Thoughts on "God and the Gay Christian"?

[Tassman]

No Tass, you are completely out numbered by those who believe in some kind of deity. I'm not pointing just to Christians. We seem to be wired for belief which makes me think that atheists have some kind of genetic/mental defect.

No Tass, the "illusion" of free will is not actual free will. So groups like ISIS are only thinking and acting the way the evolutionary process created them to think and act. It is not their fault - and it's all quite natural.

"It's all quite natural", in fact there's nothing that isn't.

[Starlight]

Not sure why you're laughing. Even advocates are giving up that particular argument: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-gay-gene.html

Left-handedness, despite being pretty clearly innate, has not been tied down to any specific gene. There are thought to be possibly at least 27 genes that contribute towards the possibility of a child being left-handed, and it is believed to be a product of how the brain develops in the womb based on exposure to various hormones that occur at different stages of brain development. Homosexuality appears to be similar, as far as our best science can tell. There is no one single gene, but it seems to be a product of a complex process of hormonal exposure in the womb and (presumably) multiple genes in the child and/or mother affecting brain development. Studies on identical twins suggest that homosexuality is even more innate than left-handedness. There is (at this stage) no evidence suggesting parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the development of sexuality.

You said that you read historical surveys on homosexuality. Are you telling me that you didn't know, and that you currently deny that the concept of homosexual orientation is a relatively modern concept?

I'm aware of people's opinions on the subject, and have strong views on the issue myself.

For any given person in history, they will have encountered people in their lives some subset of which they will find find sexually attractive. We can (if we feel like it) label such people 'straight', 'gay', 'bisexual', 'pansexual', 'asexual' etc based on the content of the group of people they find sexually attractive, and understanding that by such labeling we are simply doing nothing more than using a short-hand way of describing who they are sexually attracted to (ie "gay" just means "same-sex-attracted" and nothing more). The people, of course, may well not themselves have ever thought of themselves in such a way, or used such a grouping or labeling in their own minds, or considered themselves to belong to the group of people who have that sort of attraction for others, or ever considered it important to them in any way. To regard oneself as 'straight' or as belonging to the group of people who are 'straight' is a social construction. But having biological urges of attraction toward some people and not others is something that occurs in all cultures, and if we, thousands of years later find it useful to categorize and classify those urges, then that is a valid thing to do, so long as we don't necessarily assume that the people themselves used those same categories. So I am happy to talk about someone in the ancient world being "gay" (meaning "solely same-sex attracted") even if they themselves didn't have a term for it, because what I am using is a descriptive term not a social construct.

It seems fairly ridiculous to think that our friends in the present day who are same-sex attracted would have been any less same-sex attracted had they lived in ancient Israel. Saying that ancient Israel didn't have a culture or a tradition of homosexuality doesn't mean that less same-sex attracted people would have existed. This can be seen in puritanical England around 1900 where the very mention of homosexuality was taboo and its practice even more so. But a culture where acting on same-sex attraction was taboo, didn't result in same-sex attracted people magically not existing, despite how happy much of England would have been with that outcome.

[Adrift]

There is no content to atheism per se,

I think there's quite a bit of content to it actually.

But there is no reason for an atheist to think a regime must follow upon the rejection of belief in gods.

Yet...they exist.

I don't believe in fairies either, should my fellow a-fairyists somehow conclude this lack of belief should be forced upon others?

Might want to revisit that question when you find that fairyism is the predominant belief around the globe, and has been since before the beginning of recorded history.

Christianity however, is not simply 'theism.' There is significant content to it which many have used to justify the atrocities before mentioned. It is also true that Christianity has led to much good in the world. In my view, this simply shows the Bible is a mixed bag of good and bad. You could argue that all the bad things Christians have done has been the result of disobeying or misreading scripture, but that reminds me of those who defend Islam in the same way by saying 'true' Islam is a really religion of peace, and ISIS is completely distorting the loving teachings of Mohammed.

I'm comfortable with sharing that defence, however, unlike Islam, I believe it can be (and has been) actually defended.

That's true. I think it's interesting how many atheists seem to assume that not believing in god(s) means you must necessarily be in favor of abortion, for example, or you must be a liberal or Democrat. I don't see how one entails the other.

