Support your beliefs. With a twist.

[tmaromine]

I've had this idea for a thread for a while now, and finally I type it !

The point is to support your beliefs, but you cannot use any "holy texts" of any sort. You cannot use anything that does not exist without our minds. You have to base every claim on the natural universe, and mere human interaction. Id est, use the same technique to prove your views, as an atheist does (of which I am...).

I can only think of two topics right now, and they are:

Gay marriage
Abortion ...


I guess I'll start...

-Gay marriage: Gays have as much emotional nonsexual feelings for the same sex as straights do toward the opposite. And I'm not telling you this as an observation of a friend or anything –*I'm telling you this personally. I am as opposed to homosexual marriage as I am to heterosexual marriage. Homosexuality is as changeable as heterosexuality. So, if you've a problem with us, and desire us to change, why don't you do so first and tell us how magically easy it is. Hm?

So, religious people, if you're opposed to homosexual marriage/relationships, look around (figuratively) and tell me why. You don't exactly have support from all the other animals in nature.

Relating to human interaction: do you want to be denied heterosexual marriage ? I know that sound stupid, and so is denying homosexual marriage. If homosexuals denied heterosexuals marriage, what would they do ? Why?, when the homosexuals would be being as selfcentred ? It doesn't matter of your religious beliefs. If a homosexual wanting marriage is not of your beliefs, your beliefs do not hold up for that person. If you're a Christian, and the homosexual person is a Christian, and that person wants gay marriage, then debate between yourselves all you want about how sinful and antigod it is. But if that person is not of your beliefs, then your beliefs don't apply to them, and it is selfcentredness to get in their way because of your beliefs.

-Abortion: I used to be only proabortion in the cases of the mother dying if she gives birth, or as result of rape. But why ? Is it my choice if a couple, married or not, want to have an abortion ? Sure, it is denying life, but as if that life will be here to ever know it was denied. Honestly, I'd be devastated to think I was aborted, but, guess what !, if I were I wouldn't be here to tell you my feelings.

People can decide what they want, because I'd break down if I had to. I'd only want to decide if it affects me, and, magically, I'm not a god, and others' choices of abortion do not affect me. If my best friend's parents decided to abort my best friend, it would affect me, but I never would have had the relationship with my best friend because he wouldn't exist, and you can't look at a baby and realise that in ten years it'll be your best friend, so it doesn't matter.

So, where in nature is it signified that aborting it shouldn't be done ?



There are many more topics, but I could only really think of two big ones...

 

[Random]

Gay Marriage: I tacitly support civil unions, whilst not necessarily seeing the use of them aside from uniting officially two people of the same gender who think they want to be together as a "real couple". I believe firmly that marriage is a social institution solely, and one intended for the practical purposes of establishing famliy units for the purposes of creating and raising children. Gay couples can do the latter, but not the former (that being here merely a statement of fact, no judgements). Families require the enjoinment of a male and a female. The division of leadership and the roles therein are for each and every couple to decide for themselves, however, for the sake of the general wellbeing of a family the mother should have the final say in all matters, particularly pertaining to the children (IMHO).

Abortion: I support a woman's right to choose. I do not think much about it - this is a purely instinctual postion on my part.

So...I am ambiguous about gay people being (presumably) happily married and united in bliss (or whatever) but wholly unambiguous about what may rightly be viewed as the murder of the unborn. I realize the moral shades of grey that colours me with, but I am accepting of this because I do not submit to conventional moralilty in any case as a matter of principle.

 

[Smoke]

I believe firmly that marriage is a social institution solely, and one intended for the practical purposes of establishing famliy units for the purposes of creating and raising children. Gay couples can do the latter, but not the former (that being here merely a statement of fact, no judgements). Families require the enjoinment of a male and a female.

Then do you also believe marriage should be denied to old or infertile heterosexuals?

 

[Random]

Then do you also believe marriage should be denied to old or infertile heterosexuals?

An age cap on marriage? I could live with that, conceivably. Some heterosexuals may be too old for marriage, yes. Once again, the quality of and conditions for marriage may be judged in my estimation by their usefulness in the creation, stability and continuity of family units, with children. The species must be propagated, after all...lest the human race discover deathly destiny, or worse yet madness.

