A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[gmilam]

Not true. Most heterosexual men have a great fear of homosexual sex, thus the word homophobia is actually correct even if it's consistently used incorrectly. This is not true of women. Most of them are more frightened of being hit on by a strange man than by a woman.

So fear generates hatred of the men we're afraid of.

It takes considerable effort to prevent this fear and hatred from taking root; our parents must teach us to brush it off. Failing that, the even greater burden falls on ourselves. I lived in Hollywood for ten years because it made my drive to work shorter. Constantly encountering gay people (who were open about it) slowly taught me that there is nothing to fear.

This is true. I have become fairly comfortable around gay men, but it took some thought.

Not trying to stereotype, but I have many friends who work in the theater. After talking to a few gay actors, I realized that they never made a "choice" to be gay, just like I never made a "choice" to be straight. I came to the conclusion that they were born that way.

Seems silly to hold something against them that is hard coded in their DNA.

 

[spidergoat]

...Assuming for the sake of argument that it's true, then what's wrong with "religionists" hating "heathens" like you? It isn't you they hate, it's your excreable heathenism. So their hatred isn't "bigotry" at all. You can arguably abandon your heathenism any time you like, by choosing to believe just like them.

Of course it's not bigotry. One's religion or lack of it is not an immutable trait. The only thing wrong with it is that their reasons for believing are irrational.

And what about the theories that a predisposition towards religiosity of some sort is innate in how human cognition functions and that it finds expression in most people?

It's not religiosity per se that we are predisposed to, it's seeking an agent for phenomenon.

 

[spidergoat]

Q is mistaken if he thinks that believers don't have a right to profess or proselytize or pray in public. That is pretty much an absolute right. When they don't get to do is force the government to take a stand for any particular religion. You can pray in school for instance, but the school can't lead a prayer.

 

[Magical Realist]

Not true. Most heterosexual men have a great fear of homosexual sex, thus the word homophobia is actually correct even if it's consistently used incorrectly. This is not true of women. Most of them are more frightened of being hit on by a strange man than by a woman.

So fear generates hatred of the men we're afraid of.

It takes considerable effort to prevent this fear and hatred from taking root; our parents must teach us to brush it off. Failing that, the even greater burden falls on ourselves. I lived in Hollywood for ten years because it made my drive to work shorter. Constantly encountering gay people (who were open about it) slowly taught me that there is nothing to fear.

Good point. There's also the aversion to being a sissy or a fag that is instilled in us as we are growing up. Every boy gets thoroughly trained in this sort of homophobia, which connects being a man to being masculine and macho, and effeminate traits to a sort comical weakness. That's why most hate crimes against gay people involve young men enforcing this sort of macho hatred for homos. A sort of peer pressured ethic of distancing oneself so far from being gay that you will actually beat them up on sight.

 

[Kittamaru]

Indeed... one of the things my wife has said over and over again that she adores about me is that I'm not afraid to express my emotions or be "feminine" when the situation calls for it. It makes me sad that so many young men are taught to bury that facet of their humanity away... it explains why so much violence occurs, because empathy, sympathy, and emotional understanding are considered "girly" and thus all but beaten out of men.

 

[Yazata]

Q is mistaken if he thinks that believers don't have a right to profess or proselytize or pray in public. That is pretty much an absolute right. When they don't get to do is force the government to take a stand for any particular religion. You can pray in school for instance, but the school can't lead a prayer.

Right. I agree pretty emphatically with Spidergoat about that.

 

[quinnsong]

Q is mistaken if he thinks that believers don't have a right to profess or proselytize or pray in public. That is pretty much an absolute right. When they don't get to do is force the government to take a stand for any particular religion. You can pray in school for instance, but the school can't lead a prayer.

What about a graduation speech? What if the speaker starts to proselytize and witness?

 

[spidergoat]

What about a graduation speech? What if the speaker starts to proselytize and witness?

