 07:51:46 PM · #242 |
| Didn't see this decision before this thread - Unbelievable, what else can you say . The sad thing is they believe that they are saving the rest of us..... sure is a lot to cheer about there tonight..... |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 08:00:03 PM · #243 |
Tom-
You are way off base. The United States is not a Christian Country. This country was founded as a refuge from religious persecution. The pilgrims fled because they were not free to choose their religion. This country was created with no state sponsored or approved church. Perhaps the majority of US citizens are Christians but that does not mean that Christians have the right to trample the rights of non-Christians in this country. Jews Muslims, etc have the right to religious freedom in this country which means that they should not be forced to recognize your prayers and beliefs in public places. If you want to pray at sporting events or whatever, then take an hour and say a Buddhist prayer and a muslim prayer etc etc etc or perhaps you could take turns and use a different religion's prayer during each subsequent game. Or you could pray in private and not worry but where or wheneveryone else is praying.
--JR |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 08:12:52 PM · #244 |
nevermind
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 20:13:06.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 08:14:22 PM · #245 |
Privyet senoj,
Ya gevariti engliskee ochin xherescho. Minya gevaru pa-ruskee ochin plocha!
;)
(sorry, it's the best I can do after taking Russian language 15 yrs ago)
----
Regarding ScottK's comments:
Funny thing, is that much of what we are arguing over is the "right to be taxed". You have to pay for a marriage license.
No, homosexual marriage was not illegal. It just was not an option.
Licenses were only given for one man joining one woman. (Oh, BTW, realize the entire Mormon religion had to be changed in order for Utah to be allowed to become a state...now that's a breech of "Seperation of Church & State".)
Another fact...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING the government is doing is preventing medical coverage, etc. $$$ is what is preventing it. Businesses are already strapped to a T by medical costs. The idea of adding numerous other coverees is not appealing to businesses. (If you really want to change it, a) petition Anthem Blue Cross and other large insurers. b) petition your company to make provisions for it as well. Furthered by the fact that the decision to limit marriage to "two people" is as biased as to limiting it to a "man & woman". So it's only a matter of time before they need even more coverage for Mormons & Muslims.
Much of this is being held back by business. As for inheritance. Nothing requires that such goes to spouse. In fact, the default for that is when NO WILL is left. Therefore, be responsible and don't be a moron. And write and record a will.
Write a living will, you can denote who has the authority to make any decisions. (And I believe that individual is granted primary access to a hospitalized individual.) And if not, one could always adopt one another. Thus being legally "immediate family".
----
Originally posted by SJCarter:
The point that I think most gay couples are trying desperately to prove/achieve is that they matter. |
Oh they matter....boy do they matter. I hear their voice ALL over the place ALL the time. You want a group that is unheard and totally discriminated in all places. "Overweight" people. And in truth, most people are heavier than they should thanks to diet and inactivity. But many obese people eat way less than most skinny people I know. But have hormonal and glan problems that have always made them heavier. And the fight was 10x harder.
Everything else you mentioned SJCarter is about legal rights. Which I think my proposed solution handles fully and with a good deal of fairness.
Originally posted by "muckpond":
all semantics aside (marriage vs. "civil unions", etc.), the above quote certainly shows that texas is opposed to ANY kind of union of a homosexual couple. |
True, and although I understand such in the confines of said beliefs. I oppose it in my political views and decisions. (And yes, for all those who think my personal beliefs are devoid of rationality - this pretty much puts that case to rest.) This goes back to my statement both sides need to concede to something that is fair and minimally imposing to both sides. Of which, my prior post is the only thing I've seen proposed that does such.
Originally posted by "KaDi":
He died because of the difficulty of getting him to the Netherlands or any other sympathetic country with an appropriate level of health care resources. |
This makes no !@#$% sense to me? Any homosexual man in the U.S. can get medical treatment...??? And if he doesn't have any medical coverage hospitals still have to provide reasonable life-saving treatment. And there is no debtor prison in the U.S. And if he had no financial assets...then he had nothing to lose. (I'm presuming such as to die because of refusing to let loose one's assets would be either greed or stupidity and I don't think that was the case.) Just none of this makes sense. There has to be more details.
From what it sounds like to me it was more of an immigration issue than anything to deal with homosexuality.
Heck, you could smuggle someone from Ghana to California and get them free medical care as an illegal immigrant.
*ponder*
????
Please explain.
Originally posted by "jrjr":
Why do Americans like to find new ways to discriminate and new peoiple to hate and despise? |
1) this is NOT just an American thing, this is a humanity thing
2) we (America) are working out our imperfections with blood, sweat, and tears.
---
Dogma is bad because it makes people refuse to think rationally or be open to understanding. All sides have dogmatic beliefs that are used to gauge issues in current reality, especially when it effects others.
Note, dogmatic scientific beliefs based on then scientific fact contributed to a pygmy african being placed in a zoo as an exhibit of evolution. Please, religion may be culpable of many a sin but science is hardly blame free of dogma or foolish beliefs. Any honest individual who has studied science will attest to that fact.
Originally posted by hokie:
I find it amusing that people think that being agnostic is the same as being an atheist.
My skepticism about there being "One" god that is the creator of all is not the same as saying "God does not exist, period".
