Or do we need to keep pretending that intolerance is only a "human condition" and religion has nothing to do with it?

No, so you have your answer.

Is that religion has nothing to do with it.

Try responding to my actual response.

Try and keep up with at least your own answers, Gil.

Question:

The fact that you've admitted you would rather live under a secular government than a theocratic one kinda answers it already though.

than conservative Christians? If religion is not an influence, wouldn't both groups be the same?

were a factor, then yes, one would expect all groups of theists to behave relatively the same.

The content of those beliefs matters a lot, especially when the belief is "Jesus loves you and shares your hatred of LGBTs ."

He has no point here so he desperately drags out the straw men.

As to the "belief" that you cited, it is unsupported by anything that Jesus actually said, but that does not stop some from insisting that their view is correct.

There are others things on the list.

Many of us recognize that religion is on the list.

You refuse to.

You are denying religion any significant meaning if you do that. Religion is not just an "aspect of tribalism." No how, no way.

I am shocked that a believer like you would even try to do that. But then again, not shocked, because you can never admit error and instead just keep doubling down.

As time progresses, the probability an apologetic will turn into 'I know you are but what am I' approaches 1.

There are several places in the Bible that prohibit homosexuality and crossdressing Jesus did 't say anything either way. Don't you think a sacred book that says homosexuality is a sin could create followers more intolerant of homosexuality than if the book didn't say that?

And the survey was taken of actual theists.

So, what should we infer from this, other than a majority of theists are supportive of LGBTQ rights?

And as a corollary, a majority of Chinese ctizens are not.

That's a significant difference, based in religion. A bare majority vs. an overwhelming majority is not the same thing.

"a majority of theists are supportive of LGBTQ rights" <-- This is a FALSE statement.

It's only a majority in the secular USA.

Worldwide a majority of theists reject LGBTQ rights. A fact you hate to acknowledge, as evidenced by your total lack of reply to my post #15. Your bias is clear - quit being dishonest.

you saw that the survey reflected US attitudes.

As to your assertion of clear bias, that is an ironic statement indeed.

Why did you bring up China?

you have given none.

Why did you?

This is a yes or no question. Please respond with a yes or no answer.

Please do not respond with a question, anything involving another country, anything involving Communist regimes, a request for my opinion, a reference to anyone else's opinion, a news article, a reference to another post, or anything else that is not "yes" or "no."

If you wish to explain your answer you can provide an explanation after the word "yes" or "no." TIA.

And that intolerance is not confined to faith groups, ort theists in general, or non-theists.

You've beaten that straw dog to dust now, can we move on?

Trotsky posted about it.

For you.

Do they not prove it for you?

While we are talking about faith, we are dealing in facts. Trotsky provided facts that showed atheists are close to 95% in support, so there you go.

And no, you didn't give a counterexample, you changed the subject.

So you have reframed your thing about Cuba to be "At one time" but the actual fact in cuba is that the Catholic Church is claiming religious intolerance because the atheist government recognized marriage as being between two adults, instead of a man and a woman. And you made a huge thread about that religious intolerance. I could only infer that you side with the RCC in that case, but I know you were just looking for any dirt on atheists, and it ended in a hilarious dumpster fire of a post.

The actual article shows that a clear majority of theists support LGBTQ rights.

But this runs counter to the theists=intolerant mantra promoted by some here, so it must be ignored.

And another frequent poster decided to post his own take on the matter, starting a different thread. Something that I have been criticized for, but I do not expect him to read any similar criticism.

Can you say, double standard?

All religion is theism, all theism is tribalism, all tribalism is the same. Which avoids why anybody would be anti-LGBTQ in the first place.

The goalposts are moving at hyperspeed, I can barely remember where they originally were.

Point to the posts, gil.

Otherwise people might suspect you are lying.

...the train wreck and dumpster fire gifs aren't keeping up with the magnitude of the fail here. Just sayin'

YOUR claim was erroneous, and I shall disregard your personal attack.

but I think I'm going to go with gaslighting, the constant shifting between global and local depending on which is most convenient at any given moment. Some straw man thrown in there for good measure.

Gaslighting, goalpost shifting, straw men, whataboutism, equivocation, ad hominem, false equivalence, motte and bailey... the guy deserves his very own page on rationalwiki.org documenting the ways in which he abuses logic and debate.

And it's all to defend religious privilege.

Fits some of these posts perfectly. I wonder where else this is being deployed, seems like a lot of effort for a site like this.

I will continue posting both positive and negative articles about theists and non-theists.

And if that "ruins" the Du experience for you, you can place me on ignore or read other groups occasionally.

But right now it's way more entertaining watching you flail, crash, and burn every single time. I've remarked how much joy I take in seeing you humiliate yourself over and over. Overall I'd prefer it if you could behave, but at least there is some enjoyment I can take out of this.

