Is homophobia linked to religion?

[Migdal Bavel]

I...just...what?
Atheism doesn't deify the species or make a God out of reason. This religion you're describing isn't atheism.

I think the closest I could describe it as would be 'Gnostic Neo-Platonism'. Ish.

[Daburuetchi]

I mean the deification of the species and the God of reason is very much a religion in itself. All these things are attached to Atheism. I mean you can't prove that there isn't a God and impossibility of proof is the bedrock of religion.

I...just...what?
Atheism doesn't deify the species or make a God out of reason. This religion you're describing isn't atheism.

But it does though. If you listen to Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Dawkins they're all caught up in the cult of progress and reason. They all promulgate scientific messianism.

[Alvecia]

I...just...what?
Atheism doesn't deify the species or make a God out of reason. This religion you're describing isn't atheism.

But it does though. If you listen to Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Dawkins they're all caught up in the cult of progress and reason. They all promulgate scientific messianism.

First, no,
Second, that literally cannot be atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity(s). If they deify anything or consider anything a God, be it reason or humans, they are no longer atheists.

[Jochizyd Republic]

I...just...what?
Atheism doesn't deify the species or make a God out of reason. This religion you're describing isn't atheism.

I think the closest I could describe it as would be 'Gnostic Neo-Platonism'. Ish.

No, that is something completely different.

Scientism is the word. Which itself is a misinterpretation of science

[Daburuetchi]

But it does though. If you listen to Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Dawkins they're all caught up in the cult of progress and reason. They all promulgate scientific messianism.

First, no,
Second, that literally cannot be atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity(s). If they deify anything or consider anything a God, be it reason or humans, they are no longer atheists.

I didn't need the textbook definition of Atheism thanks. You can subscribe to a "deity" without actually affirming its identity and that deity is called ideology. "Atheism is humanism mediated by the suppression of religion" as Camus said. It's extremely easy to become a scientific fetishist as most mainstream atheist and the skeptic community on YouTube does.

[Migdal Bavel]

It was just a way of pointing out how far 'a god of reason' and 'deifying humans' is NOT atheism.

[Alvecia]

First, no,
Second, that literally cannot be atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity(s). If they deify anything or consider anything a God, be it reason or humans, they are no longer atheists.

I didn't need the textbook definition of Atheism thanks. You can subscribe to a "deity" without actually affirming its identity and that deity is called ideology. "Atheism is humanism mediated by the suppression of religion" as Camus said. It's extremely easy to become a scientific fetishist as most mainstream atheist and the skeptic community on YouTube does.

Now you're no longer describing a religion, you're describing an ideology.
Well...misrepresenting an ideology, but still

[Australian rePublic]

Opposing same sex marriage =/= Homophobia

[United Marxist Nations]

I think the closest I could describe it as would be 'Gnostic Neo-Platonism'. Ish.

No, that is something completely different.

Scientism is the word. Which itself is a misinterpretation of science

Yeah, scientism is pretty cancerous, but becoming increasingly popular as many popular scientific figures dispute the importance of epistemology.

[Daburuetchi]

I didn't need the textbook definition of Atheism thanks. You can subscribe to a "deity" without actually affirming its identity and that deity is called ideology. "Atheism is humanism mediated by the suppression of religion" as Camus said. It's extremely easy to become a scientific fetishist as most mainstream atheist and the skeptic community on YouTube does.

Now you're no longer describing a religion, you're describing an ideology.
Well...misrepresenting an ideology, but still

Look all I'm trying to say is that once you see yourself as merely the tool of ideology, when you start justifying things teleologically in the name of an ideology, that's defacto a religion.

You could say "well that's not atheism at this point" but people still call themselves atheist while at the same time defacto follow a sort of religion

[Migdal Bavel]

Yeah, scientism is pretty cancerous, but becoming increasingly popular as many popular scientific figures dispute the importance of epistemology.

