Homosexuality and religious.

[Trailblazer]

Why is the evidence so elusive to critical thinkers?

It isn't.

If there is valid evidence for a God then it will be available to rational and objective minds, and they would acknowledge that it is likely, or true, that a God exists.

It is and they do.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Agree. There is only one kind of dissent with any value to the critical thinker, and that is rebuttal, which is a counterargument to a claim or argument that demonstrates why it can't be correct. The rebuttal must conclude with a statement that if correct makes the rebutted claim incorrect. Most commonly, people dissent without rebuttal. There may be useless verbiage following "I disagree," or even a partial rebuttal, but no rebuttal. A partial rebuttal is when one offers a variety of pieces of evidence in support of an argument and only one is rebutted, as when discussing the pagan roots of Western Christmases, and one names a variety of pieces of evidence such as multiple resurrected gods in pagan mythologies and one is refuted.



The Abrahamic religions and their homophobic bigotry are the problem here. The Baha'i accepting it uncritically and refusing to repudiate it when promoting their religion are vectors for the problem. The rest are defending decent people living lawfully while trying to make ends meet and make their communities better places from these religions and their pernicious homophobic dogma. It's obviously not a negotiable point for either side in this discussion. The Baha'i will not disavow their scripture, and the rest will call them on its immorality and their moral weakness for accepting it uncritically and even defending it.



My understanding is that God never does anything. God is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.


What teachings? Airy platitudes? There are zero original ideas there for world peace, and no plan. Christians say the same - the world would be great if people had just taken Jesus' advice to love one another. But one johnny-come-lately saying the same thing as uncounted numbers in the past and present somehow is different, and the world is at fault for not becoming peaceful as was suggested because they didn't heed this one voice with little persuasive power.

I've seen thousands of those words reproduced in RF threads, and absolutely none of it is helpful regarding achieving world unity. None of those words have impacted me one iota. Why do you think that anybody should give them a second thought? What can they teach a humanist about peace, unity, or tolerance? Humanism doesn't contain any homophobia, which, ceteris paribus, makes it a superior moral system. And it's that moral code that informs the secular entities actually doing something about world unity like the UN, NATO, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Amnesty International. None of those have a homophobic plank in their charters, either.



Where are the Baha'i? Some of the entities I just named are grappling with these issues currently, but where are the Baha'i except standing in the background chanting that they should have listened to Baha'u'llah?

A baha'i want to follow the teaching given to us.
If a person want to become a baha'i they would have to follow the law of God. If not they would not be a baha'i.

If the person are a non believer, no religious rules are needed for them to follow

 

[F1fan]

Just one important correction. Baha’is accept and believe in all the religions not just our own. We believe in Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

So you have a mix of fictional characters with actual people. That's not a good thing to claim.

In our weekly services we read from the Bhagavad-Gita, the Bible, Quran, Buddhist scriptures and Zend Avesta as well as Baha’i Writungs.

So what? You're a Bahai and you follow a Messenger that has immoral positions on homosexuality as we enter a more tolerant and loving age of modernity. It's like you are Amish and ride around in a horse and buggy, but you still read Car and Driver magazine.

In the stone architecture of all our Houses of Worship are engraved all the religious symbols - the Buddhist Wheel, Christian Cross, Star of David, Zoroastrian symbol and Hindi Om as well as Baha’i symbol.

So what? You still ignore teachings of those faiths where they say don't judge or harm others.

The problem with atheism is that until you’ve found God you will continue to believe He does not exist.

Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of any gods, they are not knonw to exist. How do you believe in non-existence? Absurd. Atheists reject the claims made by theists, like yourself, who insist some sort of god exists but can't explain how you came to that conclusion. There is no credible evidence.

Until then one blindly believes there is no God and demands evidence but God is perceived through the inner senses such as insight and understanding not the outward senses. And the Word of God has the power to instil the knowledge of God into a person because it has an invisible power called the Holy Spirit.

You're assuming a God exists and atheists are blind? This is switching the burden of proof. You claim a God exists, you prove it. No one else is obligated to believe in anything that lacks evidence.

That is why so many billions have become changed when they read the Bible, Quran, Gita or Words of Baha’u’llah.

Billions of who, not atheists. And there certainly aren't billions of anyone attracted to Bahai.

 

[F1fan]

It isn't.

Then there is no evidence since critical thinkers cannot detect any. What believers claim as evidence is alswys subjective and requires assumptions that aren't warranted.

It is and they do.

Really? Where is it? I don't see it. Other critical thinkers don't see it.

