Pharyngula

Posted by: Kerlyssa | July 4, 2009 4:58 AM

Organic queers? Are they free range, too?

Posted by: spudvol | July 4, 2009 5:03 AM

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Posted by: Nils Ross | July 4, 2009 5:12 AM

We shouldn't care about America (or Australia, or Sweden, or Senegal, or wherever) becoming godless; we should care that they become and stay secular.

At the moment, atheists provide a counter-example to the argument that morality REQUIRES religion. However, it's not true to say that atheism implies morality; strictly speaking, it doesn't. We should be careful not to imply that in a causative sense; sooner or later someone WILL justify some atrocity on the grounds of atheism. We should distance ourselves from it before the fact.

Posted by: Andyo | July 4, 2009 5:21 AM

I don't think it's because of atheism, it's just that the same thought process that most atheists went trough to arrive at that position is the one that makes them arrive at "equality" and humane positions. If there's no superstition to skew your thinking you'll arrive more easily at the obvious conclusions.

Posted by: Clemens | July 4, 2009 5:34 AM

#6, I disagree. There is no logical way to start from the premise "There is no God", apply reason and logic in a sound way, and finally arrive at a conclusion like "We gotta get rid of them Jews".

On the other hand if you really believe that the Bible is inerrant you can then apply logic and reasoning on top of that flawed premise and arrive at any conclusion you want, including "We gotta burn them fags".

Posted by: Kevin Hunter | July 4, 2009 5:35 AM

I am a gay atheist, and I was raised as a christian (I suppose), except it never had a hold on me. I was always more logical and scientific-minded. I think the same logic that led to atheism is the type of logic that leads to humanism. That being said, I have met some ignorant fools who are gay christians and some that are homophobic conservative atheists.

But the reality definitely is that religion carries the most stigma concerning things like abortion and homosexuality, and that those things should never make their way into our laws. First because of the first amendment based on the religious stance, and second, because of the Fourteenth regarding the discriminational aspects.

Posted by: Kel | July 4, 2009 5:39 AM

I've got to say I've met atheists who were pretty intolerant people, and I've met religious people who are shining beakers for tolerance and progressive reform.

But yeah, I find it funny that the ones claiming the moral high ground are the ones looking to justify their hate. Ironically enough, they commit the naturalistic fallacy in saying what (they believe) is instead of what ought to be.

Posted by: Yoje | July 4, 2009 5:42 AM

Funny. I'm currently talking to my rather religious cousin about that "don't fund abortion" bill idea. She thinks it's great because, "no one should get an abortion. Ever."

I'd love it if no one would have to, but I recognize reality. Not everyone is in a loving marriage like her, rape happens, and sometimes it's a life or death situation. Life isn't puppy dogs and rainbows like she thinks. And to make a woman who has survived a sexual assault to pay out of pocket to abort the asshole's child is not only humiliating, it's degrading.

I gave up after a while because she obviously wasn't listening. But apparently she's "disappointed" that I'd support a medical procedure being covered by medical insurance. Sigh.

Posted by: Mozglubov | July 4, 2009 5:47 AM

@Kel

I've got to say I've met atheists who were pretty intolerant people, and I've met religious people who are shining beakers for tolerance and progressive reform.

That is true, there are a lot of chemists who are not atheists... (just giving you a hard time).

In actuality, I think a lot it has to do with education levels. Atheism tends to increase with increasing levels of higher education, as does one's tendency to lean toward liberal ideals. Of course, that is not a universal result, but I think in many ways this is a correlation that is not necessarily rooted in any sort of causation.

Posted by: Wildflower | July 4, 2009 5:55 AM

@Alexander(#1)

"is it a consequence of being atheist [to to strongly favor women's rights and equality in the marketplace]?"

No. The only consequence of not believing in that god-nonsense is not believing in that god-nonsense.

However, it might very well be argued that there are preexisting properties (e.g. critical thinking, active involvement in social issues, introspective on moral issues, etc.) that may have a tendency to lead to atheism and a strong stance on equal rights.

Also, it seems that religious belief actually often does lead to the opposite behavior due to - on the one hand - most scriptures being written by close-minded, xenophobic patriarchs and - on the other hand - religious folks just accepting that at face value or even using it to justify their own sexism and xenophobia.

Posted by: Andrew | July 4, 2009 6:01 AM

I only could click "yes" on that poll reluctantly - I don't agree that Obama should just be extending "certain" benefits to gay partners, he should be extending all benefits to them equally. But oh well!

Posted by: Jeremy | July 4, 2009 6:27 AM

Sadly, I can't vote in this, for the reason that it is phrased extremely poorly:

Do you agree with President Obama's decision to extend certain benefits to gay partners of federal employees?

His decision stops short of extending FULL benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, including exclusion of health insurance (probably the biggest one anyone would use). So no, I don't agree with President Obama on this one. It's a nice first step in the right direction, but really, really weak compared to what he promised. :-(

Posted by: Pete Moulton | July 4, 2009 6:42 AM

Like Jeremy, I can't bring myself to vote on this one. I'm straight, but I won't settle for anything less than full enfranchisement for all Americans.

Posted by: Lynn David | July 4, 2009 6:59 AM

I too am a gay who is an atheist. I think it has more to do with a true libertarian attitude, rather than the neo-libertarians who think it has to do with their pocketbooks.

But at the same time I've run across a handful of atheists/agnostics who are just as bigotted towards gays as the Westboro Baptist Church.

Posted by: Kel | July 4, 2009 7:02 AM

Piltdown Man again demonstrating how fucking stupid religion-based morality is.

Sometimes Pilty you are just a shining example of what PZ is talking about. Thanks for being here and demonstrating so vividly that PZ's arguments evidentially have a case.

Posted by: Yellow Dog | July 4, 2009 7:05 AM

You know what's really annoying about both liberalism and atheism?

They both fail to provide built-in "believer" excuses for hating everyone not like me and selfishly grabbing more than my share of everything.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 4, 2009 7:11 AM

Pilty,

When your church drops its official policy of supporting and protecting child rapists, then it might be able to claim authority to pontificate on sexual morality. Until that time, Pope Benny and the Boys can STFU.

Posted by: inkadu | July 4, 2009 7:21 AM

Ploon - The G in GLBT stands for "Gorgonzola."

Posted by: Boudicca | July 4, 2009 7:30 AM

Ploon, I do the same thing. Inkadu, I think I'd prefer Gruyere.

Posted by: Kel | July 4, 2009 7:36 AM

Among other things, private consensual sex gives rise to babies

Posted by: flaq | July 4, 2009 7:38 AM

There is nothing about lack of god-belief that, on its own, makes a person more sensitive to issues of equality. But when your morals are based on a true sense of empathy and compassion instead of a list of arbitrary and outdated commandments, I think it does encourage you to be more thoughtful about how others are treated.

Posted by: Troy | July 4, 2009 7:48 AM

I hate when people put trans-whatever(they are cured with surgery and wearing opposite sex's clothes is a fetish, more for str8 people than for gay) with normal gays, and bi people don't exist anyway and even if they did that discernment would be pointless from a societal and psychological perspective.
Also lesbians are gay, what's up with that redundancy?

So from LGBT you get only the G.

Posted by: Mark | July 4, 2009 7:58 AM

I was raised in the South, by straight parents, surrounded by WASPs who were steeped in fundamentalist Christianity. The only remnant of that identity that remains is the WAS part. I can't change my race or the fact that two generations ago our last name was 'Saxon'.

Being the only scientifically-minded person in my entire family, it led me far from the confines of narrow-minded Christianity. Indeed, I literally studied the history of Christianity, talked with many a preacher, and watched how none of it worked at all on my family members. Conclusion? It is entirely a mental construct. I am not infected with it.

The gay part is genetic. Of that, I am absolutely sure. Oddly enough, I can't identify a single gay person in my family on any of the six sides (multiple divorces) or for several generations. Still, it is genetic. Luck of the draw. I also didn't get the alcoholism gene that runs like water throughout the generations in my multiple-sided family.

Religion is a meme. Plain and simple. No one is born a particular relgion. Not a single Christian in my family has ever even bothered to prove their religion. They just go along with all of it like a leaf running headlong in a stream. Forever traveling with it until they die. And all along telling others the wonders of their fabulous religion. I laugh at them all.