 

[ChristineES]

I am pro-life. I am out-numbered in this. I don't think it is right to murder babies. And yes, they are babies to me, not just FETUSES or EMBRYOS. (please, I did not attack or question anyone else's beliefs before me, so I would like the same consideration, I have no intention of debating abortion-- I am doing as the thread says: Saying what I believe).

I am for freedom of religion. People have a right to believe whatever they want without being ridiculed, harassed, or harmed. If someone wants to believe that the world was created by a snail crawling along the sidewalk, then they have that right. If someone chooses to believe in nothing, they have that right. (and so on)

People have a right to dislike anyone they want to. They DON'T have a right to harass or harm another person, but if they hate someone, they have that right. If someone does not like you, get over it. Plenty of people have disliked me in the past, and as you can see, I am still alive and able to function.

*Note--this post seems caustic compared to what I normally post: I have strong beliefs, but I don't usually share them in this way. This thread seemed to invite me to.

 

[tmaromine]

I am pro-life. I am out-numbered in this. I don't think it is right to murder babies. And yes, they are babies to me, not just FETUSES or EMBRYOS. (please, I did not attack or question anyone else's beliefs before me, so I would like the same consideration, I have no intention of debating abortion-- I am doing as the thread says: Saying what I believe).

What you feel really can't be questioned. But what has led up to those feelings can... If you don't want to debate abortion, you won't, but it's simply, are there things in the world around you that tell/signify to you that it's wrong for anyone to do it ? This thread's point is about everyone's beliefs, but also seeing if those beliefs are supported without a human mind behind it to tell what's wrong and right. To see if the beliefs are literally natural. If you can't emotionally justify it with yourself to abort a to-be baby /fetus/whatever, you will not. Rationally, maybe you could say you would, but human emotions don't always come into what we say.

I think I might've slightly mislead myself with the abortion topic... The ideas I had for this thread were things like, Sun revolving around Earth – does nature support that ? People can believe it, sure, but that doesn't give it any validity just because one believes it. Abortion is slightly more emotional. But, what is to be considered a baby ? What is a fetus ? Is it only prebaby ? Is it "unliving" baby ? It doesn't matter what words we give to things ; all that matters is what things are. We could call the to-be human in a mother's womb which has not yet left the womb a ganollba, and it doesn't matter. That object still exists. But what in the natural world makes it wrong to allow abortion, besides personal emotions ? If you know a family that can justify an abortion, is it your say that they shouldn't because of your own emotions ?

I'm not saying you would interfere with what they want to do, but you will believe different. What has led to the different beliefs ? Are yours or theirs right ?, are either of them ?

I am for freedom of religion. People have a right to believe whatever they want without being ridiculed, harassed, or harmed. If someone wants to believe that the world was created by a snail crawling along the sidewalk, then they have that right. If someone chooses to believe in nothing, they have that right. (and so on)

Agreed. I am simply bothered by people who ignore that their beliefs might have no visible reality to them. Some things can't be proven one way or another, and that's why my "beliefs" are largely based off what I've observed. If I observed something incorrectly, my "beliefs" change. Are my "beliefs" beliefs if they are made entirely of only that which any person can see, and cannot be denied ? I don't believe one god, because I don't see one, nor the evidence of one. I "believe" Earth rotates the sun, but is that a belief ? Unless it's an historical fact about an object, I think every thing of every religion is a belief. It bothers me when a religious person tries to claim their personal beliefs as things that undoubtedly exist.

But, why do you not mind people believing other things ? Does not your beliefs tell that a person with any other beliefs is incorrect, because only *yours* are 'right' ? How can you believe your beliefs, but also not mind believing that people of other believes will be severely – eternally –*punished for them ? Should you not go out of your way to warn them and tell them that your beliefs are all that can give them anything better than hell ? But that goes against your feeling that you should believe what you want, and others should believe what they want.

Any religious person who does not mind others believing things different from theirs is merely nice and understanding. That's the only way I can comprehend it... Because it definitely is not your religion telling you to allow people to their own beliefs. It is not because your religion is nice/understanding in this area, it is because you are. Your religion says only one person in this discussion is right, and that's you.

People have a right to dislike anyone they want to. They DON'T have a right to harass or harm another person, but if they hate someone, they have that right. If someone does not like you, get over it. Plenty of people have disliked me in the past, and as you can see, I am still alive and able to function.