Could it be you are bluffing yet again?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then there is no evidence since critical thinkers cannot detect any. What believers claim as evidence is alswys subjective and requires assumptions that aren't warranted.


Really? Where is it? I don't see it. Other critical thinkers don't see it.

Could it be you are bluffing yet again?

So is the correct?
There is no evidence, therefore we ought not to believe in religion.

 

[F1fan]

A baha'i want to follow the teaching given to us.

Do you follow the teaching that says to condemn gays? If so, how do you condemn them? Is there a teaching to condemn them passively, or assertively?

If a person want to become a baha'i they would have to follow the law of God. If not they would not be a baha'i.

Assuming a God exists, and assuming Baha'u'llah isn't a fraud.

If the person are a non believer, no religious rules are needed for them to follow

Because they trust their own moral authority and thinking.

I wonder why so many theists don't trust themselves and need to be followers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Because they trust their own moral authority and thinking.

...

That is not a given. You can find group thinking for politics and philosophy among some non-believers.

 

[F1fan]

So is the correct?
There is no evidence, therefore we ought not to believe in religion.

Religions have many good ideas about how to behave and think. But they are often asserting these teachings via an authority from a God. In most religions we see disagreements, and no God comes forth to set them stratight. So the absense of any actual God is suspicious.

 

[F1fan]

That is not a given. You can find group thinking for politics and philosophy among some non-believers.

Irrelevant to the topic. Focus on the topic and what is being claimed to be absolute knowledge.

Do you think Bahai are correct, that there God exists in reality,a nd that their teachings come direcctly from this God via a mortal? And do you accept their claim that God condemns gays just because their Messenger says so?

 

[F1fan]

I start to feel the religious people here isn't the problem....the atheists speak a lot more about homosexuality than believers....religious people just answer questions.

Well, not really. Some religious folk condemn gays, and atheists (and moral theists) consider this bigoted and are in turn condemning this prejudice against our neighbors and friends. These theists are actually doing something harmful against people for being who they are, and who aren't harming anyone. This is considered an immoral act. Quite an interesting dilemma since theists often tout themselves as moral and atheists are bad people in one way or another. It's a little crazy that theists think atheists are bad just because we don't accept any religious claims that some sort of god exists.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Do you follow the teaching that says to condemn gays? If so, how do you condemn them? Is there a teaching to condemn them passively, or assertively?


Assuming a God exists, and assuming Baha'u'llah isn't a fraud.


Because they trust their own moral authority and thinking.

I wonder why so many theists don't trust themselves and need to be followers.

I dont condemn others, i can not be a gay my self if i was born gay thats all

 

[setarcos]

If I did have a line, would taking it from whatever place at the edge of extreme and applying it anywhere else with the same justification not be a reduction to the absurd?

You'll have to elaborate. Are you implying you don't have a line you won't cross? Your also implying that that line is placed at the extremes of normality if you had it, why is that? However, I suppose one should ask how you define the spectrum of normality. Also, if you have justification - in your mind - for what you do, then applying that justification elsewhere with what you do would not be absurd. It may be wrong but it wouldn't be absurd.

 

[setarcos]

I believe there is a line and God draws the line as to what is moral and acceptable or immoral and unacceptable.
Other people have different lines and draw them for their own reasons.

If this is a question of morality then I would ask by what criteria do others determine that line as morally acceptable?

 

[setarcos]

What the Baha'i say is that their God condemns homosexuality.

What criteria do you use to judge an action or belief condemnable? Do you think homosexuality is morally acceptable?

They accept that judgment, but say that they don't feel hatred for gays or diminish their lives.

Not sure what diminishing their lives would be like, but do you think its possible to condemn an action but love the person doing it?

They disapprove of fornication - any sex outside of heterosexual marriage, which includes premarital sex and adultery as well as homosexuality.

What do you think? Might fornication be detrimental to the person doing it and/or to society as a whole?

That's the humanist position, and probably that of the pagans and dharmics.

Your giving me trivia. What do you think? Does anything go?

The humanists define moral and immoral according to the effect of a given behavior on the well-being of man and the beasts. The Abrahamic theists define moral as whatever their god says or does, and immoral whatever it forbids.

Your giving me definitions. Which is fine but you haven't used those definitions to present your answer to the questions. Do you think human beings are very good at determining what immoral behavior is ultimately detrimental to their well-being? Or to societies? How often do you think humanists and Abrahamic theists actually come to differing conclusions about what is moral? I wonder, perhaps you can give me some examples. Do you think the Abrahamic God behaves immorally? How it has been presented that is. We're not arguing existence here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What criteria do you use to judge an action or belief condemnable?

