Quantcast
Locked: ‘You’ve made your choice’: Man shares dad’s brutal letter disowning him for being gay

Forums - General Discussion - ‘You’ve made your choice’: Man shares dad’s brutal letter disowning him for being gay

Jay520 said:

Athiests don't have a dilemma because we don't make any claim. We may not know why the BigBang/Universe started because there is no justified explanation for why it started. With all the data we have currently, we just don't know or understand. We are not forced to come to any conclusion. It is okay to say we don't know. There may be a reason why everything started from nothing and of course we don't understand it currently. But just because we don't understand it doesn't mean we should just blame it on God. In cases like this, we just say "we don't know".

But of course, some athiests are "strong atheists" who do believe that there are no Gods.

@Runa. I'm gonna continue with Jay if you don't mind, try to see if my answer to him better answers it for you too.

So Jay, there is a scenario which requires an explanation, to which the current answer is "we don't know" right? In essence the question of, what is the origin of the big bang.

Currently the answer is we don't know, just like for the believer the answer about how God is the origin of all things material is "we don't know". However, deists believe God is the end of the chain of questions.

For an atheist, is there an end to the chain of questions, or do we just not know? Also, if there is an end to the chain of questions, would it be a fully naturalistic explanation, completely self sustaining? Something like, in exceptional cases, matter and energy can be spontaneously created out of nothing, for absolutely no reason?



Around the Network
happydolphin said:

1.) Currently the answer is we don't know, just like for the believer the answer about how God is the origin of all things material is "we don't know". However, deists believe God is the end of the chain of questions.

2.) For an atheist, is there an end to the chain of questions, or do we just not know?

3.) Also, if there is an end to the chain of questions, would it be a fully naturalistic explanation, completely self sustaining? Something like, in exceptional cases, matter and energy can be spontaneously created out of nothing, for absolutely no reason?


1.) The difference is that athiests don't believe in any entity or idea without justification. There is evidence that suggests the Big Bang has occured. That is justified. However, there is no justified explanation for why the Big Bang occured. There are an inifinite amount of possibilities for why the Big Bang started and there's no justification to put faith into any of them. Simply assuming God is the source with no justification is premature narrow-minded. It hinders plenty of other, equally justified, possibilities. If we simply blamed God for everything we couldn't understand, we would have missed out on a lot scientific breakthroughs.

2.) I don't understand your question. Are you asking "Is there an answer to the chain of questions?" Well yes, of course there are answers. But, with our current knowledge and technology, we don't have those answers. It's better to accept your ignorance than place blind faith into something and be most likely wrong.

3.) Again, I don't know. And I'm probably not intelligent enough to even comprehend the comlpexities of the creation of the universe. 

Some things are just unexplainable and should just be left unexplainable. By using God to explain the unexplainable, you really create a lapse in logic. What you're saying is "I can't explain something...therefore, I can explain it (God)".



fordy said:


I honestly would like to see somebody honestly defending the father's actions, purely for the fact that their stance will be shot to pieces. Yes it's very easy to take the middle ground, but if our society was based that way, there would be no rule of law, no judgement and no consequences to actions. There needs to be logical actions and motives behind both sides.

The insults directed at the father were based on the outcome of his actions. Nobody is forcing him to keep contact with his son, but to many, the very idea that disownment of your own flesh and blood is a reasnable choice for ANY situation AT ALL is enough to put that parent's ability as a parent into question. This is why you see a lot of "bad father" insults. If you disagree, then I'm willing to listen to why you believe disownment of family would EVER be classed as a sensible decision.

Also, keep in mind that the son is a victim here. How would you feel if your parents, the ones who are supposed to love you unconditionally, suddenly take that away? Yes, it can be justified that this may have been hard for the father to do, but the very idea of showing a family member that unconditional love is even being questioned is, in itself, a despicable act. I don't care what any book says about that.

Now on top of this, imagine living in a society that has a good chunk of discrimination towards who you are. In that situation, anyone on the receiving end of this needs all of the support they can. Now, imagine how it would feel if the ones who should be providing the most support for you, the ones who should be standing up for who you are, decide "nope, we're no longer supporting who you are", then how would that make them feel?

Say a child came to you, and claimed that they were being bullied. He is clearly distressed and scared. Do you see any right or wrong side to this? Do you perceive the actions of the bully as wrong because they go against your perceived limitations as to what a bully's role is? Maybe the bully's beliefs are unquestionable...the line has to be drawn somewhere.

