nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Isn't it interesting though? NDE has the same effect sometimes on people who were atheist then stopped. What is interesting to me is that this is something theists are proud of rather than embarrassed by. After all what they are saying is that people move from rational atheism to faith based theism...... when their cognitive faculties have been compromised physically or chemically or emotionally in an extreme fashion. If I had a claim, and people tended to only believe that claim when they were compromised rationally..... I would not be touting that fact with any level of pride to be honest. Rather I would be deeply concerned that people had to LOSE critical faculties and rationality and coherence for my claim to be more plausible to them. Death bed conversions please theists it seems. From where I sit, it should be massively embarrassing to them and at best pandiculation for me.
Deleted User wrote: » Tbh I think the whole atheist trend that is happening now will turn out to be just a phase we go through.. So much of it is like listening to a disgruntled 15 year old..
Blaizes wrote: » I don’t think it’s about convincing people, it’s about people making up their own minds.
We have to allow people to express their own beliefs and thankfully at least in the Western world we allow people to do so.
If we can be nice and civil to each other and respect the differences of the other it doesn’t matter.
Micheal Landon wrote: » God exists everybody knows that. It's just trendy to be an atheist
Micheal Landon wrote: » god exists everybody knows that. It's just trendy to be an atheist
Cabaal wrote: » Yes you are right, Thor exists! Now bow in honor of Mjolnir or you will feel Thors wrath!
Pherekydes wrote: » Thor's day was yesterday! Today is Frigg's day. TGIF.
Cabaal wrote: » Thor is the one true god! It's just trendy to not believe in Thor these days
Pherekydes wrote: » Ridiculous. How many people say "Thank God it's Thursday"? None*. Frigg is the O.T.G. Obviously. *Apart from the splitters who don't work on a Friday.
robindch wrote: » Who said Jehovah first? There's cards and ban-hammers handed out for that kind of blasphemy.
Bannasidhe wrote: » And in really serious instances a stern peering over the top of the reading glasses accompanied by pursing of the lips.
smacl wrote: » Well exactly, and a big part of that civility is to respect the beliefs of others to the extent that we don't try to foist our conflicting beliefs on them. Unfortunately, one of the imperatives of many religions is to spread their belief system to 'non-believers', which runs contrary to respecting the beliefs of others.
antiskeptic wrote: » Teaching kids in school that two mammies and two daddies is normal. That's a conflicting belief foisted on many parents of English kids at the moment.
antiskeptic wrote: » Teaching kids in school that two mammies and two daddies is normal. That's a conflicting belief foisted on many parents of English kids at the moment. What about the belief that Folau's expression of his belief was hate speech Are you guilty of "mission statement speak" (i.e. words that sound good until you take a closer look)
Bannasidhe wrote: » My son told everyone in school he had two mammies because it is normal and the truth. It is normal because it was part of his perfectly normal life. Some kids have two daddies. Some kids have neither mammy or daddy. Some kids have just a mammy or a daddy. Some kids have a daddy and a mammy of different ethnic backgrounds. Some kids have a granddad or grandmother who parent them. For each one of those children that is their normal. Telling children that there are different kinds of families is not foisting anything on anyone. It is recognizing the reality one kind of family may be the majority type but it is not the only type and other kinds are just as valid. How dare anyone turn to a child and say 'your family isn't normal' :mad: - a person filled with such arrogance, lack of empathy, and understanding should be kept well away from children in my opinion.
smacl wrote: » Firstly, as Bannasidhe has pointed out, modern families take many shapes and forms all of which are normal.
Secondly, schools will teach many things that might conflict with some parent's beliefs, such as evolution and the fact that the world isn't flat.
This is the parents problem, not one of the education system.
Irish schools today actively promote inclusivity and teach that we don't discriminate against people based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religious beliefs.
Note the difference here between discrimination against someone for holding a specific religious belief (i.e. discriminating against a person) versus teaching something that runs contrary to a specific discriminatory religious dogma.
