RE: California Proposition 8
November 19, 2008 at 1:50 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2008 at 2:15 pm by Daystar.)
(November 19, 2008 at 10:44 am)chatpilot Wrote: Lmao too early in the damn morning! Thanks for catching that leo and the answer is yes I am against proposition 8 100 percent.Gays are people too and they too should be able to partake of the same rights and priviledges that any other ordinary citizen is entitled to.I say if they are allowed to get married they should also be able to reap the benefits of a so called normal heterosexual couple.
A legal union rather than a religious one, correct?
(November 19, 2008 at 11:07 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Atheism however is just lack of any belief in theism whatsoever. What beliefs pretty much automatically connect to being an atheist? Not any really. Just like being a non-astrologer doesn't connect to other beliefs particularly! Its just a disbelief in the nonsense of astrology.
Interesting point. Go and find a non-astrologer webring and compare that to the availability of Atheists webrings. There is something more to it or there would be no point in having this discussion.
If Atheism was the non-belief in gods and goddesses in general it wouldn't be such a nonsensical expression of non-belief that is belief. To say that there is no such thing as gods and goddesses is terribly uninformed. To use the supernatural to define that disbelief is shortsighted. To spcify a certain God and Lord with such conviction requires a great deal more thought than is usually demonstrated, and indicitive of a deeper and more profound issue. Social and political.
Why state a disbelief in God any more than a disbelief in the FSM? Because it is intellectually stimulating? Politically motivated? Socially repressive?
Just cool? I think Kyu summed it up and I will ellaborate upon that. Rebels without a clause.
Allen,
The theory of evolution is no more specific or certain than creation. Evidence of evolution is so transitory, bias and subject to interpretation that it shouldn't be expressed as 'fact' and the possible alternative of creation shouldn't be dismissed primarily upon the unknown (supernatural) based upon that premise.
Defending either point is moot. The discussion is really about something else.
How, though, is your view of religions the same as your view of supernatural? They are both bullshit? If so I could go halfway with you on that. Religion can easily be seen as that, but how can you base an opinion on something you don't know (supernatural) unless it is based upon ignorance and some undisclosed political and or social agenda?