As I said before, I wish the son all of the support in the world. He came out, thinking that being honest with his father was the right thing to do, and the father showed him otherwise. The father, once again as I've mentioned before, done nothing legally wrong, but out of all the ways to handle this, he chose to disown his own son. It was approached in a way that showed no remorse whatsoever. No "I love you, but....", just flat out dosownment. Tell me, why should those who insult the father relax when he couldn't even provide the same kind of constraint and reasoning with his own son? In that sense, this is a father that cannot be reasoned with.

I can forsee deep regret from this father on (or close to) his deathbed, that he spent all of his life hating, and it cost him a life with his son. You only get one chance at that...


I don't believe in the notion of right and wrong. I believe that people define their notion of right based on their own desires. They define righteous actions as those with a favorable return. Naturally, there are more popular actions that are desired and we are conditioned from birth to see those as preferable. Often with popular opinions people begin to see the numerous occurrences of a belief as an indication that it is a normative belief and it is seen as the standard of right and wrong. The reasoning is that these these values occur so often because they are right. I do not believe the two are correlated (there have been many popular errant beliefs throughout history). You see your own beliefs as this normative, unquestionable standard. This is why you use absolutes and quantitative statements(ALL/EVER/NEVER/ANY). You seek to affirm your own sense of right by its quantitative correlation with the normative standard.

I have my own manner of living that I see as more preferable, but I would never be so egocentric as to say that is right for anybody but me. My life is not filled with lawlessness and rarely is there any need for consequence since I do my best to not go against other's wishes. I try to treat all other's notions of right and wrong as equal to my own.

As long as you continue to see your own notion of right as unquestionable then of course nobody will ever come up with any examples to the contrary, just as you may never come up with any examples as to why the father should have tolerated his son's lifestyle. It is not a very productive position when anything you can think to say is met with resistance no matter how reasonable it may appear to you. In which case, the father may have perhaps taken the better stand. He recognized that his son's position was not going to change and that he could not respect such a position without betraying his own convictions, so the line he drew was a line of disassociation. By not associating with his son he is not proving an obstacle to his son's chosen lifestyle; likewise his son is not proving an obstacle to his own lifestyle.



How do you breathe again?

Oh boy, if you agree you are a fear monger, if not then you are a sinner. I can careless what anyone here believes to be the truth but I think no one cares what anyone else thinks either. I've seen letters like this posted because of politics, inter racial dating, joining the military, being a cat person, drinking alcohol, etc. Why people want sympathies from total strangers is beyond me. I'll just say no one is special and if you think your lifestyle makes you special it does not. No real shock value to me. But hey, it is what it is.



Just because you chose to quote a famous dead person does not mean that you are some type of intellect nor does it mean that the quote in question is correct.

.................



Just because you chose to quote a famous dead person does not mean that you are some type of intellect nor does it mean that the quote in question is correct.

Around the Network
Marks said:
I wouldn't disown my kid if he was gay, but I certaintly wouldn't be proud of his lifestyle (choice).

It's not a choice.



spurgeonryan said:

Five years ago, a man named James came out to his father as gay. The father's written response, posted on a Reddit atheism forum, has become a viral sensation.

 

 

 

Five years ago, a man named James called his father and came out to him as gay.

This week, James posted a letter he says his father sent in response that disowned his son forever to the Web forum Reddit under the heading, “This is how hate sounds.”

“I hope your telephone call was not to receive my blessing for the degrading of your lifestyle,” it begins. “I have fond memories of our time together, but that is all in the past.”

In the letter, James’ father goes on to cut off contact with his son. “No communications at all,” he writes. “I will not come to visit, nor do I want you in my house.”

He continues, “You’ve made your choice though wrong it may be. God did not intend for this unnatural lifestyle.”

If his son chooses not to attend his funeral, he says, “my friends and family will understand.”

The brief, brutal letter ends with, “Have a good birthday and good life. No present exchanges will be accepted. Goodbye.”




 

I keep saying were better off without religion, and this is yet another reason why.

Religion will always be an excuse for illogical racism and murder, even if it also has good intentions.



Jay520 said:
happydolphin said:

1.) Currently the answer is we don't know, just like for the believer the answer about how God is the origin of all things material is "we don't know". However, deists believe God is the end of the chain of questions.

2.) For an atheist, is there an end to the chain of questions, or do we just not know?

3.) Also, if there is an end to the chain of questions, would it be a fully naturalistic explanation, completely self sustaining? Something like, in exceptional cases, matter and energy can be spontaneously created out of nothing, for absolutely no reason?