After learning how old the Earth is and how 'far away' the Big Bang happened, the concept of Deep Time has given me chills so many times I have lost count. Music has brought me to tears so many times I seek out its wondrous frequencies like a drug. As a gay atheist I have no need for the artificial constructs that my heritage provides. They are pablum compared to what knowledge of the real world has brought me. Religion is an energy vampire that appears to be designed to make sure the vast majority of people never actually experience what's around them. It is designed to prevent people from understanding Beauty, or Truth. I am entirely convinced it is the most evil meme ever devised by Mankind. I am glad I never passed it on to any children.

Posted by: SEF | July 4, 2009 8:03 AM

You're probably seeing an American bias there, PZ.

In rabidly religious countries, such as the USA, only the most thoughtful of people (honest, intelligent and well-educated) are likely to manage to be atheists - and those will therefore tend to be the same sort of people who aren't misogynistic, homophobic etc. Being an atheist is merely a symptom of being among the best.

In countries where religion isn't so forcefully thrust upon everyone, it's much easier for some people to only accidentally be atheists - and hence have no greater likelihood of also being better in other areas. Merely being an atheist in that way is not symptomatic of being better in general than the scummy majority.

Posted by: Dania | July 4, 2009 8:06 AM

Nils Ross:

sooner or later someone WILL justify some atrocity on the grounds of atheism.

How? Atheism is the absence of belief in God. How can that be used to justify a moral atrocity? There's no dogma, no holy book and no ultimate authority. It's not enough to commit an atrocity and claim it was done on the grounds of atheism. You would have to start with the premise "there's no God" and, based on that alone, properly justify your actions. I can't see how you could do that.

Posted by: Wildflower | July 4, 2009 8:09 AM

The most ignorant thing I've heard all day is the statement that "transgender people are cured with surgery"... incidentally made by the same troll, erm, Troy.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 4, 2009 8:11 AM

We atheists tend to strongly favor women's rights and equality in the marketplace, yet only about half of us are female.

Is this true? Half of atheists? Half of "out" atheists? Does anyone have any figures on this?

Interestingly, in a quick google for data I came up with these recent posts about an online survey:

http://atheistnexus.ning.com/profiles/blogs/coming-out-as-an-atheist-why-a

http://atheistnexus.ning.com/profiles/blogs/coming-out-as-an-atheist-why

Posted by: KI | July 4, 2009 8:19 AM

Ah, good ol' Troy, the homosexual homophobe. And Pilty the obtuse. What a way to start the morning.

Posted by: iRobot | July 4, 2009 8:28 AM

Pilty, why would you think it was satirical? or are you just trying to be witting (major fail)!
As far as catholics go, think what happened to the children in Ireland's catholic institutions. Torture, rape, abuse, beatings by nuns and priests for years and of course as in America, covered up. The Catholic Church has committed and is committing a huge number of crimes against humanity. When you reference the Catholic point of view you lose the morality argument at square one. After being told what happened all those years catholics still materially and financially support the church. How is that cognitive dissonance possible? Here you go, sure you protected criminals for years, but here is some money and btw you are so, so moral. THAT is what sounds like satire!

Posted by: Eclectic | July 4, 2009 8:30 AM

Greta Christina wrote an essay on the subject of atheist support for GLBT folks: Being an atheist in the queer community..

"And yet I'm finding that I feel more at home—more welcomed, more valued, more truly understood—as a queer in the atheist community than I do as an atheist in the queer community.

Like, a lot more."

Posted by: Nattering Nabob of Negativism | July 4, 2009 8:33 AM

I think atheists retain the sense of fairness that they learned, not from any preaching or reasoning, but from playing with other kids on the playground as children.

Religious people have lost this sense. They're special, and screw everybody who isn't.

Posted by: Carlie | July 4, 2009 8:38 AM

Ah yes, Troy, author of this stunningly hateful and inaccurate bit of systematics:

"well, as far as I know there are 2 types of gays:

1.normal gays, you can't tell if they are gay unless they tell you(I belong into this category) 2.faggy feminine gays, trans-whatever etc.

Type 2 gays are extremely annoying to type 1 gays."

Troy has a bit of a, shall we say, problem.

ot: had to do three separate blockquotes to preserve the hard returns - is there a code to do that?

Posted by: John Morales | July 4, 2009 8:51 AM

Carlie @59, don't forget the asexuals.

Posted by: John Morales | July 4, 2009 8:53 AM

Carlie @64, yes. The break tag: <br>

Posted by: Zeno | July 4, 2009 8:57 AM

I could bring up an article like this one, in which conservative democrats demand that abortion services not be provided under universal healthcare

Is it merely a quibble, PZ, that I heartily wish you had written "conservative Democrats"? You're talking about people who belong to a political party -- Democrats -- not just people who espouse popular self-rule -- democrats. The distinction between capital-D Democrats and small-d democrats has always struck me as useful.

I speak as a Democrat who rues the fact that some of my fellow party members aren't democrats.

Posted by: John Morales | July 4, 2009 9:01 AM

Billy @69, hate to break it to you, but there are many woo-ridden atheists around, and I've met a few and know a couple. Just because they don't believe in a god doesn't mean they don't believe in the supernatural, or alt-med, or spirituality, or Randianism, or that even that they're reasonable or egalitarian.

Don't confuse atheists with rationalists.

Posted by: efrique | July 4, 2009 9:12 AM

I don't think atheism is inherently causal of those behaviours, but without god, I think it's easier for decent people to be decent, and harder to maintain substantive prejudice.

I have certainly noticed a correlation, especially in the blogosphere.

Gretachristina also points out that atheists have been great supporters (she uses the words "fierce and outspoken") of LGBT issues, and goes on to say "I have never before been in a community where I felt so strongly that straight people had my back"

Posted by: chancelikely | July 4, 2009 9:27 AM

I've seen LGBTETC (and LGBTWTFBBQ) before... I think it's interesting to see where the term goes and where it will settle.

And I'm curious to hear the reasoning behind the idea that there are no bisexuals, because I've heard that statement before, but never the justification behind it.

I have observed a desire by an individual not to identify as bisexual (as a friend of mine said when she was falling in love with a man after a long string of women, "I don't want to be bi! It sounds so... indecisive.") But I can't understand arguing that there are no bisexuals. While my own sexual orientation runs (so far) exclusively to women, it seems clear to me that other people are attracted to a subset of humanity that doesn't necessarily take gender into account. Are they all lying in this "no bisexuals" argument?

Posted by: Cylux | July 4, 2009 9:28 AM

As a gay atheist from the UK I'm going to have to say that SEF #48 has a point. A lot of atheists in the local area tend to be so more from apathy than any actual searching of their beliefs, the net result is that gay bigotry (from this quarter) stems more from ideas of what gender roles are 'supposed' to be, that they find the idea icky, and that by being 'normal' they are somehow superior. On the whole though they tend to be live and let live, but I wouldn't dream of counting on their vote on issues of equal rights for the GLBT community.

Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | July 4, 2009 9:35 AM

#72: Good point. Sorry. I dashed that one off way too quickly. I claim Early Saturday Morning Syndrome. And I've only had on Cherry Coke so far.

The atheists I hang with and regularly converse with tend to be evidence-based individuals. I have had very little contact with woo-atheists. I have a tendency to view my version of atheism -- based upon evidence (or lack thereof) and rationality -- as normal (not that most people who know me would consider me normal, but . . .). Sorry. My bad.

Let me rephrase: The (admittedly small) group of atheists whom I know and with whom I regularly converse tend to be rationalist and evidence-based individuals. They tend to very supportive of, not gay rights, or women's rights, or children's rights, but of human rights. Humans who are part of the GLBT community are humans first. Therefore, all human rights (including the right to marry a consenting adult) apply equally to those within that community.

I have been quite outspoken on my blog (blatent plug) and have had quite a few run-ins with theists who use Biblically-based circular reasoning to argue for denying human rights to human beings. One persistent asshat (Reginald Genovese (who hasn't shown up for a while (maybe he was institutionalized?))) claims that allowing GLBT humans to have human rights will destroy America's economy. Another commenter argued that since cohabitation and adultery are crimes, and since GLBT humans cannot legally marry, they break the law when they make love with each other, therefore, since they are criminals, we should not reward unlawful behaviour with the right to marry.

Anyway, to rephrase, I, and many of the atheists with whom I am acquainted, view the whole question of GLBT rights as a question of human rights. Do human rights, which, by definition, are for all humans (yes, I know that there are legal situations in which the state may deny certain rights as a result of illegal actions on the part of an individual), apply to all humans? or just a subset of humans who happen to believe/behave/be born in a certain way?