But what things make it right or wrong to harm another person ? I've asked myself things like that many times as an atheist. My answer ?: I don't want those things done to me. So why should I do what I don't want to be done ? Sure, I don't think any god is going to hell me for it, so I can just do whatever I want to anyone, right ? Well, I can't. I understand persons' emotions, and I can understand how something I don't want done to me, would affect them if I did it to them.

If I harm another person, does that not mean it's ok for others to harm me ? If I thought keying another person's car is ok because I think it's funny, that means I wouldn't mind if my car was keyed, right? Often times, if someone does something to me and I get angry over it, but it's something that I would do to someone too, I loosen up on my anger and get a sort of "I deserve it" feeling, because I would do it too, and my another person angry.

Though, I have no problem doing to a person what that person has done to others. If a person breaks someone's leg purposely, I will feel no remorse in breaking the breaker's leg. If I purposely break someone's leg, and that person doesn't feel the emotion to break my leg, then that person is simply very nice, for I deserve my leg broken for breaking theirs. I deserve to feel what I made them feel.

*Note--this post seems caustic compared to what I normally post: I have strong beliefs, but I don't usually share them in this way. This thread seemed to invite me to.

One should speak their feelings completely, no? No one is going to (or should be...) ridiculing you over them. The main point of my thread was simply to see if your personal beliefs do not need a person to make sense. I can say that not harming a person is right, but what makes it "right" ? As I see it, it's simply right because I don't want to be harmed. I don't care if a "holy text" says to not harm – that text saying harming is simply "wrong" is not an answer of why to not harm someone. An answer is because one doesn't want to be harmed.

EDIT: Well, you would be outnumbered, yes. But does that mean anything ?, no. I just read your Frubal-comment-thing, and thought I'd say: I don't think any one thing a human has influenced gives all answers to every question (in this case, the Bible). You seemed to have made a belief of yours based off your own knowledge and experience, and that is what I have decided to do for every 'belief' of mine, which is why I ask, 'Is it a "belief" ?'. I do see how it's just one opinion out of those of many other persons, but, my "beliefs" are made of things that can't be denied at all, because their reasoning comes from things that just *are*, no matter if there's a human to question it or not. Does that disqualify them as opinions and beliefs ?... I'd say yes, but I could be called arrogant for that. Though does anyone saying that change reality, the reality that they aren't beliefs ? I don't know.

And for all I know, some deity could exist, and that would make many of my 'nonbelief' and 'nonopinion' "beliefs" completely incorrect. Simply, without the evidence of a god at this point in time seems, many of the things I have completely thought about do seem to be completely "correct" because they are based off of what undeniably exists, and not what I want to exist or how I wish things would exist...

 

[MoonWater]

Abortion- I personally would never get an abortion but would not try to deny anyone else that right. Why? History has shown that making something illegal won't make it go away. Numerous women died or were seriously damaged due to botched up back alley abortions back when they were illegal. I believe that it was because of this that it was made legal in the first place. And while it's sad to loose a child how much sadder would it be to lose both the child and the mother simply because the abortion couldn't take place in a hospital. If a mother doesn't want her child there are only two options: abortion or adoption. Neither is very desirable as the first is denying life but the second leaves no gaurantee of adoption and the odds dwindle the older the child gets. orphanages are way overcrowded and numerous children are simply shuffled from foster home to foster home like a card in a deck and are often times abused or neglected. So which is better? True with adoption at least they have a chance at life but would it be a life worth living? One must also take into account what will happen to the mother. Not just her health but also her family conditions. There are parents out there who would beat their daughter senseless(many times to the point of losing the baby) if they found out she was pregnant.

 

[tmaromine]

Gay Marriage: I tacitly support civil unions, whilst not necessarily seeing the use of them aside from uniting officially two people of the same gender who think they want to be together as a "real couple". I believe firmly that marriage is a social institution solely, and one intended for the practical purposes of establishing famliy units for the purposes of creating and raising children.

So if I understand you correctly, you don't see marriage as "holy", simply a social recognition of a family ? IE, you think two people who don't plan to raise children don't need to be married ? Correct me if I'm wrong ; but if I did understand correctly, I think I agree...