1.) The difference is that athiests don't believe in any entity or idea without justification. There is evidence that suggests the Big Bang has occured. That is justified. However, there is no justified explanation for why the Big Bang occured. There are an inifinite amount of possibilities for why the Big Bang started and there's no justification to put faith into any of them. Simply assuming God is the source with no justification is premature narrow-minded. It hinders plenty of other, equally justified, possibilities. If we simply blamed God for everything we couldn't understand, we would have missed out on a lot scientific breakthroughs.

2.) I don't understand your question. Are you asking "Is there an answer to the chain of questions?" Well yes, of course there are answers. But, with our current knowledge and technology, we don't have those answers. It's better to accept your ignorance than place blind faith into something and be most likely wrong.

3.) Again, I don't know. And I'm probably not intelligent enough to even comprehend the comlpexities of the creation of the universe. 

Some things are just unexplainable and should just be left unexplainable. By using God to explain the unexplainable, you really create a lapse in logic. What you're saying is "I can't explain something...therefore, I can explain it (God)".


Indeed. When will people realise that god just cant exist. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Say even if god was the one that made the big ben, what made god? God just is? Then why cant the universe just be aswell? It was born from nothing, the struggle between matter and anti-mater. God is an uncessary step, there is no point to it. Matter or anti-matter win and the rest of the laws of the universe come into place as the particles interact with each other. As much as we wish there would be a god, there really is no sense to that possibility.

But, here on earth we have a bunch of clowns discriminating, murdering in the name of something that doesnt exist. Its nothing but collective insanity when it gets to that point. The only god there is is chance. The chance that made this star called sun the size it is and this rock called earth forming just at the right distance. Just the same chance that is gonna bring the andromeda galaxy coming crashing down on the milky way or any stray comet or celestial body or gamma burst that can fry us at any time. The gods are us, born in the blink of an eye out of pure chance, with a chance to outgrow the laws of the universe to survive past the blink of luck that spawned us.



Cub said:
Scoobes said:
Well this was an enlightening and at times depressing thread. My take:

1. The Father who decided to write this letter is a coward who hid behind his beliefs instead of reflecting on his views. A letter is a horrible and cowardly way of facing up to this issue. He also has horrible handwriting...

2. I question why we should respect and accept other people's viewpoints if we logically can see they're flawed. I won't respect anyone who believes female "circumcision" is OK, or that "honor" killing is acceptable. The same goes with this.

3. Current research shows homosexuality is a mixture of nature, nurture and even some indicators showing chemicals in the water system (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101201/full/news.2010.641.html)... at least in some birds... Anyway, not sure that any of that indicates "lifestyle choice".

 

"Sorry, the file you have requested cannot be found on any of our servers at the address specified."

could you please give us another link or at least the title of the article? I'll look it up :)

I think it's because I added )... at the end of the link. Try this now:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101201/full/news.2010.641.html

If not, just look up "Mercury causes homosexuality in male Ibises" on the Nature website. I was only posting it as a semi-joke post but it's an interesting find nonetheless.



Jay520 said:
happydolphin said:

1.) Currently the answer is we don't know, just like for the believer the answer about how God is the origin of all things material is "we don't know". However, deists believe God is the end of the chain of questions.

2.) For an atheist, is there an end to the chain of questions, or do we just not know?

3.) Also, if there is an end to the chain of questions, would it be a fully naturalistic explanation, completely self sustaining? Something like, in exceptional cases, matter and energy can be spontaneously created out of nothing, for absolutely no reason?


1.) The difference is that athiests don't believe in any entity or idea without justification. There is evidence that suggests the Big Bang has occured. That is justified. However, there is no justified explanation for why the Big Bang occured. There are an inifinite amount of possibilities for why the Big Bang started and there's no justification to put faith into any of them. Simply assuming God is the source with no justification is premature narrow-minded. It hinders plenty of other, equally justified, possibilities. If we simply blamed God for everything we couldn't understand, we would have missed out on a lot scientific breakthroughs.

2.) I don't understand your question. Are you asking "Is there an answer to the chain of questions?" Well yes, of course there are answers. But, with our current knowledge and technology, we don't have those answers. It's better to accept your ignorance than place blind faith into something and be most likely wrong.

3.) Again, I don't know. And I'm probably not intelligent enough to even comprehend the comlpexities of the creation of the universe. 

Some things are just unexplainable and should just be left unexplainable. By using God to explain the unexplainable, you really create a lapse in logic. What you're saying is "I can't explain something...therefore, I can explain it (God)".

This is a great post that explains the atheist POV very well.