No rational case for God = increasingly desperate attacks on atheists

[ManMachine]

Your point about homosexuals is perhaps not representing the argument as it introduces the element of what people do in the name of religion.

What else are we to evaluate religion by if not by its holy texts and the resulting behaviors of its adherents???

Religion, or at least the prevailing religion in America at the time did not and still does not advocate imprisoning and executing homosexuals, that behaviour (at least in a Western context) is born of 19th century values.

You should look up the case of Alan Turing or Bertrand Russell and City College, both exemplary of discrimination against homosexuality (Russell was accused of writing in support of it), both the result of the Christian religious mob that was very influential in legislating their morality, no doubt as they still do today, but with decreasing effect. Homosexuality is one example among many behaviors that Puritans sought to eradicate from society--are you seriously saying that wasn't and isn't connected with religion? Even today, this goes on in Christian and Muslim cultures, and the push back, which has been ongoing for over 150 years, has indeed become far more mainstream than ever before; that is the secular influence I'm talking about, which Gray appears to ignore or write off.

Another thing, even the atheist community is larger and more vocal than it was 150 years ago. This is not really a matter of opinion as it is historical fact. Some have even suggested that we are now living in the dawn of the age of atheism.

In medieval Europe homosexual relationships were largely ignored, King James I famously had a male lover, the worst he suffered was a leaflet campaign.

Sure, this may have been true of THE KING, but not the average person whose entire career and reputation, if not their actual flesh, would have been destroyed.

Let's not be too assured about what we consider to be secular progress, we still suffer from a values-hangover born of pernicious Victorian morality.

The subject is as long as it is broad, which goes back to your point about tit-for tat gainsaying, it would be pointless and not move the debate any further on. Let's agree to disagree.

I will look into what you say, I will also re-read my books by Gray and weigh any new information up against his opinions. A number of people I know who have read his works find his books better as they give him time to frame his arguments, which are quite complex, he has a phenomenal grasp of philosophy, one of the finest I've come across.

MM

I totally agree with you here.

The issues have waxed and waned throughout history, and not always because of religion. You cannot pick one historical element (that happens to support your point) and suggest it is representative of history in support of the position that secularism has made things better for homosexual people. That's just nonsense.

I am well aware of the vile injustices and persecution of people like Turing, Russell, Wilde, etc. but you are talking about a very narrow period in history namely the early 20th century, which, if anything, supports my comment about Victorian values.

Don't think I'm defending religion, I'm not at all, but I am saying you simply cannot use the historical issues with homosexuality to support the view of a perceived rise in secularism. How do you determine improvements made as a result of the liberalisation of religious doctrine as distinct from secularism? You can't, neither can anyone else.

MM