But to free thinking individuals no idea is rubbish otherwise it should be rephrased to 'any person that holds views and beliefs that do not contradict my own'. Most religions do not consider those things a sin. Apart from the pork thing (certain vegetarians and pig lovers aside) most secular societies consider drunken behaviour, homosexuality and adultery unacceptable social behaviour; so they are not exclusive beliefs to religion.

A common misconception promoted by people who don't understand what free thought or having an open mind actually means. For clarity, being a free thinker does not mean automatic acceptance of any and all world views.


Really? I'd like to see some evidence backing that claim up.

Likewise why would you choose to be part of a society which demonises your sexuality? Religion has in general been tolerant of homosexuality. The way certain factions within given religions developed negative attitudes towards homosexuality was mostly cultural and social not religious. Prior to the Romans arriving in UK women regularly held positions of power and influence. Importing the new religion of greece and rome led to women losing influence and being suppressed. Religious attitudes to homosexuality before this new religion were very liberal. Religions in south east Asia have often been tolerant to homosexuality also. Look at the ancient Greek and Roman religions plenty of tales of deities chasing around young boys.

I know Kosh has already covered this, but you're miles wide of the mark. Free-thinking is the ability to consider ideas and assess them critically, without the mental straitjacket of religious belief.



The poster you responded to said 'drinking', not 'drunken behaviour'. The two are quite different.



'Secular societies' do not consider homosexuality to be socially unacceptable, bigoted s do.

Erm, no. No it hasn't.

Oh, and homosexuality doesn't require tolerance. It requires acceptance.

Do not confuse "free thinking" with relativism. The two are not the same.

Dr. Feelgood dismissed an idea without reasoning simply that he considered the view wrong providing no argument to support his her view. That is the opposite of free thinking.



Most religions have not considered homosexuality objectionable to their associated deities, if anything homosexual acts were often considered positively and encouraged including being active part of religious ritual. This was particularly the case in the various middle eastern cults. The religions of ancient Greece followed suit in this practice. Even earlyish Christian groups openly practiced homosexual activities this continued into the early medieval period. The campaign against homosexual practices occurred centuries after the religion was strongly established. The first real large scale move against homosexuality came from Rome in the sixth century. The biggest reason for homoseuality being a sin in Judaic texts appears to be as much about worshipping false gods as it is about the act itself. Most major religions in Asia have traditionally no problem with homosexuality, branches of Japanese Buddhism actively encouraged it, similar thing happened with Taoism in parts of China but to a lesser degree. Hinduism was largely accepting of homosexuality, Sikhism itself has no real issue with homosexuality.

Likewise most anti-homosexual laws put in place did not come from religious organisations, if they did there would be a plethora of sacred texts forbidding such practices.

Yes it has as I have already mentioned homosexual practices in religion was established a long time ago, most religions and their various factions have not persecuted people based on their sexuality.

Tolerance/acceptance, you are being pedantic. Context is very important, you are ignoring the context.

I was not confusing them. Dr Feelgood is clearly not a free thinking person.

You said: "to free thinking individuals no idea is rubbish".

That's relativism.

Nice summary, but not the evidence that most [isecular[/i societies consider homosexuality to be socially unacceptable that I requested.

All Abrahamic religions consider homosexuality to be a sin, and have done since the earliest forms of their religious texts. Hinduism and Buddhism are largely accepting or at least neutral. Sikhism is formally against homosexuality although this stance is not popular with large numbers of Sikhs. Confucianism and Taoism don't really have a position on it one way or the other. After that we're into the territory of minor religions and cults. Given the numbers of active worshippers in each faith it's fair to say that the majority of believers belong to religions that proscribe homosexual behaviour. I sincerely doubt the same can be said of secular societies.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/17/creationist-groups-approval-free-schools?newsfeed=trueAs Michael Gove backs more religious school[/url, [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/18/cervical-cancer-vaccine-schoolgirls-religionothers deny girls protection against cancer on religious grounds.[/url

Thoth, I would disagree with your statement that I am not free thinking. I went to church schools all my life and was taught in science about evidence that totally went against what was being taught in RE. I took in both points of view and came to the point of view that the bible was bull as there was no proof for creationism and that there was evidence that tended to disprove it. I subsequently embarked on a career in science gaining qualifications upto PhD level. Every day I have to "think outside the box" to overcome technical problems. I am constantly reading of new theories and discoveries in my chosen field in academic literature, some of which I believe, some I don't. Over the years science advances as researchers find evidence supporting or disproving various theories they come up with. To a religious person the bible/koran/torah cannot be proven to be untrue as it is the word of their god and as such must be undeniably true, even without any proof. I believe that religious stories, used in the right context, can be very good at teaching children how to behave in a civilised society, in much the same way as Aesops fables, but Genesis, for example , should not be portrayed as an accurate description of the creation of our planet.

Although I am no expert on the bible I do know that there is something in there about it being an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he does his wife. This is where all the bigotry stems from. Personally I'm not gay and as I said earlier cannot understand why anyone who is gay would want to be in a religion that demonised their sexuality. Equally I cannot understand why a religion would condem homosexuality.

Quote ="dr_feelgood"Equally I cannot understand why a religion would condem homosexuality.'" I can. Fancy using a mass murder to promote creationism. www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... witterfeed

Quote ="dr_feelgood"Equally I cannot understand why a religion would condem homosexuality.'" I can. Fancy using a mass murder to promote creationism. www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... witterfeed

Speaking of promoting creationism, the National Trust are reviewing their decision to discuss the 'controversy' surrounding the formation of the Giant's Causeway in their teaching materials at the attraction's visitor centre. Hopefully they'll reach the correct decision and make no mention of the unfounded creationist ideas surrounding their formation.

Moron, Morons

Quote ="Sheldon"I can. Fancy using a mass murder to promote creationism. www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... witterfeed'" Massive Moron

Quote ="Sheldon"I can. Fancy using a mass murder to promote creationism. www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... witterfeed'" Massive Moron

"Peace in a world free from religion,
Peace in a world where everyone gets heaven".

A good read here newhumanist.org.uk/2841/ending-the-wedge

A good read here newhumanist.org.uk/2841/ending-the-wedge

If you want to learn richarddawkins.net/articles/6465 ... -594516097

If you want to learn richarddawkins.net/articles/6465 ... -594516097

Now, if [url=http://t.co/MAKvCklQthis is correct[/url (via Ben Goldacre on Twitter), should he be banned as some are requesting?

A short spot of Ggogling supports the claims on use of violence.

One thing's for sure, if I ever get testicular cancer I'm not going to get that bloke to heal me.

Surely he should be kept out on the basis of his sex attack conviction

Though he did the time etc. Should you be punished all your life for something for which you have paid the legal price, particularly when done as a youth)?

Peter May, a prominent Christian GP who served for 25 years on the Church of England’s ruling General Synod, and has investigated spurious faith healers for more than 20 years, said: ‘I’m concerned by Todd Bentley’s methods because a physical injury on any sick person could be very serious.

'I’ve looked at the video clips on his forum and it requires significant impact for someone to lose a tooth. There may be people who are Christians who believe their health has been transformed, =#FF0000but I believe Todd Bentley should produce the medical evidence. I would urge people to keep away from him.’



At least they got their humour.