You don't get to a free pass to discriminate against others on the grounds that your religion promotes such discrimination.
antiskeptic wrote: » "In your belief" would be closer to the point smacl made. For beliefs is what you have shared. Smacl's point had to do with beliefs, which aren't necessarily shared amongst all.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I was addressing your comment about "foisting" and you know that so stop trying to squirm off the hook you placed in your own mouth.
It is fact that some children have two mammies. Some have two daddies. Some have no mammy or daddy. Some have either a mammy or a daddy.
It may conflict with your beliefs. It may not conform to your beliefs. That does not make it either untrue or unfactual.
No one's religious beliefs gives them the right to tell, or imply, to any child that their family is not normal - after all, to other people the religious family raising their child according to the dictates of their religion would not be 'normal' but you would be shrieking about discrimination if schools were to teach that. And I would support you, because I may not agree with religions in general but no one has the right to tell any child their family situation is not normal whether they personally agree with it or not.
For that child it is normal. To tell them otherwise is, I believe, bullying.
antiskeptic wrote: » I was referring to the views expressed in your total post. All belief. That fact stems from a belief. Making it a belief (I ought to know - having engaged empiricists for so long) Other people believe that the "mammy" is the one who's egg is fertilized by the "daddies" sperm and who bears the child. Certain allowances are made to deal with aberrations to that longstanding, widespread norm: a woman can become a step mammy. A couple can adopt a child. They too become mammies and daddies. It's really a matter of the threshold for what a person is prepared to believe. And when this can be attached to what I've said above? It's not a matter of telling any child that their family situation is not normal. To teach such is an active action to shape a view and I'm not suggesting that. To teach nothing about such family units (whether 2 mammies or religious) is a passive action. It doesn't shape views - although the kids will query what's going in. "Mammy, Johnny says' there's a big fella in the sky called God. Who's God". The parents can deal with as they will. Teaching a belief actively shapes a view. And foists a belief on the kids that the parents don't necessarily share. Transgressing smacl's mission statement As I say, you're not telling them otherwise. You're telling them nothing. And in not telling them you are not foisting one set of beliefs onto another set of beliefs.
Bannasidhe wrote: » antiskeptic - you know that is utter hogwash. Facts are facts whether one wishes to believe or not so never mind waffling on about 'empiricist' this and that. If a man and a woman can become parents by adopting than a woman and a woman or a man and a man can become parents by adopting. A person marrying the biological parent of children can become the parent of those children regardless of gender. But how sad it is that for you being a parent is all about the biology when we know for a fact that sharing dna with a child is no guarantee that one will be in away way a good parent - sometimes it's sadly quite the reverse.
antiskeptic wrote: » In the belief system of some ; ; It's a crass, transparent mode of argumentation
Dean Broad Mound wrote: » God = Spaceman
smacl wrote: » antiskeptic wrote: » In the belief system of some ; ; It's a crass, transparent mode of argumentation We teach our children that being straight is normal, being gay is normal, being Christian is normal, being Muslim is normal, being atheist is normal, that women share all the same rights and privileges as men, that people share all the same rights and privileges regardless of race or ethnicity. We do this as it is a position that we have arrived at collectively as a global civilized society and continue to refine. We refer to it and document it as basic human rights. While I subscribe to this personally as a great marker for human progress, its basis has nothing to do with my personal belief, it is the collective position of civilized society with respect to being fair and just to all. Civilized countries, such as Ireland, stand against those who would seek to limit or abuse our basic human rights. I would suggest that if you find this crass, you put your beloved bible down for a moment and take a long hard look in a mirror .
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » This thread and the other one only go to show how utterly weak the case for a god is.
Santino Ancient Disk wrote: » I could say the opposite. I've yet to see an atheist prove that God doesn't exist. Just because you away so doesn't make it true. Anyway, don't worry. There are no dead atheists:)