But if two women (or two men via adoption) want to create a child-including family, what do they do ? Civil-unionise, and then they get legal rights together over the child(ren) ? If so, then ok. But what about religious homosexuals ? Do they not deserve the "holy marriage" ? If they want literal "holy" marriage, why are you allowed to deny them that (if you would – I don't even know) ? If you're religious, and they're religious, and you believe your religion condemns homosexuality, then debate between yourselves if you want whether they are allowed. But if you're of different beliefs, your beliefs do not apply to them, and you cannot use your religion to tell them they morally can't, and can "immorally".

Gay couples can do the latter, but not the former (that being here merely a statement of fact, no judgements).

Unless two women have an insemination, that the creating-children part is fact.

Families require the enjoinment of a male and a female.

If by family you mean two parents and at least one child, under what basis are one male and one female only a requirement ? Two women or two men can have a family based on that definition. One mother or one father is not "needed".

The division of leadership and the roles therein are for each and every couple to decide for themselves, however, for the sake of the general wellbeing of a family the mother should have the final say in all matters, particularly pertaining to the children (IMHO).

I can't change your opinion, but why do you believe so ? How does a mother get the final say on matters, especially with children, over the father ? She could've brought them to the world, but was that her obligation ? Did she want to ? Would she not mind abandoning them ? Whoever can correctly and soundly reason deserves the final say, and if that is both parents, then it should be an agreed joint decision. Why does the one who physically brought the child into the world deserve the final say ?

So...I am ambiguous about gay people being (presumably) happily married and united in bliss (or whatever) but wholly unambiguous about what may rightly be viewed as the murder of the unborn. I realize the moral shades of grey that colours me with, but I am accepting of this because I do not submit to conventional moralilty in any case as a matter of principle.

Gay people can be as happy as straight people and either can live in whichever bliss they allow themselves to with whomever they choose. Human emotions are what change and affect anything. Two beings together being physically incompatible based on the principle of reproducing means nothing. If a marriage-like relationship is to be based on being able to crate children, then our emotions are unnecessary. Emotions are what make relationships, and that's why anyone can be happy with anyone, no matter physical or social boundaries.

Toward your unambiguousness on abortion, d'you mean it as that you believe it's a woman's choice, but that it's still the (unrightful?) murder of a human ?


"Morality" does not deserve to be a principle in some/many cases. For example (and do read on to the end if this seems to disgust you in the beginning...), sex with a child – pædophilia. There's no reason a child can't have sex because the child is "young". That doesn't matter, and nor does the moral-social aspect of it. What matters is that the child does not know what it's consenting to. It might enjoy it. It might not that it is called sex. But it has not experienced enough life, nor is it physically capable (because its brain is not fully developed), to know what it's really doing, and what its consequences might be if the child decides to have sex. And basically, a "wise" adult could easily seduce a child into having sex, and making the child think that them having sex is ok. And how is that possible ?– because the child is knowledge-ly and physically unable to correctly comprehend what is happening. "Because it's wrong" is not why it's wrong for pædophilia.

I'm assuming that's sort of how you mean that you don't take 'morality' as a matter of principle ?

 

[tmaromine]

Abortion- I personally would never get an abortion but would not try to deny anyone else that right. Why? History has shown that making something illegal won't make it go away. Numerous women died or were seriously damaged due to botched up back alley abortions back when they were illegal. I believe that it was because of this that it was made legal in the first place. And while it's sad to loose a child how much sadder would it be to lose both the child and the mother simply because the abortion couldn't take place in a hospital. If a mother doesn't want her child there are only two options: abortion or adoption. Neither is very desirable as the first is denying life but the second leaves no gaurantee of adoption and the odds dwindle the older the child gets. orphanages are way overcrowded and numerous children are simply shuffled from foster home to foster home like a card in a deck and are often times abused or neglected. So which is better? True with adoption at least they have a chance at life but would it be a life worth living? One must also take into account what will happen to the mother. Not just her health but also her family conditions. There are parents out there who would beat their daughter senseless(many times to the point of losing the baby) if they found out she was pregnant.