My guidelines are the Golden Rule for my own life, and utilitarian ethics are my guide for ethical societies, meaning, I support whatever enhances the social and economic opportunity of the most people in their pursuit of happiness as they understand it.

Do you think homosexuality is morally acceptable?

Yes. Immoral are the things that cause net harm to people, and all else is moral. Homosexuality harms nobody.

Not sure what diminishing their lives would be like, but do you think its possible to condemn an action but love the person doing it?

Yes, but it's also possible that condemning the action causes harm anyway. And if one is aware of the harm and holds the harmful view anyway, perhaps because they think a deity approves or insists, then that is not love.

What do you think? Might fornication be detrimental to the person doing it and/or to society as a whole?

It might be detrimental in some instances, but sex outside of marriage need not be harmful, and when it is not, which is most of the time, it is not immoral.

Does anything go?

No. See above. But nothing is forbidden because somebody says a god said it was.

Do you think human beings are very good at determining what immoral behavior is ultimately detrimental to their well-being? Or to societies?

Some are not. Some might benefit from moral guidance. I would refer them to the Affirmations of Humanism and rational ethics, which is what I have already outlined. Abrahamic religions are not very good at deciding what is moral, because they use the divine command theory of morality. They get the stealing and killing and lying part right, but the rest of the Ten Commandments (actually, the 613 commandments) as I recall them have little or nothing to do with morality. One god, no idols, no coveting, honoring parents, and the Sabbath in the top ten?

How often do you think humanists and Abrahamic theists actually come to differing conclusions about what is moral?

I can't say what the fraction is. Does it matter if it's 2% or 20% of the time? Wherever they part, the theistic value will be irrational.

I wonder, perhaps you can give me some examples. Do you think the Abrahamic God behaves immorally? How it has been presented that is.

I consider the deity depicted in the Garden story to be immoral. The genocide of multiple species in the Flood story is morally reprehensible. Releasing Satan on the earth would be immoral. Creating hell was immoral, and gratuitously keeping them conscious forever postmortem just so that they can suffer is immoral. Blood sacrifice is immoral.

Good questions. Thanks for asking them.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why is the evidence so elusive to critical thinkers?

If there is valid evidence for a God then it will be available to rational and objective minds, and they would acknowledge that it is likely, or true, that a God exists.

Not only is there no evidence, there is no effects that believers can point to that suggests any sort of supernatural is real.

I think personally that by trying to be as unbiased as possible we can learn of things we never thought existed.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Agree. There is only one kind of dissent with any value to the critical thinker, and that is rebuttal, which is a counterargument to a claim or argument that demonstrates why it can't be correct. The rebuttal must conclude with a statement that if correct makes the rebutted claim incorrect. Most commonly, people dissent without rebuttal. There may be useless verbiage following "I disagree," or even a partial rebuttal, but no rebuttal. A partial rebuttal is when one offers a variety of pieces of evidence in support of an argument and only one is rebutted, as when discussing the pagan roots of Western Christmases, and one names a variety of pieces of evidence such as multiple resurrected gods in pagan mythologies and one is refuted.



The Abrahamic religions and their homophobic bigotry are the problem here. The Baha'i accepting it uncritically and refusing to repudiate it when promoting their religion are vectors for the problem. The rest are defending decent people living lawfully while trying to make ends meet and make their communities better places from these religions and their pernicious homophobic dogma. It's obviously not a negotiable point for either side in this discussion. The Baha'i will not disavow their scripture, and the rest will call them on its immorality and their moral weakness for accepting it uncritically and even defending it.



My understanding is that God never does anything. God is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.


What teachings? Airy platitudes? There are zero original ideas there for world peace, and no plan. Christians say the same - the world would be great if people had just taken Jesus' advice to love one another. But one johnny-come-lately saying the same thing as uncounted numbers in the past and present somehow is different, and the world is at fault for not becoming peaceful as was suggested because they didn't heed this one voice with little persuasive power.

I've seen thousands of those words reproduced in RF threads, and absolutely none of it is helpful regarding achieving world unity. None of those words have impacted me one iota. Why do you think that anybody should give them a second thought? What can they teach a humanist about peace, unity, or tolerance? Humanism doesn't contain any homophobia, which, ceteris paribus, makes it a superior moral system. And it's that moral code that informs the secular entities actually doing something about world unity like the UN, NATO, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Amnesty International. None of those have a homophobic plank in their charters, either.



Where are the Baha'i? Some of the entities I just named are grappling with these issues currently, but where are the Baha'i except standing in the background chanting that they should have listened to Baha'u'llah?

