'annus horribilis'

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
" I am not a atheist I am

" I am not a atheist I am agnostic, There is a world of difference here."
>>There is indeed a difference, but they are not mutually exclusive.

"well I am no bigot i1m just stating what I see around me on both coasts. California and new York."
>>The bigoted part is where you use personal experience to demonise gay people, how do you know that what you saw is typical first of all, and even if it were it might easily be a reflection of centuries of persecution and prejudice that drive reckless behaviour, but you're trying to assert that being gay causes this, which is a prejudiced view against a demographic you clearly dislike.

"There is a world of difference here. No matter how you try to window dress the gay life style it is still not the normal behavior in society "
>>That right there is homophobic bigotry, it's also nonsense. Firstly being gay is not a lifestyle. Secondly being left handed isn't the norm of societal behaviour, do you condemn all left handed people?

".so by you cleverly calling it same-sex love I call it by its original name homosexuality "
>>So what? If as you claim they mean the same thing then I don't see what exactly you're implying here?

"i`m glad you called out and said the truth about gay men."
>>What truth about gay men?

Sheldon's picture
" Aids in the mission

" Aids in the mission district which was primarily a homo sexual neighborhood so please don`t try to say I don`t know what my sources are. I`m from new York city originally I remember places like the gay east village that were overcome with these diseases. Almost all the recipients were homosexual. "

Wouldn't epidemics in a primarily gay neighbourhood axiomatically infect more gay people? Your stats seem like a thinly veiled homophobic rant to me, How many gay women were infected?

"As for gay couples that is a complete fabrication you cite in saying that there is longer life among gay spouses then a control group A lot of relationships among gays end in tragedy or. violence."

Could you link the research to that please? You see in my experience these claims usually turn out to be based on nothing more than tawdry homophobic press stories, or bigoted religious propaganda that try to create negative stereotypes about gay people in order to demonise them.

However let's assume here that all your claims are true, mightn't this be just as attributable to the way gay people have been victimised, and ostracised by wider society, and demonised by religious bigotry, and even criminalised? As gay people are granted the same rights as everyone else, including the right to marry, then surely they become more accepted into mainstream society and their life choices would reflect that. It seems you want gay marriage and monogamy as well, kudos. Why else would you worry so much about risky sexual behaviours among gay men.

Tin-Man's picture
@AB/DC Re: "...according to

@AB/DC Re: "...according to my bible..."

Oh, excellent! Thankfully for me, though, I do not subscribe to the bunch of babbling nonsense in "your bible." However, since you DO seem to follow those twisted and warped "moral examples" in "your own bible", then it stands to reason you condone slavery and stoning a woman to death if she is not a virgin on her wedding day. And bashing babies' heads against rocks must be a favorite pastime of yours. After all, the bible does condone these things. But, hey, I'm just a barbaric non-moralistic heathen, so what do I know?

Oh, there's something I forgot to mention in my last post, (Please forgive me.) It was really a nice gesture for you to offer your "sympathies" to the gays. You are such a swell guy. Ummm, however, I have a very strong sneaky suspicion that any gay person who might read that would be more than happy to tell you exactly where you can stick your sympathy. (I recommend using a good amount of lube before you do, though.) Love you too, pal. *smooch*

Sheldon's picture
"But according to my bible it

"But according to my bible it is wrong "
>>As is eating shellfish, and wearing garments blended from two or more types of fabric, do you waste your time condemning those actions?
"The apostle Paul is very explicit on all types of fornication and immorality."
>>I can think of no compelling reason we should demonise and even criminalise an entire demographic based on iron age bigotry and homophobia. So who cares what bigoted homophobic claims someone may or may not have made from an epoch of hysterical ignorance and superstition.
"When you look at the life expectancy among gay men especially it is drastically short Compared with non gay men."
No it's not - Hitchens's razor applied.
"The disease they spread "
>>They don't spread diseases, they catch them the same as heterosexuals, you're claims are becoming more and more bigoted and homophobic. Tread carefully...this site does not allow homophobic posts, which I put on a par with racism and all such bigotries.
"So I lovingly disagree with you Tin man on this subject."
>>Yes I think we're all seeing the Christian love ubiquitous in that post. I don't know about anyone else but I always find it very creepy when hate speech is claimed to be an expression of "love"?

