h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm a social dellist and I'm going to eliminate all who I see unfit!

There is also heterosexist, but that's a different thing.

I do think there is a difference between what one does and who one is. But it's inaccurate to say that homosexuality, or any sexuality for that matter, is inherently about what one does. It's also about who one is irrespective of behaviour or actions.

Surely homosexuality is just about who one fancies?

I thought Vicky was implying that Christians are judging the actions of homosexuals, not the homosexuals themselves (which makes nice Christians feel better I suppose). And further implying that the homosexuality is in the action not the person (which leads to the idea that one can choose not to act). But I'm saying that homosexuality is there irrespective of action, so if you are condemning homosexuality you are in fact condemning the person.

>>I thought Vicky was implying that Christians are judging the actions of homosexuals<<

Yes she was I think. So she's quite happy for a gay person to spend their life feeling deeply unhappy because they think it's a sin to do it. But of course, all people are equal, but some are more deeply unhappy than others.

That attitude seems to be the middle ground for Christians who want to condemn homosexuality but still want to see themselves and nice people

For the life of me I can't see it as middle ground to want someone to spend their life in a state of torture. Although no longer consciously Christian, it still works away evily in my unconscious, at least that's how it *feels* and I've spent a lot of my life feeling bad about being who I am.

I sometimes wonder if some people on hootoo may think I'm too extremist in my dislike of religion. But if I'm honest I think all christianity is very much an evil philosophy in the way it instills guilt and bad feelings into people for perfectly natural and normal *appetites* which are most life affirmative.

I suppose I meant that some Christians see it as the middle ground.

Also, I grew up Anglican with very liberal leanings. We all went to church but no-one called themselves Christian, we were Anglicans, and the other side of the family were Presbyterians, and then there were the Others that live on the other side of town who were the Catholics (actually we never called ourselves anything in particular but would describe ourselves as Anglican if asked about religion). So I never got that hellfire and brimstone stuff, I got the kindness to fellow man (sic) thing. I think that is why it's relatively easy for me to see the good things that Christianity brings, although I have to admit if I was involved in the church in any way at all now I'd find the official homophobia impossible.

I do understand that Christianity has damaged alot of people, and I certainly think they have a large debt to pay there, to society. I'm sorry that you've had such a load of crap to deal with especially for something that as you say is life affirming and natural

Yeah I've only come into contact with really nasty born again types in later life. I also grew up learning all the liberal stuff at school, because it is taught here in schools by law; I fairly soon guessed it was nonsense because I had a great interest in science from an early age. But I was pretty much brain washed with all the OT stories and plenty of the new from the age of 5. Thhose things go deep when you are a kid. I agree with Dawkins that it is mental child abuse. My parents are only notional believers if at all. But I think because of my bisexuality I've really come to learn that even the wishy washy stuff is really quite poisonous in the way it infects normal British life with its prejudices. I feel a lot of stuff about sex and guilt came from my parents indirectly from their religious backgrounds.

I'm finding the older I get the more disgusted I am with Christianity and the way it has infected so many cultures around the world, including our older European pre-christian cultures. And like the other Abrahamic faiths I think its attitudes towards women stinks.

Yes the longer I live the deeper my loathing for all brands of jesus loving. I'm not the most tolerant person in the world at the best of times, which I'm sure you've guesssed What's that rubbish about age mellowing people?

Dunno, how old are you? There's probably still time yet But anyways I've mellowed in some areas and am way more intolerant in others.

I should clarify, my liberal upbringing wasn't a Christian liberal upbringing. The ethics I was raised with weren't Christian ones, they were more liberal humanist ones I suppose, or they were the be kind to people ones that I guess are grounded in some versions of Anglicanism to an extent. But I never got any of that it's wrong to be gay, women should be xyz, kind of stuff. That's due to my parents


I don't ascribe things like homophobia or misogyny as being inherently Abrahamic, because there are plenty of non-religious or atheistic homophobes and misogynists around. Of course, some religions promote promote homophobia and misogyny, but then so does the largely secular society I live in

Yes I agree that homophobia can occur amongst atheists in secular circles, but I do think much of that still stems from religions of any stripe, not just the Abrahamics, though they do have a particularly nasty proclivity towards it, not to mention an obsession with sex in general, in a negative way.

