# Could it be possible that homosexuals are really athesist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225 "2013-06-05T17:35:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/301 "2013-06-11T07:41:08Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It wasn’t an ad hominem, I was genuinely curious. Although judging by your response, I guess I’ve got my answer. I’ve rarely seen such a total and persistent disconnect between message sent and message received. When I’ve seen it before, it’s usually because one party was coming from a different linguistic background. Seems that’s not the case here. > > Anyway, since it seems impossible for me to articulate my argument to you, I don’t see a point in continuing. If you like, you’re welcome to interpret that as a victory against whatever argument you think I was making. The disconnect is that I had an issue with a very specific, false claim. Can we go back to the point and can you please debate your stance? I am not going to concede until you actually offer some form of reasoning which doesn’t assume that I will take your unsubstantiated world view as fact. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/302 "2013-06-11T07:54:53Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The disconnect is that I had an issue with a very specific, false claim. The problem is, you have yet to correctly identify a single claim made by anyone in this thread. And I don’t know how to fix that. So what’s the point of further debate? > [@](#): > > I am not going to concede… I’m okay with that. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/303 "2013-06-11T08:02:17Z")
Rat, do you actually know what the phrase “ad hominem” trees to? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/304 "2013-06-11T08:13:52Z")
OH come on Miller, look at his direct respose > [@Kimstu](#): > > Oh Lordy, this is getting just sad. No, for about the fifth time, I’m pointing out the _distinction_ between _evolved_ selfless altruistic behavior in dogs, monkeys and chimps (and in other mammals and some species of birds, bats and possibly even insects as well, by the way) and the actual _human abstract moral principles_ that according to all available evidence exist in the same context of human cognitive complexity in which we also find human supernatural/mystical/unempirical suppositions. And compare that to non-luddite modern research [ > [@](#): > > These findings show that even when there was no immediate social reward, bonobos are still motivated to help a stranger acquire out-of-reach food. ]([PLOS One](http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0051922)) Now once again…there is this claim that _human abstract moral principles_ have some special weight. Is that NOT the claim Kimstu was making? You tried to liken it to ants but but is irreverent to the original claim due to their relative distance from us. > [@](#): > > attachment and bonding > cooperation and mutual aid > sympathy and empathy > direct and indirect reciprocity > altruism and reciprocal altruism > conflict resolution and peacemaking > deception and deception detection > community concern and caring about your reputation, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group Great apes have ALL of these traits. These all existed long before religion was even an option. So you can feign frustration with my “inability to understand” but outside of saying that ants don’t feel it you haven’t offered ANY real debate material to counter my claims nor have either one of you offered any concrete testable difference between the two. It may be a good idea to try to step back and see how…well absent…any cites or even concrete claims have been from you two. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/305 "2013-06-11T08:21:41Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Rat, do you actually know what the phrase “ad hominem” trees to? Um…yes “to the man” They were just flinging personal insults vs. actually attacking the points, and in a debate your post is…an “ad hominem” Maybe you are confusing the term with a more specific version of one? [ > [@](#): > > …an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). ]([http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)) They did not offer any proof of "human morality is unique because of… or here you can see how religion and a unique human morality co-evolved…Or your argument is invalid because… But thank you for the laugh. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/306 "2013-06-11T08:56:05Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Now once again…there is this claim that _human abstract moral principles_ have some special weight. > > Is that NOT the claim Kimstu was making? That is what I got out of **Kimstu** ’s post too, hence my (maybe unclear)question. How exactly is a human _abstract moral principle_ different from the animal emotions/behaviors? Plus, are you sure these _abstract moral principles_ aren’t just dressing up of our animal emotions so they only look superior? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/307 "2013-06-11T12:29:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Heh. Using de Waal’s research on primates to argue that human moral thought must pre-date human religious thought is just compounding wishful speculation with anthropomorphization. Are you saying de Waal’s research \*doesn’t \*show that apes have intrinsic concepts of justice and fainess? So that I understand,is the general thrust of your argument that it’s not morality if it’s not codified? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/308 "2013-06-11T12:39:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > _But such evolved behaviors are not the same thing as human abstract **concepts** of morality._ I disagree. In fact, I disagree strongly. Human “abstract” concepts of morality are just a gloss we put over our own evolved behaviours. They are our own explanations for why we act as we do, a conversation we have with ourselves about our morality. But they are not our moral imperative, our behaviours are. So I think I’m saying morals aren’t the code - the map is not the territory. Morality precedes codification. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/309 "2013-06-11T12:58:16Z")