Besides the fact that history does show that illegalising things does not stop things, why would you (if you would) be ok with making it illegal in the first place, if doing so did make the events stop ? What would you base your decision on, that it's ok to tell them not to because you couldn't ? (As I take it, you probably wouldn't make abortion illegal if it did stop abortions, but it's just the logic I'm trying to imply with this thread, I guess. . .that, do what you believe have sense on a natural basis, rather than a personal one ?)

I'd too say that orphanages probably aren't great option either...

To the families that would despise their daughter because she's pregnant: are the reasons their basing their despitement on realistic ? Do they make sense without their beliefs ? If the parents are Christian, and their daughter got pregnant at 19 – before marriage , their beliefs basically tell them that she's a bad person (and – in 'older terms' – should be stoned ?...) unless she asks for forgiveness with true guilt. But, how is she guilty of anything but having sex with a man at 19 and getting pregnant ? How does she deserve to be beat because of the fact that she's pregnant ?

It's not about what people would do, or do. It's about whether what they (would) do has a realistic reason to it. Last I looked, the universe doesn't seem to signify that parents should beat their daughters to the point of the baby's death simply because she got pregnant, no matter whether it does happen or not. And since the universe doesn't imply that, that's why I wouldn't do it.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't have personal emotions if I had a daughter and she did get pregnant at 19 and unmarried. But just because I have emotions doesn't mean I have sense. And if she plans to be mature about it, and plans to abort or support her family, especially if the father is happily willing to do so also, why would I be in anyway angry ? Whether she aborted or not ? Does she deserve anger from me because of my views ? Maybe she's angry at her own decision to've had sex, and because of my emotions, I might be too, but should my anger be forced on her, or the event that she created ?

I know that we'd both agree to some degree if not completely on this, but that's only because we're willing to think about it. I've long ago acknowledged that some people won't, and them you just can't change.

 

[MoonWater]

Same-sex marriage: I am for same-sex marriage and have nothing against homosexuality. Why? Well I don't follow any "holy texts" and I have yet to hear a strong, supported by evidence, unbiased, non-religious argument against homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Sense we have freedom of religion and seperation of church and state in this country one cannot(or at least should not) be able to use religious based arguments to try and influence the law. If someone can give me an unbiased argument that is supported by credible evidence gathered over years of study that allowing same-sex marriage would cause harm to our country then I might start to reconsider my position. But so far that hasn't happened.

 

[MoonWater]

Besides the fact that history does show that illegalising things does not stop things, why would you (if you would) be ok with making it illegal in the first place, if doing so did make the events stop ? What would you base your decision on, that it's ok to tell them not to because you couldn't ? (As I take it, you probably wouldn't make abortion illegal if it did stop abortions, but it's just the logic I'm trying to imply with this thread, I guess. . .that, do what you believe what sense on a natural basis, rather than a personal one ?)

I'd too say that orphanages probably aren't great option either...

To the families that would despise their daughter because she's pregnant: are the reasons their basing their despitement on realistic ? Do they make sense without their beliefs ? If the parents are Christian, and their daughter got pregnant at 19 – before marriage , their beliefs basically tell them that she's a bad person (and – in 'older terms' – should be stoned ?...) unless she asks for forgiveness with true guilt. But, how is she guilty of anything but having sex with a man at 19 and getting pregnant ? How does she deserve to be beat because of the fact that she's pregnant ?

It's not about what people would do, or do. It's about whether what they (would) do has a realistic reason to it. Last I looked, the universe doesn't seem to signify that parents should beat their daughters to the point of the baby's death simply because she got pregnant, no matter whether it does happen or not. And since the universe doesn't imply that, that's why I wouldn't do it.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't have personal emotions if I had a daughter and she did get pregnant at 19 and unmarried. But just because I have emotions doesn't mean I have sense. And if she plans to be mature about it, and plans to abort or support her family, especially if the father is happily willing to do so also, why would I be in anyway angry ? Whether she aborted or not ? Does she deserve anger from me because of my views ? Maybe she's angry at her own decision to've had sex, and because of my emotions, I might be too, but should my anger be forced on her, or the event that she created ?

I know that we'd both agree to some degree if not completely on this, but that's only because we're willing to think about it. I've long ago acknowledged that some people won't, and them you just can't change.