TBF, they don't 'dispute' it, so much as 'ignore' it. Disputing something requires understanding it, and when prominent parts of the movement have no answer to Hume's scepticism, I think that's in question.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yeah, scientism is pretty cancerous, but becoming increasingly popular as many popular scientific figures dispute the importance of epistemology.

TBF, they don't 'dispute' it, so much as 'ignore' it. Disputing something requires understanding it, and when prominent parts of the movement have no answer to Hume's scepticism, I think that's in question.

IIRC, Bill Nye outright said that skepticism is absurd and shouldn't be entertained. So, I would say that they are disputing it.

[Alvecia]

Now you're no longer describing a religion, you're describing an ideology.
Well...misrepresenting an ideology, but still

Look all I'm trying to say is that once you see yourself as merely the tool of ideology, when you start justifying things in the name of an ideology, that's defacto a religion.

You could say "well that's not atheism at this point" but people still call themselves atheist while at the same time defacto follow a sort of religion

I won't deny that there are fanatics or ideologues. But those are pretty universal for any movement, following, or ideology.
But I would still absolutely disagree with the use of "religion" to refer to it. It's completely disingenuous.

[Daburuetchi]

Look all I'm trying to say is that once you see yourself as merely the tool of ideology, when you start justifying things in the name of an ideology, that's defacto a religion.

You could say "well that's not atheism at this point" but people still call themselves atheist while at the same time defacto follow a sort of religion

I won't deny that there are fanatics or ideologues. But those are pretty universal for any movement, following, or ideology.
But I would still absolutely disagree with the use of "religion" to refer to it. It's completely disingenuous.

Fair enough

[Migdal Bavel]

TBF, they don't 'dispute' it, so much as 'ignore' it. Disputing something requires understanding it, and when prominent parts of the movement have no answer to Hume's scepticism, I think that's in question.

IIRC, Bill Nye outright said that skepticism is absurd and shouldn't be entertained. So, I would say that they are disputing it.

I'd disagree. Just saying 'that's absurd' isn't an argument, it's throwing your toys out of the pram an ignoring the problem.

[Jochizyd Republic]

I...just...what?
Atheism doesn't deify the species or make a God out of reason. This religion you're describing isn't atheism.

I think the closest I could describe it as would be 'Gnostic Neo-Platonism'. Ish.

And I'm pretty sure Plotinus throughly rebuked Gnosticism in his thought. Later Neo Platonic philosophers might have reconciled the two somehow. I don't know.

And while both the some of the Gnostics and Neo Platonists did approve of certain forms of homosexuality, I doubt they would approve of liberalism at all.

[Migdal Bavel]

I think the closest I could describe it as would be 'Gnostic Neo-Platonism'. Ish.

And I'm pretty sure Plotinus throughly rebuked Gnosticism in his thought. Later Neo Platonic philosophers might have reconciled the two somehow. I don't know.

And while both the some of the Gnostics and Neo Platonists did approve of certain forms of homosexuality, I doubt they would approve of liberalism at all.

It was just a way of pointing out how far 'a god of reason' and 'deifying humans' is NOT atheism.

(But for the record, yeah, it's kind of an odd relationship, most Neo-Platonists don't accept Gnosticism, but
Gnostics these days tend to take quite a lot from Neo-Platonism.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/10/public_opinion_gay_marriage

Majority of atheists support same sex marriage.

It's no big secret that abrahamic faiths traditionally condemned sodomy, although these days those against have mellowed from stoning to just disowning, and a few maybe even actually embrace it. Christianity seems far lot more modernising with same sex love and sex than Islam is, from what I've seen, but hey. There is area for progress. But it seems to be religion's traditional values (on topics like marriage) and the word of god that predominately fuels one's hostility to anything non heterosexual and monogamous.

What I'm interested in, is something that challenges this paradigm. Homophobic atheists. I mean if homophobia does boil down to religion, and one denounces all religion, then would homophobia still exist? If so, what's really the cause?

