PaulS

Personally, if my children are still young enough to be sexually assaulted at all, I wouldn't allow them to go to a toilet on their own, regardless of whether trans people could enter them or not (or others maybe taking advantage of the new laws). I have boys, so in a male toilet I take care with them. If I had girls, I think I would still take care, regardless. Adult female women might still be threat to young girls (or teenage girls could be the threat, or indeed simply other children). I think it is a fairly naive view if people think their kids are safe in sex-designated toilets vs shared toilets. Yes, many parents have been brought up with separation - so how does anyone start to break down these taboos unless laws are changed? I didn't see apartheid in South Africa come to an end because white people felt it was time. If blacks were the minority (like transgender) should we be concerned about the majority, or about acceptance/helping of the minority? Uncomfortable as it may be (which personally I fail to see why anyone should be uncomfortable, although I acknowledge that because of their conditioning some people are) I think the community can work through this and come out fairly unscathed. There was extreme resistance in the US south to blacks integrating in previously all-white schools. Many black people were punished, harmed, even killed because of this resistance. We are miles from those dark days but still with work to come. Maybe this is one small step forward to better accommodating/accepting/understanding that minority of transgender brothers and sisters? I'm not sure though the push is only by transgender people though. To me, if the government is prepared to pass new laws to accommodate this issue, there must be a fair degree of confidence that more than the minority transgender community will support this? It would seem to me that a fair number of non-TG people must be for these new laws.

I'm not in the US and I am unsure of the commentary around this issue, but I would imagine there must be some degree of support for such changes to be made, otherwise the government/s of the day can expect to be turfed if this is such an uncomfortable yet passionate issue for the majority. Of course the hope could be that once implemented, soon thereafter people might decide there really was no big deal after all with sharing the toilet. Changerooms could be a different issue I guess if a male identifying as a female wants to use the female showers, but the original post was only referencing bathrooms, which I just can't see as being a big deal once people start to share them. Certainly religious baggage is always hard to break/bring forward without often a degree of consternation.

I'm sure it does open up a can of worms and many, many people will have trouble adjusting I am sure. But that doesn't mean we can't move past this uncomfortableness, eventually. What is it about our bodies that make us uncomfortable about other people seeing our 'bits'? Perhaps the bigger question is why we should feel that way in the first place? Maybe if we had a more practical view about the human body we wouldn't be so hung up on dress standards and 'morals', but rather could simply accept, as every other animal does in this world, that our bodies are nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about, but rather they are simply the flesh that our species have been dealt with. So I guess these changes could perhaps be uncomfortable for the 'majority', but I think it's a move forward for everybody regarding acceptance of all.

So what could the actual issues be here? A male walks into a female toilet and uses a cubicle just like the girl next door. Personally, I don't see why that should be a problem for anyone. We all do the same business as each other, just out of different body bits. Now maybe a female person walking into a male toilet where males use an open urinal may run the risk of a female seeing male genitalia. That wouldn't bother me and obviously it wouldn't bother the 'questionable' person going in there. I'm currently in Korea and using a many shared, unisex toilet. In my office I'm often standing at the urinal when the lady cleaner is sweeping and mopping around my feet! Urinals here tend to be single ones, side by side, but with 'wings' which afford a little more modesty. I think the above changes may take a little time to adjust, but once people are over that hump I think we'll see that there's nothing awfully unique about male vs female toilets. Maybe our kids will mature a little around sexuality and genitalia in the process?

Just to clarify, I don't think all atheists are close-minded in general, I think that Atheists who take a position that denies any potential existence of God, by that mark they are closing their minds to any potential for God. It seems they have already made their mind up that God cannot exist, so therefore I don't think they would be very open-minded to the potential for God to exist. But I digress simply to clarify, not change the direction of the thread.