It would be foolish to state, as an absolute, that which has not been proven either way to be so. |
*salutes hokie* for stated an extremely wise comment. I wish everyone (on both sides of the spectrum) would agree and understand that statement. It would make the contentions between religious and atheists much less.
To me there are two wise choices. Faith & Agnostic (modern meaning). Either believing you personally have found enough evidence to choose to believe. Or to say that you do not have enough evidence to support any particular belief.
Atheists are in fact equivalent at best to a holder of Faith. For they are just as absolute and dogmatic as a person of faith.
Furthermore, I do not believe that any "real" scientist can in fact be an atheist.
scientific method
Function: noun
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Under the scientific method, the simple lack of evidence is not justification in science to make such a statement "there is no God". One could say, "I have observed no evidence of a God and theorized that there is none, but do not have conclusive proof one way or the other" equating to agnostic.
I think it's interesting how often people are deriding I.D. (which has many varying opinions, some are 6-day creationists and other are "evolution by design" (those who believe there was a great programmer who had written the genetic coding).
And so many on these forums quote how stupid and foolish religious people are and how they always dismiss science. I find it comically sad that few even know what they're talking about. I.D. is a theory. (And yes, there is evidence to suggest such possibilities. A complexity and ordered natured of genetic code. Commonality of code segments in various samples similar in style could denote a common coder.) It's a theory, based on observations of complexity. Is it the right theory. We do not know yet....needs more observations.
As for science fact, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is just that a theory. Now, it's got an immense amount of weight. But there are still some rough spots that keep it from being denoted "Law". For some reason, you guys keep denoting science = what we know to be true. And therefore ID should not be allowed in a science classroom. When in fact, much of science includes that which we know to be true, that we supposed to be true, and that which we believe might be true and are yet researching.
*shrug*
I, myself happen to be quite fond of science. But I also know that science is quite prone to mistakes and requires continual ongoing corrections. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 08:16:40 PM · #246 |
Why am I doing this...why am I doing this...why am I doing this.
I have not read the whole thread, but I wanted to weigh in with at least a modicum of sanity. I think I will use SJCarter's Wish list as a launching pad:
From SJCarter:
Things I'd like to have:
The freedom to hold my partner's hand in public without the fear of being beaten to death by a gaybasher.
The authority to see my partner in the hospital and make medical decisions on his behalf if he were to become gravely ill.
The recognition that my love and life relationship is just as valid as my mother & father's.
Protection from discrimination based upon my sexual identity. (equal treatment under the law)
A couple thoughts. This law is not going to affect the chances of you getting beaten by a gaybasher. It could have happened before, it could still happen after (hopefully not). Either act is illegal in Texas and all 49 other states. Taking another view, passing a law supporting gay marriage will not quell the vein of prejudiced that runs in this country.
Health care. OK, something I have at least a little experience with. I believe (but I'm not positive), that setting up a health care proxy could secure these rights under current law. That being said, if there is serious dispute between you and your loved one's parents, there may be trouble. Truth is, there is still trouble even when a wife and parents disagree on life and death issues in the hospital. There is no clear-cut law that says "wife" wins. See Terry Schaivo. How long did that nightmare last?
I'm not quite sure what "valid" means as far as love goes. If you mean under the law, I'm not sure the law really validates love. If it does, it's pretty miserable at it. I know some people the law considers to be validly in love and it's pretty obvious they aren't. If you mean "morally valid" then we fall into the debate about where moral authority comes from. If glad2beadad feels absolute morality comes from his God, you are out of luck. If morality is dictated by society, then aren't you out of luck as well? (As an aside, it's sorta hard to blame this all on the "religious right". Yes, they are vocal, but from 2003-2005 polls have generally shown that 55-65% of people nationally oppose gay marriage. I do not think that even half of those people would qualify as "religious right". Would people think that 25% of our population regular attend evangelical churches and vote exclusively republican?)
I'm not trying to write an essay on "why I am opposed to gay marriage", but in the spirit of debate I am trying to show that the passing of this constitutional amendment (and I do think that the constitution is a sorta silly place to make such legislation) isn't really going to change the status quo. To wage a war on toleration, we would be better served by changing underlying attitudes which lead to these laws rather than scratching at the laws themselves. To insure basic rights afforded under "civil union" we may be better served making specific laws about specific things (health care proxies, etc). There are not too many real legal benefits of being married. There are just as many legal consequences (credit, taxes, etc.).
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 20:18:59. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 08:27:40 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Tom
If you have the right to say your prayers, have we not the right to silence? |
Don't read it then...
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 08:31:11 PM · #248 |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 08:38:50 PM · #249 |
You owe me for a new pair of shorts... LOL |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 08:43:45 PM · #250 |
Technically, I belive the spaghetti monster theory falls under intelligent design. However, seeing as there may be evidence for design. I do not believe there is enough evidence to point to a specific designer. Hence, I do not support the teaching of the spaghetti monster as the designer, nor God, etc.
Just simply, that there is evidence that may point to an intelligent design.
(ie: picking up a violin, there is evidence that it is designed. How ever to say it is an original Stradivarius would be wrong because there is not such evidence.)
Likewise, the same, I don't advocate denoting a particular claimant to said design. Just the noting of observances that may indicate such. |
|
