Tolerance of atheism. Discuss.

[Naesala]

In the story God did not punish Sodom and Gomorrah for not outlawing sodomy. God punished them for preforming sodomy. Also note that God was punitive rather than preventive. This further supports the theory that God would want people to be free to choose to sin but be punished by God for sin.

Weeeellll...actually, God punished them for attempting to gang rape 2 angels.   Lot told them not to and to instead gang rape his 2 virgin daughters, which God apparently thought was fine.  But the gang wanted to rape the 2 angels, so they destroyed the town.  Lot's wife looked back while that was happening, though, so God killed her by turning her into a pillar of salt.  Then Lot settled in the mountains with his two virgin daughters.  His daughters decided they wanted to have kids, so they got Lot so drunk he couldn't tell who they were and raped him, losing their virginities in the process, in order to bear his children.  Again, God seems to think that this is perfectly fine.

It's a very strange story, the main moral of which seems to be that it's okay to gang-rape young virgin girls, it's okay to offer your young virgin daughters up for gang rape and it's okay to rape your father in order to have kids, but it's not okay to gang rape angels, and it's not okay to look at a city being destroyed.  As I say, a very odd story.

Now, it's true that God was already planning to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because he'd been getting complaints from people about how everybody in the place was a sinner, but the Bible is entirely non-specific about what the sin is.  I'd have thought that the fact that the gang wanted to rape people would have been a worse sin than the fact that the people they wanted to rape were male, but I suppose the endorsement of raping the daughters, and the daughters raping their father rather says that rape itself isn't a sin.  So I suppose homosexuality kind of becomes the sin in that specific instance by default, but it's a little tenuous.  And it does mean that anyone who is citing that story as a condemnation of homosexuality is also implicitly saying that rape is okay.  There's also nothing in the story to suggest that any of the other sins were anything to do with sex.  It reads more like general debauchery, like it was a party town which partied too much for God's taste. 

In truth, though, it doesn't read like a lesson in morality or a commandment at all.  It just reads like a story which people have then attached post-hoc meaning to.

Small expansion on this: The rapers didn't know the angels were angels. So the fact they're angels isn't a large part. Lot was protecting them as guests, also by "offering" his two daughters, I got the implication that that wasn't rape (the later rape of their father, however, is rape). So basically the intention is that your guests are more important to protect than your family. I still say raping is the sin that the story notes (though I would say there was plenty of other sin too), not sodomy or homosexuality, but this is my interpretation.

[BluePriest]

Weeeellll...actually, God punished them for attempting to gang rape 2 angels. 

wait what
nvm

And i wont say anything else regarding it as it is vastly off topic. Remember this is not a topic of whether bisexual beavior is a sin or not, it is about tolerance and atheistm

[summerz88]

Sorry, but you're all fairly wrong, atheism has no belief that god doesnt exist, has no belief that evolution is how we came to be.

All atheism believes is that there isnt sufficient evidence to believe that a god/gods exist, and that there is a fair amount of evidence supporting evolution which suggests that it MIGHT be correct, but would only be swayed one way or the other by definitive evidence.

[Cheesy111]

Sorry, but you're all fairly wrong, atheism has no belief that god doesnt exist, has no belief that evolution is how we came to be.

All atheism believes is that there isnt sufficient evidence to believe that a god/gods exist, and that there is a fair amount of evidence supporting evolution which suggests that it MIGHT be correct, but would only be swayed one way or the other by definitive evidence.

Evolution is irrelevant to atheism as atheism, and only really relevant to atheism as a sort of society/culture/thing.  Atheism by itself is separated into negative atheism and positive atheism.  Positive atheists believe that no gods exist.  Negative atheists do not believe in deities but do not assert that they don't exist either.  Please do not confuse science with atheism.

[summerz88]

You are correct that the belief one way or the other on evolution is irrelevant to atheism, but thats only because atheism doesnt believe in anything without sufficient evidence, and I'm not confusing atheism and science, I'll refer you to the wikipedia:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."...."Atheists cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of supernatural entities such as gods."

And if you read my post again carefully I never claim that atheism believes one way or the other on evolution.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Lot was protecting them as guests, also by "offering" his two daughters, I got the implication that that wasn't rape (the later rape of their father, however, is rape).

It's not even hinted that the daughters are okay with it.  Lot just offers them up to a baying mob who are trying to rape two people in his house.  He tells them they can do what they like with them.  He essentially says "you can't rape my guests - rape my daughters instead".  Which, however you look at it, is extremely warped.

There are some people who interpret this as Lot being "infected" with the wickedness of the town and so going along with the mob to a certain degree but, then, that makes the wickedness some kind of external entity (like sin is believed to be in some ways) and means that nobody in the town was acting in their right minds but were all "infected" with the wickedness.  Which means that God really should have saved them all.

Again, I just don't see how anyone can read that story and come away with the impression that it's preaching any kind of morality that's not completely twisted.

