Acceptance of gays vs. view of religions

Uh, Anonym already said that, and Dawkins isn't a terribly elegant writer...

I'm skeptical whenever anyone labels anything as "unnatural". Humans are animals. We're a part of nature. If you think about it, a skyscraper is no more unnatural than a termite mound. They're both artificial structures. In my mind, the really unnatural things are those that never happen.

Amonym simply brought the subject up, and Dawkins put it a different (albeit fairly similar) way. Interesting how this same idea is expressed from both a Christian and an atheist perspective. o.o

EDIT: Also...

"I'm skeptical whenever anyone labels anything as "unnatural". Humans are animals. We're a part of nature. If you think about it, a skyscraper is no more unnatural than a termite mound." - Elfive

Indeed, but like I said earlier, religion isn't exactly known for being in line with scientific evidence. It's the driving force behind much denial of evolution, making humans out to be not another animal but some sort of separate creature "created in god's image" when it is quite evidently the other way around. o.o

Ironically, I too consider humans special, but not in THAT sense.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:57:16 AM by neoYTPism

I've never read Dawkins. From what I've heard about him and read about his beliefs...his work in biology sounds nice, but I think I will kill something if I read his books on religion. Militants of any sort rub me the wrong way. Especially militant atheists. I will read some of it eventually though...

^That is interesting when such things happen.

^^Same with me. Is murder nice? Well...no. Is it natural? Well we do it so yeah...

edited 24th Jan '11 11:56:24 AM by Aondeug

He put digs at Christianity in The Selfish Gene, which is an annoying evidence of personal beliefs in science, but lolofftopic

It doesn't sound as bad as a book based around bitching about religion at least...

Really, what's so bad about being a "militant" atheist anyway? Apart from some of Dawkins' snarking at certain ideas within religion, how much more vitriolic is his approach to religion than to different religions' approaches to each other?

edited 24th Jan '11 12:00:44 PM by neoYTPism

Nooooo make it stop

I'm skeptical whenever anyone labels anything as "unnatural". Humans are animals. We're a part of nature. If you think about it, a skyscraper is no more unnatural than a termite mound. They're both artificial structures.

There are no boundaries anywhere Which is one of many reasons why appealing to nature is fallacious.

edited 24th Jan '11 12:03:07 PM by Tzetze

Richard Dawkins put it best. "It seems to be an odd proposition that we should adhere to some parts of the bible but not to others. After all, when it comes to important moral questions, by what standards do we cherry-pick the bible?"

Hence why this becomes an all-or-nothing deal. The difference between me and him is that I took all, and he took nothing.

An important thing is carefully studying the Bible, so you know how things relate to each other in its context. Many will be quick to bring up various contradictions, but I believe that for every stated "contradiction", there is a good answer.

OK, answer the ones posted in this topic.

Nothing more so than other militants if I think about it logically. They just come off as more bothersome to me. Does it make sense? No. Not at all really. It is how I feel though.

It's the driving force behind much denial of evolution

Which is funny, since most denominations range from "no comment" to "we're cool with evolution." Largely the latter.

edited 24th Jan '11 12:27:45 PM by Pykrete

Anything is annoying when it's militant.

The difference between me and him is that I took all

You want to exile gays?

Yep. More or less.

Wait... D:

You want to exile me and don't wear mixed fabrics?!

;_;

edited 24th Jan '11 12:08:50 PM by Aondeug

Really, what's so bad about being a "militant" atheist anyway?

Personally I think they're both a strikingly identical shade of douchebag, but to play Devil's Advocate — a religious militant believes their douchebaggery is specifically called on by a source higher than life itself, while an atheist militant basically comes down to "I just don't like you so I'm gonna be a dick." The former is intrinsically less selfish, however misguided.

You want to exile gays?

Not this again.

While homosexuality continues to be noted as a sin in the New Testament, Jesus overturned the requirements of stoning and exile etc.

@Aon: Earlier I was trying to offer relationship advice to you in full knowledge of your lesbian status. In what way is that unaccepting?

edited 24th Jan '11 12:17:08 PM by TheMightyAnonym

This is starting to go off topic. I think there may be more that can be said on this subject, on how people's view of Christianity (or other religions, for those who have knowledge of them) are changing as a result of society's changing views on homosexuality, or how one affects the other.

You want to exile me and don't wear mixed fabrics?!

Well who in their right mind would deny that polyester blends are an abomination?

A blind man who thinks they're comfy?

Alright, fine. I still don't see why you would even want to follow the whole thing, though. It was written by several dozen people over the course of several centuries. There are real-world legal systems more coherent than that!

I think there may be more that can be said on this subject, on how people's view of Christianity (or other religions, for those who have knowledge of them) are changing as a result of society's changing views on homosexuality, or how one affects the other.

Well... personally, my view on Christianity probably went from «don't care» to «the fuck is this noise» when I started arguing with someone about gays. But since then I've generalized my objections, so I'm not really going to think much more highly of Christians as they continue modernizing.

edited 24th Jan '11 12:19:26 PM by Tzetze

...the people who make a zafu and zabuton out of blended fabrics for a school project.

But yes...topic. We need it...

The Mighty Anonym said:

My question is: If you are going to discard parts of the Bible, what distinction do you make between "what I like" and "what I think this is telling me to do"? Tossing out parts of the Bible really cheapens listening to anything it has to say at all.

There remain some good excuses for tossing out parts of the Bible — e.g. in Catholicism, the church's official dogma tends to be both more important than the Bible itself to one's daily life, and more in tune with the times — but as a rule, it's quite arbitrary, and those who reject just about everything else in Leviticus but that line shouldn't be in so much denial about how arbitrary they're being.

Sure is religious legalism in here.

While homosexuality continues to be noted as a sin in the New Testament, Jesus overturned the requirements of stoning and exile etc.

Actually, to my knowledge homosexuality is only really acknowledged in the New Testament as a part of the letters of Paul, and as we all know Paul was really, really, really neurotic about all things sexual. As a result, I tend to view his teachings related to all things sexual in a skeptical light. Even if one takes as granted that what he's writing is divinely inspired, it's obvious that his personal biases have intruded greatly in at least this one area.

edited 24th Jan '11 12:30:50 PM by Chalkos