The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Nontheist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people & friends.
Latest Activity: on Monday
The I in LGBTI
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Apr 12.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Apr 9.
Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Mar 30.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 24.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Susan Stanko Mar 7.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by k.h. ky Jan 31.
Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller Nov 18, 2015.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Oct 26, 2015.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Oct 8, 2015.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Daniel W Sep 13, 2015.
OK, I know it's "Amazing Grace", a hymn that I normally hate. And some of the video takes place in a church. But still, sweet. Really, really sweet.
The people who wrote the bible would be considered to be extremely ignorant if they suddenly appeared in our time. Their knowledge of how the world works was so limited. At the time when Darwin published, humans knew vastly more than the writers of the bible. Scientists today know vastly more than Darwin. The wealth of knowledge that we have gained since Darwin's time does not refute the concept of random evolution with natural selection, but instead brings forth more and more evidence, year after year, that homo sapiens are indeed the wondrous product of random evolution honed by natural selection.
For the pope to say that it is wrong to think at some point "in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it." simply demonstrates his ignorance of the real knowledge we have about our world. In fact, homo sapiens are in a tiny corner of a rather plain galaxy in the cosmos and we have a vast amount of evidence that all life on this little speck of dust we call Earth evolved from single celled life forms through the replication of RNA and DNA and that occasional mutations in the copying sequence of the RNA/DNA is how life evolved into the life forms we see on this planet today. To think that there is some divine plan behind all this may be a comforting thought to a lot of people, but, unfortunately, there is no evidence for such belief. In fact, the evidence points away from a divine creator. I have not heard one credible argument or seen one piece of evidence to explain how or when, through the course of evolution, homo sapiens suddenly were endowed with a “soul”, or, as the pope states, “rationality”. Why would the tool of rationality not evolve along with the other traits that make homo sapiens such an amazing animal? We can certainly see the survival advantage of evolving the ability to be increasingly rational in our encounters with the environment and with each other.
The pope goes on to say, "If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," "But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason." I find it sad that some people choose to make sense of life by believing in some higher power. I think the world would be much better off if we found meaning in life through our actions - actions that create meaning for us. Acting in a kind and thoughtful manner to all we meet, being reasonable and considerate in our intercourse with others, helping those who have less than we, bringing light and understanding, even wonder, to others through education, all of this is what brings meaning to life, is what makes sense of life. We may be here by a chance of nature, but what we do while we are here is what matters, is what brings meaning and sense to our lives and the world. Also, to say that there was creative, divine reason there at the beginning, must mean that god lost his mind shortly thereafter, because the record of life on this planet is one of chaos and extinction. Approximately 99 percent of all life that ever existed on this planet is now extinct. This is the product of creative, divine reason? Hardly. It is the harsh reality of the natural evolution of life on a volatile and often hostile planet.
I think you are right on the money Marx. It would be like saying that in 1823, a German man, who was married to a British woman, living in a certain place, at the age of ?, having a child with a disability, invented...
There should not be a judgement made on this individual that is based on bigotry, but all of this information gives us historical background of who, what, why, and how this person got to the place in which he arrived.
All of our experiences shape who we are and what we do, even if the facts are negative, in our perspective. For example, I am a big fan of Thomas Jefferson, but I am not happy about the fact that he had slaves. But, I consider that information, givent hose times, and the mentality and culture in that time of history.
The past week, information surfaced about the discovery of a caveman, who was probably gay or transgender. Unfortunately, in the mind of the bigot, we are just trying to justify our sin. But, I think it an exciting find.
If you really think about it, why am I happy about this? Although I am completely out, and completely comfortable with who I am, my life is still being debated. We all seek validation, and we all appreciate positive information about who we are, and where we came from.
I haven't posted for a while, so I thought I would put my two cents in on this one. I think I understand what Mike is saying, about how nice it would be if people did not care about the sexual orientation of historic figures. I completely agree with this. However, this is not the same as saying that we should not know or write about their sexual orientation. I do not get the impression that he is saying that. Dom is right on the money with his comments about the importance of the knowledge of the sexual orientation of historical characters. I do not think that the two ideas are mutually exclusive. We can and should have historians write honestly about the relationships of famous people and, at the same time, wouldn’t it be wonderful if our society had evolved to a level where people reading these accounts did not pass judgment on them – did not care, one way or the other. Do I understand you guys correctly, or is there something that I am missing?
I agree with Dominic. Why should we be any different?
But on the other hand Mike, knowledge of the sexuality of historical characters, can make gay and bi more of a norm, as it really is. Instead of some obscure, hidden embarrassment, sexuality is just as much a part of a person, as their sex, race, and country of origin.
Knowing this information should not be used to judge them, but as a vehicle to pride and something that others can look at, as a positive. Just as it is important for African Americans to know the contributions of African Americans in history, it would be a positive for members of the LGBT community to know their history.
Some LGBT people were "heroes" and some were "villains," but many were just ordinary people like most of us. It would be great for young people to know that their great uncle, who never married, was single for more reasons than wanting to take care of a sickly family member, or that the two elderly ladies who walk arm and arm in the neighborhood, are more than just good lifetime friends.
While heterosexuals get to speak and even brag about their opposite sex partners and how that has impacted their lives, how those relationships, both negative and positive, help to change that person's path in life, how they work as a team, or how a break up has devastaded them, and everything else that goes along with being in a relationship, LGBT people are not always given that right.
On a Monday morning, when a person tells his/her co-workers about the movie he/she saw with their spouse over the weekend, no one blinks. But, mention that you saw the movie with your same sex spouse, and some will accuse you of flaunting and promoting homosexuality.
So I respectfully disagree. I do care about the sexuality of people in history, the sexuality of celebrities, as well as the sexuality of my neighbors. Most people will disclose their sexuality by wearing a wedding ring or engaging in discussions of their relationships and families. Why should we be any different?
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Nexus on Social Media:
© 2016 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.