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2009 9:40 AM

And I'm curious to hear the reasoning behind the idea that there are no bisexuals, because I've heard that statement before, but never the justification behind it.

I have observed a desire by an individual not to identify as bisexual (as a friend of mine said when she was falling in love with a man after a long string of women, "I don't want to be bi! It sounds so... indecisive.") But I can't understand arguing that there are no bisexuals. While my own sexual orientation runs (so far) exclusively to women, it seems clear to me that other people are attracted to a subset of humanity that doesn't necessarily take gender into account. Are they all lying in this "no bisexuals" argument?

I think people don't like to consider the existence of bisexuals because it destroys their false dichotomy of straights and gays. The term bisexual is a bit troublesome, anyway. For instance:

Let's say you interpret bisexuality as anything other than absolute 100% straight or absolute 100% gay. By this definition, most people would probably be considered "bisexual" and would thus render the word meaningless.

But let's say that you took an absolutely strict definition to where bisexual means only 50% gay, 50% straight, with no wiggle room? Someone who is 51% straight and someone who is 99% straight would be described by the same word.

Where a person draws the boundaries between being straight, bi, and gay is entirely subjective because there is no standard. Sure, there's the Kinsey scale, but when you start throwing numbers in the mix, you're only bound to confuse people.

The easiest way to get around this problem is to add more words. Instead of straight, bi, or gay, you could instead have straight, heteropref, bi, homopref, and gay. The lines are still poorly defined, but people will be more inclined to picture a mental continuum; like a gradient between green and blue.

Just food for thought from a mostly straight college student.

Posted by: John Foust | July 4, 2009 9:53 AM

I'll second (third?) the recommendation for Greta Christina's blog. Very insightful, great writing.

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2009 9:59 AM

@85: Go for it. The term is not the product of my creativity. :P

And yeah, I did neglect to mention that sexuality does change over time and at different rates for different individuals in my previous post.

Posted by: Carlie | July 4, 2009 10:02 AM

It seems that in general people will have sex with just about anyone who will agree to it. My guess is that an awful lot of people (a plurality at least) are somewhere on the bisexual continuum, but societal constraints and/or low sex drive keep them from thinking about it too much. I think we're a lot more like bonobos than chimps that way.

I wonder if some of the strong sentiment against the existence of bisexuality has to do with competition in a subconscious way. Ok, either this group of people or that group of people might be rivals for my mate's affection, but omg it's everyone???? The terror!

Posted by: BMcP | July 4, 2009 10:21 AM

That was rather weird for a title and a subject mostly about GLBT issues, to jump into abortion and back out again.

Personally I am leery about the government being required to pay for abortion services, if people choose to have an abortion and that it is legal is one thing, it is quite different from requiring taxpayers pay for them all. However I am cool towards government health care in general.

So if you don't vote for those conservative Democrats, does that mean you'll vote Republican? ;) (As the incumbents, they will very likely win their primaries).

Posted by: Troy | July 4, 2009 10:22 AM

BISEXUALS DO NOT EXIST-
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html?_r=1

THEY ARE JUST CULTURALLY REPRESSED FAGS.

Posted by: Guardian of the Poll | July 4, 2009 10:25 AM

Well, I guess you all know how we conservatives feel after the eight Republican traitors voted for the cap and trade ponzi scheme last week. These Republicans should enjoy their time left, because come next election, we WILL remember their names and we WILL be making them look for a new job. They are traitors. I just wonder what the Queen Mother (Pelosi) and Prince Harry told them to get them to vote for this tax hike ponzi sheme?

Wht a shame. I guess there are traitors on both sides eh?

Posted by: Carlie | July 4, 2009 10:35 AM

BTW, I see you still fornicate polls. Pitiful.

Dang, now we have to add pollsexual to the list?

Posted by: Troy | July 4, 2009 10:37 AM

MAYBE YOU HAVE A DICK FETISH, MAYBE YOU ARE EXCITED BY THE NASTYNESS AND NATURAL WRONGNESS OF IT, MAYBE THAT'S YOUR FETISH.

FOR FUCK SAKE, YOU SAID YOURSELF THAT YOU PREFER WOMEN, DO WE REALLY HAVE TO DELVE INTO YOUR MARGINAL PSYCHOLOGICAL LABYRINTH?

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 4, 2009 10:39 AM

@Carlie #96: I'll just add it to my already ridiculously long list of fetishes, right under "troll feeding (voraphilia?)".

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2009 10:43 AM

@98: Wrong again. There is no "wrongness" associated with my attraction for men. It's not taboo for me, it's just a minor detail that makes up who I am.

Lol @ dick fetish.

Also, I notice you immediately became dismissive. "Do we really have to...?"

Yes, if you want to disprove that bisexuals exist, you should be more than willing to do so.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 4, 2009 10:55 AM

Troy, Troy, silly boy,
Won't inform, but will annoy.
I think I really will enjoy
Witnessing the fall of Troy.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 4, 2009 10:59 AM

Troy doesnt like those bad,bad feminine gays,and bisexuals are teh evil too.
Methinks Troy doesnt like the whole dirty,messy skin on skin sex thingy people do in the first place.

DO WE REALLY HAVE TO DELVE INTO YOUR MARGINAL PSYCHOLOGICAL LABYRINTH?

This sentence makes no sense mate.And me=|= you,so no "We" to be had here,speak for yourself.
Sometimes the understanding of complex human relations and emotional states involves delving into "labyrinths",its the way we are,if it's too much for you,dont delve,but in that case,dont expect to ever figure it out.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 4, 2009 11:07 AM

Troy needs to be reminded of the old "you can always change the channel" strategy of topic avoidance.

Posted by: llewelly | July 4, 2009 11:12 AM

I always do a double-take when I see GLBT: my first reaction is to think of a bacon-lettuce-tomato sandwich and wonder what the G stands for.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 4, 2009 11:14 AM

I kind of mourn the loss of 'gay' as an adjective, for example, though I acquiesce to common usage.

What bugs me is the nounification of the adjective sensu lato.

The last thing we need in government intervention in which doctor we should go to, what kind of treatment we will get, if we get it at all, and how long to wait for it.

Because those things are best decided, as it ever was, by socioeconomic status instead, troll asshole?

Posted by: Angel Kaida | July 4, 2009 11:16 AM

Mark,
Just so you know, your post made me want to run around outside. ^.^

At everyone arguing about whether bisexuals exist,
LOL.
I know we all feel compelled by SIWOTI syndrome, but when someone is arguing that you don't exist, period, I'm not sure there's much else to say other than LOL.

Posted by: Carlie | July 4, 2009 11:20 AM

Naked Bunny @91 - Ouch, sorry about that. But she could think of it on the good side; if you have the same tastes it makes for more shared activities. "Oh, of course I'd love to go see the latest Johnny Depp movie with you!"

Posted by: antistokes | July 4, 2009 11:26 AM

Besides, I hope this nationalist socialist "healthcare" plan fails miserably.

I dunno. I just moved to Germany, and am loving the health care here. I just went to the dentist (of my choice, too), and was given a appointment the day after I walked in. I arrived early to the appointment, and spent about 3 min. total in the waiting room, filling out a single page, single sided form. The nice doctor spent about 40 min. drilling out my aching tooth, after which I shelled out a mere 10 euros.

This is in contrast to my last dental visit in the USA, when I need my wisdom teeth pulled. I was in a looot of pain, but they made me wait two weeks for an appointment. They then proceeded to lie to my face about what kind of health coverage my insurance plan had ("It's fine! You are totally covered!"), and tried to sue me for the entire procedure ($2000, way more money than I had to my name at the time) upon discovering that my insurance actually covered none of it.

The Germans, quite frankly, can have half my damn paycheck, if I get treated that decently when I'm in pain.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 4, 2009 11:33 AM

@Carlie #116: She did finally calm down after a time when I'd pointed out that her inability to "compete with other men" didn't really matter since she wasn't in competition with other women, either. It's not like I was out prowling around looking for "upgrades", y'know? Male or female.

In the end, it wound up being like you said. She kinda liked how we could both talk about how cute Pierce Brosnan's butt was in the movie we just saw and stuff like that. I think she was okay with it by the time she died.

Posted by: Lynna | July 4, 2009 11:36 AM

The GLBT legions have made a lot of progress in the last 50 years or so. Saturday, June 28, 1969 was the day the Stonewall demonstrations/riots began. We forget sometimes how far we had to come to get to the level of tolerance we have today. Yeah, there's still a long ways to go, and the anti-gay stuff is just incredibly stupid, but remember where the citizens of the USA were in 1966. This is an excerpt from an article in Time magazine, titled "The Homosexual in America."

