JJ,
It doesn’t mean you’re wrong either.

“So on the satirical famine programme planned by channel 4, is for or against it right?”

Objecting to a programme that you don’t want to see is not a violation of anyone’s freedom of speech. Banning it is an action that blocks freedom of speech.

Jake, that might be true in a vacuum. But in today’s ban happy environment, where twitter mobs wield as much power to ban what they don’t want as governments do we can’t just pretend that the only free speech violations that exist are ones committed by governments. The famine program should have been aired specifically because people tried to get it off the air. There’s a wider point to be made and people in general need to be desensitised to offensive media if we’re going to preserve free speech into the future.

Science is used by secularists to back up their own faith. Science has not yet dismissed god, and as long as the secularists, can continue to say they believe creation came from nothing, its not so unbelievable that a man rose from the dead.

Science accepts where the evidence points and builds the best theory based on observational fact.
Show me any proof/evidence at all for a higher being?

If you believe in something then it is your responsibility to prove that belief. This is exactly why scientific papers are peer reviewed and attacked from all angles, trying to find a weakness/missing.
Science takes nothing on faith or belief

Oh and you say that it is unbelievable that we “Came from nothing”, even though that is far from what evolution states, where did “God” come from?

we live in a bubble and have no idea what is out there or how it work outside the bubble. This bubble is governed by time, but that’s not to say time exists anywhere else. Unfortunately man thinks he knows a lot of things or can find out a lot of things, yet we know very little in the grand scheme. For all we know we could all be asleep and not even look human. We might be part of a bigger brain for all we know.

Maybe, but until you can prove it then that means nothing other than amusing thought asides.

Science is only interested in presenting what we can prove (or have compelling evidence for, for consideration). It should always be sceptical and question everything.
The big thing that science should always do is abandon ideas that are found to be incorrect. There should be no Dogma, nothing is sacred and everything can change based on our best understanding.

Even science demands that you must get to a point where, something existed without been created.

Where is the evidence for this

Can you please provide a source for this claim?

Just because you can’t prove something exists doesn’t mean it does not exist, There are plenty of things in science that we think should exist and think we see the effects of, like dark matter, but has yet to be proven. In fact science theory is never actually proven. We take it as proven based on the fact that we think we know everything about that, and that nothing else is probable to come along to displace that theory. It’s very hard for us to think outside the Box (our universe) when we don’t even know if there is anything beyond our universe and what shape of form that might take. We think that speed is the fastest thing in our universe and is presented as fact, yet there has been some measurements recently that might lead to greater than speed. Science is always open to correction and the lid will never be shut.

just as it would be impossible to prove something does not exist, It could be just as impossible to prove something does exist. What is existence anyway?

We know everything about it, until we don’t. Science will amend based on the best available evidence.

People propose something like dark matter, as we are missing something to explain the acceleration of the universe. It is NOT taken as fact and items like this are often used by those that are not involved in science to, incorrectly, back up their claim that “just because it is not proven does not make it true”. There is evidence to point to something being there are there are proposals as to what they are. People will investigate these hypotheses until one is found to fit our current understanding.

Science adapts to the evidence
Religion adapts the evidence

Unfortunately I don’t think it would be possible to prove religion one way or the other based on our location within our universe governed by a set of rule that probably don’t apply outside our universe. I think religion will remain as a belief, and to try and prove it one way or another is pointless. You either believe in it or you don’t, and that is the basis of religion. If you truly believe in it then you don’t need proof, and if you don’t believe in it then you question it. Can’t ever see that changing.
I agree that science adapts to the evidence, but religion does not adapt the evidence. For everything that science questions, if god does exist then that’s the way he made it, he could quite easily have created the big bang, and set evolution on its course ect ect ect. That’s the whole point of religion, its the belief not the fact, the belief that he is all powerful and there is nothing he cannot do. I know of very few people that have taken their belief to hart that then go on to question that belief or try and prove its fact.

Do they though? science requires rigorous examination before anything can be accepted as fact, the burden of proof for opinions is a lot lower. I’m not sure what you’re specifically referring to but ‘religious’ opinions (whatever that means) and secular opinions should be held to the same standard, ideally.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point
Now when you read this. dont say it does not support what I said because it does.
He states nothing existed before the big bang, the nothing was uncreated.