All very good questions and I agree. You're right in assuming that I would not want abortion to be ilegal even if it made it go away. Why? The reasons for this are in my post. As for your other questions I really can't answer them. One, because I do not and cannot know what is going on in the minds of others parents when they beat their daughter simply because she got pregnant. Two, because (if I read the OP correctly) this thread is to debate why WE believe as we do not why OTHERS believe as THEY do and your questions address the latter. Besides I highly doubt a parent who beats their child because she got pregnant is going to take the time to consider whether or not they should really take their anger out on her.

 

[tmaromine]

Same-sex marriage: I am for same-sex marriage and have nothing against homosexuality. Why? Well I don't follow any "holy texts" and I have yet to hear a strong, supported by evidence, unbiased, non-religious argument against homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Sense we have freedom of religion and seperation of church and state in this country one cannot(or at least should not) be able to use religious based arguments to try and influence the law. If someone can give me an unbiased argument that is supported by credible evidence gathered over years of study that allowing same-sex marriage would cause harm to our country then I might start to reconsider my position. But so far that hasn't happened.

Could that ever happen ?

Since homosexuality is not like a group whose beliefs are to do something, like, harm everyone because it's their beliefs, I don't think there could ever be a real reason that makes homosexuality worse than heterosexuality. Orientation is a part of a human, and there are bad gays, bad Christians, bad atheists, bad students, and there are good versions of all those examples too. I don't think something like that can ever have a cause within it that makes it worse than its opposite. But if we somehow find a way to make all people straight, and then for some reason all rapists decide to be gay, that does make homosexuality worse than heterosexuality, and that possibility of that concept becoming real seems impossible.

Getting more into my all-logical me, it doesn't even matter that we the United States of America has a constitution and that it says for nothing to be biased toward a religion's cause. We could not have a constitution. We could be a religion, and one who will not conform gets murdered. It doesn't matter. All that matters, is that in the basis of reasoning and in the natural world, there is no reason to deny it. Just because we've created things that should protect it, but could fail, doesn't change how right or wrong it is. If the *whole* world agreed to kill homosexuals, that still does not alter how correct or incorrect homosexuality is, because on the basis of logical reasoning, it is no different than heterosexuality. But peoples' beliefs will always alter, and people seem to pay attention to other people more than reality. Reality being that no one's opinion changes what something actually is...

 

[Random]

I'm assuming that's sort of how you mean that you don't take 'morality' as a matter of principle ?

You need not assume that, and you've assumed a lot. I said nothing about paedophilia or anything like it and only addressed the core issues: Gay marriage and Abortion.

Civil unions and pro-choice seem like adequate answers to those.

 

[tmaromine]

All very good questions and I agree. You're right in assuming that I would not want abortion to be ilegal even if it made it go away. Why? The reasons for this are in my post. As for your other questions I really can't answer them. One, because I do not and cannot know what is going on in the minds of others parents when they beat their daughter simply because she got pregnant. Two, because (if I read the OP correctly) this thread is to debate why WE believe as we do not why OTHERS believe as THEY do and your questions address the latter. Besides I highly doubt a parent who beats their child because she got pregnant is going to take the time to consider whether or not they should really take their anger out on her.

Well, this thread is about whether beliefs in general have any real sense, but of course we can only really talk about the beliefs correctly when people participate in this thread and have those beliefs, or the contrary to those beliefs. That doesn't exclude others' beliefs, we simply can't talk about their beliefs or them 100% truthfully because they're not here.

Those types of parents wouldn't, no, so I guess it is pointless to debate over that...

 

[tmaromine]

You need not assume that, and you've assumed a lot. I said nothing about paedophilia or anything like it and only addressed the core issues: Gay marriage and Abortion.

Civil unions and pro-choice seem like adequate answers to those.

I know I do, and I'm not always right. If I'm wrong, simply correct me, because, well. . .I'm not right, and I can't be right even if I don't know I'm wrong. I've no problem with being told wrong when I am. . . . . .because I'm not right.

I know you didn't mention pædophilia in anyway. I was simply trying to relate with what you said about not making 'morality' a principle. I related it that you take the route of completely logical reasoning rather than simply listening to what the majority of people think about an issue, and I turned that into how pædophilia isn't ok for other reasons than just because it's "wrong to have sex with children".

 

[Willamena]

The point is to support your beliefs, but you cannot use any "holy texts" of any sort.

