Observers and thoughtful commentators on Militant Atheism often converge on a common theme. All factors considered, there is some conspicuously unknown basis for the irrational belligerence of Militant Atheists toward religious people, and their holy books, on the NET. Recent revelations that two of the or three of the worlds leading atheists confess to being closet gays, and thus "deniers" all of their "skeptical" careers, casts new light on the mystery. A couple of panels of imported observations here. Plus a direct link to the question on Yahoo answers where you can add your tuppence worth.
Atheists spend a lot of time thinking about the motives for belief. Why do religious people believe these ridiculous things? When you turn the tables on atheists and ask them why they don't believe, they will answer, "Because we don't have enough evidence. We don't believe because there's no proof." But if you think about it, this is an inadequate explanation, because if you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you're not going to bother with the matter. You're just going to live your life as if God isn't there.
I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.
If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you'll find that they don't even really reject Christian theology. It's not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex. The atheist looks at all of Christianity's "thou shalt nots"—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, "If these things are really bad, then I'm a bad guy. But I'm not a bad guy; I'm a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light."
"
Recently, I noticed a similarity between atheists and homosexuals that hadn't occurred to me before.
It has to do with the way they wage their wars. Basically, they erect straw men, put words in their straw mouths, and then engage in battle with these creatures they've cobbled together with spit and glue.
It just seems to me that it's high time we began setting the record straight. To begin with, there is no such thing as homophobia. A phobia is defined as a fear or anxiety that exceeds normal proportions. Concocting the word was simply a rather sly way of suggesting that it is heterosexuals who are deviant. The other lie that is parroted with some frequency is that those who don't fully support the gay agenda are most likely latent homosexuals, which is supposed to suggest, I assume, that lurking inside every heterosexual man is an interior decorator screaming to get out and do something about those curtains.
Odd, isn't it, that you never hear about latent heterosexuals?
Even the ancient Greeks, to whom modern-day gays enjoy comparing themselves, never engaged in anything quite as bizarre as same-sex marriages.
The proof that heterosexual men aren't all sitting around fantasizing about being seduced by Boy George or Richard Chamberlain is that every heterosexual man I know prefers having his cavity worked on by a dentist than by a proctologist.
Homosexuals like to picture themselves as the innocent victims of the oppressive majority. The recent unpleasantness on behalf of same-sex marriages doesn't happen to be a response to laws depriving gays of any rights or privileges to which they are otherwise entitled. They are as free as they've always been to marry members of the opposite sex. For several millennia, everyone has understood marriage to mean the sacred union of a man and a woman. I have asked on more than one occasion if the institution of marriage is to be turned on its head to accommodate the ludicrous demands of a very small number of people, on what moral or legal basis does society then deny fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, or, say, your cousin Phyllis and a dozen Elvis impersonators, from tying the knot. If the parties merely need to be consenting adults, on what basis could you prevent Hugh Hefner and his bevy of blonde companions from pledging their troth before man and God? I have yet to receive a response.
One other point should be made. In spite of all the rioting and all the whining in the wake of Proposition 8, only a few thousand same-sex marriages have taken place in Massachusetts, Connecticut or even
here in California, where it was permitted for a while. And most of those marriages involved lesbians. Yet the way their male counterparts have been carrying on, you'd have thought the gay bars had all been padlocked.
This brings us to atheists and their own brand of hypocrisy and lies. It's silly enough when they feel they can use logic to disprove the existence of God. But it's worse when in voicing their angry opposition to organized religion, they begin sounding exactly like the religious zealots they claim to despise.
NO
Yahoo Answers instantly deleted the question which was simply In light of Christopher Hitchins and James Randi admitting to homosexual practices, could it be that atheist militants belligerence toward religions might be really a sexual orientation conflict rather than religious. Too hot an issue it seems