Hi Jim, Yes, some threads strike a chord and generate more discussions than others between some members. It can be a bit daunting sometimes catching up on dozens of threads/posts. of course other times it can be very, very quiet here too. I realise you didn't say God is meaningless and I fully understand the difference you explain. I have no doubt that the word God means something different to every single person - small ways between some, chasms for others. I too cannot imagine a God that requires belief in said God. To me, that sounds much more like a man-made concept. Obviously there's been a fair bit of discussion since your post, so in that context and cutting to the chase, do you consider the question of God existence as closed, or do you leave room for the potential of God? I'm using the term God here in the sense of an entity or entities that exist in a way or on a different plane (e.g. supernatural) thatn our presnet natural world as we understand it. If you do leave room, do you think that fits more under the label of agnostic rather than atheist, or do you think athesim can be open-minded toward God whilst also saying that at this stage they don't believe God exists?

I take both your points (Joseph & Rom) and agree that labelling people this or that doesn't always work. A strong atheist may be close-minded, or maybe they're not. Similarity for a less-strong atheist. Same for a PC, non-PC, a fundy, or an agnostic. Labels provide an indication for ease of categorising things (humans love to categorise). If at all necessary, maybe I could say that somebody who says that there is absolutely no chance of a God or Gods existing, even in a fashion we don't yet understand, and subsequently they won't even entertain the possibility or perhaps potential evidence that may confirm such, as being close-minded in this instance. It's just that atheist is so much shorter! As for North American dust bunnies, I hadn't heard that phrase before or indeed been provided any evidence to confirm their existence, but in my open-minded state I now believe and accept that dust bunnies do exist! Finally Rom, I think I am agnostic for all those Gods you raise. I doubt they exist, but one can never say never!

Rom, The law of thermodynamics is simply man's way of understanding the science around such things. What of the things we don't know? How can we say with 100% certainty that there isn't something we don't know about the law of thermodynamics? Maybe the universe isn't a closed system as such thus allowing something to come into it from 'elsewhere'. Although I don't believe it to be so or expect it to ever be demonstrated as such, I cannot say 100% that it is impossible. I do think the opposite is what many strong atheists would say concerning - God does not nor ever can, exist. So that's where I was asking Jim who self-identifies as an atheist, where he stood on that point. As it seems neither you or I are calling ourselves atheist, I was simply asking what soembody who does call themselves such thinks about this. Like you, I can't know that pink fluffy unicorns don't exist, although I highly suspect it is not so. Similarly, I actively disbelieve in dust bunnies. But this does not mean I say "they cannot and 100% do not, exist". If I were to say that I am 100% right that dust bunnies or fluffy pink unicorns do not and can not ever exist, then am I open to accepting information that might point towards their existence. I don't think so.

Maybe we don't understand cause and effect well enough and maybe there could be something that is untouchable, not properly understood by us in our current state, that does 'enter/participate' into this world. Just going with the 'typical' understanding of God - a entity or energy, outside of our known physical realm, that interferes or influence this realm, somehow. I'm not trying to debate whether or not that thing actually exists, I'm just saying that we know that we don't know everything, so maybe we don't know what we don't know - i.e. God?

Definitely Rom, I agree with you. But in this instance I am using the term 'supernatural' to mean just that, something outside what we might otherwise regard as natural or touchable. I wasn't trying to implicate things that we simply to do not understand yet.

Jim, Going back to what kicked this off then - would you say you are open-minded to there being a God/s or some type of supernatural entity that we don't yet understand, or are you closed-minded so to speak believing that the concept of God is 'impossible'. Not a loaded question, just asking as you are self-identifying as an atheist and this goes to the core of what started this discussion. Cheers Paul

I've had a little bit of an absence with my career taking a new direction last year (change of industry) so I found myself participating here a lot less. Probably also partly because I think I am less 'searching' now than I was when I first started here some 5 years ago - well a lot less than 5 years ago, but more 'less' in the past year or so. However I do enjoy the community here and re-entering discussions is not a problem. Glad you've had a chance to re-engage a bit Annie. I hope you're move to across the pond is working out well for you. Cheers Paul

Welcome Jim, Yes, a very powerful and uplifting hymn celebrating the majesty of our universe and eliciting gratitude and joy, even if some of it doesn't sit well with us for various reasons. I hope you enjoy reading and participating here. Cheers Paul

Also as a non-US resident, I too favour Hillary for much the same reasons as Rom. I dread what the US may become if Trump is elected.