[homosexuality] is a pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life. As such it deserves fairness, compassion, understanding and, when possible, treatment. But it deserves no encouragement, no glamorization, no rationalization, no fake status as minority martyrdom, no sophistry about simple differences in taste -- and, above all, no pretense that it is anything but a pernicious sickness.

This quote from 1966 sounds very much like what I hear today from Mormon leaders. They are lagging behind the rest of the country. Just last night, on the local Mormon TV channel, a Mormon Worthy was explaining to homosexuals that at least their problems on this earth would be solved in heaven, that the lust for the things of this world is not eternal if they follow a path that leads them to God.

Posted by: Captain Right | July 4, 2009 11:38 AM

Kobra:

Cast those demons out f you. It's demons making you bisexual. It is not natural to be bisexual or homosexual. It is evil, sinful, wrong. There is no such thing as a gay Christian. The two contradict each other. That's like saying there is such thing as a atheist Christian. It doesn't exist. Get over it. No matter how secualr society forces the homosexual agenda down everyone's throat, it will always be sinful according to the Bible. Society can chnage rules, but right and wrong are absolute. That cannot be changed. You can call some one that made up word "homophobic" all day long, but in the end, it is meaningless when compared to absolute right and absolute wrong, absolute good, and absolute evil.

Posted by: Todd | July 4, 2009 11:39 AM

Being a homophobe is the least of Troy's problem. Caplock abuse should be grounds for an instant one way ticket to the dungeon.

Posted by: Troy | July 4, 2009 11:42 AM

Btw, normal gays like me don't like feminine faggy gays and trans-freaks because they are hybrids, they are manifestly disfunctional like some perverted caricature, it is sickening to watch them talk, move, walk and even think.

Why are you so forcing yourselves to not see that?

Posted by: Lee Picton | July 4, 2009 11:46 AM

Naked Bunny,
I did not know you were a widower - it made me sad to see your reminiscences. I like to think I shall be able to remember all the sweet/sad/funny/awful/marvelous memories when the husbeast finally loses his battle.

Posted by: Todd | July 4, 2009 11:48 AM

Absolute value

An absolute value is considered to be the distance of a number from 0 on a real number line.

Posted by: Lynna | July 4, 2009 11:54 AM

@128: Troy's yuck factor reminds of a scene that Ayaan Hirsi Ali described: A woman dressed in the requisite long coat-like covering and a headscarf is running to catch a bus. The virtue policeman nearby stops her and reprimands her. She cannot run, should never run, because when she runs her butt, even under all the clothes, makes obscene motions that really upset him, disgust all virtuous males, and are an offense to Allah.

Obviously, the policeman was a victim too. The Imams had gotten hold of his sexuality and had given it a hard twist, doing permanent damage. Now he had to blame his natural inclinations on someone else, and had to project his self-disgust onto women. Bleh.

Posted by: Julie Gomoll | July 4, 2009 12:01 PM

#119 It absolutely is a superficial argument, but it does get made. Ending up in a relationship with a member of one sex certainly doesn't mean I'm no longer attracted to the other.

#129 "those of us who cant grab the opposite sex whenever we dont feel like being treated like shit are tired of it." Coming out as gay was hard, but I got acceptance from everyone but my parents (who also eventually came around). Coming out as atheist was harder - I lost a few friends. Coming out as bi was by far the hardest. Sadly, most of the anger came from the GLBT community. I don't "grab the opposite sex whenever i don't feel like being treated like shit". I don't control who I fall in love with, and I can't imagine leaving a woman I love because I'm tired of the goofy prejudices of society.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 4, 2009 12:02 PM

@penguinsaur #129: I'm sorry you're bitter, but slamming a large group of people who support the same policies you do by spewing nonsense about them isn't going to help. Organizations like PFOX brainwash bisexuals and homosexuals alike. Focus your outrage at the victimizers, not the victims.

Posted by: Rick R | July 4, 2009 12:11 PM

#137- "Have they actually read the Bible?"

Ah, I see where you went wrong. The answer, for most of them, is no. They thump it, they worship it, but they apparently avoid cracking the damn thing open like the plague. Besides, Pastor fills them in on the important bits (like who to hate) anyway.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 4, 2009 12:19 PM

homophobes exist, and rightly so.

asshole

Posted by: Walter Silveira | July 4, 2009 12:26 PM

=O OOOH! Did you get this from my E-mail [waltzombieslayer] or someone else? =p either way, this is awesome.

curse you PZ for your ambiguous lack of "via" at the end of this post. =p

Posted by: Eric | July 4, 2009 12:31 PM

TROY HAS ISSUES. (CAPS LOCK off).

One thing I never understood is how Christians can be so obsessed with sexual morality. Have they actually read the Bible? It is filled with the most vile and disturbing acts of sex and violence, and yet these people get offended when gay people have a parade? They must have a broken irony meter.

Posted by: Carlie | July 4, 2009 12:36 PM

Some faggy gays actually recognize their faggy gay mannerisms, speech and walk and they train themselves to suppress it and behave normally. It can be accomplished but only if you don't have a culture of enabling.

There, 'fixed' that for you. See the problem yet?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 4, 2009 12:49 PM

IANAΨ

and therefore I am going to tuck Troy back into the killfile and go elsewhere.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 4, 2009 12:52 PM

Damn Bunny, you're making me sad. My sympathies.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 4, 2009 12:58 PM

Heh.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 4, 2009 1:00 PM

@Patricia #152: I promise I'll get back to making dumb jokes and talking about my fuzzy bare butt on the next thread, okies? Hugs for everyone! (Well, that's probably too faggy for Troy. so I'll give him a manly, hetero, professional-sports-player pat on the ass instead.)

Posted by: David | July 4, 2009 1:18 PM

But without religion, how will I ever win free trips to conflict-ridden hellholes around the world? (The Price Is Right is always wanting to send me to places like Jamaica and Italy; very little chance I'll be killed for being an infidel there.)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/03/turkey.religion.gameshow/index.html

Posted by: DingoJack | July 4, 2009 1:23 PM

Penguinsaur - Jamaica? I went of my own Free Will(tm) - ;) DJ

Posted by: CelticGoddess1326 | July 4, 2009 1:49 PM

I'm thrilled to see so many Pharyngulites (sp?) being so suppotive of "alternative lifestyles" and "alternative sexuality" (don't really like those terms, but want to be as all-encompassing as I possibly can). I'm a bisexual (I exist, I'm bisexual, therefore, bisexuals exist. Isn't logic wonderful?) and an agnostic, and I'm happy to be both, though in rural Oklahoma I choose not to advertise either due to local intolerance - I hate it, but I'm afraid to lose my job, and I really need it so I can save money to go somewhere where I will be more accepted. So thank you to everyone who is sticking up for people like me - with your help (and mine anonymously - I have a distinctive name IRL and would be recognized), I hope that someday I won't have to hide who I am because I'm afraid for my job. In the end, we're all human together, something religious whack-jobs seem to conveniently forget.

Posted by: Oatwhore | July 4, 2009 2:03 PM

There's a cafe in Adelaide that does a BLT pizza

I used to work at a place that served lettuced pizzas. One of them was a BLT. It was basically extra bacon pizza that was smeared with Ranch and covered in lettuce and tomatoes after it came out of the oven. It was awesome.

Posted by: Tully | July 4, 2009 2:25 PM

Troy, WRITING YOUR TERRIBLE ARGUMENTS IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE THEM MORE CONVINCING.

...I think I just lost several brain cells by leaving the caps lock on. I'm going to go do some logic puzzles now.

Posted by: blf | July 4, 2009 2:51 PM

un-self-aware (shit, I just know there's a better term for that)

Stoopid is one possible term, albeit it includes many other issues, all of which may be applicable in this nutter's case.

Posted by: Matt Oxley | July 4, 2009 2:59 PM

I am going to go with the simplest explanation: Atheists simply appreciate and promote freedom for everyone because we don't have any superstitious fairy tale books telling us that GLBT are sinners or that women are to be subservient to men.

Posted by: Sky | July 4, 2009 3:12 PM

The monotheistic holy books are inseparable from sexual repression of the most grotesque sort.

