What is compelling evidence? Is the compulsion exclusively one of impersonal logic or does the “compelling bit” also rest on mind set, personal conceptual frames, personal experience, open-mindedness etc.?

I don’t know what you mean by “iron age” or “bronze age” understanding. Sounds awful. What is it? You say that you are glad about clearing that up but that assertion seems premature.

You agree that quantum physics is weird but exonerate it because there’s plenty of evidence to support the weird findings. That’s wrong. There are quantum assertions for which there is no evidence. Where’s the evidence for string theory for a start? Maybe we should reclassify it as religious and irrational because it fails to meet your “evidence” criterion.

While I have your attention, let me know what you think of metaphysics. Do you throw that in the bin with “religious thinking”? How would you intellectually support Materialism, a metaphysical view commonly associated with atheism, with your criterion of evidence?

John Snowden

First of all, thanks for replying, most detractors here run away because they can’t handle it when their arguments get challenged, and given the other usual tactics of the internet – ie. anonymous handles and personal attacks – it makes a pleasant change on the rare occasion someone bucks the trend. This may or may not surprise you, but in general, most of these issues are ones we don’t mind discussing. But having said that, I’ll only credit your return – just about everything you’ve written is rubbish. How is it you can believe such a list of errors?

Please inform me who is advocating that we celebrate the act of anal sex.

Is that for real? That is the defining thing about homosexual behaviour (at least, male to male) and has a bevy of health issues associated with it. Not to mention it’s infertile. And I notice you made the old smokescreen “Gay people make a contribution to society” argument. C’mon, that’s obvious, and irrelevant. A fair number of my colleagues engage in homosexual behaviour, a couple of them trained me in areas of my work, but that is not the issue.

And the issue is this (and be a good chap and read it slowly so you understand, will you?): I am singling out the specific behaviour in question and not (as you effectively say I am) demonizing people. You are not staying with the argument – the question is not whether or not a person is making “a contribution to society”, the issue is whether or not this specific behaviour makes a contribution to society because that is the defining thing about their homosexuality. Is that really so hard for you to make that distinction?

So, it’s pretty well impossible to support the homosexual agenda without effectively cheering for anal sex. You are at least admitting it is good. But what it does to the body is not good over time. It would be quite easy to explain why. To support homosexuality as if it is normal behaviour doesn’t make sense and it is not worth celebrating. And that last statement is an affirmation of the humanity and dignity of the personhood of those caught in the trap of this lifestyle.

“You are clearly unable to separate a person from their sexual orientation and the sexual expression that would sometimes result, and that is deeply sad.

I’m really not sure how you came to make this statement. I think you’re actually the one getting a bit confused here with the distinction between ‘orientation’ and person. I have no problem with it, hey – there are two different words, for starters. It actually tends to be those engaging in homosexual behaviour that build their identity around their sexual habits, something they can do for any combination of a number of reasons – to feel better about themselves, as a political statement, let themselves be talked into it, etc. I’m actually acutely aware that even the simple act of calling someone “gay” blurs this issue as it steps closer to the idea that orientation is immutable rather than just a bad habit that can potentially be fatal. My view is that someone ‘does’ homosexuality, not so much that they are homosexual. As far as sex goes, the only immutable thing is that we are born male and female.

Would you have all homosexuals rounded up and sent to the gas chambers?

Well, now you’re just setting up a personal attack. Have I even remotely suggested anything of the sort? No. Do I believe in even lesser expressions of violence, you know, maybe just some light taps with a plastic cricket bat? No. But I found it rather ironic that you accuse me only a few sentences later of setting up “straw men arguments” when it is clearly you who is inventing things and then using them to smear me.

I picked this up recently off a comments board, and decided to steal it – if a person engages in personal attacks then it is because they have run out of good arguments, in which case, I accept their surrender. So thanks for the backhanded compliment, Richie.

Also, the examples you cite demonstrate (shock horror) that some gay people can be violent or immoral.

Well no, not really – although the Castro and Michigan events were orchestrated by militants alone, the common theme with them is persecution, the subject of this thread. Most of them deal with persecution from authorities based upon stupid laws. You claimed earlier that persecution was a myth, but then later contradicted this by saying that we don’t deserve tolerance anyway (which effectively concedes persecution is OK). So which is it? Given that I had no trouble reeling off a list of events off the top of my head (there are many more) and we can add to that your comments here (not to mention the original post from Bill)… and it’s plain to see a picture emerging. I’ll let the unbiased reader figure it out.

You should ask yourself who started the persecution in the first place,

Yep, preaching a sermon from the Bible within the 4 walls of your own church sure is provocative, isn’t it? Getting those voters to vote (again) to reject same-sex ‘marriage’ using that pesky democratic process thing sure is ‘persecution’, right? And as far as daring to play guitar and sing worship songs in the park – well now, that’s simply outrageous!!!