Probably because many atheists recognize (perhaps unconsciously) that their view is (as T.H. Huxley put it) a form of gnosis. There are a number of propositions that follow from the belief that god/s do not exist, including that that belief is something that can actually be known (or at least, substantiated) despite humanity's limitations in perceiving the world around us, that the supernatural does not exist, that the material realm is all there is, and that theistic beliefs, and all that those beliefs entail, are wrong.

[seer]

Yes we are “wired” to attribute agenticity to natural entities; it was a primitive survival mechanism. We have a natural tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency, e.g. thunder as an expression of an angry god requiring placating. And “outnumbered” or not, “majority belief doesn't mean it's right belief - e.g. the vast majority believed in a geocentric universe for most of human history, but they were wrong.

Yes, we are wired as such. But probably for deeper reasons. Since religion offers an existential sense of hope, purpose and well being that atheism just can not. Also, I doubt, that human nature will ever change to the degree that you would like. As a matter a fact it may even be going the other way:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...e-new-atheists

Beliefs of this nature take considerable time to eradicate given that they arose very early during the evolutionary process and were (and are) inculcated into the minds of innocent children before they’re of an age to critically assess what they’re being taught.

That is just silly. Most of the kids that were raise Catholic with me are now agnostic, heck I was agnostic by the age of 12. When people grow up, the make up their own minds.

As for “the evolutionary process” creating them (ISIS) to think and act, the very same evolutionary process has resulted in the majority of the world being appalled at the regression to religious tribalism that so disfigured earlier eras of human history. And yes, "It's all quite natural", in fact there's nothing that isn't.

Again, why do you use the word regression? You act as if there was an objective standard by which we compare and judge these. There is no regression or progression, there is only opinion, and survival.

[Adrift]

There is (at this stage) no evidence suggesting parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the development of sexuality.

Yes...there is.

http://factsaboutyouth.com/wp-conten...itself2010.pdf
http://www.soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/20...uckner_ajs.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...10440X06000952
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...2193200502674X
http://link.springer.com/article/10....A1010243318426
http://link.springer.com/article/10....508-008-9449-3

For any given person in history, they will have encountered people in their lives some subset of which they will find find sexually attractive. We can (if we feel like it) label such people 'straight', 'gay', 'bisexual', 'pansexual', 'asexual' etc based on the content of the group of people they find sexually attractive, and understanding that by such labeling we are simply doing nothing more than using a short-hand way of describing who they are sexually attracted to (ie "gay" just means "same-sex-attracted" and nothing more). The people, of course, may well not themselves have ever thought of themselves in such a way, or used such a grouping or labeling in their own minds, or considered themselves to belong to the group of people who have that sort of attraction for others, or ever considered it important to them in any way. To regard oneself as 'straight' or as belonging to the group of people who are 'straight' is a social construction. But having biological urges of attraction toward some people and not others is something that occurs in all cultures, and if we, thousands of years later find it useful to categorize and classify those urges, then that is a valid thing to do, so long as we don't necessarily assume that the people themselves used those same categories. So I am happy to talk about someone in the ancient world being "gay" (meaning "solely same-sex attracted") even if they themselves didn't have a term for it, because what I am using is a descriptive term not a social construct.

It seems fairly ridiculous to think that our friends in the present day who are same-sex attracted would have been any less same-sex attracted had they lived in ancient Israel. Saying that ancient Israel didn't have a culture or a tradition of homosexuality doesn't mean that less same-sex attracted people would have existed. This can be seen in puritanical England around 1900 where the very mention of homosexuality was taboo and its practice even more so. But a culture where acting on same-sex attraction was taboo, didn't result in same-sex attracted people magically not existing, despite how happy much of England would have been with that outcome.

Taboo? One's concept of orientation has little if anything to do with whether something is taboo or not, but with ancient collectivist versus modern individualist paradigms. In the Ancient Near East, one's identity was wrapped up in family and community, quite unlike the modern West where identity is wrapped up in one's own uniqueness. See, this is the problem with reading historical surveys on these sorts of subjects by non-historians.

[shunyadragon]

Atheism isn't an ideology, so the comparison to Christianity is not parallel. An atheist could be a communist or a democrat, a liberal or a conservative, a libertarian or a royalist. Saying someone is an atheist tells you one and only one thing about that person: he or she does not believe in a god or gods. That's it.