I will continue posting both positive and negative articles about theists and non-theists.

Considering no one has told you that you can't, that's very brave of you.

And what they reveal...……?

Do you believe in treating others the way you wish to be treated?

Answer yes or no, please.

And what specifically do my responses reveal about my character?

Lay it out there, gil. Quit beating around the bush. Give me both barrels and get all the anger out of your system. Maybe it will help you with your problems.

For instance, your responses demonstrate that you do NOT believe in treating others the way you wish to be treated - even though you believe others SHOULD follow that edict.

Your turn.

There are words that mean "the willingness to believe". Religion is not one of those words.

Some people are able to believe that supernatural are real and some are not. Some people do believe, and some don't. Some people might want to believe, but find that they are unable to. Some people cannot believe at all, and have written the entire supernatural stuff off forever.

It's not a matter of "willingness to believe." Believe or do not believe whatever you are able to believe. I'm not, for example, "willing to believe" that real things are real. I believe them because there is evidence of their existence. I am unable to believe that supernatural things and events are real, because there is no evidence of it.

I am, of course, willing to believe that you believe something or another. I have no idea what that something might be, but I'm willing to believe that you believe it, because you have said so.

so until the balance shifts it doesn't mean that much.

Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

As Trotsky pointed out, China is far above many theistic countries.

Perhaps I was a tad vague. I'll qualify it with Here in the US, anti-LGBTQIA laws are pushed exclusively by theists, and has theistic roots.

So, those theists represent a minority view, but the atheists in China don't?

You mean theists in the US, correct? In which case we should compare to atheists in the US, where support is at roughly 95%. Opening it up to China opens it up to a global comparison, where your claim it's a minority view quickly falls apart.

Now if you compared theists in America to theists in China we might have something.

Or compare atheists in the US to atheists in China and you find that there is a large difference. What do you say about that?

But somehow religion has nothing to do with it because of reasons.

Perhaps you missed it.

If so, tell me how religion is to blame.

First off, NO ONE has said that religion is to blame for ALL intolerance. You have been arguing against a straw man this entire time - because it's easier, of course.

But religion DOES support, condone, and/or command intolerance. You are dead wrong when you say it is blameless. (Which you do, right? Or will you finally admit that religion can be responsible for intolerance too?)

intolerance is a human behavior that is not restricted to atheists or theists.

NO ONE HAS SAID INTOLERANCE IS RESTRICTED TO EITHER.

Quit being so fucking dishonest.

You're arguing with yourself, Guy, and neither side is making any logical sense at all.

Your one line replies to complex posts indicates that you are not really thinking about what you are reading, I think.

But the mere fact of thinking is not enough. Agreed?

The real issue for a few with this post is that it shows theists in a positive light.

NO ONE HERE HAS EVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE, GIL.

Now admit your error and quit trying to change the subject.

As several people have told you, nobody here has claimed anything of the sort. We all recognize that anyone can be intolerant. Nobody here has said otherwise. You are the one trying to put up walls, not the rest of us.

Why don't you stop doing that and give it a try?

The one that ignored China?

Speaking of stopping, and all of that.

Mother church can do no wrong, even as they get mired in scandal paying out millions.

They always liked pederasts.

Mary, they say, was a young teenager when God forced himself on her.

poll only of believers? What do you suppose the percentage of non-theists would be who are in favor of laws protecting LGBTQ folks from such discrimination. Lower or higher than 69%?

Somehow we are supposed to conclude the relative differences in opinions among various beliefs and nonbeliefs is unrelated to said beliefs or nonbeliefs.

The highest agreement came among Americans who follow New Age faiths, at 86 percent. Jews, Hindus and Buddhists were all well above 70 percent, as were those who identified as religiously unaffiliated. Only slightly less in favor of LGBT protections, at about 70 percent, were Mormons, Catholics, white mainline Protestants and those who followed other religions PRRI does not track. Around 60 percent of nonwhite Protestants, Muslims and Orthodox Christians also said they favored such protections.

They might be atheists or agnostics, but not necessarily. In any case, the unaffiliated group had a higher percentage than the evangelicals, which came in at under 60%, and were notably higher in acceptance than most other groups.

The very name of the polling organization indicates that it is religious in nature. The logical error in evidence is informally called, "grasping at straws."

Because a developing country did something draconian.

But you're right, religion has nothing to do with it.

I mean, even atheists have 6% who aren't supportive of LGBTQ folks, right? So, that's just the same, right? It's not like a 5X difference or anything, right?

Nothing to see here, folks. Theists mostly are supportive. Just ignore the ones who aren't right? It's only 31%. I mean, at least 31% of the entire population of the United States stands solidly behind Donald Trump, right? I wonder if it's the same 31%...hmm...

But, China...don't forget China...

But happy to see it.