I think this tangent is a very interesting topic, but it really is a tangent, and it’s on page 7 of this thread. Could I ask that **rat avatar** or **Kimstu** open up a new thread laying out their case in clear terms? Morality being in-built or codified is an excellent debate topic, and it’s a shame to waste it on a thread that has the word “athesist” in the subject heading. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/310 "2013-06-11T15:53:02Z")
Having read this entire thread, I would like to propose that henceforth, we accept _a-t-h-i-e-s-t_ as an acceptable spelling of the word. ETA: Oh, and that **rat avatar** and **Kable** have demonstrated that they are. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/311 "2013-06-11T15:56:46Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Since you did take something of a stab at answering mine: > > 1. Raping children does keep you from being ordained in the Presbyterian Church. > 2. Bestiality is morally reprehensible. It was forbidden in Leviticus, and it’s such an obvious sin that there was no need to discuss it in the NT because the issue wasn’t controversial. > 3. Sex in general does not carry nearly the risk of STD’s that sex with animals have. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia\_and\_health](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health) > It’s a bad idea. You appear to be substantially redefining the term _STD_, here. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/312 "2013-06-11T16:00:22Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > You appear to be substantially redefining the term _STD_, here. The first list is titled “Animal diseases that can be transmitted sexually to humans”. Granted, that is a subset of STD’s, but it’s the part that’s relevant to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/313 "2013-06-11T16:22:02Z")
I’m just gonna say I’m glad you didn’t try to get away with: S **yphilis comes from fucking S** heep. G **onorrhea comes from fucking G** oats. A **IDS comes from fucking A** pes. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/314 "2013-06-11T16:23:37Z")
> [@Mr\_Quatro](#): > > Funny, funny .. actually all He really said was the word “Portobello” I thought it was in Alaska, turns out that He wants the fleet to move to Hawaii. > > Doesn’t that sound better, plus a lot warmer … Portobello, Hawaii. Can’t find any place in Hawaii called Portobello. Help, please? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/315 "2013-06-13T19:55:39Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Can’t find any place in Hawaii called Portobello. Help, please? In Hawaii, you would have to look in the produce section, near the regular white mushrooms. There is a Portobelo in Panama, quite close to the canal, on the north (Carribean/Atlantic side), that is probably the closest to Hawaii. The only Portobello in the Pacific is in southern Kiwiland, but putting the fleet there would be problematic as the Kiwis do not allow nuclear-armed ships in their waters. The US would have to conquer them with an impressive haka and teach them to drive on the correct side of the road. On the upside, the Kiwis have same-sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/316 "2013-06-13T21:25:37Z")
I’m thinking possibly Mr. Quatro has a bit of an absurdist sense of humor. Or a bad memory for geography. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/317 "2013-06-14T00:56:37Z")
> [@For You](#): > > On the upside, the Kiwis have same-sex marriage. All passed into law, but the paperwork for SSM won’t be up and running for another couple of months. So, could you delay the invasion until August do you think? The weather will be starting to get a bit better, and I’ll have time to decide whether it’s ethical for me to try and sell my right-hand drive car before you arrive. ---
**Author:** ![Grestarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grestarian/32/3227_2.png) [@Grestarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grestarian)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/318 "2013-06-15T03:41:27Z")
Having slogged through the seven pages of OP, agreement/disagreement, and heated digressions, I thought I’d take a moment to try and drag this thread back on track. [My apologies in advance; I can’t seem to find my syllogistic symbols to insert so I’ll have to use [FONT=Wingdings]–\>[/FONT] as a “therefore” indicator.] > [@Mr\_Quatro](#): > > **Could it be possible that homosexuals are really athesist** > Therefore are homosexuals really just athesist denying that God the father has tagged sex with another male (among other things they do wrong) as a sin? **Could** it be possible? Yes, it **could**. Whether or not we subscribe to the Christian paradigm, Mr. Quatro’s