So as is appropriate, I am starting a discussion rather than posting comments. I was going to go back and look at the original comment that started all the controversy but it has mysteriously disappeared. I would be curious to know if the author is the one who deleted it. It seems to me that he was not treated with respect from the beginning.

Maybe it is unpopular, but I thought he made valid points. I believe the first was a question about why have biological children rather than adopt. The second was concerning respect for children and treating them like people rather than inferior people. I apologize if my summary is inaccurate as the original post disappeared.

My husband and I chose to have two children of our own rather than adopt. I admit that we made that decision for selfish reasons, but my justification is that we are just replacing ourselves. Which is weak, I admit. I would, however, be open to adoption should I want any more children or perhaps under the right unforeseen circumstances.

I think he made several other good points regarding parenting. I do agree that children can learn to control their emotional reactions. After all, how do adults learn it? Hopefully they begin learning it from their parents when they are toddlers.

Views: 23

Replies to This Discussion

then what are you doing here? shouldn't you be at church, seeking your illusory happiness?

i'm like george carlin, all i'm asking for is a little consistency. either you see the world as it is and work to make it better, or you tune out reality, seek short-term happiness, and wait to die. most people do that through religion. why would you object to religion just to form your own similar fantasies?

 Come on Egan tell the truth, your really an iimature Vulcan with Mommy Daddy issues arent you?? Its ok, you can share. Here Ill start for you...Hello my name is Egan.......
Egan, it is obvious that you have no interest in discussing anything. Why are you posting here? And why are you so pissed off? Some people have tried to be cordial and entertain a discussion yet all you seem to do is hurl insults. You seem to be quite self righteous. Just like most religious people. You need to quit being so judgmental and grow up. At the point that you think you know everything that is when you know NOTHING.
it seems to be you who's not interested in discussing anything, as all you've been doing is trying to smear my character. i'm pointing out a severe inconsistency in behaviour, but instead of admitting this hypocrisy and changing it, or giving a reason why it's not hypocritical, all you're doing is getting offended and coming up with reasons nbot to consider my point.
Egan, I think we all get your point and got it long ago. I was aware of the ideas before you ever brought them up. I think, however, that those of us responding are able to see a bigger picture. I doubt that we're all the kind of people who generally go around sniffing for arguments. I'm far from being that kind of person and only speak out if something is said that is far from representing reality, as I have found it to be in this case. We're not here to prove anything to you. You asked a question, many of us have answered, and ALL of us who have responded have interpreted your behavior as being not only rude but lacking in a complete grasp of what we're saying. I'm sorry if you don't get it, but maybe someday you will. I mean, really, we've answered your damn question. By the way, most people, even Dawkins, can't pass your test for rational behavior! Adios!
BIGGER picture? you can't even see outside your own life. you've already given personal happiness as a justification for contributing to the destruction of society. you need to get a bigger picture, think about the consequences of your actions, as they apply to others besides yourself
Hm...yes, maybe I'm just an evil idiot...because I so didn't realize there was life outside of my own! Oops...resorting to sarcasm. It just feels like we're talking in maybe I've spoken about being globally responsible several times..? Oh well. I have to agree with Gecko; start at the beginning and discuss over population in a new thread. Maybe starting there will get you somewhere.
In case you didn't notice I defended you when others were attacking you multiple times because you do make some rational points. But your rational points are a waste of my computer screen if you can't manage to show at least a little bit of tact and diplomacy. I was very interested in your points but you have yet to concisely, coherently, and civilly convey your point in a way that we idiots can understand. I am not offended; I am annoyed.

Just what is your point EXACTLY?? Which hypocrisy EXACTLY?
the hypocrisy of claiming to be rational in one respect, then using reeligious arguments to justify behaviour in another. to say that "because it makes me happy" is a good enough reason to contribute to the overpopulation of the planet, but not good enough to justify believing in fairy tale creatures.
I actually find it more acceptable for a religious person to say they believe in god because they want to as opposed to believing in god because it makes sense. Someone who doesn't care whether or not god or religion can be explained but chooses to believe anyway is making a conscious and deliberate choice. Someone who tries to make rational arguments for god's existence is delusional.

The hypocrisy is easy to explain. Everyone here wanted to have children, and no one here wants to believe in god. It is a question of motivation.
Very well said, Beach Bum. You've taken my own jumbled thoughts and expressed them clearly and concisely!
people shouldn't make decisions based on what sounds or feels nice. something being pleasant or polite doesn't make it true or valuable. what i can't understand is someone taking that approach to some things and not others. like someone who doesn't believe in gods because there's no evidence, but firmly believes in new world order conspiracies. i see those as fundamentally the same thing, an imaginary entity used to make everything seem planned, for which there cannot be evidence by definition.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service