Students can say what they want, an official speaker should limit their religious expressions to generic statements like when the president says "God bless America". The speech should be vetted beforehand, since it would be representative of the (public) school and therefore the government.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It would be a fallacy to call me a bigot considering I have nothing against people, we are actually talking about religion, which is not a person, fyi.

Have you checked your dictionary lately?

Straight out of Dictionary.com:

big·ot [big-uht] noun: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.​

They give another definition from another source, but it's essentially the same, stressing intolerance of ideas about religion, politics or race.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Not trying to stereotype, but I have many friends who work in the theater.

I understand. Why do you think it was so easy to run into gay people 24/7 in Hollywood?

I realized that they never made a "choice" to be gay, just like I never made a "choice" to be straight. I came to the conclusion that they were born that way.

A tiny cohort of the population, maybe 2% (although it's difficult to get good statistics on things like this because a lot of people are reluctant to answer), are truly bisexual. They may prefer one sex but they're comfortable with either.

These are the people who can "choose" to live a straight life (or a gay life, for that matter) in order to fit in with their community. And unfortunately, these are the people who unwittingly make the Religious Redneck Retards believe that it is possible to cure somebody of homosexuality.

Seems silly to hold something against them that is hard coded in their DNA.

Everything I've read says that it is not hereditary. If it were, there wouldn't be so many identical twins with opposite sexuality.

Besides, as I've pointed out before, (until very recently) people who don't engage in heterosexual relations aren't going to have any offspring so their genes will die out!

Some biologists think it might be the result of conditions in utero, although that seems to bring up the same problem with identical twins. Others suggest that it could be environmental conditions during early childhood, including parental treatment, which at least doesn't run into the identical-twin problem.

In any case, it seems certain that sexuality is established long before puberty. So except for that (approximately) two percent, no one can switch from one to the other.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

See, that's just it... and one of the things about God that has me a bit... confused. It is said that God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent... but even then, that does not mean He can know how things WILL proceed. Sure, He can know every choice and how every reality COULD proceed... but the future is never written in stone.

If it is, then that answers all the questions about determinism and free will.

And of course since it was God who created the universe (in this fairytale philosophy), he surely must remember how it was put together.

I think... given the risks... yes, I would have created humanity.

I should think he'd be rather bored with no intellectual companionship. How many days can you (or he) spend enraptured by sunsets and birdsong? About two million (Genesis calendar)? Three-plus trillion (cosmologists' calendar)?

It's a common snark among us unbelievers that God created man because he was lonely.

 

[GeoffP]

Q is mistaken if he thinks that believers don't have a right to profess or proselytize or pray in public. That is pretty much an absolute right. When they don't get to do is force the government to take a stand for any particular religion. You can pray in school for instance, but the school can't lead a prayer.

+1

Preaching is annoying, but not an imposition and it can't be forced away. It's precisely as SG says: the First Amendment must keep it out of officialdom. We've tried our share of theocracies.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

i have two very good looking sons and have always taught tolerance regarding sexuality, race and religion. Both are very tolerant and comfortable with religious tolerance but are still not comfortable around homosexuals. Just recently on a trip to Gatlinburg, Tenn. (what a ripoff, pretty though) we went into a place called Dick's Wings and their whole spiel is that the employees are to be kind of rude and sarcastic to the customers, that was all good and kind of fun. My aunt, my son and me were sitting at the bar and the bartender who was an extremely flamboyant and feminine man, kept trying to engage my son in conversation and was openly flirting with him, the more embarrassed my son got only seemed make the bartender more determined to try and engage my son. My son in his early twenties did not know how to articulate his displeasure and as I watched him getting redder and redder with embarrassment and anger I finally asked him,"Why can't you express to the man whether with humor or seriousness that you are not interested?" He said to me, "Mom, honestly I don't know that I can ever be comfortable with a man coming on to me."

Your post got me thinking Fraggle , what you say is true, that although I had taught tolerance to my son, he had not been exposed to very many homosexuals in his life and thus his fear (which produced anger in him) when encountering homosexuality in the real world.

Despite the fears of almost every straight man, it's extremely unusual for a gay man to hit on us. I spent ten years in Hollywood, living among them, and that never happened once!

