Edmonton Christian school: LGBQT's have mental illnesses

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

While it is reflective of how many Christians view Atheists, Randal Rauser does a great job of reviewing this and similar statements in the Bible in his book "Is the Atheist my neighbor?".

Beyond the fact that this verse says that fools deny God, not that denying God makes you a fool, the word fool here means a corrupt and evil person. Basically it says that corrupt and evil people justify their actions by saying to themselves, "there is no God to answer to", and then follows it up by saying no such evil person does good.

Didnt know who he was so I looked him up.
Randal Rauser is a systematic and analytic theologian of evangelical persuasion. He is driven by apologetic concerns.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Cheese

WUT? Are you serious?

Forgot to add the "long", should have said "And as long as people don't use their religion to shape public policy". Which admittedly does happen but not by a large amount of religious people. I really don't see the harm in my elderly grandparents going to church every sunday and having biscuits after with their elderly friends. Certainly don't think that qualifies as them having a mental illness.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Nobody actually believes Taylor is better than Beyoncé.

Nobody.

Is it okay to believe that both of them suck and they, and their sycophant fans, do more harm to music than they do good? After all, isn't personal reflection and appreciation on music more important than collective dogma?

Just asking.

BTW, I really enjoy reading Textcritic's take on religion, even if I do think it is crazy to believe in such systems. Some excellent presentation of some very informative insight into the evangelical Christian culture. Thank you sir.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cheese

You are correct, you dont speak for all religions, or most I would suspect. Being raised in Canada likely provides a softer hue in that regard due to the fact that atheists are despised pretty much wholeheartedly in large swaths of the USA and certainly overseas (Some regions of Canada I would suspect hold the same distaste). It is such a stigma that to even announce you are an atheist while running for public office is an automatic rejection of the electorate. You can call it whatever you like, but the overriding fact is that religion has played a major role in this rejection in the past, and continues the fight to this very day.

It's true that you can't win a national election in the USA as an atheist, but I'd bet you could win one in Boston or California. Also, it's not like atheism has stopped some of the richest and most powerful people in the USA from gaining the status they have. So it's a pretty mixed bag.

As for overseas, again, in Europe you're pretty much fine. Obviously Australia. Many of the less developed countries may not look kindly on non-believers in whatever the majority faith happens to be, but in those places, there's often a list of things you shouldn't be if you want to be treated anything close to equally (e.g. female).

Atheists are not a particularly oppressed group. That being said,

Originally Posted by Diracspike

And as people aren't using their religion to shape public policy neither should you.

Atheism is not a religion. This bothers the hell out of me. There is no equivalence between a believing in something on bad evidence and declining to do so.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's true that you can't win a national election in the USA as an atheist, but I'd bet you could win one in Boston or California. Also, it's not like atheism has stopped some of the richest and most powerful people in the USA from gaining the status they have. So it's a pretty mixed bag.

As for overseas, again, in Europe you're pretty much fine. Obviously Australia. Many of the less developed countries may not look kindly on non-believers in whatever the majority faith happens to be, but in those places, there's often a list of things you shouldn't be if you want to be treated anything close to equally (e.g. female).

Atheists are not a particularly oppressed group. That being said,

Not suggesting it is pervasive across all regions, however the facts are pretty obvious on this side of the pond, "not believing in God is political poison.
There isnt a single "admitted atheist" in USA Congress and only 1 in State legislature. Not believing in God is such a volatile political issue that a simple meeting with people who have ties to atheist groups can expose candidates to pretty brutal smear campaigns.
"Only 54 percent of Americans would vote for a “well-qualified” atheist presidential candidate. While this was the highest total since Gallup began asking the question in 1958, atheism proved the biggest negative influence on a hypothetical candidate’s viability, with fewer respondents saying they would be willing to vote for an atheist than either a gay or a Muslim candidate."
Another study shows atheists are distrusted as much as rapists!
That study was done in BC and Oregon.

Not believing in God could make it harder to get a job, though that would of course require a would-be employer to be aware of a candidate’s nontheistic beliefs. The study on distrust of atheists cited above also found that issues of faith carry over to hiring decisions. In a survey, researchers found that respondents significantly preferred religious candidates for jobs that were considered high-trust, while they marginally preferred nonbelievers for low-trust jobs, like servers.

SO much more than these things are out there and yet atheists are singled out as whiners? We have to simply bend over and take it up the wahoo because "religion"?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's true that you can't win a national election in the USA as an atheist, but I'd bet you could win one in Boston or California. Also, it's not like atheism has stopped some of the richest and most powerful people in the USA from gaining the status they have. So it's a pretty mixed bag.

As for overseas, again, in Europe you're pretty much fine. Obviously Australia. Many of the less developed countries may not look kindly on non-believers in whatever the majority faith happens to be, but in those places, there's often a list of things you shouldn't be if you want to be treated anything close to equally (e.g. female).

Atheists are not a particularly oppressed group. That being said,

Not suggesting it is pervasive across all regions, however the facts are pretty obvious on this side of the pond, "not believing in God is political poison.

