Why do you think it's wrong for someone else to be gay?

[Apostle John]

Yeah, I am of the True Religion and everybody else will burn in Hell, so join me or suffer the consequences.

I am not that evangelical on here, having sussed what’s going on shortly after joining. I’m happy that certain atheists follow Dawkins and his fact less works about the existence of God.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

His schtick and annual award is at the forefront of the atheist religion.

Right. His schtick being that we should challenge religion and its role in society. I agree.

Do you not think people should be free to challenge religion or religious ideas?

No one has to claim they are a prophet to be one.

You said he was a FALSE prophet.

I'm pretty sure that implies he says he is a prophet. Unless you're now calling him an ACTUAL prophet, which seems odd.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not that evangelical on here, having sussed what’s going on shortly after joining. I’m happy that certain atheists follow Dawkins and his fact less works about the existence of God.

Well you still speak of other humans as if you can judge them with God in effect.

 

[Apostle John]

Right. His schtick being that we should challenge religion and its role in society. I agree.

Do you not think people should be free to challenge religion or religious ideas?


You said he was a FALSE prophet.

I'm pretty sure that implies he says he is a prophet. Unless you're now calling him an ACTUAL prophet, which seems odd.

Dawkins is at the forefront of the atheist religion along with his annual award winners and organisations that support the award giving. They are a religion. Some of his close followers are mentally unwell and have easily become misled by him. They clearly spend their time on this forum.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dawkins is at the forefront of the atheist religion along with his annual award winners and organisations that support the award giving. They are a religion. Some of his close followers are mentally unwell and have easily become misled by him. They clearly spend their time on this forum.

Okay, now not about religion or not, but how do you know the bold one?

 

[Ella S.]

It dosent, but it is a valid reason on terms of physicality making it therefore wrong to be gay because you can't ever naturally procreate with each other.

It dosent mean it's wrong to be gay, but rather gayness is wrong for natural procreation to occur exclusively and solely with your partner.

Natural procreation? As opposed to... unnatural procreation? You know that every physical thing is natural, right? We are all a part of nature, shelving the debate about the supernatural and transcendent for a moment.

Any method of procreation that's observable is therefore natural. Not procreating is natural. It's natural to love your neighbor. It's natural to hate your neighbor. It's natural to be honest and natural to lie. Natural to be a pacifist and natural to murder.

Humans evolved a tendency for heterosexual pair-bonding, yeah, but just because something is more common that doesn't mean it's somehow more "natural." That's just bizarre. In context, it seems more like you're moralizing normality. That can't be your intention, though?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By the way they talk and post, but they could also be pathological liars being atheists.

Well, I use a different model of psychology.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dawkins is at the forefront of the atheist religion

Wrong on both counts. He is not the forefront, and it is not a religion.

along with his annual award winners and organisations that support the award giving. They are a religion.

Not by any reasonable definition, no.

Some of his close followers are mentally unwell and have easily become misled by him.

Uh huh.

I guess that does make it sound more like a religion...

They clearly spend their time on this forum.

I very rarely see people speaking that positively about Dawkins on this forum.

Why do you seem to be so obsessed and carry so much animosity for this one person? Do you not think it may be wise to let it go?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Not by any reasonable definition, no.
...

Well, yes. But, by one reasonable definition of religion, this is a religion.
"...
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.


Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.


Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

 

[Twilight Hue]

Natural procreation? As opposed to... unnatural procreation? You know that every physical thing is natural, right? We are all a part of nature, shelving the debate about the supernatural and transcendent for a moment.

Any method of procreation that's observable is therefore natural. Not procreating is natural. It's natural to love your neighbor. It's natural to hate your neighbor. It's natural to be honest and natural to lie. Natural to be a pacifist and natural to murder.

Humans evolved a tendency for heterosexual pair-bonding, yeah, but just because something is more common that doesn't mean it's somehow more "natural." That's just bizarre. In context, it seems more like you're moralizing normality. That can't be your intention, though?

Let's put it simple and straightforward. Two gay people cannot produce a baby between themselves without involving a female.

That was my point from a physical standpoint.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, yes. But, by one reasonable definition of religion, this is a religion.
"...
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.


Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.


Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

That sounds close to a worldview or philosophy, but "atheism" in general - not as defined by this random website - is a single position with regards to a single claim. One position does not make a religion.

Which definition of "religion" does this fall into?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's put it simple and straightforward. Two gay people cannot produce a baby between themselves without involving a female.

That was my point from a physical standpoint.

