Captain, i'm not sure i'm even getting your point. Are you saying that this "reverend" is meant to be one if us (an atheist) and as such your throwing his beliefs in our face and challenging us with it?

Seriously, if my above summation of your point is wrong, then please explain it to me, because it all sounds very schoolyard to me.

Why people seek out this need to belong to any one group baffles me. So, this "reverend" is part of a church of atheism? Good luck to him, just because i call myself an atheist does not mean i adhere to anything or anyone tagged as such.
The good reverend can believe all he wants, by the sound of it, he is looking for something faith based still, i know as an atheist i don't want to be apart of a church of anything (well maybe Foamy!).

Evolution is theory based in fact. Even today's Christians are a product of evolution. Take your every day religious zealot, the product of their parents, and their grandparents (and so on and so on) to believe single mindlessly in one view. With each generation the indoctrination starts earlier and is more ingrained in their daily lives. Take Terrorism in the name of religion as an example. If you look at the history of terrorism it has evolved greatly in the past 300 or so years to become a near every day part of life.

Evolution is around us to be seen everyday, and requires no faith or baptism to be understood.

I actually tend to think that's how it all started, some advanced civilization stopped by our humble cesspool and messed around with the building blocks of life and a few hundred million years later...viola!
Or, and laugh if you like, but i love how Stargate SG1 defines our existence and our path through the years. I'd be happy to believe we are all descendant of an ancient technologically advanced race that found earth and called it home in the search of a peaceful place to live.
But i'm easily impressed by great Sci-Fi, but then again my mind is open to these possibilities and i don't need the blessing or the leadership of any damn Atheist Reverends to get to those conclusions.

It was a response to BoobzTwo calling me out Neilo, see below. I went out looking for an official source and dug up the church.  This is actually an older discussion that somehow props up every time and again when me and her talk.  Frankly I don't understand why something so simple has to get so complicated.

 

 

That's nice, all very interesting.  It seems EVERYTHING is becoming more and more extreme as time goes on from political parties to redefining marriage itself or it could be that things are just perceived that way.

You know that sounds suspiciously almost like intelligent design to me.

If you get Intelligent Design from StarGate, then you should be writing in Hollywood, you imagination is certainly qualified to do so. Your making quite a leap from an Alien race to a God.

Though i can understand why Christians want to invoke Intelligent Design. Seems to me those that do, want or secrelty do believe in a scientific explanation for our existence, but still want to have God as the cause....Thus Intelligent Design.

Then again it might be what it exactly is, a trick to circumvent the US courts. Nothing more.



Ahh fair enough then. Explains alot. I'll refrain from that topic.

Well I don't either. All I asked you was “What is the religion of atheism?” that YOU keep talking about. If there are any statements from me in regards to this ... they would have been made in jest and obviously so because there is no such thing. Again I will offer you a post to have this discussion in, but seeing as you declined to take me up last time I did ... I expect nothing will change here and now. The Religion of Atheism … Exposed @ https://forums.joeuser.com/414656.  All you needed to do was answer the question … not tromp around the internet world so you could tell me what someone else thinks it means. You are the one using the term realistically, all I wanted to know is why … seems pretty damn simple to me. And you still haven’t answered … instead you pretend to be outraged and confused … and now I know why too.

 

You cannot just redefine terms on the fly. ID has been self-defined ... you let me know if you find any theologian willing to accept little green men in the list of (one of one) possible candidates. You seem to be fixated with religion yourself considering the comments you have made. Marriage today is not defined as a union between opposite sexes because there are a multitude of reasons for establishing such unions.  (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) Just because the religions desire to define this and everything else for everyone else doesn’t give them any more credibility than they don’t already have which is minimal at best.   If there is a problem between us not religiously related I don’t know what it is. I get offended by your liberal use of terminology that is controversial at best and your use of such terms as if they were gospel … I don’t have a gospel … just a dictionary and an encyclopedia which is available to all and they are self-explanatory … no faith required.

Check out this article from American Thinker. Are we in the Orwellian present?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/christianity_or_thoughtcrime.html

"Christianity or ThoughtCrime"? 