Gore Vidal (among others) pointed out that before the arrival of Judeo-Christianity, homosexuality in the Roman Empire didn't even raise an eyebrow. People either liked men, or women, or both, and it made no more difference than their eye or hair color.

Of course the Romans were wrong on many other ethical issues, like slavery, but it's a shame that monotheism had to destroy the sexual tolerance that existed in that culture.

Posted by: Marc Abian | July 4, 2009 3:31 PM

Thanks, PZ, for putting in that plug from Lavendar magazine.

Hey now, I'm all for gay equality, but I don't need to know the details.

Posted by: Mick | July 4, 2009 3:44 PM

Great post, PZ. Way to cross the bridges of atheism and sexism-homophobia.

Posted by: jdhuey | July 4, 2009 4:09 PM

apropos, me thinks:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Posted by: khan | July 4, 2009 5:03 PM

1. 90.19% Yes
2. 9.81% No

Posted by: Toidel Mahoney | July 4, 2009 5:57 PM

The moral justification for sodomy is the primary reason the religion of evolutionism (or atheism, if you prefer) exists. Since evolutionism teaches there is no teleology, atheists believe the anus, the mouth, and the vagina are all equally purposeless holes to be used in any way one feels like.

However, this is not how things really are. The anus was ordained by God as an exit, and not an entrance. Violating the teleological meaning of this most spiritual organ brings the forces of Hell to earth. (The Church of Satan uses sodomy in its liturgy to summon demons.) Now, guided by the lies of Satan's false prophet Darwin, millions are now unleashing the floodgates of Hell onto humanity. Christians are very afraid that we will be hunted down and killed in an increasingly evolutionary, sodomite world dominated by clandestine demons.

Posted by: Toidel Mahoney | July 4, 2009 5:59 PM

The moral justification for sodomy is the primary reason the religion of evolutionism (or atheism, if you prefer) exists. Since evolutionism teaches there is no teleology, atheists believe the anus, the mouth, and the vagina are all equally purposeless holes to be used in any way one feels like.

However, this is not how things really are. The anus was ordained by God as an exit, and not an entrance. Violating the teleological meaning of this most spiritual organ brings the forces of Hell to earth. (The Church of Satan uses sodomy in its liturgy to summon demons.) Now, guided by the lies of Satan's false prophet Darwin, millions are now unleashing the floodgates of Hell onto humanity. Christians are very afraid that we will be hunted down and killed in an increasingly evolutionary, sodomite world dominated by clandestine demons.

Posted by: Grendel72 | July 4, 2009 6:17 PM

Obviously, anyone who could read a story where a monstrous tyrant demands people be murdered for loving someone and decides to take from that story the idea that being gay is wrong is a person with absolutely no moral sense.
It's not even so much that they believe in nonsense as it is that given the nonsense they believe in they choose to worship a monster. I have more respect for Satanists than I do for Christians, not that I have a lot of respect for anyone who believes in blatantly obvious nonsense.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | July 4, 2009 6:32 PM

Anyone who can read W. H. Auden and not be moved by the love he felt for his partner has no empathy:

Funeral Blues by W. H. Auden

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He is Dead.
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now; put out every one,
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun,
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods;
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

That's what love is about, regardless of who you love.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 4, 2009 6:46 PM

The anus was ordained by God

*snicker*

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 4, 2009 7:29 PM

Anal sex was made by God;
I thought that much was clear.
Cos evolution finds it odd
When animals are queer.
A creature has to reproduce
Or cannot have evolved;
Thus anal sex, we may deduce,
is Godly. Problem solved!

Posted by: Katkinkate | July 4, 2009 7:42 PM

Posted by: Alexander @ 1 " "We atheists tend to strongly favor women's rights and equality in the marketplace, yet only about half of us are female." is it a consequence of being atheist?"

I think it's atheism that is an eventual consequence of our more realistic view of the world, rather than an idealistic, religious view. In real time we can see that females, homosexuals and other minorities are just as necessary, talented and valuable as white, hetero men (WHM) and have just as much to contribute to society. In fact, society would be downright boring without their contributions and no-where near as rich.

Posted by: Katkinkate | July 4, 2009 8:29 PM

Rats!! I spent ages spacing out all those numbers into columns so they'd be easier to read!

Posted by: SEF | July 4, 2009 9:08 PM

@ Katkinkate #195-6:

You should have used a monospaced font style then.

Posted by: SEF | July 4, 2009 9:20 PM

@ Rey Fox #197:

If they had the ability and willingness to read the manual properly (or even observe errors in detail), they wouldn't generally be theists in the first place! (As per all the previous people who said that actually reading the Bible etc was what most led them to atheism.)

Meanwhile, whole ranges of critters (eg monotremes, birds, herpetofauna etc) must have missed out on that goddish decree - having only the one cloaca or whatever. Unsurprisingly, this all makes sense with a knowledge of evolution and nonsense of/with religion.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 4, 2009 9:28 PM

@#195-196:
The tag is called <pre>

Response         Number      % inmates    % USA pop 
Catholic          29267         39.164%        25.1
Protestant        26162         35.008%        33.0.(approx)
Muslim             5435          7.273%         0.6
American Indian    2408          3.222%
Nation             1734          2.320%
Rasta              1485          1.987%
Jewish             1325          1.773%         1.2
Church of Christ   1303          1.744%         0.8
Pentecostal        1093          1.463%         3.5
Moorish            1066          1.426%
Buddhist            882          1.180%         0.5
Jehovah Witness     665          0.890%         0.8
Adventist           621          0.831%         0.4
Orthodox            375          0.502%
Mormon              298          0.399%         1.4
Scientology         190          0.254%
Atheist             156          0.209%        15.0
Hindu               119          0.159%           )
Sikh                 14          0.019%           )   0.9 (eastern religions)
Bahai                 9          0.012%           )
Krishna               7          0.009%           )
Santeria            117          0.157% 

Hm. That still doesn't look quite right.

Oh, well.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 4, 2009 10:59 PM

Troy and Pilty should run off together. They can hate all of the queer people together that way.

Posted by: Monado | July 4, 2009 11:38 PM

If I ever heard "There's no such thing as bi," it didn't register with me. I have heard that "There's no such thing as straight or gay, everyone's more bi or less bi." I have bi friends, and one of them remarks, "I don't care if you're an 'innie' or an 'outie,' I care what kind of person you are." (For those not familiar with informal language, 'innie' and 'outie' refer to belly buttons that don't or do stick out.)

Posted by: Buffy | July 4, 2009 11:47 PM

Simple. Atheists don't have books, "spiritual leaders" or gangs to tell them who they must hate and oppress. Accordingly atheists generally are of the opinion that people should be afforded equal rights. They should also be seen as individuals and evaluated accordingly rather than pre-judged and maligned if they don't kowtow to our chosen personal beliefs.

Posted by: Monado | July 5, 2009 12:06 AM

And that's what my friend was doing: rather cutely transcribing from one part of the anatomy to another. I thought she made it up herself, but perhaps not.

Posted by: John Morales | July 5, 2009 12:42 AM

Monado, soon as I'd posted I realised I'd done "a Walton" :)

D'oh.

Posted by: Monado | July 5, 2009 1:41 AM

A Walton? What's that? I appreciated the clarification because I forgot to say it was an extension.

Posted by: Justin | July 5, 2009 2:53 AM

You know what really bothers me about people who act like the "faggy" acting people are the problem?

It's the fact that those "faggy" people never had the luxury of hiding in the closet and therefore had to fight for all the rights and freedoms self loathing fags like Troy take for granted.

People like Troy make me sick because they fail to acknowledge the simple fact that he wouldn't even be able to admit he was gay if it wasn't for the actions of those courageous gay men and women.

In conclusion, go fuck yourself Troy. No one else probably want to anyway.

Posted by: SEF | July 5, 2009 4:07 AM

@ Monado #211:

I know. I was using it as an example of the inability to empathise despite sharing a situation. Lots of humans are like that. Which is why I don't expect minorities to necessarily stick up for other minorities merely because they've experienced being in a minority. I then went on to give other notable examples supporting that view of it being common / the norm.

That's where (intentional as opposed to accidental) atheists are significantly different and exceptional (as a minority) - in their ability to empathise extensively and open-mindedly. They're in that atheist sub-group not so much through accident of birth (as with race, sexuality, gender etc) but through a relatively tough selection process. One which (in an oppressively religious society) ensures most of those who got to be members were (some adequate combination of): more intelligent, more observant, more educated (including real-world experience not just academic learning), far more honest (eg in caring about discrepancies between reality and fantasy), more diligent (in rooting out the falsehoods and the cause of them whenever a discrepancy arose, instead of ignoring cognitive dissonance by compartmentalisation) and more courageous (in challenging a comfortable majority view which is evidently false) than the average person.