There isnt a single "admitted atheist" in USA Congress and only 1 in State legislature. Not believing in God is such a volatile political issue that a simple meeting with people who have ties to atheist groups can expose candidates to pretty brutal smear campaigns.
"Only 54 percent of Americans would vote for a “well-qualified” atheist presidential candidate. While this was the highest total since Gallup began asking the question in 1958, atheism proved the biggest negative influence on a hypothetical candidate’s viability, with fewer respondents saying they would be willing to vote for an atheist than either a gay or a Muslim candidate."
Another study shows atheists are distrusted as much as rapists!
That study was done in BC and Oregon.

Not believing in God could make it harder to get a job, though that would of course require a would-be employer to be aware of a candidate’s nontheistic beliefs. The study on distrust of atheists cited above also found that issues of faith carry over to hiring decisions. In a survey, researchers found that respondents significantly preferred religious candidates for jobs that were considered high-trust, while they marginally preferred nonbelievers for low-trust jobs, like servers.

SO much more than these things are out there and yet atheists are singled out as whiners? We have to simply bend over and take it up the wahoo because "religion"?

[Cheese]

double post my bad

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I really don't see the harm in my elderly grandparents going to church every sunday and having biscuits after with their elderly friends. Certainly don't think that qualifies as them having a mental illness.

That's just socializing, but the question is, are they discussing how lgbt are going to burn for eternity in a pool of fire in some fantasy world?

would they rather be hanging witches or sacrificing virgins, but todays social norms are holding them back, so they settle for light chit chat and tea?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's true that you can't win a national election in the USA as an atheist,

sure you could, you just lie about it, like Donny did.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Didnt know who he was so I looked him up.
Randal Rauser is a systematic and analytic theologian of evangelical persuasion. He is driven by apologetic concerns.

Which makes him an even better example; it proves that evangelicals don't have to hold that atheists are fools and incapable of doing good, which was basically the original charge. Considering this book was written primarly for Rauser's audience, namely Christians, this point is doubly true.

However, you should know that Jeffery Jay Lowder, a strong atheist who is definitely not driven by Apologetics concerns, co-authored the book.

Rauser is a very different strain of evangelical than the likes of William Lane Craig in that he's not primarily driven by apologetic concerns; Rauser is very much interested in building bridges, WLC has much less interest in doing so.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

That's just socializing, but the question is, are they discussing how lgbt are going to burn for eternity in a pool of fire in some fantasy world?

would they rather be hanging witches or sacrificing virgins, but todays social norms are holding them back, so they settle for light chit chat and tea?

This is just stupid.

Christians of almost every stripe are no different than any other person in this country: we love our families, seek to be successful and happy, and we want to make a positive difference in the world. Only the psychotically deranged sociopaths among us would ever "prefer" murdering their fellow citizens or fantasize about them suffering torture, but then again this is pretty much what we might expect for psychotically deranged sociopaths of every religion and worldview.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

...Atheism is not a religion. This bothers the hell out of me. There is no equivalence between a believing in something on bad evidence and declining to do so.

I think this depends greatly on how one chooses to define "religion," and moreover how atheism satisfies biologically and socially engrained predilictions towards religious thought and behaviour (cf. Fozzie_DeBear’s post #202).

I reject the idea that "religion" can be boiled down to a set of world view questions—religion is also a universal form of cultural expression and societal interaction.

So yes, while atheism has removed the concept of god from the equation, proponents are not immune to tribalistic and emotional forces that cause us to think and behave in certain ways that map themselves onto religious behaviour. A number of Cheese's posts in this thread pose an interesting case of this in point: he has assumed a strongly apologetic stance to pontificate his atheism complete with straw man charicatures and an apologetically derived persecution complex.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So yes, while atheism has removed the concept of god from the equation, proponents are not immune to tribalistic and emotional forces that cause us to think and behave in certain ways that map themselves onto religious behaviour.

Absolutely. I know atheists who are intensely analytical and rational in much of their lives - in their work, in how they talk about the natural world, about economics, or about games. But they have gaping ideological blind spots where they do not apply reason and skepticism at all. Where they simply want to believe unreservedly and without any doubt or nuance. To feel and belong. And they get extremely defensive and hostile when those aspects of their lives are challenged with skepticism and empiricism. To them, those matters are resolved. Known. Unshakeble. And to challenge them is blasphemy.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

That's just socializing, but the question is, are they discussing how lgbt are going to burn for eternity in a pool of fire in some fantasy world?

would they rather be hanging witches or sacrificing virgins, but todays social norms are holding them back, so they settle for light chit chat and tea?

This is just bizarre dude. Not every church is like that one in "Kingsman", plus the only trait you can draw a direct line from actual Christian scripture is the gays burning in hell. I went to Catholic church/school for 13 years and they never once said anything about any of that stuff.

I really don't think you need to look over your shoulder for the old folks of Grace Presbyterian coming to sacrifice you.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think this depends greatly on how one chooses to define "religion," and moreover how atheism satisfies biologically and socially engrained predilictions towards religious thought and behaviour (cf. Fozzie_DeBear’s post #202).