Yes, thank you Joseph. We did get off track there and pleased the thread was restored to focus on the original question. I apologize for the oversight on my part too.

Yes, more agnosticism and less certainty around lots of beliefs (political, emotional, cultural, etc) can't be a bad thing.

Yes Joseph, that is how I understand atheism to be defined in dictionaries, but that definition doesn't fit how I see atheist defining themselves usually. IMO, there is more to atheism than just saying "I don't believe in God", which is what an agnostic is I guess. So why don't atheists call themselves agnostics instead? Wouldn't that position allow them to say they don't believe in God and see no scientific proof of such etc etc, whilst still leaving room for the open-mindedness about God existing? This discussion started with me suggesting an agnostic view left room for God even though I don't believe currently, whereas atheism seems to go that step further and say there is no God, which really I can't see how they can say that. Anyway, it's no bother to me and I appreciate the discussion. I hope no atheists were harmed during this discussion ???

I'm probably arguing a point that doesn't really need any arguing. It's just that most 'atheist' organisations, websites etc that I have seen, well they tend to state that they have shut he door on any concept of 'God'. To me that is being closed minded to the concept of God. Take the Atheist Foundation of Australia for instance, which amongst other things state "No personality or mind can exist without the process of living matter to sustain it. We have only one life – here and now. All that remains after a person dies is the memory of their life and deeds in the minds of those who live." That to me seems a very definitive statement which doesn't seem open minded at all. How can anyone be conclusive of what happens after death? Atheist, or otherwise for that matter. So how can an atheist shut the door on God yet be open minded toward there being God? You can't have both.

I couldn't agree more. But back to whether atheists are open-minded or not about God, would you say that an atheist is open to the concept of God? That they don't rule out 'God'? Sure, their mind may change tomorrow, but if today they are calling themselves an atheist, I think they are saying that they do not consider themselves open-minded about God. Of course, if new beliefs creep up on them and they do consider God a possibility, then they are no longer an atheist. Labels - aren't they grand!

So like me, Dawkins is 6.9 out of 7 sure that there is no God - not 100% sure. Notably he answers that he is an agnostic (even though others refer to him as an atheist). So to me it would seem he has not closed his mind to the minute possibility of God, however he is not calling himself an atheist either. Would not an atheist be 7 out of 7 sure there is no God and thus have a closed mind to God potential?

Perhaps I do. But if one is prepared to state categorically that there is and can be no God, is that not being closed-minded about the matter? Not to trivalise the matter, I don't believe in pink unicorns either, but I don't think I can say with 100% accuracy that pink unicorns don't exist. I can live my life as though they don't, I can say with reasonably certainty that they don't, but by vgirtue of the fact that I cannot prove that they don't surely an eency weency part of my mind has to remain open that they do exist (not that I do anything with that part though).

The jury is still out for me but I am pretty convinced as it stands that there is no such thing as the supernatural or spiritual gifts. However I do appreciate and understand that people like yourself and Joseph feel they have them or have experienced them, so I do respect your beliefs - it's just that I don't think I have experienced such and don't think I will. But one can never say never! That said, I sometimes do feel as though we are all 'connected', but I think that's more my mind telling me that than any spiritual influence. But I'm probably also down the low end of the PC scale! Cheers Paul

Welcome Ahh, I hope you enjoy participating here. I look forward to what you may have to say. Cheers Paul

The only thing I hope to relay to people I meet is that I am no threat to them and would prefer to be in community with them. As a male in my culture a firm handshake and the courtesy of looking another in the eye is the usual greeting, or maybe a peck on the cheek and a hug in more familiar circumstances. I hope to appreciate that the person on the other end has their own life and could have things going on in there that I have no idea about, so I try to be accepting of everyone I meet. I don't know if I think of offering them hope in particular, however I would like to think that a friendly greeting expresses the hope that we can all get along.

Bill, I wish you well in whatever direction life takes you. Enjoy the ride. Cheers Paul