[ElementalDearWatson]

All atheism believes is that there isnt sufficient evidence to believe that a god/gods exist, and that there is a fair amount of evidence supporting evolution which suggests that it MIGHT be correct, but would only be swayed one way or the other by definitive evidence.

The first thing you describe is atheism based on empiricism.  This may be a reason for people not to believe, but there are other reasons that people may be atheists.  Being an atheist does not imply being an empiricist and being an empiricist need not imply being an atheist.  And evolution and atheism are beliefs which often pair up, but the one is not part of the other.  You can be an atheist and still not believe that the theory of evolution is true.

All atheism is is not believing in any deities.  Anything else is an additional belief, mode of thought, or lack of belief.

[Naesala]

Lot was protecting them as guests, also by "offering" his two daughters, I got the implication that that wasn't rape (the later rape of their father, however, is rape).

It's not even hinted that the daughters are okay with it.  Lot just offers them up to a baying mob who are trying to rape two people in his house.  He tells them they can do what they like with them.  He essentially says "you can't rape my guests - rape my daughters instead".  Which, however you look at it, is extremely warped.

[...]

Again, I just don't see how anyone can read that story and come away with the impression that it's preaching any kind of morality that's not completely twisted.

You have to factor in the times, daughters at the time were considered in some part to be property. I'm not saying it wouldn't -be- rape, I'm saying that it isn't considered rape to the same extent based on the beliefs and society of the time. Also, (and this may be because I havent read/heard the story in awhile) it doesnt say they WERE opposed anymore than the weren't, does it?

And yeah, the story is very strange and warped and difficult to interpret.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Quote from: Naesala on Today at 09:14:42 AM<blockquote><blockquote>[size=78%]You have to factor in the times, daughters at the time were considered in some part to be property. I'm not saying it wouldn't -be- rape, I'm saying that it isn't considered rape to the same extent based on the beliefs and society of the time. Also, (and this may be because I havent read/heard the story in awhile) it doesnt say they WERE opposed anymore than the weren't, does it?[/size]</blockquote>
And yeah, the story is very strange and warped and difficult to interpret.
</blockquote><blockquote>
</blockquote><blockquote>Oh, I'm not saying that people at the time would have considered it rape.  It was considered that there was no such thing as rape within marriage until very recently (I'm not at home so can't check, but IIRC this was enshrined in law in the UK until the 50s or 60s.  Maybe even 70s).  Nonetheless, it's still rape, regardless of what people at the time may have thought.  And you have to remember that this is supposedly morality laid down by an omnipotent, omniscient being.  That human sensibilities would change in the future shouldn't affect that whatsoever.</blockquote><blockquote>
</blockquote><blockquote>And, no, it doesn't say that the daughters were opposed, but I can't imagine that anybody would like to lose their virginity to a gang of violent rapists.</blockquote><blockquote>
</blockquote><blockquote>You'll have to forgive the formatting of this post, it's not my computer and I find that having javascript enabled on this site makes the quote functions utterly unworkable.  I honestly have no idea how others manage it.</blockquote>

[mrezman]

The U.S. in technically not a religious country. Although the majority of it is Christian, atheism should definitely be tolerated. I will go ahead and say that I don't even think religion should be put to importance in anything at all. It shouldn't affect any political decisions made.

[kimham8a]

You are correct that the belief one way or the other on evolution is irrelevant to atheism, but thats only because atheism doesnt believe in anything without sufficient evidence, and I'm not confusing atheism and science, I'll refer you to the wikipedia:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."...."Atheists cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of supernatural entities such as gods."

And if you read my post again carefully I never claim that atheism believes one way or the other on evolution.

You're confusing atheism with agnostism. Atheists believe there is no god, agnostists believe there isn't enough evidence to support either way. However, atheism is easier to type and say (I'm not sure if I spelled ''agnostism'' right) and it's more commonly used to describe both those ways of belief.

On topic: Of course, atheism should be tolerated. Same thing as saying christianism should be tolerated. I'm not sure if I understand the main discussion here, because this feels obvious.

[OldTrees]

You are correct that the belief one way or the other on evolution is irrelevant to atheism, but thats only because atheism doesnt believe in anything without sufficient evidence, and I'm not confusing atheism and science, I'll refer you to the wikipedia:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."...."Atheists cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of supernatural entities such as gods."

And if you read my post again carefully I never claim that atheism believes one way or the other on evolution.

You're confusing atheism with agnostism. Atheists believe there is no god, agnostists believe there isn't enough evidence to support either way. However, atheism is easier to type and say (I'm not sure if I spelled ''agnostism'' right) and it's more commonly used to describe both those ways of belief.

Unfortunately you are confused.
Atheist: I do not believe
Agnostic: I do not know
Gnostic Atheist: I do not believe in a god and know it does not exist
Agnostic Atheist: I do not believe in a god but do not know if one exists
Gnostic Theist: I believe in a god and know it exists
Agnostic Theist: I believe in a god but do not know if one exists