/sarcasm

If nothing else, you’re changing subjects. The issue is those events and other like them and you had better face up to them as being clarion clear examples of persecution regarding the homosexual agenda against detractors. The militants are the ones railroading courts, getting extremists in positions of power, making sure the media doesn’t report these issues fairly, etc. Most Christians don’t pick this fight, it’s being forced on them unwillingly, similar to other issues like abortion and euthanasia. I can think of hundreds of things I’d rather be doing – trouble is, I am aware that this issue has potentially devastating ramifications for the future if it goes the wrong way. My hope is that the lurkers reading these threads will be educated as to the truth of what’s going on and respond appropriately so that Australia (or anywhere else for that matter) doesn’t turn into a Titanic where it’s way too late when you finally see the iceberg. And nations change direction much more slowly than that.

btw, the ‘victim’ card is routinely played by these militants as a marketing ploy, but in reality, they are the ones who are driving for change, they are the protagonists. Hey, I just want the status quo and those who want change to appeal to the merits of their argument – not use force to try to get their way and also act as if I’m the one who has the problem. I don’t have any ‘phobia’, that’s for sure, they are welcome to state their case, but also to accept a little thing called truth along the way. But in reality, they just want to get their way regardless. So those who care are forced to fight.

Finally, I tried to figure out what it is you actually meant by the “straw man” comment but don’t really understand. The way I think I can deduce it is that you want me to admit that I have somehow mischaracterized your position of support. Again, that’s not right. It’s not me that’s “base”, it’s the behaviour of others. I find it distasteful too. But then your comment leaves you in the in the illogical position where you find it abhorrent to discuss details of the behaviour defining this issue, and yet you support it. Go figure.

Mark Rabich

But you again so very nicely demonstrate the secularist modus operandi:
-One, insist that tolerance and respect are the highest values which we all must display;
-Two, refuse to show the slightest acceptance and tolerance to anyone who dares to disagree with you;
-Three, label anyone who seeks to think independently as a “bigot”;
-Four, hope like heck that no one notices the gross inconsistency and double standards of atheist fundamentalism.

I am always amazed that those who shout the loudest about tolerance and acceptance are the ones who in fact are the most intolerant and least accepting. Even more amazing is that they cannot even see the absolute absurdity of such rank hypocrisy.

And I was once a secularist, so I certainly do know how they think. I had to leave secularism as I found it to be incoherent, reductionistic, and intolerant. The truth is, tolerance presupposes an open mind. All your comments have so consistently demonstrated is that the atheist mind is closed, narrow and oh so judgmental.

And your comments on Africa also highlight atheistic reasoning: it’s all bluff and bluster. Can you name the African nation which is leading the way in the fight against HIV/AIDS? Let me help you out here, since you are obviously struggling with this. It happens to be Uganda, which is utilising something you despise: Christian morality. Emphasising abstinence and faithfulness to one’s partner, with condom use a last resort, Uganda has led the way in dramatically lowering HIV rates. But don’t let a few facts get in the way of your atheist objections.

I am afraid I am not in a position to embrace this anti-theism of yours – it is just far too intolerant and irrational. So if you are trying to convert me to your religion, sorry, but I have been there and done that. But I will continue to pray for you however.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

In what way are you remotely a tolerant person, Bill? Why should I show you any tolerance that you deny anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your scriptural dogma? It has to be a two-way thing, otherwise, I’m sorry, but you really have denied yourself any right to it. Respect works this way too.

The great tragedy is that people like you, Bill, could potentially be moral and decent. I don’t know you other than through what you write, so I am being highly subjective, I admit. But the moment you start trying to square a world view in accordance with dogma, then morality flies out of the window. We see this all the time from religious quarters, such as the pope thinking the Aids crisis in sub-Saharan Africa is bad, but that condoms are worse. That’s not morality, that’s dogma, and the consequences are thoroughly indefensible and evil.

Try to understand why a secularist would view you as a bigot. Then you’ll be making progress. If you want to practice your religious faith, go right ahead, but it is the very definition of intolerance to expect everybody else on the planet to share your beliefs, to respect them without any objective criticism, and to ensure that their behaviour or morals do not in any way impinge upon your own narrow dogma. This is not “tolerance” or “patience” that you show, or offer, but an absolute dictatorship. Try to understand why secularists find this abhorrent, and why rationalists will subject your cherished beliefs to fair and thorough criticism.

Mark Rabich: Please inform me who is advocating that we celebrate the act of anal sex. Who is advocating that we celebrate any form of sexual intercourse? When is Missionary Position Week, for example? Gay people make a contribution to society, and this is worth celebrating. You are clearly unable to separate a person from their sexual orientation and the sexual expression that would sometimes result, and that is deeply sad. Would you have all homosexuals rounded up and sent to the gas chambers? I merely ask. Also, the examples you cite demonstrate (shock horror) that some gay people can be violent or immoral. You should ask yourself who started the persecution in the first place, although I am not saying that excuses the behaviour of some individuals with whom I may or may not agree, depending on the details of the individual incidents. The straw man arguments you present are so futile they barely warrant a response, and I won’t bother again if your standard of response remains so base.