Alembé's picture
Deaf Agb,

Deaf Agb,

You may have noticed that the bible is pretty much discounted here. Consequently, any moral arguments based thereupon are considered suspect.

However, I invite you present your views based on universal humanist principles, for which many here have expressed their support. This is our house, you have to play by our rules.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ AB, you really lead a very

@ AB, you really lead a very secondhand life my friend. You quote Paul/Saul, but know nothing of the sins he was describing, you talk about the "gay lifestyle" as if it is a fixed boundary thing where everyone dances in lockstep. You talk about atheists in the same way. It is painfully obvious you know nothing of any of these subjects.
Your lack of meaningful life experience baffles me. I hazard we are not too far apart in age, yet worlds apart in empathy and compassion. You say you were the US Navy...did you not travel? If you did it must have been with blinkers on and in a large box. You opinions are largely valueless, or least a source of humour as they seem to be based on you viewing life through a prism of preconceptions, mostly I suspect supplied by other ignoranti rather than direct experience.

wgusapukc's picture
The Archbishop of Sydney got

The Archbishop of Sydney got it all wrong. See god in his hugeness controls everything and all is in his plan. So how could A of S say that it was a bad year? It is all part of god's plan and so there should never be such a thing as a bad year, for in god's infinite wisdom he is in control. So even the people who are no longer filling the pews was ordained by the big g. Lighten up and cover all your churches problems and praise him as he wants you to.


Grinseed's picture
AB, I see no reference to

AB, I see no reference to pesonal experience with the terinally ill. I have to assume you have none.My late wife died of MND (Lou Gehrig's disesase) excruciating bouts of pan for more than 2 years while I carex for her 24/7 until she dies from exhaustion and heroin fatigue.
I also see no reference to legislation for euthansia laws passed as in the state of Victoria here in Oz recently. All legislation I have reviewed make it impossible to use euthanasia as a murder weapon.
I do see the usual unthinking knee jerk reaction and quotes from 2000 year old writings from superstitious ignorant frauds.
Tidy yourself up. Your lack of morality and compassion are showing

Sushisnake's picture
Yep. And now poor little

Yep. And now poor little George is the third most powerful virgin in the Vatican.

Here you go, Algebe. This might help you smile, but it'll still be through gritted teeth because it won't quench your rage.


algebe's picture


That song is amazing. I recall that George Pell threatened a lawsuit for defamation over it. He's more concerned over his own precious "reputation" than he ever was about all the children that were harmed by his criminal organization.

Sushisnake's picture
George Pell's reputation?

George Pell's reputation? What reputation? Oh! You mean that filthy shredded rag in the gutter?
And now Cardinal Pell has multiple charges of child abuse laid against him personally. Bring it on. Bring it all down. All that RCC property would go a long towards solving the housing crisis in Australia, wouldn’t it?

Flamenca's picture
@Sushisnake, I posted a

@Sushisnake, I posted a couple of Minchin's songs ("Thank you, God", and "The Good Book") this week on Algebe's post about Christmas carols. I freaking love him!!!

Sushisnake's picture
" The Fence" is a goody, too.

" The Fence" is a goody, too. The sceptic's version of "The Logical Song" ( which was itself a sceptic's song, too, of course :-D )

Sheldon's picture
Tim Minchin is brilliant,

Tim Minchin is brilliant, check this out...