Your son was not necessarily reacting to homosexuality itself. He was reacting to the fear of homosexual sex. As I mentioned earlier, this is a very strong feeling in the vast majority of straight men. I suppose that bartender thought he was putting on a show for the tourists, but gay people who pull shit like that set the gay rights movement back 500 years.

Most women I've talked to about it have trouble understanding this, since few of them are so frightened by being hit on by a woman.

I explain it by saying, "We are just as frightened by being hit on sexually by a strange man as you are by being hit on sexually by a strange man." At this point their eyes double in size and an expression of absolute horror takes over their face.

The way women react to being hit on by a strange woman is muted. At the worst they might slap her, but they're unlikely to scream for help, and in many cases they just laugh it off. This is the same way men react to being hit on by a strange woman. (Well actually many of us would just begin searching frantically for an empty conference room with a sofa.)

The point is that neither men nor women are terribly frightened by a sexual advance from a strange woman, whereas both men and women are terribly frightened by a sexual advance from a strange man.

 

[quinnsong]

The point is that neither men nor women are terribly frightened by a sexual advance from a strange woman, whereas both men and women are terribly frightened by a sexual advance from a strange man.

I think you are right, Fraggle. Although, I have told men to fuck off on a few occasions, I have mostly felt intimidated.

 

[quinnsong]

Have you checked your dictionary lately?

Straight out of Dictionary.com:

big·ot [big-uht] noun: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.​

They give another definition from another source, but it's essentially the same, stressing intolerance of ideas about religion, politics or race.

Sheesh.. I am a bigot when it comes to the extreme right wing in America, yep I am a bigot.

 

[Trooper]

Sheesh.. I am a bigot when it comes to the extreme right wing in America, yep I am a bigot.

Challenging a belief is not an act of intolerance. You’re not violating anyone’s rights. People disagree all the time.

 

[spidergoat]

Have you checked your dictionary lately?

Straight out of Dictionary.com:

big·ot [big-uht] noun: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.​

They give another definition from another source, but it's essentially the same, stressing intolerance of ideas about religion, politics or race.

I don't think that's an accurate definition for our purposes, but words can be often be used loosely. Under your definition you would be a bigot if you hated, for instance, bigots.

 

[Gremmie]

I don't think that's an accurate definition for our purposes, but words can be often be used loosely. Under your definition you would be a bigot if you hated, for instance, bigots.

A bigots bigot?... Just had a brain freeze. It's not uncommon as of late.

 

[spidergoat]

A bigots bigot?... Just had a brain freeze. It's not uncommon as of late.

I think it's important to include the notion that a bigot dislikes traits that couldn't change under most circumstances.

 

[Balerion]

The problem is, no matter where you start regulating/controlling it, it ends up being akin to the current battle being raged with homosexuality... why should they be forced to be out of the public eye any more than a straight couple?

That's really an improper and incorrect analogy. For one, religion is already regulated. The practice of your faith already has legal limits.

Now, obviously, if they are intent on having an all male foursome on the bed of their truck in a supermarket parking lot, then there is a problem! Much the same, if a group of devout Christians goes into a local supermarket and starts screaming and ranting about how the Lord is the only true love and that all who disbelieve are going to burn for eternity, there is a problem.

But it shouldn't require that overt a showing. Like I said about the "under God" line in the pledge. It has no place in it.

I think we need to quantify something here; what do you consider being "overly religious"? Would it be something along the lines of someone offering to pray with you if they notice you having a bad day, even though they have no idea who you are? Would it be someone wearing a cross or rosary? Perhaps reading the bible in public, or an athlete saying a quick prayer thanking God after making an incredible effort to win the game?

Where do you draw the line? Otherwise, it's just a slippery slope to... well, history has plenty of examples...

There is no slippery slope, because the principles that protect us from you also protect you from us. Aqueous Id already laid out the case in Constitutional terms.

Of course, I never said "overly religious," and I don't know why the question is important. What I'm saying is that showings of religious devotion should not be part of the classroom experience, even if they're just words.