 

 

 

How imaginative; 'thought crimes' as a religious defense but surely you jest, especially considering that the article concerned those blasphemous homosexuals seeking equality (under the law)??? Heresy and blasphemy seem to be theological staples, have always been considered religious thought crimes, are ever-present in religious circles and come pre-stamped with your idea of the ultimate of penalties. Everyone is a sinner in the eyes of everyone else including that god of yours, yet you find solace grading the sins you perceive in others as if there were some scale available for this task. Make sure you really want to get into what the bible has to say about those things deemed as abominations and the little thought given to most of them. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDKL-f9Iwds

On the second page there was some discussion on children raised by gay adoption being worse off than children with mom+dad.

I'm an atheist. I believe the statement above is probably true. It's also true that:

• Children with just one parent are worse off
• Children with no siblings are worse off
• Children with no siblings of the opposite sex are worse off
• Children who are homeschooled are worse off

... and so on. You get the picture. The more exposure to different parts of life a child gets, the better it is able to adapt to society.

Some might say that having gay parents exposes to homosexuality and makes more tolerant. Sure, but it also strips away a huge chunk of normal social parts of life that comes with a mother and a father. Same goes for indoctrination; sure, you know a lot more about the culture of one religion, but it shuts off everything else. The damage done by both of these things far outweigh the positive aspects.

Just wanted to point this out since I found it interesting that BoobzTwo attacked the idea of gay parents being a worse choice and doubled down by pointing out the abundance of single parents. There are a lot of them, but there are a lot of religious people, too. It doesn't mean that you're not better off as a kid with a mom and a dad, on average.

Puzzling that you used the words 'I believe' and 'probably true' in the same sentence. Exposure to the varieties of life without sound edification or when made from biased reasoning is of no productive value to anyone. Not sure what any of this homosexual ‘stuff’ has to do with being an atheist though? The best thing for children would be to have responsible people care for them regardless of gender, not just some idealistic combination and not just because they are the parents.

In a way, being gay is like being an atheist … in a way mind you. As long as people do not know you for what you are (your ‘self’), there are only minor complications. When one announces their disbelief in an overseeing and human controlling deity just because of a lack of any proof, all shit brakes out and as if with the push of a button they are classified and jointly held responsible for everything that ails mankind. It is amazing to see how quickly this process takes place. All their intelligence fades to nothingness, their morals become extinct and depravity becomes their norm, but then you already know this is just balderdash.

When one announces that they are gay, all shit brakes out and they are classified. All their intelligence fades to nothingness, their morals become extinct and depravity becomes their norm, but then you should know this is just balderdash too … ‘deva view’ to coin a phrase. I just don’t do this stereotyping and bigotry thing at all well under any guise, my personal beliefs aside. If you do not accept homosexuals for other than religious reasons then you should at least make those reasons known … considering that you are an atheist.

I'm not a native english speaker so I make that sort of "double negative" kind of mistakes unless I'm really careful. I meant that I believe in this view.

I mentioned that I'm an atheist because earlier certain stances were tied to atheism. Meant to point out that atheism doesn't really have anything to do with the point. Also, I wanted avoid being classified as a religious person, which I was afraid some would do after reading my post.

I agree, the best thing for children is to have responsible parents. So I agree, that exposure to varieties with life without proper edification is of no productive value to anyone. It doesn't mean that exposure is not also very important.

I don't mind homosexuality. I just wanted to point out, from a scientific point of view that on average it's better to be exposed to what is biologically normal when you grow up.

As you pointed out, you can more than make up for this hindrance with better parenting. And you should.

Bottom line what I was trying to say is, everything matters when you grow up. Your environment, your genes, your parents, your siblings, your friends, your neighbors. So anyone who understands science and probability should not go up in arms when someone says that gay parents might be a hindrance to a kid's development when compared to a normal option. It's just physics. Cold hard science. And it's not something you can't overcome, and many people with a normal family setup are way worse off than children with gay parents. There is no such thing as a perfect setup for bringing up kids, but there are better and worse options. Just like a shorter male is worse off than a taller male; you can overcome it but you will have a harder time in life, and it has nothing to do with any religious view. How much worse off, that's what research is for.

