Why Atheists Care About YOUR Religion

Originally posted by @divegeester
The Shavixmir one where you blundered in several pages in (as you tend to do) made a comment that revealed that you hadn’t read the thread at all but wanted to take a pop at me, and then you exited.

I've since responded in that thread.

And, no, it wasn't "blundering", or "that I hadn't read the thread at all". I did, I just disagreed with you, and we all know you always count this as some kind of sin against humanity. No, I just disagree, is all. It doesn't somehow make me unable to communicate logically, despite what you keep claiming.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
It can only sound like "discrimination" if you are fully subscribed to the gigantic apparatus of "rights" and "values" that you are fully committed to. Saying someone doesn't accept your unwieldy late 20th century secular humanist vision is bigoted is just throwing a tantrum, IMO. Let's be polite and civil about this.

There is no "tantrum". And I have not used the word "bigoted". You seem to be introducing words that seek to add a wee bit poison to what is a civil discourse. I won't let those two words deflect me or disguise your dodge: here is the question again, with less words:

What kinds of discrimination do you want to see against people who want to enter into same sex unions?

Originally posted by @suzianne
Yes, and in the 20th century that was at the point of a gun.

They called it Fascism.

The argument that I have is not about the validity of fascism. It is about the invalidity of the "democratic" systems because these are exceedingly tumultuous and involve their own style of tyranny, and they often involve massive manipulative campaigns that aim to manufacture consent.

In a sense, what invalidates fascism is exactly what invalidates democracy: they overly rely on the manipulation of the masses, and both exploit them through mass media and emotional abuse.

Moreover, consent is manufactured by a variety of ways, not always violence. Violence is the last resort. You can distinguish a successful society from an unsuccessful society based on how little violence is used in the enforcement of the consensus.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
We should be live in organically formed communities that operate based on the traditions and needs of the people, and they are rationally implemented to increase the wealth and power of the respective nations. Social welfare is provided as needed and tyrannical exercises of power are discouraged due to the dignity of human existence. It's a really tight, little, elegant package.

And what do you believe your "organically formed communities" should do about their members who are homosexuals and atheists?

Originally posted by @fmf
You labelled something you disapprove of in a fellow citizen as "mental sickness" earlier. Is your diagnosis of "mental sickness" scientific, pseudo-scientific or non-scientific?

How would it *not* be a sickness? I am curious how the argument that it is healthy would work...

Everyone knows the basic position on this. What is yours, though?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
How would it *not* be a sickness? I am curious how the argument that it is healthy would work...

Everyone knows the basic position on this. What is yours, though?

The question was this: Is your diagnosis of "mental sickness" scientific, pseudo-scientific or non-scientific? I'm interested in your answer not your evasive counter-questions or assertions about what "everyone knows".

Originally posted by @fmf
And what do you believe your "organically formed communities" should do about their members who are homosexuals and atheists?

Pretty much nothing.

Obviously, entering into holy matrimony and having a family is an absurd propositon, as is the idea that they could be held up as moral role models, but ultimately what do we do with alcoholics..? We let them go to their bars and clubs and pray that they reform themselves, and we promtoe family level intervention and educate people against engaging in that behavior.

As for atheism... really, what is there to do abotu it? They don't believe in the religion of the society. So what? I guess we shouldn't let them be Priests, lol.

And, of course, actively promoting anti-religious sentiment is a negative but that is easily fixed: don't use public resources to give them a platform.

I could even see actively promoting a 'truce' between believers and non-believers. As it stands, there are loads of atheists out there who are openly sympathetic to religion as a sociological function and see its importance in the maintenance of cultural institutions.

Originally posted by @fmf
The question was this: Is your diagnosis of "mental sickness" scientific, pseudo-scientific or non-scientific? I'm interested in your answer not your evasive counter-questions or assertions about what "everyone knows".

It can be scientifically demonstrated that LGB lifestyles are disadvantageous mating behaviors and that transgenderism is, by all normal measures, an illness, as it involves mutilating a healthy body and spending a lifetime on hormones to produce a sense of normalcy. A sense of normalcy that sutides say do not hold up -- transgender people have been measured as having massive suicide rates. I am not celebrating this. Just saying it.

Why does bullying of LGBT people happen so universally? Because humans, being primates, seek "group fitness" and "group esteem." feminine and fat boys are humiliated; ugly and masculine women are harrassed and joked about. The group of people wants to appear fit and powerful, and desires for an outward expression of strength, grace, beauty, and healthy behaviors.

Bullying is a universal occurrence... Why? Because it serves a sociological function that is tied to how humans perceive themselves as members of the group.

You're *fighting against the very normal and natural state of human interactions.*

That's a pretty scientific argument. But there are othera rguments, too, that is only part of it. It's a big topic.

FMF: what do you believe your "organically formed communities" should do about their members who are homosexuals and atheists?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Pretty much nothing.

So, no actual 'concrete' discrimination against them (laws, restrictions etc.) just the disapproval of fellow citizens as they wish? I can agree to this.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
...transgenderism is, by all normal measures, an illness, as it involves mutilating a healthy body and spending a lifetime on hormones to produce a sense of normalcy.

Are these "normal measures" scientific, pseudo-scientific or non-scientific, you still have not been clear.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
You're *fighting against the very normal and natural state of human interactions.*

No, I am not. Not at all. In so far as I dissent from your views here in this discussion, I am "fighting" for a situation in which your religionist take on "the very normal and natural state of human interactions" is not turned into discrimination or even oppression backed by hard political power. You are without question entitled to your perspectives on "the very normal and natural state of human interactions".

Originally posted by @fmf
Are these "normal measures" scientific, pseudo-scientific or non-scientific, you still have not been clear.

They are scientific. They involve appraising the nature of man and his natural social structures as well as what behaviors consistently demonstrate prosocial behavior.

Of course, this is different than hard, physical science, but it is scientific in the sense that it processes as objective of observations and facts about human behavior. as can be made.

Given all of the evidence, heterosexuality is advantageous. Monogamy is also advantageous. LGB is disadvantageous behavior. Transgenderism resembles an illness more than it does a behavior as we have the mind not conforming to physical reality and thus being delusional. We can say these things just based off of how we interpret reality in an anthropocentric setting.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Why does bullying of LGBT people happen so universally? Because humans, being primates, seek "group fitness" and "group esteem." feminine and fat boys are humiliated; ugly and masculine women are harrassed and joked about. The group of people wants to appear fit and powerful, and desires for an outward expression of strength, grace, beauty, and healthy behaviors.

So, should a government participate in this bullying of one part of its citizenry or should it proactively ensure that it is not participating in the bullying and/or afford some protection from it?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
They are scientific. They involve appraising the nature of man and his natural social structures as well as what behaviors consistently demonstrate prosocial behavior.

And what legal discrimination against these people do you think should be rooted in your notions of nature and what is and isn't "pro-social"?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Given all of the evidence, heterosexuality is advantageous. Monogamy is also advantageous. LGB is disadvantageous behavior. Transgenderism resembles an illness more than it does a behavior as we have the mind not conforming to physical reality and thus being delusional. We can say these things just based off of how we interpret reality in an anthropocentric setting.

What should be the actual real-life consequences, to your way of thinking, of your personal opinions about "LGB" and "Transgenderism"?