Since I have no holy texts, other than perhaps a few choice quotes by Brendan McBride, that should be easy.

You cannot use anything that does not exist without our minds.

Even easier.

You have to base every claim on the natural universe, and mere human interaction. Id est, use the same technique to prove your views, as an atheist does (of which I am...).

What if we have no concept of what "an atheist does"? It could happen.

I can only think of two topics right now, and they are:
Gay marriage
Abortion ...

N/A
N/A

Okay, well, none of the rest is applicable either. I was right, this would be easy.

 

[Smoke]

An age cap on marriage? I could live with that, conceivably. Some heterosexuals may be too old for marriage, yes. Once again, the quality of and conditions for marriage may be judged in my estimation by their usefulness in the creation, stability and continuity of family units, with children. The species must be propagated, after all...lest the human race discover deathly destiny, or worse yet madness.

The human race is not in any immediate danger of ceasing to procreate; tailoring the laws to encourage it and penalize those who don't procreate is ... odd, to say the least.

And of course many same-sex couples are raising children, and quite often their own biological children, who benefit from two-parent household even if one parent is not a biological parent.

 

[tmaromine]

@Willamena: Aha, very clever of you.

Well, if one can't relate to an atheist's outlook, then one can simply see if one's beliefs support themselves without one's religion. If one isn't religious, then they've probably understood that.

While gay marriage and abortion wouldn't exist without humans, I meant it more as don't use the creations of the human mind that wouldn't exist without our wild creativeness. Abortion and gay marriage aren't a result of creativity, and for all we know, one religion might not be either, but it does seem every religion has its claims that are found nowhere else that are literally not of this world. Just use the natural world that everyone can relate to if they bother themselves for any and all reasoning, and that's what I meant by seeing if one's beliefs are supported without their personal beliefs.

My support for gay marriage does not come from that I am gay (influenced, but not originated), for example. (Especially as I know from personal experience,) Gays also have emotions, simply toward the same sex, and we don't deserve to be outed from a legal viewpoint simply because we're not with the opposite sex. And since homosexuality is not any form of harm to any one (except people which make themselves suffer over "Evil and nasty and infidelious queers !" {I'm sure they exist}), or rather is as much harm as heterosexuality, it deserves as much right and respect as heterosexuality.

I am turning 16 this month ; only this January 2007 did I have that "Holy crap. I'm gay." realisation with myself. I really 'supported' homosexuality beginning August 2006, even though I thought I might be ridiculed by my friends. My intentions to support homosexuality was not because I was gay (I didn't think of relationships in sexual terms then), but rather because I realised that just because 'holy and right and special' religions condemned homosexuality doesn't mean they were right. I realised for myself that homosexuality is as much of everything that heterosexuality is, minus reproduction (for two men..). And only within the last month or two did I realistically view, for example, pædophilia and realise that it's wrong because of greater reasons than simply because it's frowned upon by the sane general public.

My "beliefs" are made from reality, not me pretending my wishes are reality, and that's what I wanted to point out to people, that maybe some of their beliefs are because of only what they believe, and might have nothing to do with what things really are. 65 views and this is the 17th post – perhaps the people who've realised their beliefs have nothing to do with observable reality have avoided posting ? All of us who've posted here seem to have looked at things at a relatively logical standpoint in my opinion. Or, maybe all of RF's forum members are just rather rational people.

 

[ChristineES]

I was asked where I get my beliefs, why I have them. The fact is that I can't say, probably many sources and reasons added up. Even if someone has a belief that can't be supported, then they still have a right to follow it . As long as it does not harm someone or their property, that is for example, if you believe that you need to slice people open to find peace, then that is wrong, of course. I should have made that clear earlier.

I had some of my beliefs before I became a Christian. For example My belief on abortion did not come from being a Christian, as did freedom of belief.

If someone doesn't know the reason we have certain beliefs, do you still think they are valid? I think so.

 

[tmaromine]

Yes, they've the right to follow it (whether there's law saying that have the right to or not) no matter what it is, it simply bothers me if the belief seems totally out of this world and illogical. But, those types of beliefs will always exist and I can't change them. As long as harm is not a result, people can believe what they want. I just expect logic when people invite themselves willingly to discuss/debate over them, and everyone who's posted has been like that anyway...

With the belief of freedom of belief, how did Christianity make you believe that ? The religion thinks of any other religion or god as mocking itself and fake. Was it that you had the choice of becoming a Christian, and that you believe others should have the same option as you ? I 'believe' the same thing to. But, is that a belief ? Sure, we can believe it, and other people think contrary, but does it matter what we think ? What natural thing says one ideology is correct over another and that all others should be ignored, and who has the right to enforce that one ideology is right over another ?

I think I'm starting to sound like that I let things of little importance bother me, but, this really bothers me from a logical standpoint: "The Constitution says that the country is not biased or supportive of one religion....." Ok. Great. So what if the US Constitution says that. Take away the United States – pretend it never became. Does that – the fact that some person never wrote that no religion should conquer in a country –*mean that it's ok for one religion to conquer ? Just because our Constitution says one deserves the freedom of religion, even though it is correct, does it matter ? If it didn't exist, that does not mean people don't deserve freedom of religion and that one religion is deserves all support just because it wasn't written down that non should get biased governmental support. The Constitution says that marriage is the unition of one male and one female. And? Does just because great ole US' foundation says that marriage is only allowed for one man and woman that it signifies marriage any other way is completely incorrect ? I hate it when people try to use laws to support their side. Just because some thing's law doesn't mean it has anything undeniably correct about it. Maybe I'm going into an off-topic mental rant in my own little world now, but it simply doesn't matter what the US, or Europe, or Asia support and don't support. What they do doesn't simply make it correct, and what they don't simply doesn't make it wrong. ...And that's related to how it doesn't matter if one religion says something or if it doesn't. So far no religion has been totally sane and correct in telling what people should be thinking and how they should think, and so far no government has been able to say so either. So what's one do when all governments and all religions might have no absolute reason to take as 'morally' correct ? I've had to go through that, and the only answer I've found is the natural world.

Freedom of belief: why? Not because it's "right", but because there are always people who will think differently and will not agree, no one should be forced into anything, and because maybe not even I am right, and do I not want to be able to change my beliefs if I feel that way ? Because one religion, or a country enthralled in a religion, says that only their belief is right, doesn't make it so.

Gay marriage: why? Because the Constitution says that it's not allowed isn't an answer against it, and neither is it an answer because one's religion says it's not allowed. Why?–*because there's no real reason anti it. "My god said so" isn't an answer until we all know your god is without doubt real. So what is real while we're in doubt ? The real, undeniable, natural world. And what's it say ? Well, it doesn't. Basically, it does imply that heterosexual reproductive sex is required so that a species can live on. But that's on the basis of giving the species a future. And while that's nice, especially as one's own children or grandchildren, some people want to live their life *now* with someone, and anyone that they are intellectually and/or physically attracted to. If homosexuality is a choice, I guarantee I never would've chosen it, or that I would right now leave it. But I can't seem to, and that's because of mere inability. Some people want to live their life with that special person, that they are also attracted to, and don't care about having kids (of their own at least). To deny homosexual marriage is to be arrogant. If someone wants to refute me on that, then they cannot use their person religion/beliefs.

Abortion: why? Is it wrong because someone considers it "murder" ? Is it not murder ? Does that matter ? Who is giving our species its importance but ourselves ?; to claim that abortion is wrong because it denies life to an already-creating member of humans, and humans are "more important" than any other lifeform is nonsense. We are special in that we have the ability to think about our surroundings, and communicate among ourselves about that. Doesn't mean we have this magical importance to fulfill. And why should a person be obliged to care for something they might not want to, even if they didn't care to take caution on the idea of having sex ? Where's it said that we are so important that the female creator of all of us doesn't deserve the decision to continue us on or to kill us off of this sitcom called Reality ? Clearly, I shouldn't be able to command some female to have an abortion and it be considered ok, but that female should be able to if she wants.

I'd say that beliefs that have uncertainty pertaining to their origin are valid. If one wants to get all technical, the idea of that belief simply has to exist and it is a 'valid' part of reality. But if the beliefs are created from the unbiased real world, how can their origin not be traced back to logic or personal emotion ?

(If you've read all that, I congratulate you... When I get into a topic, I seem to pour very many words into it...)