Actually it does not as it is one man’s opinion (based on circumstantial evidence sure but still his opinion/idea). He has no proof that this happened

Science is not afraid to say that it does not know, unlike religion. Religion takes what is unexplained and attaches a supernatural answer to it.
Science takes something we don’t know and investigates to the nth degree in the hope of finding the truth

…and to add to the above, if it’s ok to mock our own religion (RTE have broadcast Father Ted) but not other religions, then why is that? Is it because our reaction to it is less severe than holding people hostage, or blowing people up, or doing all sorts of “harm” in retaliation because they’re just at the emotional level of 2 yr olds because their religion has them rooted in insecurity, then it’s not really a one size fits all rule, is it?

Some religions will be offended and some religions will be more outwardly harmfully offended, I would say….all questions that need to be asked to find out what is at the root of this very vague law.

Love that scene but that’s more just Dougal being a lovable fool though. Can’t really say it’s mocking the religion. But it is true about difficulties in not knowing what’s too far and what’s acceptable. To the people who would be offended though, they should just simply state that they’ve been offended and move along. No need for people to make a big song and dance about it. Let artists do what they want and if there’s enough people complaining about it, then they’ve went too far.

Regarding the second comment (only seen it after posting my first response).
It should be ok to mock religion. Some people see it as an ‘all or nothing’ situation. It’s kinda sad that some people don’t have a more open outlook on their religion but with any religion, you’re going to have to deal with their militant wings who believe that religion is doctrine and there’s no room for interpretation.

I believe that in a multi denominational country, such as our own, should have an exclusion of state and religion. I think that laws should be based on rights and not religious beliefs. Personally, I think they should remove the harm part from the new programme standards. You said it yourself, it is very vague. Harm generally means that it is against someone’s will. Whereas offence means that you can avoid it. So there’s really no need for the harm part in the programme standard.

I never found FT offensive, but I can see how someone would. That said, plenty of practicing Catholics find it hilarious so it’s hard to see how it mocks “religion” in general, even if it takes a swing at some of the more humorous aspects of it. We have to laugh at ourselves too sometimes.

When they promote issues that have nothing to do with the referendum in question? Yes

The opponents of Marriage Equality are slinging mud hoping something will stick as they can not just come out and say “It’s against God’s law”

No – be REPRESENTATIVE – instead of misrepresenting the actual situation.

No, theyll still make themselves heard. I just think its stupid to have to go to absurd lengths to ensure they get roughly 50pc coverage (so whenever somones on advocating yes there has to b a no) when theyve never had close to 50percent support. Esp since this is basically a turnout game there are v few genuinely undecideds and they wont b the deciders

You see Ian, even by using the term “marriage equality” you are unfortunately displaying your bias and lack of willingness to engage meaningfully with the other side. This is fine where we don’t agree with others, but what you are saying is that “I am right, and the rest of you have nothing to offer the debate.” That is, sadly, a very childish, ignorant (in the real sense of the word) and immature approach. Worse still, it is an approach that is echoed by the Government parties. One would have hoped for better tolerance in today’s society, in the same way as the man who is known to be guilty of a crime has his day in court with the best State-paid lawyers if necessary, to ensure he gets a proper hearing and the judgment has taken account of all considerations. Otherwise it’s just intolerant bullying.

The referendum is asking the question as to if we consider marriage between two adults of the same sex, that satisfy all other legal requirements to state recognised marriage, as equal to that of my marriage with my wife.

So yes, “Marriage Equality” referendum is the correct term

@Fred the reasons for being homophobic are based in personal nurosis its not like a neoliberal and social democrat tryi g to unferstsnd each others views on economics, the homobophiv mindset is not based on anything rational so u cant come to an understanding thats y this is a turnout game not a mindchage game this is not something where logival arguents gonna change most peoples minds if there homophobic theyll stay that way.

1@pointas i said the rush to give them 50pc is stupid i didnt say let none of them talk at all just drop this rule that it has to b exactly the same when this is not even an issue that will b win by debate anyway

Ian, it’s not and I think you know it. It is a biased term which indicates a preferred state (equality – who would want to be against equality?) and is only technically possible after SSM in any event. Perhaps you should have a read of this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-lipp/gay-marriage_b_3249733.html

@ pontius…… is something propaganda because you don’t like it or because it’s untrue!