On TGD thread I made the point that I felt the best hope though for humanity in the long run, not to mention the eath and environment in general, is for a society based on science and reason. It might well be a long hard slog.

But science and reason have caused many, many serious problems for humanity too.

I still don't see any evidence that evils like homophobia are inherent in religion rather than being inherent in some kinds of societies. How do you see that connection? Is it simply historical, or is there something else?

I also can't see how you can reconcile removal of religion, or the desire for universal reason based cultures, and not being racist. Many cultures on the planet are still grounded in spiritual experience and thus religion. If you take the views that they are wrong and should change to your way of thinking, then how is this any different than say the Christians last century who believed that non-white cultures were backwards (i.e. inferior) because they didn't believe in god? i.e. it seems quite unreasonable to me to think that all human culture should be based on reason.

I could also argue that the current environmental crises are a result of the cults of Science and Reason and that we would have been much better off not throwing the metaphysical baby out with the bathwater.


TDG thread?

TGD= The God delusion connected with the Richard Dawkins book of the same name. You'll see it on my convo list.

I think it depends on how you define science and reason. I define it in quite a wide way, incorporating stuff like psychology and anthropology. So for some cultures it would be entirely inappropriate to intervene for their best health, a bit like 'the prime directive thing' in Star Trek. So very different from a society based on Capitalism or christianity which assumes to intervene in other cultures is the best for them. But I would say certain practices such as female circumscision or declaring children as 'child witches' and subjecting them to torture should be interefered with and challenged. I'm not saying its easy. Hence what I said about the long hard slog.

So if you define reason in the way I am, I think its a good basis to start from.

>>I could also argue that the current environmental crises are a result of the cults of Science and Reason<<

I don't get you there. It's science at the moment that is most outspoken about the dangers. I attribute our situation to the cult of capitalsim which exploits science for its own ends and to a degree Christianity, which our societies in the west are ultimately based on, which views the rest of nature as something for us to have dominion over, which was a fertle soil for capitalsim to flourish in.

Ah, the Goddess Reason. Deified by the French Revolutionaries who thought they were ushering in the end of history. Didn't work though. They toppled a monarchy and ended up with a dictator.

Here's an example from history. Whose side would you take? Napoleon overthrew the despotic Bourbon monarchy in Spain and installed his brother as ruler, promising the people who had suffered the Inquisition the rewards of liberte, egalite and fraternite. He must have been gobsmacked when the people rose up in revolt and demanded the return of their hitherto despised monarch.

Why such faith in reason? The vast majority of the world's population believe in spirituality & religion. Given a free vote tomorrow, reason would be consigned to history as a failed experiment. What gives us in the West the right to weigh cultures in the balance and decide that liberal democracy trumps theocracy?

We live in a tribal world. In the West, our political masters have silver-plated our societies with a thin veneer of what we call civility. But scratch the surface and the tribalism is still there and when we stomp around Africa or the Middle East pontificating on what the natives should or shouldn't be doing, we're exhibiting the same tribalistic tendencies that we decry in the locals.

Reason is just another tribe. Either we seek the dominance of our tribe over the others or we accept the status quo and leave well alone.

Napoleon a champion of rationality over faith? I'd beg to differ:

http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/ingres/napoleon-throne.jpg

No matter the public persona he sometimes chose to depict his own words on religion were supposedly, "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet".
I can't imagine Napoleon saying stuff but blame the translator for that.
Mind you he did supposedly find religion when in exile on St. Helena but when in power he was quite cynical in his approach to it.