The Strange Link between Homosexuality and Atheism
ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Why should an atheist be homosexual, or pro-homosexual, or even tolerant of homosexual behavior?
Your questions, here, are very poorly conceived, I'm sorry.
So all I can do is try to find the crux of your point, whatever that is.
Your question appears to be that if atheists don't believe that God exists, then why would they concern themselves one way or another about a religious moral 'issue' such as homosexuality. And the answer is two-fold. On the one hand, homosexuality as an 'issue' is not a purely religious moral issue. It's a cultural issue. And of course atheists are a part of the culture, so this issue involves them as much as anyone. While on the other hand, many of the more 'outspoken' atheists among us are not really atheists so much as they are anti-theists. And so they are responding to homosexuality as a religious moral issue, but on the 'anti-religious' side of it.
Yes and I already explained why that seems more reasonable to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
Can you tell us why they've found the genes for eye color, skin color, hair color, hand dominance, hair loss, height, gender, etc. and not for sexual orientation, after all this time?
No I can only assume it is a more complex issue, but imo there is no reason to suppose that it isn't there anyway given the present far from complete level of understanding, as I understand it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
You accept it as fact though it is expressly not a fact according to its proponents in the scientific community?
Yes I find the evidence for the ToE is so overwhelmingly convincing that it can be considered as virtual fact unless and until something where ever to falsify it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
Now, what makes you think any of us were born with a preference?
As already explained, sex seems to be an evolved trait, but without a desire for sex it would all be rather pointless, sexual desire must surely be an evolved part of there being two sexes imo. Why assume it must be something for individuals to consciously learn at puberty, something separate from evolution?
Does anyone ever forget to have sexual desire?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
I wasn't talking about the supernatural or metaphysical, and certainly not the imagined.
Yes and I already explained why that seems more reasonable to me.
And yet you have no evidence, let alone of the empirical variety.
Quote:
No I can only assume it is a more complex issue, but imo there is no reason to suppose that it isn't there anyway given the present far from complete level of understanding, as I understand it..
So you're saying you really, actually, have a lack of understanding?
Quote:
Yes I find the evidence for the ToE is so overwhelmingly convincing that it can be considered as virtual fact unless and until something where ever to falsify it.
So all the related evidence that has been shown to be false hasn't made you wonder?
And, just how empirical is this so-called evidence, that remains?
Quote:
As already explained, sex seems to be an evolved trait, but without a desire for sex it would all be rather pointless, sexual desire must surely be an evolved part of there being two sexes imo. Why assume it must be something for individuals to consciously learn at puberty, something separate from evolution?
Does anyone ever forget to have sexual desire?
Who said they learn it at puberty? And who said it was conscious?
There are people who never develop sexual desire, and not all of them suffer from maladies that are responsible.
Location: Somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight.
Rep Power: 20345
Atheist
Pinko Commie
Slogan/motto:
Really?
Reputation:
July 24th, 2012, 08:13 AM
"The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."
Yes and I already explained why that seems more reasonable to me.
And yet you have no evidence, let alone of the empirical variety.
Nonsense my evidence is that of the ToE, of which is legion and found everywhere.
If the ToE as a whole seems reasonably true and factual enough then why would our evolved mental traits be any different from the physical ones?
Why would it be rational or reasonable to think otherwise given the ToE is true?
No I have don’t have specific genetic evidence either way and neither do you, but for the reasons I’ve already gone through I see no purpose or special case in sexual desire being non-genetic and somehow thus separated from sex itself. In fact it seems rather ridiculous to me that you might even think that having sexual desire might not be as genetic as sex is itself, but then I presume you don’t want to accept Darwinian evolution as I do despite the evidence and science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
Quote:
No I can only assume it is a more complex issue, but imo there is no reason to suppose that it isn't there anyway given the present far from complete level of understanding, as I understand it..
So you're saying you really, actually, have a lack of understanding?
Regarding specific genetics yes, but the physical evidence seems clear enough to me anyway that what we are is written in our genes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
Quote:
Yes I find the evidence for the ToE is so overwhelmingly convincing that it can be considered as virtual fact unless and until something where ever to falsify it.
So all the related evidence that has been shown to be false hasn't made you wonder?
And, just how empirical is this so-called evidence, that remains?
Show me anything that even might falsify the ToE.
In fact PM it to me and don’t tell anyone else.
If you haven’t been inclined to look at the vast evidence for the ToE by now or tried to falsify it somehow then I really don’t think you want to know, or you probably do realise that it can't actually be shown to be false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
Quote:
As already explained, sex seems to be an evolved trait, but without a desire for sex it would all be rather pointless, sexual desire must surely be an evolved part of there being two sexes imo. Why assume it must be something for individuals to consciously learn at puberty, something separate from evolution?
Does anyone ever forget to have sexual desire?
Who said they learn it at puberty? And who said it was conscious?
There are people who never develop sexual desire, and not all of them suffer from maladies that are responsible.
I know when mine kicked in, which seemed to be rather the same for my school friends too. However the point you are avoiding here is that having two sexes without there being any corresponding built in desire to have sexual intercourse would be rather unlikely imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
Quote:
OK, what I said still stands.
But it's irrelevant.
Yes, but it’s your presumably dogma based alternatives to genetics that I think are irrelevant and the point I was making. If you can’t support your beliefs beyond your scripture with some rational evidence then unlike genetics they are un-falsifiable, dismiss-able and irrelevant.
Nonsense my evidence is that of the ToE, of which is legion and found everywhere.
Okay, then, show us that evidence.
And drawings of what might have, or "must have" happened don't count. I want pictures of actual fossils.
Quote:
If the ToE as a whole seems reasonably true and factual enough then why would our evolved mental traits be any different from the physical ones?