I get what you’re saying, but I think these predilections are based on a psychological, and as a result, social need to either maintain ingroup membership or reject ingroup status. I don’t think religion plays a part except that it is a major group who persecutes another for their belief/lack of belief. I don’t think it’s any different from being a hockey fan, and then being a Flames fan and rejecting the Oilers and their fans. So in this instance, atheists would say R=NG.

I reject the idea that "religion" can be boiled down to a set of world view questions—religion is also a universal form of cultural expression and societal interaction.

Universal is a strong word. As is societal. Religion is a mechanism by which cultures have explained the unexplainable for as long as man stood upright. Social pressures are what define our beliefs. Society may have dozens of religions, but it is our social group that defines our religiosity. If you are raised in a Christian family it is pretty likely that you are going to adopt that particular form of Christianity. Same goes for any religion because religiosity is a learned behavior. Religion is a social construct and enforced by the social group in which we maintain membership.

As we have evolved so has our understanding of the world and universe around us. As a result there are many (14% of the world population, or about 1.05 billion people) who no longer ascribe to the idea of Supreme Being. These people come from all walks of life and exist in all cultures and societies, and many of them exist as a result of a spontaneous rejection of cultural or religious belief. So if anything you could argue that atheism is more universal as it is not restricted by culture or social pressures.

So yes, while atheism has removed the concept of god from the equation, proponents are not immune to tribalistic and emotional forces that cause us to think and behave in certain ways that map themselves onto religious behaviour. A number of Cheese's posts in this thread pose an interesting case of this in point: he has assumed a strongly apologetic stance to pontificate his atheism complete with straw man charicatures and an apologetically derived persecution complex.

I agree and disagree with you on this point. There are some atheists who take their non-belief seriously, and do so aggressively in defending their lack of belief. But I don’t see that tribalism or mapping onto religious behavior. Some of the things which define a religion are beliefs, practices, rituals, and texts which provide dogma. Atheists have a clear lack of belief. That is the whole thing with atheism – they don’t believe. Atheists also have no practices or rituals they follow. Maybe you can point out what you think these rituals might be, because coming from an old school Catholic upbringing I’m used to the whole pomp and circumstance of mass, the sacraments, and various observations we were expected to make throughout the year. I see that lacking in atheism. Also, maybe point out what text provides the dogma by which atheists establish their faith.

These points are all based off observations and questions I have had as I followed my path to discovery and non-belief. I look forward to hearing your take on these observations.

[photon]

Every church I went to since I was seven talked about gays burning in hell. Gay people were always talked about as a great societal evil, moving behind the scenes to manipulate the media, movies, music, politics, everything to persuade more people to become gay. They were a social movement to be actively combated I was taught.

This isn't just one church either, this was all the churches I was in from seven till I stopped going to church in my 30's, small towns to big cities. EDIT: Probably at least 8 different ones.

Not every church is like that, but they're not unicorns either; they're common enough.

EDIT2: I'm wrong, one of the last churches I went to had a much more liberal view on homosexuality.

[Cheese]

A number of Cheese's posts in this thread pose an interesting case of this in point: he has assumed a strongly apologetic stance to pontificate his atheism complete with straw man charicatures and an apologetically derived persecution complex.

Wow...so much here to debate yet I don't have an inkling how to pontificate the structure of a possible outline in order to alleviate the intracerebral hemorrhaging that occurs whenever I attempt to comprehend your structure.

ps...you misspelled caricatures!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Wow...so much here to debate yet I don't have an inkling how to pontificate the structure of a possible outline in order to alleviate the intracerebral hemorrhaging that occurs whenever I attempt to comprehend your structure.

ps...you misspelled caricatures!

Hee! Hee!

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is just stupid.

Christians of almost every stripe are no different than any other person in this country: we love our families, seek to be successful and happy, and we want to make a positive difference in the world. Only the psychotically deranged sociopaths among us would ever "prefer" murdering their fellow citizens or fantasize about them suffering torture, but then again this is pretty much what we might expect for psychotically deranged sociopaths of every religion and worldview.

Then explain to me what force has been behind the ostracization of lgbtq for the last couple of thousand years, right up until the last decade or so?

What force is behind north carolinas bill 2 which they only repealed today because of economic reasons?

Why does senator jimmy inhoffe make so many trips to African countries on the taxpayer dime, to spread xtian values, which translates to anti gay laws?

I think you see only what you want to see.

I don't doubt for a minute that some, a lot, of Xtians are exactly like how you portray them, but a lot aren't.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

This is just bizarre dude. Not every church is like that one in "Kingsman", plus the only trait you can draw a direct line from actual Christian scripture is the gays burning in hell. I went to Catholic church/school for 13 years and they never once said anything about any of that stuff.

I really don't think you need to look over your shoulder for the old folks of Grace Presbyterian coming to sacrifice you.

Not just gays, all non believers will burn in hell, it's been a xtian tenet since the first snake oil salesman introduced religion.

Even masturbating is cause for eternity of hellfire. Gods watching you do that.