I tried to show a moderate point of view on this thread on this issue. Not everything is black & white. I fully support any gay parents that adopt a child and make his/her life better than it would be without them.

Also, I have no idea if gay parents are a better choice than a single parent. My hunch is that children with gay parents might be better off, since shared they have more time to spend with the kids. Irrelevant to the subject, but an interesting notion to think about.

I see you are from Finland, got you, sorry but I knew there must be a simple explanation. Interesting comments but I think this 'normal' thing is just a play on words. I didn't infer that you were presenting a religious point of view; I was just puzzled with the atheist comment is all. Gay people are not all the same, apatheist are not all the same and religious folk are not all the same, just seems like a no-brainer. There are both good and bad people in all walks of life (most are in the middle) and nary a walk is exempt. Even amongst the gods, there were the good, the bad and the ugly. Homosexuals are just as capable of raising children as the rest of us. But until we learn to treat people like people though, this kind of bigotry will forever be shoved in our faces and passed off as some kind of gospel.

By normal I mean the statistical most probable case. Doesn't really get any more normal than that. It has really nothing to do with the associaton with normal as 'ok' or 'all good'.

In all honesty, I agree with you. What you do is more important than who you are. I just ended up writing two long posts to point out that on a macro scale there are no individuals, and in that scale you benefit from being closer to the average. On average.

I too believe most people live in that grey area called reality. What should be feared are those dogmatic people amongst us (religious or otherwise) who insist on this black or white only nonsense? Institutional dogmatism is founded in bigotry and breeds a hateful environment of absolute intolerance. And along with it comes the harshest, most unimaginable penalties possible, devised for people who THINK otherwise … the ultimate thought crimes. If JU practitioners do not like homosexuals to the extent mentioned above (as if the met them all) they should just say so (and why if they dare), just don’t give me any self-righteous drivel gleaned from some antiquated book, pleeeaaase! 

And I agree with you as long as the statistics are both meaningful and equally applied which they seldom are. In your statement above you mentioned that children under certain conditions are ‘worse off’ … worse off than what; some statistically dictated ideal or the cruel realities of abusive circumstances. I watched “The Beaver” grow up (in another life of course); I didn’t believe it then and I don’t believe in it now. Life just doesn’t come with a guarantee so all we can do is our best and offer assistance to those in more difficulty situations humanly, whomever it takes.

 

 

latest hateful clashes....news from Portland, Oregon

Lula, we have laws to deal with vandalism and we even apply them to churches because we care. You make it sound like the gay community has no reason to distrust you and are only being ‘anti-god’ to spite you and that is silly. If you insist on using the radical “queer elements” as the norm for homosexuality, then what is wrong with everyone else using the radical “religious elements” as the norm for Christianity? Seems like these particular ‘queers’ don’t appreciate either side.

“The e-mail, which is peppered with foul language, berates the Q Center, a local LGBT activist organization, for engaging in a dialogue with the Mars Hill’s leadership. “What we have to say to the Q Center is this: F—K YOU, you don’t represent us. You are disgusting traitors who prioritize social peace and the bourgeois aspirations of rich white cis gay people over the more pressing survival needs of more marginalized queers.

I know that. 

All I did was provide the news site and call their actions of smashing 9 windows causing several thousand dollars damage "hateful clashes". 

The reason the self-proclaimed 'angry queers' did their hateful act of vandalism is because the Mar's Hill church is known for teaching traditional sexual morality and holds the Bible based views on homosexuality. 

 

Again, all I did was post a link to a news story, without comments as far as the norm for homosexuality.  But as far as Christianity, note the pastor's reaction, 

“This certainly saddens us greatly as our pastors in Portland have made many efforts to build relationships with the homosexual community in Portland,” Smith said. “Even though they chose to destroy our property and scare away people trying to worship Jesus, we wish them no harm.”