You could say ignorance, but then you do still get sexist atheists a lot more, but not really many homophobic ones, and awareness of that homophobia is why many openly challenge religion.

One hypothetical theory is the age in which someone becomes atheist. If they become one too early, they may not have had a chance to shred any cultural/emotional baggage from their social conservative backgrounds, and as such still harness some homophobia from religion.

Some may feel that even with science trumping religion, homosexuality might still be against nature, since it is not necessary for human survival. In which case religion doesn't actually come down to it.

Thoughts?

EDIT: It's worth noting that militant homophobia has existed in many secular states like China, USSR and Cuba (back then anyway) where homosexuality was a serious crime, which included suppressing homosexual desires and 're-education of heterosexuality'.

No, its just certain sects of the religions. Like me im a Catholic but I supprot gay marriage

[Habna]

If we can't reform them we must work to eradicate them (not killing anyone though that's not what I meant)

Good luck with that. Not even the society of militant godless in the Soviet Union made that permanent of a dent.

Well that's because the soviets used violence and violence is not the answer,
To irradiate religion we must raise our children to be educated scientific and rational with proper funding.

[United Marxist Nations]

Good luck with that. Not even the society of militant godless in the Soviet Union made that permanent of a dent.

Well that's because the soviets used violence and violence is not the answer,
To irradiate religion we must raise our children to be educated scientific and rational with proper funding.

The Soviets did that too.

Oh, also, atheists aren't the most religious demographic in the US.

[Benuty]

Good luck with that. Not even the society of militant godless in the Soviet Union made that permanent of a dent.

Well that's because the soviets used violence and violence is not the answer,
To irradiate religion we must raise our children to be educated scientific and rational with proper funding.

Irradiate?

You want to expose religious people to radiation?

Do you want to end up on a war crimes tribunal? Because that is how you end up on a war crimes tribunal.

[Migdal Bavel]

Good luck with that. Not even the society of militant godless in the Soviet Union made that permanent of a dent.

Well that's because the soviets used violence and violence is not the answer,
To irradiate religion we must raise our children to be educated scientific and rational with proper funding.

I think putting plutonium in the water would be a better way to irratiate religion .
How the hell do you plan to educate the children of religious people that way? Are you going to force them to send their children to schools they hate?

[Uxupox]

Good luck with that. Not even the society of militant godless in the Soviet Union made that permanent of a dent.

Well that's because the soviets used violence and violence is not the answer,
To irradiate religion we must raise our children to be educated scientific and rational with proper funding.

The Church of reason could take a note or two from your atrocity decisive work.

[The Black Forrest]

Anecdotally? Yes.

Some of the worst homophobes I have known (or should I say the misfortune) have proudly declared themselves Christian.

I knew a guy who fled Iran because Islam declared he must die.

Fag was a common slur when I was in grade school. The nuns at least clamped down hard on it......

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong both made homosexuality a criminal offense, when it had previously been made legal in both Russia (under Lenin) and China (under the Kuomintang). Both of them were militant atheists who attacked religion to no end. Stalin outlawed homosexuality because he thought it would raise birth rates, thus giving the Soviet Union an advantage over the rest of the world. Mao outlawed homosexuality purely because he thought it was a sign of capitalist decadence, because it had been made legal by the Kuomintang.

Atheists are completely capable of hating homosexuality for petty, ridiculous reasons.

Religion is a contributor to anti-homosexual sentiment (Islam, especially, is probably the biggest contributor to anti-homosexual violence in history, with Judaism being another big contributor), but the fact of the matter is that people are going to find excuses to hate groups of people regardless of religious affiliation or lack-thereof. There is not an exclusive link between religion and anti-homosexual sentiment, especially when you consider the fact that Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Colombia, all of which are extremely religious countries, have all made same-sex marriage legal, whereas largely atheist countries like China and North Korea still have no recognition of homosexual unions.

Religious people are completely capable of accepting homosexuality, and irreligious people are completely capable of violently opposing homosexuality.