Unsurprisingly (except to theists!), those just happen to be exactly the same attributes they would need to initially notice and then accurately recognise that people in other minorities (ie which don't include themselves or any vested interest of theirs) are being treated unfairly, despite that also being a societal norm. Whereas, the people too oblivious and lazy to become atheists are quite likely to be too oblivious and lazy to see (and care enough about) unfairnesses elsewhere which don't involve them.

Intentional atheists became atheists because they already spotted and challenged societal falsehoods better. They don't gain magic powers of open-mindedness simply because they're atheists (although they do then benefit from a lack of dogma forcing traditional bigotry upon them). Therefore, accidental atheists will probably be little better at busting misconceptions than the average person is.

Similarly, having not undergone the same attribute selection process, homosexuals and oppressed races and women will be (on average) little better at bigotry-busting than heterosexual white men are (on average). People don't become black, queer and/or female because they've been motivated and able to go through an extensive audit of reality and then recognised that it's intrinsically wrong to be white, heterosexual and/or male. They are stuck with being whatever way they are and then have any unfairness thrust upon them rather than going out and looking for it and busting it open wherever it lies.

Posted by: Satan | July 5, 2009 4:32 AM

The artist in question is a noted illustrator and fantasy artist who did work for a number of publications. I discovered his more questionable proclivities while searching for online samples of his work.

And of course, you would never tell anything other than the pure and unvarnished truth...

Posted by: SEF | July 5, 2009 4:40 AM

There is a long and inglorious association between sodomy and black magic

Hint: magic (black, Catholic or whatever) isn't real.

Physical acts are not morally neutral.

On the contrary, the vast majority of them are. Eg lightning strikes are not the wrath of god. Neither are tornadoes, floods, volcanoes etc. Nor is gravitational attraction to make planets etc, solar fusion to make light and heat, the recombinations of atoms and molecules etc the beneficence of any god. The physicality of the transmission of electricity required to allow you to post here is also morally neutral. The radiation of photons (or phonons if you're blind), allowing you to read what's here, is also morally neutral.

Meanwhile, mental acts, such as the way you rehearse your unmerited hatred of others and tell yourself falsehoods about them, are the things which genuinely aren't morally neutral - even if you don't immediately physically act upon your thoughts. How typical of a theist to get everything backwards.

For they have said ...

Lacking any discernment or intelligent thought of his own, "Piltdown Man" has to resort to quoting other people's junk.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 5, 2009 6:44 AM

Having read Pilty's screed in #217, Oliver Cromwell's letter to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland came to mind:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 5, 2009 8:05 AM

Betcha Troy isn't gay at all.

I'll put money on that one.

Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 5, 2009 10:31 AM

The anus was ordained by God as an exit, and not an entrance.

Question! If we were made in god's image, does that mean that god poos, too? And if not, then why would he have a bumhole?

Posted by: Anri | July 5, 2009 10:41 AM

Pilty sez:

"Sodomy, as the figurative deposition of human seed in anal filth, is anti-God and anti-life. Physical acts are not morally neutral."

Ok, do lesbians practice sodomy?
How about a man who has had a vasectomy? No 'seed' in his emissions at all.
I'm assuming you have no problem with either of these actions.

"Sounds great in theory. In practice, it goes like this:"

It does? Atheism tends to lead to wasteful and destructive behavior?
Should we presume you're going to actually show us what you're basing this on?

Such as hospital statistics (surely atheists must injure themselves in debauchery more frequently),

Such as environmental concerns (atheists must have terrible 'green' credentials, as they are trampling every meadow),

Such as arrest and jail statistics (atheists must be incarcerated much more frequently, as they are essentially immoral)

Such as human rights (atheists must have terrible voting record here, since we are letting the strong rule the weak).

So, if you could show us your work, we'd really like to see how this goes in practice.
After all, literature, no matter how prettily written, does not equal reality. Since you know this, and are essentially honest, you have a big bagful of statistics to show us that we atheists typically do all of these terrible things.

Right?

Posted by: Husain | July 5, 2009 11:32 AM

Hi everyone,

Good news from India as well. Indian Penal Code (IPC) prohibits unnatural sex (i.e. gay sex) which is punishable as a crime with prison sentence up to 7 years. This punishment is a Victorian legacy, that has been followed since the 19th century.

Now, the Delhi High Court has termed the section unconstitutional, and asked the government to remove it.

Though the decision can still be challenged in the Supreme Court of India, it has started a healthy debate and people are coming out in support of LGBT community.

As expected, religious leaders are vehemently opposing it and political leaders don't know what to say or whom to support!

Though there is still a long way to go, even if the government amends that section, e.g. giving them marriage rights, etc., there is a ray of hope that I wish would spread to other countries in the region.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 5, 2009 12:04 PM

SEF @ 222:

There is a long and inglorious association between sodomy and black magic

Hint: magic (black, Catholic or whatever) isn't real.

Depends how you define 'magic'. According to Crowley, "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will", which doesn't seem too contentious. At any rate, people believe it to be real, so you can take "black magic" as shorthand for "people who believe in black magic and act as if it were real".

Physical acts are not morally neutral.

On the contrary, the vast majority of them are. Eg lightning strikes are not the wrath of god. Neither are tornadoes, floods, volcanoes etc. Nor is gravitational attraction to make planets etc, solar fusion to make light and heat, the recombinations of atoms and molecules etc the beneficence of any god. The physicality of the transmission of electricity required to allow you to post here is also morally neutral. The radiation of photons (or phonons if you're blind), allowing you to read what's here, is also morally neutral.

I deliberately wrote "physical acts" as opposed to "physical events" or "physical occurrences". In other words, physical events caused by a human (or other intelligent) agency.

For they have said ...

Lacking any discernment or intelligent thought of his own, "Piltdown Man" has to resort to quoting other people's junk.

"Other people's junk"?

You're talking about King Solomon, the wisest man in the world (although he did go off the rails at the end). True discernment often involves abandoning the quest for originality & intellectual autonomy and accepting wisdom where you find it.

windy @ 223:

if you knew it was the work of a fantasy artist, why did you point to it as evidence that Roman orgies are "coming back"?

It was rather intended to illustrate the current tolerance of sodomy, which Sky saw as characteristic of Roman times. If you take a look at the cartoon story, you will note the pervasive violence & delight in the corruption of innocence.

Sodomy, as the figurative deposition of human seed in anal filth

Er, "figurative"? And are you aware that most anal sex occurs between heterosexuals?

Anal sex can indeed occur between men & women, which is why I prefer the term "sodomy/sodomite" to "homosexual". Obviously same-sex sodomy is peculiarly depraved, but it's all bad.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 5, 2009 12:11 PM

Obviously same-sex sodomy is peculiarly depraved, but it's all bad.

What's bad about it?

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 5, 2009 12:55 PM

According to Crowley, "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will", which doesn't seem too contentious.

Only to someone insane like you who believes that that word salad has any meaning at all...

And why do you know so much about Crowley and black magic, anyway?

You're talking about King Solomon, the wisest man in the world (although he did go off the rails at the end).

You're talking about someone for whom the very evidence of his existence is almost entirely non-existent. And certainly his alleged wisdom is only the stuff of legend.

And even your own Goddamned church says that Solomon did not write what you cited, so there goes that argument from authority.

True discernment often involves abandoning the quest for originality & intellectual autonomy and accepting wisdom where you find it.

And it therefore follows that you do not have anything even vaguely resembling "true discernment".

Posted by: Kobra | July 5, 2009 3:22 PM

I don't understand. How could an all-powerful god who does not like something allow that thing to exist? Either this god doesn't exist, he doesn't give a shit what two (or more) consenting adults do to please each other, or he is powerless to do anything about it.

In condition A: You're babbling delusional bullshit because there is no god.

In condition B: You're putting words in god's mouth.

In condition C: You're preaching for the impotent.

Either way, the theistic approach to opposing homosexuality is flawed. You're fighting a losing battle, Pilty.

Posted by: Anri | July 5, 2009 3:44 PM

Pilty Sez:
"Obviously same-sex sodomy is peculiarly depraved, but it's all bad."

Oh? You didn't like it when you tried it?