Flamenca's picture
Hey! And "The Storm" about

Hey! And "The Storm" about New Age crap: https://goo.gl/AXvso1

Tin-Man's picture
@Sheldon Re: Pope Song

@Sheldon Re: Pope Song

Not only is it hilarious, it is absolutely fucking amazing how that guy is able to sing like that! AND play the piano at the same time! I'm so jealous of people who have musical talent.

freeatlast's picture
I see our resident pet troll

I see our resident pet troll surfaced again. AB, do you live in a place where you have Internet access? I strongly recommend you learn how to use Google and start doing research as befits anyone living in this century. You keep referring to bullshit in the bible, it is tedious. Your babble has been discredited so thoroughly, burn it or put it in the recycling bin.

I'm a 50-year old gay male. My partner and I have been together for 22 years. I'm not a fan of marriage, can't see the point, but I am grateful for the fact that I live in a country where I can marry my partner should I choose to do so. So you recon gay men are promiscuous? What do you base that assumption on? I don't go through life with blinkers on and I'll let you in on a little secret: gay men are no more promiscuous that straight men. Once you've learned to use Google maybe you can study human sexuality a bit, seeing that you seem to feel so strongly that gay people are basically scum. You will discover human sexuality is a spectrum with a very smalll number of people, male or female, fitting into the totally gay or totally straight boxes. In between is a world of grey. Of course this is not compatible with with the bullshit in the babble but then what is.

I will give you a few real life examples. I have been faithful to my partner of 22 years, it is a choice I made. Out of respect for him I will not fuck around, if I wanted to do that I would have remained single. There is nothing easier than getting sex, gay or straight, as a single man or woman. At gym, whether while training, in the locker room, in the shower or in the sauna, guys hit on me all the time. I can count on my one hand the number of times a gay guy hit on me, it is almost always straight, married men. And let me tell you they are not choosy, all they want to do is make out with a guy, have a shower and go back to their wifes and kids. I live in a very upscale neighborhood so don't turn around and tell me I go to a sleazy gym. I've changed gyms in the past because of this, unlike these, mostly straight guys all I want when I go to gym is a good workout. But the sexual behavior is the same everywhere and that's cool with me. I get my workout and go home.

Another example. I travel a lot, almost every week, and I met a great guy on a plane a while back. He is also an atheist and introverted , just like me. We since became very good friends. He is much younger than me, was not raised with religion (lucky fucking bastard!) and lives with his girlfriend of several years. He knows about my partner and he is happy with his relationship but do you know what? If he could have things his way he would have a sexual relationship with me, on the side of course, he can't see anything wrong with it. You see what I meant when I said a world of grey in between? I told him I don't want that, I'm not going to do anything that could jeopardize my relationship. He understands that and we are still great friends, always will be, and I don't think any less of him because of the fact that he wanted a buddy with benefits. This is very common between straight men, by the way, go Google bromance and brojob to see what I mean.

So yes, stop being so fucking judgemental and narrow-minded.

With the obvious exception of AB I am amazed at some of the other remarks about homosexuality, thanks guys, it is great to interact with people who don't judge people just because they are different.

DarkkWolfe's picture
Hi Freeatlast,

Hi Freeatlast,

I am totally hijacking this thread to ask you questions. I didn't escape the religious indoctrination either (you can read my tale in the "why are you an atheist" thread if you're interested. In fact, my indoctrination included the "homosexuals are all evil predatory perverts" message, so I literally grew up being afraid of homosexuals. To this day (and much to my chagrin) this is still part of my instinctive internal reaction.

I haven't really studied human sexuality much at all, and taking a class on it it was considered almost sinful as secular education was a vile misrepresentation of god's precious plan for a man and woman. blah blah. Anyway, it's still on my list of things to learn more about. The list of topics you are uneducated on during a religious upbringing (especially when homeschooled) is LOOOOONG.

So my question for you is how did you know that straight guys are hitting on you? And how do you tell if they are gay or straight? I'm absolutely clueless about when people are hitting on me, even women. I had to have another woman tell me when someone was hitting on me in a bar. Maybe I'm just absent-minded. Anyway, I'm really curious.

freeatlast's picture
@ DarkkWolfe

@ DarkkWolfe

Maybe rather start a new thread if you want to chat about this, I'll respond to it. We're going seriously off-topic here!

Flamenca's picture
@freeatlast ¡OLÉ!