Because mental traits have much more to do with environmental influences than physical traits do.
Quote:
Why would it be rational or reasonable to think otherwise given the ToE is true?
You misspelled "in the event that."
Quote:
No I have don’t have specific genetic evidence either way and neither do you, but for the reasons I’ve already gone through I see no purpose or special case in sexual desire being non-genetic and somehow thus separated from sex itself. In fact it seems rather ridiculous to me that you might even think that having sexual desire might not be as genetic as sex is itself, but then I presume you don’t want to accept Darwinian evolution as I do despite the evidence and science.
What evidence?
And while general desire for sex is genetic, yet not always present, subject preference is certainly separate from general desire.
Quote:
Regarding specific genetics yes, but the physical evidence seems clear enough to me anyway that what we are is written in our genes.
So a necrophile is hardwired to be?
Quote:
Show me anything that even might falsify the ToE.
In fact PM it to me and don’t tell anyone else.
When you can show me a brontosaurus skeleton. Or the difference between a triceratops and a torosaurus. Or maybe Lucy's husband.
Quote:
If you haven’t been inclined to look at the vast evidence for the ToE by now or tried to falsify it somehow then I really don’t think you want to know, or you probably do realise that it can't actually be shown to be false.
It can't be shown to be true, and a lot has actually been shown to be false, including Darwin's own tree of life model.
Quote:
I know when mine kicked in, which seemed to be rather the same for my school friends too. However the point you are avoiding here is that having two sexes without there being any corresponding built in desire to have sexual intercourse would be rather unlikely imo.
My attraction to females kicked in early, somewhat based on my logical approach to the situation, but my desire for sex itself didn't hit until puberty, at about 11. I was curious about what girls looked like naked prior to that, but not in a sexual way.
Quote:
Yes, but it’s your presumably dogma based alternatives to genetics that I think are irrelevant and the point I was making. If you can’t support your beliefs beyond your scripture with some rational evidence then unlike genetics they are un-falsifiable, dismiss-able and irrelevant.
I simply don't believe it's genetic because it hasn't been shown to be, and while I have reason to believe it is not beyond that I only argue based on the fact it has not been shown to be while many other things have.
I would think that atheism would deny homosexuality, because if evolution were true, homosexuality would have been weeded out as a bad gene and we would have been long past it.
And drawings of what might have, or "must have" happened don't count. I want pictures of actual fossils.
I'm quite sure you are aware of at least some of the physical evidence, but I don't want to go down any rabbit holes with you here. However I personally do find the genetic evidence which is rather more clear than sexual preference to be compelling enough on its own (ERVs (say) common descent), but it's when all the evidence from all the sciences are combined that you really would need to be a dyed-in-the-wool YEC to reject it all in favour of a literal Genesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
Because mental traits have much more to do with environmental influences than physical traits do.
Then presumably you must think that sexual preference is largely not built in and is perhaps almost incidental to the physical fact of there being two sexes?
Or is this just you fudging things by implying it is built in to some extent?
Is sexual desire built in or not?
How would you even know if it was only partially built in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
You misspelled "in the event that."
No, it was about how I see things since I consider the ToE as a fact.
And while general desire for sex is genetic, yet not always present, subject preference is certainly separate from general desire.
So you are not supposing it is learnt then, I do wish you'd make your mind up or perhaps you simply want to keep those goal posts moving?
Two sexes are a physical fact to which we can infir that sexual attraction is clearly an obvious requirement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
So a necrophile is hardwired to be?
I really don't know but for some that may well be true, if we were all just the same then evolution probably wouldn't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
When you can show me a brontosaurus skeleton. Or the difference between a triceratops and a torosaurus. Or maybe Lucy's husband.
So you have nothing that actually falsifies the ToE then, no natural physical evidence that can't be explained by it, oh what a disappointment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
It can't be shown to be true, and a lot has actually been shown to be false, including Darwin's own tree of life model.
As no doubt you've already been shown theories are explanations that best describe the evidence, they can be falsified but never proven true. This particular one has so far explained all the natural evidence for 150 years and apparently it can't be falsified simply because it is, whether you like it or not, true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
My attraction to females kicked in early, somewhat based on my logical approach to the situation, but my desire for sex itself didn't hit until puberty, at about 11. I was curious about what girls looked like naked prior to that, but not in a sexual way.
Good for you that sounds about par for the course imo. This really boils down to whether you think that there is a natural explanation or a supernatural one.
I see no reason to suppose a supernatural one and that the ToE seems to supply the best natural answer, thus everything we are would be in our genes afaic including sexual preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
I simply don't believe it's genetic because it hasn't been shown to be, and while I have reason to believe it is not beyond that I only argue based on the fact it has not been shown to be while many other things have.
Goal posts moving again?
Then you perhaps simply don't want it to be genetic, else how do you righteously blame a homosexual for "choosing" to be a homosexual otherwise?
That is imo simply your problem with your dogma LH not mine, because real evidence suggests that you are what your genes have made you.
Being gay is not choosing to be un-Godly, it is a natural occurrence like being left-handed.
The simple truth as to why there is a link between atheism and homosexuality is this:
Abrahamic religion is the spiritual dogma of this world. Whether it be Christian, Islamic, or Judaic, the Abrahamic God is the most prevalent. Christianity alone counts a staggering 2.2 billion, and Muslims are not too far behind that. Judaism is small in relevance, but is quite large in principle.
Half the world believes in this God, and Abrahamic religion is against homosexuality.
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104559
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
July 25th, 2012, 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel4Truth
I would think that atheism would deny homosexuality, because if evolution were true, homosexuality would have been weeded out as a bad gene and we would have been long past it.
It's just a hunch I have, but I do not think you are seeing the big picture here.
Linear Mode