Well... were you giving or receiving? That can make a difference in your perception.

And, of course, waiting for info in RE my post at #230.
But that involves facts, Pilty, so you might just wanna steer clear.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 5, 2009 4:42 PM

Dear Brother Pilty,

Thank you for your brave Christian stance in protection of godly meat tunnels. As you know, sodomy has always worried God, so I thought I'd talk to him about the issue directly.

"Dear God?"
"Yes, servant Smoggy?"
"God, the whole anal sex thing, why does it upset you so?"
"I'd rather not talk about it, Smoggy."
"Please, Heavenly father."
"Well, all right,' God conceded grudgingly. "The fact is, when I created humans 6843 years ago, I was still practising, you know, and I unintentionally fucked up some of the plumbing. It had been my intention to give humans two pleasure holes, the reproductive ones, of course, but then one more so that men and women could enjoy something a little more creative than just a bit of the old in-out-in-out."
"So the anus was originally for fucking?"
"Oh yes, that's why it's so close to the other holes and so full of yummy nerve endings. I anticipated people would want to do more than straight penetration."
"So what happened, God?"
"I rested, didn't I? And while I was resting Jesus, being an inquisitive lad, slipped into the workshop and tinkered with the plumbing. In my plan all your waste products were supposed to come neatly out of a little slot near your navel, in shrink wrapped cubes that you could stack for tidy disposal. Perhaps even use as a building product."
"So it was Jesus's fault?"
"Yep. He fiddled with Adam and Eve while I was resting, and connected the waste pipe to the back pleasure tube. I was so cross I yelled at him, "You little bastard, I'll crucify you for this!" And of course that created it's own problems. God's word is law you know."
"So you had Jesus crucified because he connected the waste tube to the anus?"
"[Sob] Yes..my son...my only son...[sob]"
'But couldn't you have changed it?"
"By then it was too late. Adam and Eve were in the garden fucking and breeding like rabbits."
"So why all the strictures about sodomy?"
"Well...just embarrassment really. I felt pretty stupid. I thought humans would laugh at me once they realized pleasure and pooping had been wired in together. I thought if I told them they couldn't do it, they wouldn't try and no one would notice. But if you've ever enjoyed a really good shit, you'll have no problem guessing how quickly Adam and Eve discovered the joys of hole number two."
"Adam and Eve did anal?"
"All...the...time. The anus was way more sensitive in those days. They even tried a dp with the serpent. Brilliant! I was so jealous..."
"Do you still feel anal is a sin, God?"
"Smoggy, if anal was a sin the whole world would be in hell this second, and Christians would be leading the way. There aren't many Christians who don't do some form of anal. Those poor quiverfull wives do it all the time in an effert not to drop another sprog. Fortunately their husbands are too fucking thick to be able to tell the difference between their wife's anus and the livestock they usually molest."

"Wow God! Lot's to think about as ever."

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 5, 2009 4:56 PM

Kobra @ 225:

Demons? Do you listen to yourself? There are no demons. Everything that has previously been attributed to demonic influence-- insanity, disease, destructive emotions-- have all been proven by science to have natural causes, not supernatural ones like demons.

ASTDT!

@ 240:

don't understand. How could an all-powerful god who does not like something allow that thing to exist? Either this god doesn't exist, he doesn't give a shit what two (or more) consenting adults do to please each other, or he is powerless to do anything about it. In condition A: You're babbling delusional bullshit because there is no god. In condition B: You're putting words in god's mouth. In condition C: You're preaching for the impotent. Either way, the theistic approach to opposing homosexuality is flawed. You're fighting a losing battle, Pilty.

You're forgetting condition D: God allows something evil to exist and follow its (un)natural course in order for it to bring about its own punishment.

"Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. ... God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. "

- St Paul

Posted by: God | July 5, 2009 5:12 PM

D: God allows something evil to exist and follow its (un)natural course in order for it to bring about its own punishment.

Why, thank you so very much for characterizing Me as being not just indifferent, but actively malevolent.

And you'll have plenty of time to ponder that one after you die.

Just like Paul of Tarsus.

Posted by: SEF | July 5, 2009 5:41 PM

- St Paul

So you're just another Paulian and not really a Christian at all. It figures.

Plus you're still being hypocritical about your belief in intentional supernatural agencies such as demons, including your god. Do they commit any physical acts at all (ie do you believe they are even the teeniest tiniest bit real) or don't they (and you secretly know the world is natural)?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 6:03 PM

Carlie, that actually reminds me of those inane stereotypical relationship conversations:

him: "so what do you want for your birthday?"

her: "if I tell you, then it won't really count! You have to think of something yourself!."

him: "but I'm really not sure. And what if I give you something you don't like?"

her: "well, I guess that means you don't really KNOW me. You don't really LOVE me!"

him: "wtf?"

conclusion: God is an insecure, needy girlfriend :-p

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 6:23 PM

ha, that's pretty apt Carlie. So I guess I got the needy and insecure part right, since a lot of abusers are exactly that.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 5, 2009 6:30 PM

Yahweh, like so many deities, has the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He kills people just because he can. He makes up arbitrary rules (no cheeseburgers, cotton-polyester blends are right out, etc.). If you violate just one rule just one time, then the punishment is massive and endless. Yeah, that's a deity that deserves worship.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2009 7:05 PM

Here's the link in question. Very interesting.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 5, 2009 7:16 PM

You're just easily impressed by the hype of his press agents because you're a bigoted idiot.

Assuming, for the moment, that King Solomon existed in the first place, and his "press agents" aren't simply his inventors.

Archeology points at his not ever existing. In fact, all of the Bible before 2 Kings looks like myth rather than history.

There is a long and inglorious association between sodomy and black magic, from the medieval Buggers to the Ordo Templi Orientis' XI°.

Look, Crowley was like Marilyn Manson. He wrote whatever was going to shock people, absolutely no matter what that was. In other words, "I'm whatever threatens you".

Boo!

And why do you know so much about Crowley and black magic, anyway?

The little fake probably believes he's researching the devil when he reads Crowley.

Sodomy, as the figurative deposition of human seed in anal filth, is

a questionable interpretation from a purely Biblical perspective. First, why do you prefer Genesis over Ezekiel and Jeremiah? Second, what makes you think homosexual sex is automatically anal? I'm told the Roman paederasts found that disgusting and did it intercrurally = between the legs.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 5, 2009 7:23 PM

Oh, yeah. I wanted to do something different with this quote, too:

Sodomy, as the figurative deposition of human seed in anal filth, is

not something anyone forces you to watch.

Yes, I find anal sex disgusting. But if we abolish everything I find disgusting... Would you miss strawberries? Or yoghurt? Or beer?

Get yourself some priorities, Fake.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 5, 2009 7:31 PM

But if we abolish everything I find disgusting... Would you miss strawberries? Or yoghurt? Or beer?

O_o

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2009 7:45 PM

I'm not sure what saying "seed" in Latin (semen) or Greek (sperma) would really change.

good point!

Posted by: Quixotic | July 5, 2009 8:12 PM

"The inevitable ends of your agenda are not morally neutral." I loved this.

Posted by: Troy | July 6, 2009 2:55 AM

Btw, I find anal sex disgusting too like a lot of normal gays do, even percentage wise str8 people have more anal sex than gays.

Anal sex was always a stupid infantile reason against homosexuality.

Posted by: Cylux | July 6, 2009 3:58 AM

Troy #270

like a lot of normal gays do

Posted by: SEF | July 6, 2009 6:26 AM

the only place intolerance comes from is pretty much the bible

I disagree. I think, based on the evidence of reality, that intolerance (tribalism, nationalism etc) is quite natural in humans. The bible and other religious works merely serve to codify it at a particular point in time and space. Which is why, as dogma (rather than merely an anthropological record), they are such a retarding influence on moral progress in civilisation.

While those who don't learn from history may be doomed to repeat it, those who merely learn that they ought to repeat bad history are even more doomed - and are dooming the rest of us with their stupidity too.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 6, 2009 2:08 PM

Steve_C @ 247:

So where do demons come from?

They were created individually by God as angels but were expelled from Heaven when they joined Lucifer's rebellion.

David Marjanović @ 260:

Look, Crowley was like Marilyn Manson. He wrote whatever was going to shock people, absolutely no matter what that was. In other words, "I'm whatever threatens you".
Boo!

I think you're off the mark in your assessment of Crowley. He was much more than a poser who enjoyed épater la bourgeoisie.