interpretation is one possible reality among the zillions of realities in the multidimensional multiverse. I don’t want to send this off to a completely different track of string theory and eleven-dimensional mathematics, so I’m just going to drop this line right here. Suffice it to say that, strictly speaking, I’ve answered his original question. I’d even go so far as to say, “Not only is it possible, but there are many homosexuals who are, in fact atheists.” But we all recognize that Mr. Quatro’s post is not so much a question as a platform [Hear me Witness, all ye sinners…] poorly disguised as a poorly spell-checked suggestion: Homosexuality = AntiBiblical behavior –\> un-Christian As has already been discussed at length in this thread and others, such is not the case and there are far too many alternative explanations to bother suggesting there is any support for Mr. Quatro’s speculation. In fact, I’ll take this opportunity to object to the starting premise: Homosexuality = Anti-Biblical behavior = Sin = counter-Christian(1) = Atheism Excuse me? What? I can bring myself to concede that, within its own paradigm, the first four are correct. Homosexuality = Anti-Biblical behavior = Sin = counter-Christian [And, yes, I realize we’ve already seen arguments to the contrary; let’s forego adding seven more pages of rehashing those passages.] But that’s about as far as I can concede points. It’s fair enough to objectively suggest that Homosexuality = Anti-Biblical behavior –\> counter-Christian But adding = Sin at the end… Counter-Christian = sin …egregiously fails to recognize that there are many other systems of belief(2) which either don’t include a “Sin” category or don’t include Homosexual behavior as a sinful act. Most importantly, Mr. Quatro’s error is in equating… Sin = counter-Christian = Atheism …because the Monotheistic Trio(3) takes the xenophobic and dogmatic stance that “If you’re not with us you’re against us” and intentionally characterized the deities of other religions as ‘devils’ and ‘demons’ in their own pantheon. This, in fact, would essentially be positing that… Atheism = counter-Christian [FONT=Wingdings]–\>[/FONT] demonic/satanic/evil/etcetera = Sin …and, again strictly within their own xenophobic paradigm, they may be correct. However, there are plenty of scholars who are less mind-washed who understand that there are many religions, as well as several philosophical perspectives (i.e. there are no deities involved) beyond the Monotheistic triad that are no less [no more?] valid than Christianity. So, for those of us who do not subscribe to the Monotheistic paradigm(s), Atheists are a philosophical group, homosexuals are a behavioral group, and the descriptions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. So… Homosexual ? Atheist (there’s no particular correlation to be derived) —G! It’s your hell. You can burn in it. (1) As opposed to Anti-Christ-ian, which presupposes a subscription to the Christian paradigm and…well, someone can take this one to a different thread. (2) I’m not even trying to be specific here. Shinto or other ancestral paradigms? Wicca or New Age systems? I really don’t know, but it’s easy enough to imagine them. Just ask John Lennon [FONT=Wingdings]J[/FONT] (3) All of the children of Abraham, followers of Elohim, YWH, and “God the father” ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/319 "2013-06-15T04:08:06Z")
**Grestarian** : There’s also another logical possibility: one could engage in sin, thus becoming Anti-Christian – and still believe in God! Exactly the opposite of “Atheist.” (In fact, some Christian denominations decree that we are all sinners, ever day. Would they, thus, conclude that they aren’t really Christians at all, but atheists?) We’ve all seen Christians behave badly. Cuss, or drink, or hit people, or commit adultery. That doesn’t turn them atheist. It merely makes them less than ideal followers of Christ’s teaching. So, yeah, the chain of logic has some gaps in it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225/320 "2013-06-15T16:59:21Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **Grestarian** : There’s also another logical possibility: one could engage in sin, thus becoming Anti-Christian – and still believe in God! Exactly the opposite of “Atheist.” > > (In fact, some Christian denominations decree that we are all sinners, ever day. Would they, thus, conclude that they aren’t really Christians at all, but atheists?) > > We’ve all seen Christians behave badly. Cuss, or drink, or hit people, or commit adultery. That doesn’t turn them atheist. It merely makes them less than ideal followers of Christ’s teaching. > > So, yeah, the chain of logic has some gaps in it. Thanks to Grestarian someone has finally tried to make sense and bring the thread back to near normal, instead of arguing about animal rights to faith, good grief! and Trinopus has a good point that even anti-christ people have a little god, the devil himself is a little god of this world, but he could have no power unless the God most high gives it to him. This is the end so to speak fo non believers, but notice that believers are still on the earth (pre rapture) Revelations 13:4 NKJ So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” Revelations 13:7-8 NKJ It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. \*\*All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. \*\* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-be-possible-that-homosexuals-are-really-athesist/660225.md?page=17)