Ryan,
I disagree. I think the homophobic mindset is down to lack of understanding of what homosexuality is, together with a lack of inexperience of (openly) gay people. Like economics and everything else, education is the way – achieved through honest, open, meaningful and genuine debate. After all, if you don’t think you have a strong enough argument to convince others about anything, then why do you believe it to be true yourself?

@Fred, why is it biased?

Because it indicates a desired outcome. It’s like if the referendum for reducing judges’ salaries was called the “Fairer salaries for Ireland” amendment, or the Divorce referendum the “Breaking Up Families” amendment. It is partial, loaded and bias, is intended to influence the outcome, and seriously I doubt that you can’t see it! If we want the outcome to have credibility, we MUST debate properly!

10plus years of political expetence has taught me arguing two issues on the merits of the argument are a waste of time, LGBT rights and abortion.

Sadly most people, ESP swing voters, make political decisions with their emotions not their brains thats politics 101. Most of the gen x and gen y yes voters even are not voting yes cos theyve parsed the detail of what happens to an adopted kid if his same sex parents are married n one dies v if the one that died is the only legal guardian…theyre voting yes cos theyre nit homophobic n theyre not homophobic cos theyve LGBT friemnds most social groups under 35 have at least 1 lgbt member, and as u say homophobia goes away when u know somone whos gay n u see theyre perfectly normal. I do think that exposure to lgbt people destroys homophobia thats a sociological fact (its y i dont support self segregation like seperate bars n sports teams) but argument alone does not work most of time on this topic

Ryan,
You should just round up those who you don’t think will ever come around to your way of thinking then.

How does it show a desired outcome?

It is asking me if a marriage between two men (or two women) is equal to that of my own.

Ian, if that is how you see it, then of course that’s fine. The point is that such a term is widely recognised as being a biased and loaded term. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing – just that it is a reality.

This works in the same way as how a pro-life person sees the term “pro-life” as a perfectly apt description of what is desired by them, while a pro-choice person sees the use of “pro-life” as utterly disingenuous to their position. Who, after all, is not “pro-life”?

On the current debate, if the term was “radical re-definition of the institution of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry – the societal consequences of which are not yet fully understood,” or something equally factually correct, but clearly perceptible as having negative bias, (again, only by some in society, just as you have no issue with “marriage equality” as a term) you could see how this use of language has the effect of influencing the tone of the debate, and perhaps even the outcome.

The terminology of “Marriage Equality” was questioned in the Oireachtas and found to be unbiased. This was as recent as last week

Of course it was! There is cross-party support for the amendment, which is all the more reason why it should be properly debated. At this rate, the Government is opening itself up to a McKenna Principles challenge.

Except that the wording would have to be considered in a way to prevent such a challenge.

It is asking the question specifically related to making something currently unequal, in the eyes of the state, into something equal. What other words would you propose?

I’m not saying that what they propose is incorrect. There is a view, as you state, whereby the referendum is “making something currently unequal … into something equal.” That is a factual description. Just as my previous nonsensical example of calling it the “radical re-definition of the institution of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry – the societal consequences of which are not yet fully understood,” is also factual. The former engenders feelings of positivity towards the proposal; the latter engenders negativity. It is not the Government’s role to use language which engenders emotion in either direction, but to describe a proposed amendment to the Constitution in the most neutral, yet factually correct, language.

I agree that, from your perspective, the term “marriage equality” perfectly describes what is being proposed, but can you see that for some people this may be seen as supporting one side over the other?

Why is anyone surprised when extremists do the things they do? I mean logic and history dictates that extremists will react aggressively. Why provoke that? What does provoking that gain society? This is true of any kind of extremist wether they be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish. I’m not singling out any religion here. It’s gone from a war against terror to a war against Islam. The dangerous minority of extremists should be stopped but the majority of Muslims aren’t dangerous extremists why do they get punished as well?

Who is punishing them? Is permitting offensive cartoons of Mohammed a form of collective punishment now, just because they don’t like it?

As for provocation, there is a perfectly good reason why they should be provoked. It draws them out from under their rocks and it affirms that, in our society, satirising all belief systems is a perfectly valid form of conversation and if they feel the need to get violent over it, that they will be met with force because such a reaction is not acceptable in our society.

You may say, it’s irresponsible, because somebody might get hurt – and yes, they might, but nobody said having a free society was easy and painless. Allowing primitive belief systems to terrorise both host communities and immigrant communities into cowed submission will cause a lot more people to get hurt too as those beliefs are used to trample the rights of others.