Likewise, a Christian can be a communist, democrat, a liberal or a conservative, a libertarian, or a royalist. It would be difficult for an atheist to be a royalist, because of the claim of Divine authority by royalty.

It's hard to see how atheism per se had anything to do with murderous regimes; you need additional criteria to explain them (like dreams of a Communist utopia). I'm not saying Stalin wasn't a true atheist. I'm sure he was. It's just that him not believing in a god did not in and of itself lead him to believe or do anything else.

Most brutal dictators labeled atheists, like despotic brutal theists were first and foremost ardent patriotic nationalists, and the primary cause was nationalism.

[Enjolras]

I think there's quite a bit of content to it actually.

Such as?

Yet...they exist.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Might want to revisit that question when you find that fairyism is the predominant belief around the globe, and has been since before the beginning of recorded history.

I shall revist at that time.

I'm comfortable with sharing that defence, however, unlike Islam, I believe it can be (and has been) actually defended.

Islam is defended all the time. See the recent article by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: http://time.com/3662152/kareem-abdul...bout-religion/

The Islam I learned and practice does just that."

Is Jabbar not a true Muslim?

Probably because many atheists recognize (perhaps unconsciously) that their view is (as T.H. Huxley put it) a form of gnosis. There are a number of propositions that follow from the belief that god/s do not exist, including that that belief is something that can actually be known (or at least, substantiated) despite humanity's limitations in perceiving the world around us, that the supernatural does not exist, that the material realm is all there is, and that theistic beliefs, and all that those beliefs entail, are wrong.

Depends on how you define atheism vs. agnosticism, which is an endless debate I find to be largely semantic and pointless. I don't think, for example, that I can know that there are no gods any more than I can know for certainty that there are no fairies. I just don't think they exist; that's all. I also don't believe the material realm is all there is. Concepts, such as love and justice are not material, yet they exist. I don't think everything theistic beliefs entail is wrong either. There are many good teachings in scripture I can readily agree with, such as the importance of forgiveness, without having to also believe in God.

[Adrift]

Such as?

Mentioned in the post you replied to.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

You may not see any reason that a regime must follow upon the rejection of belief in gods, some apparently do.

I shall revist at that time.

Islam is defended all the time.

When I say that "unlike Islam, I believe [Christianity] can be (and has been) actually defended." I obviously don't mean that there are no people attempting to make a defence of Islam. I'm saying that despite their effort, their claim is indefensible. You claim that that there are Christians who defend their worldview by saying that "all the bad things Christians have done has been the result of disobeying or misreading scripture". You recognize that they make that defence, but you obviously don't find that position defensible, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

See the recent article by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: http://time.com/3662152/kareem-abdul...bout-religion/

"For me, religion—no matter which one—is ultimately about people wanting to live humble, moral lives that create a harmonious community and promote tolerance and friendship with those outside the religious community. Any religious rules should be in service of this goal. The Islam I learned and practice does just that."

Is Jabbar not a true Muslim?

I suppose that's up to the Muslims. That has no bearing on whether or not the claim is actually defensible.

Depends on how you define atheism vs. agnosticism, which is an endless debate I find to be largely semantic and pointless. I don't think, for example, that I can know that there are no gods any more than I can know for certainty that there are no fairies. I just don't think they exist; that's all. I also don't believe the material realm is all there is. Concepts, such as love and justice are not material, yet they exist. I don't think everything theistic beliefs entail is wrong either. There are many good teachings in scripture I can readily agree with, such as the importance of forgiveness, without having to also believe in God.

Not really my problem that atheists can't agree on what atheism means. Your worldview is precisely what Huxley defined as "agnostic". He, in fact, coined the term "agnostic" to describe and differentiate his views from the "theist" and the "atheist" who he maintained, "were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."

You may consider it all semantics, but like I told Starlight, words and terminology matter. It matters to me at any rate. It should matter to anyone who is attempting to convince others of their point of view.

[Enjolras]

Not really my problem that atheists can't agree on what atheism means. Your worldview is precisely what Huxley defined as "agnostic". He, in fact, coined the term "agnostic" to describe and differentiate his views from the "theist" and the "atheist" who he maintained, "were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."

You may consider it all semantics, but like I told Starlight, words and terminology matter. It matters to me at any rate. It should matter to anyone who is attempting to convince others of their point of view.

