The critical answer is that Leviticus and Paul could be wrong. And people who have religion can admit that, while obviously it is hard for people who have no religion to admit they could be right.
The problem is that a large number of people won't even consider that possibility. They will claim tolerance of homosexuality without ever renouncing the homosexuality taboo. Of course this is all my anecdotal opinion before you start demanding statistics.
Don't mind this particular example, the important thing is that there are no critical 'amswers'. Critical thinking is a process that may lead to an answer, that's all.
Yea, and the answer after thinking critically about the problem is the root taboo of homosexuality stemming from an ancient book of myth is causing a lot of grief for innocent people in modern society. Who are you to decide there can be no such thing as a 'critical answer'?
Jazzns writes:
It is taboo. If I say your belief in fairies is irrational then I am on firm ground. But if I say your belief the Apocalypse is irrational I am intolerant despite very good critical reason why the concept of the Apocalypse is irrational.
Again, critical thinking can only get you so far as to say that the concept of the Apocalypse is untested and unknown. What you do from there is all belief.
My point which you ENTIRELY evaded is that no one is going to question me for being critical of a belief in fairies. But people will call me intolerant if I portray the same criticism to apocalyptic doctrine.
Compare these two:
"I think your belief in fairies is unfounded and is a mere delusion rooted in fantasy."
"I think your belief in the second coming is unfounded and is a mere delusion rooted in fantasy."
Which one is more or less appropriate at the dinner table? You may say neither. I think that the first one is entirely more acceptable in the current climate.
I don't understand at all. But seriously, society say that self-criticism is taboo? Now you sound like a fundy.
Ahh, so now the ad-hom begins? How did I get you so riled up?
I don't know how many times in the course of my religious education I was told to, "just have faith" when a question of applying religion to practical matters of life. Of course it is taboo to self-criticize! That is how religions work! At least that is how it is for the Abrahamic faiths. If in church they actually TAUGHT people to be self-critical of their religious beliefs then IMO the pews would slowly but surely empty. But that is no worry because the messages being delivered are all the equivalent of spiritual masturbation.
Now before you ask again, no I don't have any statistics but then again I am not the one making the positive claim that people are self-critical because their religion tells them too. Someone else made that claim....who could it be...hmm??
Now, is it fair for me to say that all atheists are not critical of themselves because they don't have to fear God watching in secret?
Are you trying to claim that atheists don't self-criticize their lack of belief? Either way, it is totally beside the point. Atheists don't have preachers on projection screens telling them not to question their atheism.
Of course not, but you can't just make bare assertions from an unrealistic bias against religion.
Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. Your point makes no sense.
It is very possible to think critically AND have a religion.
Yes of course. I even gave an example of that in my last post. You must not have read it and decided to reply anyway.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)