That Baha’is don’t endorse homosexuality does not make it bigotry. What is bigotry is trying to publicly force Baha’is to join the homosexual religion and when they refuse to do so then to make false accusations against them and target them with insults and abuse.

To you your homosexual religion and to me Baha’u’llah’s religion. The homosexual lobby is worse than the most extremist religious fanatics intolerantly attempting to force their views on others and when refused attack them calling them homophobic.

Your world is in a mess with civil wars breaking out all over the place, disunity and prejudice everywhere. The Baha’i world community on the other hand represents a cross section of the human race and it is united, working together with cooperation and collaboration under one world administration. So much we have proved to the world that all nations, races and religions can work together if they put aside their differences.

But you can’t put aside your differences. The UN can’t stop the war crimes going on in Myanmar, Syria, Iran and Ukraine. The countries can’t even sit together and talk about it just kill each other and veto.

Yet Baha’u’llah is showing an example to the world that we can get along, we can work together if we really want to. The problem is that the world is run on greed whereas the Baha’i system puts humans first not greed or politics because of Baha’u’llah.

How else are you going to still the tempest of wars and hatred without coming together as Baha’u’llah proposed? Or are you going to just annhilate each other?

 

[loverofhumanity]

So you have a mix of fictional characters with actual people. That's not a good thing to claim.


So what? You're a Bahai and you follow a Messenger that has immoral positions on homosexuality as we enter a more tolerant and loving age of modernity. It's like you are Amish and ride around in a horse and buggy, but you still read Car and Driver magazine.


So what? You still ignore teachings of those faiths where they say don't judge or harm others.


Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of any gods, they are not knonw to exist. How do you believe in non-existence? Absurd. Atheists reject the claims made by theists, like yourself, who insist some sort of god exists but can't explain how you came to that conclusion. There is no credible evidence.


You're assuming a God exists and atheists are blind? This is switching the burden of proof. You claim a God exists, you prove it. No one else is obligated to believe in anything that lacks evidence.


Billions of who, not atheists. And there certainly aren't billions of anyone attracted to Bahai.

Fictional characters to you, the Essence of Goodness to billions.

We believe what we believe but we don’t go around like those who follow homosexuality as if it were a religion, fanatically attacking Baha’is because they won’t endorse the ‘homosexuality religion’.

To you your religion to me mine (without bullying, insults and attacks)

So the tactic is to accuse Baha’u’llah and Baha’is of homophobia because we don’t accept your viewpoint. Just go your own way and believe whatever you want but acting like the worst extremists to try and force Baha’is to accept your viewpoint is fanatical and is exactly how extremists and fanatics act not reasonable or fair people.

As I stated. Homosexuals are human being. I don’t see people with ‘cards’ attached. I see all as equals so all are welcome. But say what you like I’m not going to endorse something I believe and have always believed is unnatural and immoral.

I remember when I was about 15 years old and I was just coming home on the train from gym training. It was about 7pm. On the train I noticed this guy kept looking at me and occasionally checking his wallet. Anyway I got off at the station and began to walk home. This guy seemed to be behind me following me. My route home means I have to go through a park. Anyway as I was walking this guy approached me and asked me to take my pants off. I became very frightened. He offered me money and tried to rape me. I pushed him away and ran as fast as I could home.

Baha’u’llah’s teachings are to protect us from such disgusting criminal behaviour which almost ended in me being raped. You want to stand up for such disgusting behaviour then go right ahead but I was very, very happy when I learned Baha’u’llah condemned all this sort of immoral stuff. To be fair there are many good homosexuals who would never do such a thing but I’m never ever going to endorse it and I’m glad I belong to a religion which tries to help us realise life is not just about sex.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We believe what we believe but we don’t go around like those who follow homosexuality as if it were a religion, fanatically attacking Baha’is because they won’t endorse the ‘homosexuality religion’.

THAT IS SIMPLY OUTRAGEOUS!!!

The LGBTQ community is not anything even remotely comparable to a "religion." The fact is that you cannot even CONCEIVE of the notion that we would simply like NOT to be REJECTED by bigots and religions who are totally ignorant of what sexual identity and sexual attraction are all about in humans.

I'll say it out loud, though I may be censured -- ignorance, pure and simple, ignorance that is could be remediated by actual learning (which religions want none of), is what we are trying to overcome.

YOU are just one of the vectors of the promulgation of that ignorance, because you placed the lives and well-being of your fellow human beings BELOW your devotion to the ignorant opinions a so-called "prophet" who -- and this is a fact -- had no formal education.

 

[Vinayaka]

To you your religion to me mine (without bullying, insults and attacks)

Please report bullying to the mods.