TRiG.

They wouldn’t even be ocming on to my radar if they didn’t keep insisting that whatever version of od or gods they believe in have it in for me in particular.

Not to mention– whatever is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I would be more than happy to believe in a god or gods if there were a reasonably good reason for doing so besides; “I said so” or “This book written 2000 years ago says so”.

But then, belief wouldn’t be required, because knowledge is available.

There is little, if any, equivalence between the experiences of GLBTQ and religious persons.

The reality of sexual attraction exists entirely within each individual person. The are no independent external issues involved. And this reality occurs uniformly in all cultures, although its apparent degree of expression differs due to social forces.

But the reality of religion involves independent external issues in addition to the experiences occurring within individual persons. The question of a god’s existence is not answered by these experiences. There is an objective factual answer out there somewhere – a god either does or does not exist. The number of people believing one way or the other without empirical evidence contributes nothing toward answering the question. And unlike sexual attraction, there is little uniformity of religious belief among different cultures, other than just the existence of some form of religion.

David, your apparent expectation that religion should be immune from questioning and criticism (or even mockery and ridicule) is unreasonable. As long as religions insist on extending their controlling tentacles into all aspects of people’s lives, there is going to be backlash. And some of that backlash is going to strike at the foundational beliefs that underpin the presumption of religion’s authority. So instead of just lashing out at atheists, time would be better spent by discovering and providing empirical evidence to support religious beliefs.

both consistently used identical tactics, from out-right lies to personal attacks and statements of fact that redefine other people’s lives, to name only a few, and then pretend that they are victimized by any rebuttal whatsoever.

The most glaring of all though, is that both atheists and homophobes entire position is nothing more than a complete rejection of other people’s life experiences. Homophobes explicitly reject what GLBTQ experience of our own lifes, saying ‘I’m not gay so no one is, there is no such thing as gay’. And atheists explicitly reject what people of faith experience in our own lives saying ‘I haven’t experienced God, so no has, there is no God’.

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/03/sexism_in_the_a

Most of this is about sexism, rather than homophobia per se; however, most homophobes will justify their views on sexist grounds if you start asking questions.

Gotta go, the Mormons are knocking. And I’m having drinks with the local Objectivist Society later.

I never said any such thing.

That’s irrelevant to the point we were disputing. You claimed you were not evangelizing, the cut and paste proves you were trying to convert Jim from his religious beliefs to yours – that’s the definition of evangelizing. Your claim that this is not relevant to me is false – its absolutely relevant to your false claim not to be an evangelical.

Timothy said “To you, when someone believe in a deity, it is as offensive.”.

No, its not offensive to me, you however claim it is offensive to you when someone says they don’t believe in gods. I’m stating that there is no difference in offensiveness between the two positions – you want to falsely claim there is.

Timothy said “Yet, to you, attacking them for it is not. You’re just “sharing the truth”.”.

How is my saying there is no god an attack on you? If you believe that then it follows that your saying there is a god is an attack on me – do you believe that? My stating my beliefs is no more an attack on you than your stating yours is an attack on me.

Timothy said “However, over the years I’ve noticed a funny thing. Those who yell “Amen” the loudest are the ones who are the least truly firm in their faith. It’s a lot like anti-gay activism – often it’s a mask for secrets. Those with a “street ministry” are often the ones who are secretly beating their wife or molesting their kids.”.

You accuse me of being rude and incapable of being courteous and here you imply that I’ve got a secret on par with being a wife-beater and child molester, not to mention your previous comparison of me with the Taliban. I’ve made no such assaults on your character.

When it comes to accusing others of evangelizing and being rude you are truly projecting your own actions on them.

Thanks for letting me have my say, I’ll leave you with the last word as your attacks on me speak to who is the one who’s been rude.

First let me say that I have nothing against Atheists, just as I have nothing against Jews, Christians, or Hindus.

But I am annoyed by evangelicals of all stripe that are certain that they are right to the exclusion of all others and that what they say is “the truth” which justifies behaving boorishly.

I don’t like it in Jim Scott, I don’t like it in David Benkof, and I don’t like it in atheists.

OK, Priya Lynn, the floor is yours.

When Christian nations in history have behaved abominably, it is a reflection on their religious belief. When atheist regimes have behave abominably, it “says nothing about what the populations they rule think.”