I have no problem with using the word 'agnostic' in describing myself, or in using the term 'atheist.' But some people get real animated about which is the best term. The problem is they are both denials of belief or knowledge, rather than affirmations. Am I an 'a-fairyist,' as well? Yes. I'm also an agnostic about fairy existence. But then, so are you. What is the best way to describe such denials of belief?

"Humanist" is a positive term with some content. That may be the best term for some who don't believe in the supernatural.

[Adrift]

I have no problem with using the word 'agnostic' in describing myself, or in using the term 'atheist.' But some people get real animated about which is the best term. The problem is they are both denials of belief or knowledge, rather than affirmations. Am I an 'a-fairyist,' as well? Yes. I'm also an agnostic about fairy existence. But then, so are you. What is the best way to describe such denials of belief?

"Humanist" is a positive term with some content. That may be the best term for some who don't believe in the supernatural.

There really isn't a need for a label like a-fairyist because there is no one seriously claiming or defending the view that fairies, in fact, exist (or so incredibly few, that its hardly worth talking about). Atheism is not simply a denial that god/s do not exist, its a recognition that the opposite view does exist, and exists to such an extent that its helpful to use terminology that differentiates your belief from the the beliefs of the many many others. There's even a claim by some philosophers that theism is a type of properly basic belief, so there's that to contend with as well.

Honestly, by asserting that the distinction between "atheist" and "agnostic" is pointless semantics you only serve to make your own expressed views and opinions more confusing to others.

[Enjolras]

There really isn't a need for a label like a-fairyist because there is no one seriously claiming or defending the view that fairies, in fact, exist (or so incredibly few, that its hardly worth talking about). Atheism is not simply a denial that god/s do not exist, its a recognition that the opposite view does exist, and exists to such an extent that its helpful to use terminology that differentiates your belief from the the beliefs of the many many others. There's even a claim by some philosophers that theism is a type of properly basic belief, so there's that to contend with as well.

Honestly, by asserting that the distinction between "atheist" and "agnostic" is pointless semantics you only serve to make your own expressed views and opinions more confusing to others.

A single word isn't sufficient to explain my views (or yours, I'm sure), so confusion can only be reduced through dialogue. A label is only a starting point. 'Atheist' carries a lot of negative connotations in English which simply don't apply to all or many of us.

[seer]

A single word isn't sufficient to explain my views (or yours, I'm sure), so confusion can only be reduced through dialogue. A label is only a starting point. 'Atheist' carries a lot of negative connotations in English which simply don't apply to all or many of us.

Enjolras, just give it up and come into the light. I know you want to!

[Enjolras]

Enjolras, just give it up and come into the light. I know you want to!

lol. Seeking the light is what led me to leave Christianity.

[seer]

lol. Seeking the light is what led me to leave Christianity.

boo, don't you want to spend eternity with me?

[Starlight]

http://factsaboutyouth.com/wp-conten...itself2010.pdf
http://www.soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/20...uckner_ajs.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...10440X06000952
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...2193200502674X
http://link.springer.com/article/10....A1010243318426
http://link.springer.com/article/10....508-008-9449-3

The subject of whether the children of gay people are more likely to be gay or not has been the subject of many, many, individual studies. The general conclusions gathered from a large variety of such studies are (1) they are more likely on average to think about the topic at a younger age, (2) they are more likely to be open to the idea of experimenting to see if they are gay, (3) they are not more likely in the long term to identify as gay / actually be gay.

There's also been many, many, studies on the question of the relationship between sexual abuse as a child and growing up to identify as gay. The general consensus from the evidence seems to be that it's causal in the other direction: Child molesters are surprisingly good at targeting gay children, meaning children who are gay get sexually abused at higher rates. Suffering abuse does not itself appear to cause children to subsequently become gay however.

I suggest you have a read of what the American Psychological Association (APA) & American Medical Association (AMA) submitted to the US Supreme Court in 2013 summarizing the current state of research overall. (If you're prepared to wait until this weekend, there'll presumably be an updated submission from them submitted to the Supreme Court for the current marriage equality cases)

In the Ancient Near East, one's identity was wrapped up in family and community, quite unlike the modern West where identity is wrapped up in one's own uniqueness.

You appear to have missed my point that people still experience sexual attraction regardless of what culture they live in or what that tells them about identity. Same-sex sexual attraction doesn't appear to go away just because a culture is collectivist or because homosexuality is taboo.