The New Atheists

[Guest Speed Racer]

Good take on it, Chris.

 

Oddly enough, GON's primary argument is extremely faith-based - he has absolutely no proof or evidence regarding what human opinions or stances on present-day matters in a world without religion would look like, but firmly believes he knows.

[bobbob1313]

Good take on it, Chris.

 

Oddly enough, GON's primary argument is extremely faith-based - he has absolutely no proof or evidence regarding what human opinions or stances on present-day matters in a world without religion would look like, but firmly believes he knows.

 

We are full of contradictions, each and everyone of us, and GON is no different. The argument he puts up that the religious are too dogmatic and hold too firmly in their beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence may be true, but it rings hollow when you turn around act in a similar manner.

 

And I know the usual rebuttal to this: "Well, Atheists might be dogmatic, but tell me the last time a group of atheists did so and so." Well, frankly does that matter in the context of this discussion? You accuse the religious of being too dogmatic and then cling for life to your own beliefs about just about everything. Closemindedness is bad on a macro and micro level.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Humans are social by nature, and we all seek out a moral schema to guide our decisionmaking, consciously or not, god-based or not. If you combine those two behaviors, you see that we all have a tendency to gravitate toward moral schemas with social foundations that, over time, have become cultural for a lot of us. Add to that the certainty of individual contradiction, and here we all are.

[Atticus]

Public Opinion on Gay Marriage: Opponents Consistently Outnumber Supporters

 

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=424#4

 

The dichotomy between resistance to same sex marriage vs. same sex union is interesting, as a much greater number of religious voters are opposed to marriage, with a smaller percentage opposed when asked about same sex union - the catch being the word "marriage" - which, can we at the very least agree has religious connotations?

 

[Dwight] question [/Dwight]: is it possible for one to be opposed to gay marriage and not be homophobic, in your opinion?

[Good Old Neon]

I think the problem with this discussion is that you very rarely are willing or able to give those who draw your ire the benefit of the doubt.

 

In this case, Speed Racer is giving the religious the benefit of the doubt that most who oppose gay marriage would do so with or without religion. Since you look at religion from your very rigid point of view, you refuse to accept this possibility.

 

I don't think you or anyone could disagree with the assertion that you are probably the most inflexible person on this board, at least when it comes to the topic of religion. Honestly, despite the fact that I don't necessarily disagree with you, I find it not worth discussing, and I generally find myself wanting to disagree with you because of your rigidity.

 

It's just easier to have a discussion with people who are willing to budge even an inch.

 

I’m not predisposed to give religion the benefit of the doubt because, in reality, there is very little doubt as to the role it has played in many of the issues we’ve discussed, in particular, same sex marriage. If, based on empirical evidence, one’s religious affiliation is the key motivator given for why someone votes one way or the other, then we have a responsibility to take that evidence seriously. If, when polled, a majority of believers say they are opposed to same sex marriage based on religious grounds, as has been the case, consistently, it leaves little room for doubt.

 

Do I think religion plays a positive role in people’s lives, absofuckinglutely, but where it butts up against politics in our current day reality, its role is just as often negative. I have said it before, and I’ll say it again (and again and again), I really and truly do not care what an individual believes in relation to religion, provided they do not attempt to legislate or express those beliefs through the use of violence – unfortunately, though it is nothing new, we’re at one of those times in history in which religion is exerting undue influence on our private affairs, and in some cases, our continued existence.

 

Though it may often appear otherwise, I’m very open-minded, and on most issues, my opinion varies wildly and often. Politically, more often than not, I’m all over the map, and on the whole, I’ve become a bit more conservative – partially a result of having my opinions and beliefs challenged on this very board.

 

And contrary to what Speed Racer just stated, I’ve NEVER claimed to know what the world would look like without religion or its influence.

 

Now it’s her turn to stop putting words in my mouth – unless maybe they come prepackaged with a falafel and humus wrap?

[Good Old Neon]

[Dwight] question [/Dwight]: is it possible for one to be opposed to gay marriage and not be homophobic, in your opinion?

 

Yes, which I find especially sad and frustrating - people who don’t necessarily disagree that it should be legalized, but vote against it because to do otherwise goes against their religious beliefs, even when they find themselves in conflict with those beliefs.

[Guest Speed Racer]

And contrary to what Speed Racer just stated, I’ve NEVER claimed to know what the world would look like without religion or its influence.

 

there is very little doubt as to the role it has played in many of the issues we’ve discussed, in particular, same sex marriage.

 

Did you link to the Pew study that compares that universe without religion with our universe? Did I just miss that?

 

Not putting words in your mouth, just saying that you have absolutely no empirical evidence of where we would be without religion - you just keep stating that religion plays a role in gay marriage opposition. Of COURSE it does - but we have NO WAY of knowing what gay marriage opposition would be like in a world without religion, or what would happen if we removed religion. And you yourself asserted that, without religious influence, gay marriage opposition would be gone.

 

Well, we have seen once or twice what happened when governments banned religion, and as I recall it 1) was not peachy, and 2) was not all that gay friendly...

[MattZ]

I'm squarely with GON on the homophobia/religion issue. If religion had never back on day 1 suggested (or been interpreted to hold) that homosexuality was a sin, I don't see what the basis would be for people to fear it. People may fear it now irrespective of their religious beliefs, but I firmly believe that fear exists only because of the centuries of hate that have preceded us, and those centuries commenced with the Bible.

 

I don't believe that people just naturally fear homosexuals. There's just no basis for it. I also don't believe that people naturally fear people with blond hair. There's no reason for it. People don't naturally fear common occurrences in nature.

 

I don't say this to rail against religion -- I know that not all religious folks are homophobic, and I am sure that a case can be made that texts are being misinterpreted, etc., but the fact remains, the Bible (or people's interpretations of it) started this.

[Guest Speed Racer]

As I recall, religion didn't have all that much to do with rampant racism, did it? People fear what's different/unnatural/disgusting to them.

[Good Old Neon]

Did you link to the Pew study that compares that universe without religion with our universe? Did I just miss that?

 

Not putting words in your mouth, just saying that you have absolutely no empirical evidence of where we would be without religion - you just keep stating that religion plays a role in gay marriage opposition. Of COURSE it does - but we have NO WAY of knowing what gay marriage opposition would be like in a world without religion, or what would happen if we removed religion. And you yourself asserted that, without religious influence, gay marriage opposition would be gone.

 

Well, we have seen once or twice what happened when governments banned religion, and as I recall it 1) was not peachy, and 2) was not all that gay friendly...

 

True, but we can look to more secular countries for clues – when we do so, we find that issues that are taboo here, same sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research, are more widely accepted.

[MattZ]

As I recall, religion didn't have all that much to do with rampant racism, did it? People fear what's different/unnatural/disgusting to them.

 

Fair point. I still believe that "homosexuality is a sin" is the main culprit.

 

And I think the better counterargument to my point (maybe), is that if I am an atheist (I am), then I think that the Bible was written by man, not God. And if man wrote it, clearly, man didn't like homosexuals. Before there was a Bible.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I still believe that "homosexuality is a sin" is the main culprit.

 

Again, going back to my original response to all this, in saying that you show you've had few encounters with face-to-face homophobia. The kinds of people who will angrily confront you about this are very, very fear-based, and any mention of religion is really only their means of trying to articulate and justify that fear and anger. And it's pretty scary stuff. Religion only provides the lyrics to the tune they're already humming.

[Good Old Neon]

Again, going back to my original response to all this, in saying that you show you've had few encounters with face-to-face homophobia. The kinds of people who will angrily confront you about this are very, very fear-based, and any mention of religion is really only their means of trying to articulate and justify that fear and anger. And it's pretty scary stuff. Religion only provides the lyrics to the tune they're already humming.

 

And Christianities discriminatory attitude towards women, I suppose that has very little to do with religion as well? Are we simply afraid of them too?

[Guest Speed Racer]

True, but we can look to more secular countries for clues – when we do so, we find that issues that are taboo here, same sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research, are more widely accepted.

 

I still think that just supports your initial assertion that, in a world with religion, more secular people tend to support these things. Secular is a classification that is still dependent on its antonym for definition.

[MattZ]

Again, going back to my original response to all this, in saying that you show you've had few encounters with face-to-face homophobia. The kinds of people who will angrily confront you about this are very, very fear-based, and any mention of religion is really only their means of trying to articulate and justify that fear and anger. And it's pretty scary stuff. Religion only provides the lyrics to the tune they're already humming.

 

Again, going back to my original response to your original response, I think you are brushing aside way too quickly the impact that centuries of "homosexuality is a sin" has on people that may not even be religious today. The entire debate has been tainted and the fear that exists today has its roots in religion, even if the people who are fear based today aren't religious.

 

I don't want to get into a discussion with you about experiencing homophobia. I am comfortable with the basis for my beliefs, and I respect the basis for yours. Really.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Again, going back to my original response to your original response, I think you are brushing aside way too quickly the impact that centuries of "homosexuality is a sin" has on people that may not even be religious today. The entire debate has been tainted and the fear that exists today has its roots in religion, even if the people who are fear based today aren't religious.

 

I don't want to get into a discussion with you about experiencing homophobia. I am comfortable with the basis for my beliefs, and I respect the basis for yours. Really.

 

Ah, I wasn't trying to discredit your own experiences, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. We really have no way of knowing what the world would be like without the religious implications, but we seem to have had no problems fearing other races for centuries without religious justification though, and sometimes violent opposition to differences can boil down to the cosmetic or something as trivial as homosexuality.

[bjorn_skurj]

State Senate in New York is debating gay marriage right now, and I hope you will all join me in a prayer asking IHVH to allow its passage. God is Love, baby.

[MattZ]

Ah, I wasn't trying to discredit your own experiences, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. We really have no way of knowing what the world would be like without the religious implications, but we seem to have had no problems fearing other races for centuries without religious justification though, and sometimes violent opposition to differences can boil down to the cosmetic or something as trivial as homosexuality.

 

No need to apologize.

 

I agree that we have no way of knowing, and I acknowledge there are some real holes in my argument. Your example of racism is good, as is my example of homophobia (perhaps by definition) preceding the existence of the Bible.

[Guest Speed Racer]

State Senate in New York is debating gay marriage right now, and I hope you will all join me in a prayer asking IHVH to allow its passage. God is Love, baby.

 

D.C. approved it initially yesterday, with a confirmation vote in two weeks.

[bleedorange]

Weren't the Greeks and Romans extremely tolerable of all forms of sexuality?

[Good Old Neon]

I still think that just supports your initial assertion that, in a world with religion, more secular people tend to support these things. Secular is a classification that is still dependent on its antonym for definition.

 

What’s clear, is that in theocratic countries, where there is very little separation between church and state, Saudi Arabia for example, the punishment for homosexuality is much more severe, up to and including death. Which, if I'm not mistake, was the case here as well, before religion's grip was loosened a bit.

[bobbob1313]

Religion is the conduit for fear and hate in this world. If we were in another world without religion, there would be another conduit for it. I don't see what's so hard to get about this. Yes, blame religion for it, but don't ignore that religion simply provides close minded, dumb people an outlet for their fears and prejudices. Yes, those prejudices may come from religion, but history has shown that people will always find a new group to fear.

 

Look at the history of the US. We've had a long line of replacing one group with another on our hatred and fear and repression list:

 

Witches

Indians

Blacks

Italian and Irish Immigrants

Women

Blacks again

 

And now it's the homosexuals and hispanics turn. Soon, we'll be like Europe and turn our ire towards Muslims on a grand scale. History moves towards greater and greater acceptance and rights for all, but the majority will always fight against allowing others into their group. And then, when the tides of history turn against that majority and allow the minority into their ranks as equals, the next group gets it.

[bjorn_skurj]

Weren't the Greeks and Romans extremely tolerable of all forms of sexuality?

Yeah - remember the scene in Spartacus with Olivier and Tony Curtis?

 

Marcus Licinius Crassus:Do you eat oysters?

Antoninus:When I have them, master.

Marcus Licinius Crassus:Do you eat snails?

Antoninus, master.

Marcus Licinius Crassus:Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?

Antoninus, master.

Marcus Licinius Crassus:Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?

Antoninus, master.

Marcus Licinius Crassus:And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.

Antoninus:It could be argued so, master.

Marcus Licinius Crassus:My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes both snails and oysters.

[MattZ]

bobbob (and SpeedRacer), I agree with you that we may be hardwired to hate people that are different from us. But it's not entirely clear to me that hatred of Indians by the country's first settlers wasn't based on some perception that they were savages that weren't Christians. It's also not entirely clear to me that African Americans brought over as slaves weren't viewed the same way. "Backwards" or "not civilized" has often meant not Christian. Or not Muslim. Or not [insert religion].

 

You appear to be throwing up your hands by saying "without religion, there'd be some other conduit." That's fine. I will have no problem complaining about that other conduit if and when we get there. Bring it on.

[Guest Speed Racer]

But it's not entirely clear to me that hatred of Indians by the country's first settlers wasn't based on some perception that they were savages that weren't Christians.

 

Nothing to do with land disputes, then?