Louise: It may surprise you to know that I have some sympathy for the doctors and nurses you cite. It may also surprise you that I and many other secularists and atheists find abortion distateful, but I would not seek a ban on it for many reasons. This goes back to dogma. If the Catholic church had their way, and none of the faithful used contraception ever, the end result of this would be overpopulation and famine. Africa is a good example of Catholic dogma run rampant. Not pretty. Would I like to subscribe to this world view? No thank you. If you wish to live your life in peace, then that’s fine with me and I don’t have a problem with that. I’m not equating you with Bill, but he has stated on his site that Christians (his brand) can’t be content to practice their faith in private. Such evangelicalism is the trigger for a defence of secularism.

John Snowden: You challenge me for fuzziness and then give a very woolly assessment of the nature of human psychiatry. I say that religious thinking is a kind of mental illness, or psychological condition, perhaps, because it’s irrational, whether you think so or not, to build your life around something for which there is no compelling evidence in favour of it and plenty of evidence pointing the other way. It is an extraordinary kind of solipsism to say that some sections of society ought to be persecuted because of a divine mandate to be found in an ancient book of myths that is claimed to be the word of god, even though written by multiple authors (all, obviously, human) with bronze age or iron age understanding, where the only basis for believing its veracity is that the book itself claims to be at the very least divinely inspired. I am sure some atheists are depressed, just as some Christians or Hindus or whatever are depressed. Without seeing the evidence, I would adopt an agnostic position for now and say that atheism itself is unlikely to result in depression. Even if it did, it wouldn’t make the claims of the religious any more true. And whilst it’s true that quantum physics is weird, there’s plenty of evidence to support the weird findings. The same cannot be said of any religious belief.

Glad to have cleared that up.

Richie Craze, UK

Very nice rebuttal, John.

Louise Le Mottee

If Richie wants to tar everyone with the same brush then let him start with atheists. What are their mental health problems? I knew an organisation of atheists that clearly had problems of depression as a group. And they were also afflicted with paranoid fixations on “Fundies” and “reactionary Catholics” that were so rigidly stereotyped, so unempirical, that one wondered when their minds connected with reality. A psychologist in the group was counselling them for their problems. He actually admitted to me that atheism could be a depressing view because atheists were more realistic and reality was depressing. He was an atheist, and that’s how he saw it. This organisation even formed a self-help group to deal with their problems. Anyone interested in the psychology of atheism should read the work of Paul Vitz, an American psychologist who has taken an interest in this subject.

Richie finds religious beliefs weird. So do I at times (I am not a Christian). But “weird” does not mean false. For example the ideas of quantum physics are weird but no reasonable person would reject them on that account.

John Snowden

No, my good man, the persecution is only just beginning in Australia (e.g. The Two Dannys), so it may seem overblown rhetoric, but when people who disagree with secularism can be hounded out of their own country merely for their beliefs (as with Severo), then you know it’s on its way.

In Victoria, doctors and nurses can now be prosecuted for not participating in abortions, so that looks a lot like real persecution to me. Unlike secularists, Christians cope pretty well with the fact that people disagree with us. What we don’t like is being hauled before kangaroo courts or even real courts because of what we believe.

It is you secularists who will not simply allow us to live our lives in peace. But you’re so blind you can’t see it and then say in all seriousness that we don’t deserve tolerance. Hilarious!

Most western countries are pretty tolerant on the whole

Tosh.

Persecution? You have a mental disorder.

Look at Victoria’s abortion laws. Our position is based upon laws that are in place in this country now. So much for not ramming your views down others’ throats.

All this speaking of lions etc – and you really expect me to believe that you truly believe in ToleranceDiversityRespect?

Odd kind of “diversity” you’ve got there!

Louise Le Mottee

If you have the slightest interest in doing some research, google this:

Ake Green (’cause no-one wants to lock us up, right?!?)
David Parker arrested, Massachusetts (oh well, maybe they do)
Christian Horizons fined, Canada
Castro district gays attack Christians
New Mexico photographer fined $6000 for refusing gay wedding
Bash back gays attack church Michigan prop 8

Just off the top of my head, mind you…

Of course, the irony is Google donated $100,000 to try to stop Prop 8 passing in California back in November, but to show us all now how impartial a search engine they are, enter the word ‘gay’ and see a nice rainbow symbol come up.

I’m feelin’ the ‘tolerance’, make no mistake. LOL

One more question – please inform us of how great it is to mix up sexual organs with the output end of the digestive system and why that should be celebrated as part of a cure for my “mental disorder.”

Like shooting fish in a barrel…

Mark Rabich

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch