Are there any atheists who are anti-gay? (Jesus Christ, agnostics, follower)

[hiker45]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

atheism is actually morally superior to theism.

I see your point. On these forums, I have read statements from Theists that I considered to be immoral, but none from Atheists.

On the other hand, some Theists do a lot of good in this world by helping people and doing charity work. In general, I really like religious people, but I have to admit I do read some comments from them that are, in my opinion, immoral. Not a lot, but some.

[AREQUIPA]

It would be unfair and indeed illogical of me to ignore the huge amount of good that religious people can do and have done. I would like to see them continue to do it but that cannot be made reason to suppress the truth - that religious claims do not stack up and that certain of them (Hellfire - threats for example) and the idea that the irreligious are somehow lesser people than religious, let alone that certain things should be taken on trust because ONE book says so cannot be allowed to pass without challenge.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It would be unfair and indeed illogical of me to ignore the huge amount of good that religious people can do and have done. I would like to see them continue to do it but that cannot be made reason to suppress the truth - that religious claims do not stack up and that certain of them (Hellfire - threats for example) and the idea that the irreligious are somehow lesser people than religious, let alone that certain things should be taken on trust because ONE book says so cannot be allowed to pass without challenge.

I agree, but I have no patience with them for 99.9% of them turn a deaf ear and blind eye to those that are the most vile and morally corrupt of those that profess to be theists. Why do they not even raise a whimper to defend their religions.

Sure if it is politically correct they make a little noise, briefly, but don't follow through. The get their panties in a wad over priests buggering little boys, or the WBC protesting at funerals of veterans, then fall silent and put their blinders back on.

[MaggieZ]

well said AshevilleNative, couldn't rep you ...you know I'm a fan of your posts!

[looking4answers12]

Originally Posted by Asheville Native

I agree, but I have no patience with them for 99.9% of them turn a deaf ear and blind eye to those that are the most vile and morally corrupt of those that profess to be theists. Why do they not even raise a whimper to defend their religions.

What does "defending their religion" have to do with "turning a blind eye to the most vile and morally corrupt of those who profess to be theists"?

Sure if it is politically correct they make a little noise, briefly, but don't follow through. The get their panties in a wad over priests buggering little boys, or the WBC protesting at funerals of veterans, then fall silent and put their blinders back on.

This is probably true and it sucks.

[Asheville Native]

^^^^ Uhhh it seems you answered your own question.

[looking4answers12]

Originally Posted by Asheville Native

^^^^ Uhhh it seems you answered your own question.

uhhh Sorry, I don't think so. If you don't understand my questions, I can try to rethink my wording on how I asked, but I'd have to get back to you on that. I can't think of another way, at this very moment. -_-

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by looking4answers12

uhhh Sorry, I don't think so. If you don't understand my questions, I can try to rethink my wording on how I asked, but I'd have to get back to you on that. I can't think of another way, at this very moment. -_-

I think the idea was defending your religion from internal dilution and heresy, not from external pressure. It is the same question that gets asked of muslims. Why allow suicide bombers and dictatorial clerics, or hypocrites and bigots represent your religion?

The answer, I think lies in the fact that other than a few sects of Christianity, most religions are decentralized. There is no effective way for the Southern Baptist Convention to ensure that no one conflates them with Westboro Baptist, especially since some of their key doctrines differ not in type, but degree( They both hold anti-gay positions, the difference is in how vitriolic). Beyond that, often believers cannot even agree on what it means to hold their own faith, so they certainly cannot provide a unified front to disfellowship or disavow those that tarnish their reputation. Unless there was some sort of central heirarchy that claimed exclusive jurisdiction over the designation of Christian, this cannot be avoided. Between the historical schisms in the church, and the trend of ecumenicism to accept that other sects and denominations can also be considered Christian, that genie is out of the bottle ( and correctly so, most protestants would claim).

NoCapo

[BMORE]

Every Athesist I know isnt anti-gay. I've always wondered If there are any racist atheists?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It would be unfair and indeed illogical of me to ignore the huge amount of good that religious people can do and have done.

Of course but this is nothing to do with religion. PEOPLE do good things and religious people are people too therefore they will of course do good things. They will of course do bad things too.

The question should not be, although on fora like this it often is, whether religious people have been known to do good or bad or not. Of course they are. Both.

The issue should be whether there is a causal link between religion and any good or bad things. Or more importantly a necessary link. Are there, for example, good things religious people do that are predicated on their religion and therefore could not be done without religion.... making religion therefore an important thing?

So far despite 16+ years of asking I can think of not one. So I reject this attempt the religious make with making "religion" synonymous with good deeds or good morality.