As to why I didn't respond to the entire post, I apologize - I was replying on my phone whilst laying in bed trying to fall asleep

lol, fair enough.

Indeed, hating the religion is not necessarily hating the person... but Q's actions and words seem determined to showcase a hatred for not just the religion but anyone who follows it.[/quote]

I don't see it, but that's just my view. I think Q has clearly defined his position.

I'm not saying you have to ostracize yourself at all - showing respect for someones differences isn't the same as being ostracized.

Yes you are saying I have to ostracize myself. Let's say I'm the only one who doesn't say "Under God" during the pledge (which is a stupid idea in the first place, by the way; a child shouldn't be asked to pledge allegiance to anything, let alone a country) and my classmates notice it. Now I'm humiliated, and treated differently. How is that fair? Why should my religion--or lack thereof--ever come into play in the classroom? It has no place there, period.

Now, if you were being forced to say, stand outside the room and wait in shame because you were different, or perhaps if you were forced into "containment camps" for not being of the same creed (WW2 and the Japanese Americans anyone?)... then yeah, there's a big freaking issue. Being asked to respect others right to their religion? I think that's simple good manners.

Except you apparently only think that respect should go one way. You don't for a second consider what effect that could have on someone who is different. You don't much seem to care for their religious freedom; only yours is important. I mean, you don't want to make any concessions; that's all for us to make. We have to shut up while you show your devotion, and suffer the social or perhaps institutional consequences as a result, but you won't even consider the better, more humane option of just not doing it in this setting.

I am not perfect - my temper gets the better of me at times and I don't always have the control to follow the word as well as I would like. To that end; Q, if your hatred is purely towards the religion and not the people, then you have my apologies; you are not a bigot.

Well, "I'm not perfect" isn't an excuse, but at least you made good with an apology. I hope you understand, however, the hypocrisy of preaching to someone that they should love their neighbor while you also call them a bigot.

As far as judging pedophiles vs homosexuals, there is a huge difference there.

Of course there's a huge difference. But, like you said, there are no ifs, ands, or butts about it.

A pedophile harms someone, in this case a child who is not ready to, and should not be forced to, encounter such activity (that of a sexual nature). And while I may despise the notion that they would prey on the innocent, and may hate those that do so... in all honesty, I wish no ill will to those that simply have those urges and resist them. How or why the urges develop, i can't say - what I can say is that someone with those urges that seeks out the help required to overcome them, I would willingly and lovingly give that help to.

And if they don't, you'll judge them.

It's impossible not to.

The message is to love thy neighbor as thyself; to me, that falls along the same lines of the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Loving them doesn't mean love in a literal, romantic or sexual sense, but a familial sense... after all, we are all of the same species, stuck here upon this third rock from the sun... would it not be better for us to work together rather than try to destroy one another? Look at your own family - despite their differences, I would wager you still love them, even if there are parts of them you disagree with.

I could see that.

You are allowed to state your opinions. What you aren't allowed to do is assault and abuse people with differing opinions... on the forums it is considered violent or abusive speech... in the US, it is considered a breech of personal right.

Saying a religion is stupid is not a breach of any personal rights. Going up to a person in the street and telling them their religion is stupid is not a violation of anything.

You should use terms like "assault" and "abuse" as their intended, rather than the way you're using them here.

Jesus did not introduce the idea of hellfire... in fact, Jesus didn't "introduce" much of anything in the way of punishment.

He most certainly did. Hell as a modern concept did not exist until Jesus' teachings.

His single greatest contribution was his self-sacrifice to save us from ourselves.

By dying on a cross. Makes sense. Or, wait, what's the opposite of making sense?

We can only take from the Bible what we translate out of it... and I'm saying it once again; it was written a LONG time ago in a VASTLY different culture during a TOTALLY different set of issues and norms... that has to be taken into account. I would stake my life to it; if God / Jesus were to issue forth a new "bible" today, it would be VERY different than the one we translate from eons ago.

Which makes me wonder why anyone pays it any mind today.