A study of this gentleman's life and work reveals he genuinely believed in his occult philosophy and was determined to propagate it. He practised what he preached.

Although a repulsive individual, he was also formidable -- charismatic, intelligent, competent and ruthless. He held a high position in an internationally-established cult (the OTO) and achieved a significant degree of success in remoulding it in his image.

Since his demise his influence has continued to grow, both within the occult world and through the medium of popular culture. A man whose list of disciples includes Jack Parsons, L Ron Hubbard (Scientology is basically Thelema in sci-fi drag), Robert Heinlein, William Burroughs, Kenneth Anger, Jimmy Page, Donald Cammell, Alan Moore and Derek Jarman cannot be dismissed as an entirely marginal figure.

(Not to mention his status as the éminence grise of Ufology!)

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 6, 2009 11:38 PM

They were created individually by God as angels but were expelled from Heaven when they joined Lucifer's rebellion.

Has it never occurred to you how stupid that is?

A study of this gentleman's [Crowley's] life and work reveals he genuinely believed in his occult philosophy and was determined to propagate it. He practised what he preached.

Much like yourself. By the way, was calling him a "gentleman" deliberately or inadvertently ironic?

Although a repulsive individual,

Much like yourself.

he was also formidable -- charismatic, intelligent, competent and ruthless.

You sound almost envious.

He held a high position in an internationally-established cult (the OTO) and achieved a significant degree of success in remoulding it in his image.

Say... are you jealous?

Since his demise his influence has continued to grow, both within the occult world and through the medium of popular culture.

You definitely sound jealous.

A man whose list of disciples includes [...]

You want disciples, too. How unfair of the universe to deny them to you!

Posted by: Satan | July 7, 2009 12:45 AM

I've always been meaning to ask this of someone who obviously has the true answer:

That would be either Me or God.

Was god powerless to stop the devil's rebellion? Or unwilling to do so?

God likes having scapegoats to lay blame on, in case you hadn't noticed.

The "rebellion" was God's idea of extending the joke that was Early Christianity even further. The fact that it's still going testifies (even more) to human gullibility.

Posted by: Normal person | July 7, 2009 9:11 PM

"Good news from India as well. Indian Penal Code (IPC) prohibits unnatural sex (i.e. gay sex) which is punishable as a crime with prison sentence up to 7 years. This punishment is a Victorian legacy, that has been followed since the 19th century.

Now, the Delhi High Court has termed the section unconstitutional, and asked the government to remove it.

Though the decision can still be challenged in the Supreme Court of India, it has started a healthy debate and people are coming out in support of LGBT community.

As expected, religious leaders are vehemently opposing it and political leaders don't know what to say or whom to support!"

-----------------------

WOW! That settles it. Inidia is the new United States. We need to trade our congress for theirs. It seems they have a sliver of common sense left. That settles it. If sodomy becomes the law of the land here, I'm moving to India where all the normal people are. At least I can get a job over there since most of ours are there now. Why doe we have to accomodate Somomites here? Why don't we nuke the San Andreas fault line and let California be it's on sodomite country where all liberals can move to. That would be nice. A liberalless America. Bubble bursted. Reality back.

Well, it was nice while it lasted.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 5:02 PM

Owlmirror @ 278:

They were created individually by God as angels but were expelled from Heaven when they joined Lucifer's rebellion.

Has it never occurred to you how stupid that is?

I understand that it must seem stupid to you.

A study of this gentleman's [Crowley's] life and work reveals he genuinely believed in his occult philosophy and was determined to propagate it. He practised what he preached.

Much like yourself. By the way, was calling him a "gentleman" deliberately or inadvertently ironic?

Deliberately of course.

Anri @ 279:

Was god powerless to stop the devil's rebellion? Or unwilling to do so?

You mean stop it before it started?

Clearly God allowed the rebellion to take place.

+++

Anri @ 230:

Atheism tends to lead to wasteful and destructive behavior? Should we presume you're going to actually show us what you're basing this on? Such as hospital statistics (surely atheists must injure themselves in debauchery more frequently), Such as environmental concerns (atheists must have terrible 'green' credentials, as they are trampling every meadow), Such as arrest and jail statistics (atheists must be incarcerated much more frequently, as they are essentially immoral) Such as human rights (atheists must have terrible voting record here, since we are letting the strong rule the weak). So, if you could show us your work, we'd really like to see how this goes in practice. After all, literature, no matter how prettily written, does not equal reality. Since you know this, and are essentially honest, you have a big bagful of statistics to show us that we atheists typically do all of these terrible things. Right?

Although the specifics of your questions are silly, the general thrust raises an important point -- the issue of whether atheists can be moral.

I wasn't implying that only believers can be moral; although I would argue that only believers have a firm foundation on which to base their morality. (Paradoxically, that would be the case even if their beliefs were in fact false.)

No, I think it's more that while individual atheists can certainly be good men, a dominantly atheistic society will most likely devolve into some form of aggressive paganism. (This does not happen overnight.)

This does not mean that an atheistic society will be without moral codes and standards, just that they won't be Christian ones. Many would no doubt say that's a good thing; but they will get a nasty surprise when they realise that much of what they took for granted as natural human goodness was merely inherited habit inculcated by centuries of Christianity.

+++

SEF @ 239:

Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will

Which would include deciding to press some keys on a computer keyboard and getting a post onto this blog. Not really very magical (apart from to an ignorant primitive). It would also include tying one's shoe-laces and any number of other deliberate but entirely mundane things. So you're pretty obviously an idiot or dishonest for regarding/claiming that as magic and quoting Crowley uncritically - i.e. you're a typical theist.

Well Crowley believed in a 'magical universe' in which the focussed exercise of the will could be exercised in ways beyond the mundane. Much of his "magick" can be explained as merely a subtle and systematic form of psychological warfare, without resorting to praeternatural explanations.

From a Crowleyan perspective, Arthur C Clarke's well-known dictum that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" might seem rather less trite than at first glance. (Thelemites seem to have a soft spot for Arthur C Clarke -- hardly surprising!)

All manner of human intentional acts are still morally neutral (especially when compared with the mental act necessarily preceding them if they're intentional). Eg fidgeting, the speed of eating, the choice of pen colour when doodling, precisely when to take a toilet break, where one breathes in a passage when playing a woodwind instrument, solving sudoku puzzles etc etc.

Fair enough. I would therefore qualify my original statement: Not all physical acts are morally neutral, particularly sexual acts.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 20, 2009 7:05 AM

Smoggy Batzrubble:

Like you, I refuse to accept the modern airy-fairy notion, that women have brains, minds and wills.

Actually, women's wills are stronger by far then those of men, who have the edge when it comes to abstract intellect. Men are the head, women the heart.

Down with airy-fairy notions of gender equality, hey Pilty?

Equality is a fiction. Social justice resides in complementarity.

It's funny, though, given the reference to "transgendered" in this thread title... It's a basic tenet of mainstream feminism that biology is not destiny; that there is no gender "essence" lurking beneath the veil of flesh that might justify social discrimination. Whereas the concept of "transgendered" agrees that biology is not destiny but for the exact opposite reason -- because there is an "essential" gender implanted in the psyche which overrules mere fleshly appearances.

Hence the ideologies of feminism and transgender contradict each other.

Posted by: John Morales | July 20, 2009 7:57 AM

Smoggy scores again! :)

Piltdown's pontifications on feminism, for our edification.

<snicker>

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 20, 2009 8:21 AM

Oh lord, the fuckwit from the world's largest anti-gay hate group is still going on and on?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 20, 2009 8:44 AM

Pilty, a prime example of how Xianity can rot ones brain. And like the l-words, his posts drive people away from the idea through the inhumanity in his words.

Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 12:39 PM

Surely if two things are different they should be treated differently? It's fundamentally unjust to treat different things as if they were the same.

Wow, English is not my first language and even I can say that you've got semantic issues (along with the other ones...).

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 20, 2009 1:25 PM

Surely if two things are different they should be treated differently? It's fundamentally unjust to treat different things as if they were the same.

You could argue, as some feminists do, that the differences are wholly trivial -- but then you've pulled the rug out from under the transgender position.

Please explain how they should be treated differently. Who gets to make the decision on what differences require a separate set of rules for employment, rights, etc?

Posted by: Watchman | July 20, 2009 2:11 PM

Pilty:

You could argue, as some feminists do, that the differences are wholly trivial -- but then you've pulled the rug out from under the transgender position.

Wrong. You're equivocating, and have thereby committed a category error.