The science may have moved on that in at least one sense. So it is neither true or false, but too simple.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Dawkins is at the forefront of the atheist religion along with his annual award winners and organisations that support the award giving. They are a religion. Some of his close followers are mentally unwell and have easily become misled by him. They clearly spend their time on this forum.

From being rather untrue, you are now becoming obnoxious. His work as a scientist speaks for itself. If he has the balls to speak out against religions then that is his right also. So don't imply that he is some kind of leader for any atheist movement, because I very much doubt he is even if he might appear so. I have actually read a few of his books and his views as towards religions I might agree with or not, but this is separate from his value as a scientist. There is no atheist religion, so stop spreading lies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That sounds close to a worldview or philosophy, but "atheism" in general - not as defined by this random website - is a single position with regards to a single claim. One position does not make a religion.

Correct, but some atheists do it differently. Further for at least one reasonable definition all non-amoral humans with a sufficiently cognitive understanding are religious. But some are philosophical and/or naturalists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Correct, but some atheists do it differently. Further for at least one reasonable definition all non-amoral humans with a sufficiently cognitive understanding are religious. But some are philosophical and/or naturalists.

How is it reasonable to define any non-amoral human with cognition as being religious?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is it reasonable to define any non-amoral human with cognition as being religious?

Well, read here:

Religion | Definition, Types, Beliefs, Symbols, Examples, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

www.britannica.com

What is Religion?

www.qcc.cuny.edu

"... Religion is the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings. ..."

I am not saying you can't use another definition, but please don't start doing you are reasonable and I am not. That is too simple in both directions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, read here:

Religion | Definition, Types, Beliefs, Symbols, Examples, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

www.britannica.com

What is Religion?

www.qcc.cuny.edu

"... Religion is the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings. ..."

So, to you, religion is any means by which anything is valued?

I am not saying you can't use another definition, but please don't start doing you are reasonable and I am not. That is too simple in both directions.

I think it's fairly unreasonable to define religion so broadly that literally every human being is religious if they are able to make any kind of moral assessment of anything. There has to be a distinction between non-religious beliefs and religious beliefs for the concept to have any kind of substantive meaning in conversation.

I maintain that no reasonable definition of religion, yours included, would say that a single position on a single subject constitutes a religion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Dawkins is at the forefront of the atheist religion along with his annual award winners and organisations that support the award giving. They are a religion. Some of his close followers are mentally unwell and have easily become misled by him. They clearly spend their time on this forum.

Dawkins is irrelevant except to the theists he triggers. This atheist has never read any of Dawkins' books or watched his debates or other videos on atheism, although I have read his popular biology books (Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker).

As for religion, that's for you. Atheists are people who are comfortable living without gods or religions.

Regarding mental health, you're here on the Internet ranting to unemotional people like me about their nonexistent religion and calling them mentally unwell. Trump does this, too - generates emotional rants and projects his shortcomings onto others.

Two gay people cannot produce a baby between themselves without involving a female. That was my point from a physical standpoint.

Why make it? It's common knowledge.

Incidentally, that's also true for two straight people if she's infertile, but so what in either case? The arguments against homosexuality based in it being nonprocreative sex are irrelevant. Why should it matter to anybody if people have consensual sex with no chance of pregnancy?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, to you, religion is any means by which anything is valued?


I think it's fairly unreasonable to define religion so broadly that literally every human being is religious if they are able to make any kind of moral assessment of anything. There has to be a distinction between non-religious beliefs and religious beliefs for the concept to have any kind of substantive meaning in conversation.

I maintain that no reasonable definition of religion, yours included, would say that a single position on a single subject constitutes a religion.

No, but the joke is this: Tell me the meaning of life, the universe and everything and you have left science as for science is all you need to answer that. Now do the same for a good, healthy and productive life and again you can't use just science.
That is the point.

E.g. if you like American football that is not religion as such, but the moment we start debating the value of humans qua being humans and all that, that is the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, but the joke is this: Tell me the meaning of life, the universe and everything and you have left science as for science is all you need to answer that.

Correct. We would have entered the realm of philosophy.

Now do the same for a good, healthy and productive life and again you can't use just science.

Actually, you probably could use science for those.

That is the point.

That... certain things aren't science?

What does that have to do with whether or not certain things are religion?

E.g. if you like American football that is not religion as such, but the moment we start debating the value of humans qua being humans and all that, that is the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings.

This is just word salad.

Please explain to me, in simple terms, how you differentiate something that is a religion from something that is not a religion.