@freeatlast ¡OLÉ!

P.S. I meant "bravo" to your post "I see our resident pet troll surfaced again..."

Cognostic's picture
I don't get it. I have

I don't get it. I have hemorrhoids and it is not a joking matter. It really is horrible. In fact mine is nicknamed Painful Paul, after Pope John Paul ll.

Cognostic's picture
@ Sheldon said, "I am not a

@ Sheldon said, "I am not a atheist I am agnostic, There is a world of difference here."

Everyone on the planet is agnostic. That is a provable fact. Anyone claiming any knowledge of God is not using any acceptable definition of Knowledge that can be distinguished from delusion.

It turns my stomach when people say they are Agnostic. Of course they are agnostic and so is every religious person on the planet. (Without Knowledge.) The question being asked is "Do you believe or not."

Sheldon's picture
Cognostic @ Sheldon said, "I

Cognostic @ Sheldon said, "I am not a atheist I am agnostic, There is a world of difference here."

>>I never said that, it's in quotation marks for a reason, my statement is beneath it:-

Here>>There is indeed a difference, but they are not mutually exclusive.

I am an atheist, it's in my profile. I am fully aware of the difference between agnosticism and atheism, and also that they are not mutually exclusive, as I said in response to that quote. I am also an agnostic about all claims that are unfalsifiable, as epistemology demands.
"Everyone on the planet is agnostic."

I think you mean should be, they certainly are not. I accept it's a claim to knowledge they have no proper evidence for though.

"It turns my stomach when people say they are Agnostic."

Well I'm sorry to hear your nauseated, that must be unpleasant, but if people are agnostic I'm not sure why this is a problem for you. As I said agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

"The question being asked is "Do you believe or not."

That certainly was not a question asked in the post I was responding to, and I'd have though it blindingly obvious I do not believe given my posts on here, and my profile saying I am an atheist. I am also agnostic when epistemology demands it.

Cognostic's picture
Sorry? Post was obviously

Sorry? Post was obviously unclear to me. "People think they are agnostic.:" What does that mean? There is no evidence for God or gods. So the question remains, Are you or are you not a "Believer." Being "Agnostic" says nothing about anything. And if you think you know something about a god or gods, how is your "Knowledge" different from delusion.

Yes, they are not mutually exclusive. Anyone, atheist, or believer, can call themselves agnostic. Agnosticism just speaks to reality. Atheism speaks to belief.

Sorry for the mix-up.... reading your post.

LogicFTW's picture
To me. Atheist simply means

To me. Atheist simply means not theist. Negative of theist. Lack of theist.

Just like atypical versus typical. Atypical means not typical. If I say I am atypical, It does not mean: "I believe" I am not typical. It simply means I am not typical.

I am of fair, light complexion, that does not mean "I believe" I am not of dark complexion, it simply means I am of fair, light complexion.

You do not need a "belief" to: negate, or to be opposite of.

Some people believe in Santa Claus, I do not. I do not need to "believe" there is no Santa Claus. I simply opposite of believing in Santa Claus.

You never have to prove a negative of a claim. A lack of a claim. Opposite of a claim.

Or require a belief in a negative or lack of a claim.

I may be wrong, but I personally define agnostic as: someone that makes no claim of whether god exist or not. That they can not know for sure. They usually operate as if no god exist, but say there is a possibility of a god they just do not know one way or another.

I used to be agnostic until I looked up the various definitions of gods, and then realized: there is no possibility of god as depicted by major religions, or even gods not depicted but have the traits in the common definition of a god. (My personal opinion and findings, reasoning and logical conclusion.) There is almost no possibility of a supreme being, a supreme creator that requires worship and is involved in the affairs of humans, or basically an entity that people commonly agree to for the definition of god.

To me the possibility is so incredibly remote for a god like this it far better to operate under the assumption that there simply is no god. To me, the possibility of god is of the same possibility level of the likelihood that the only winning billion dollar powerball jackpot ticket will appear in my hand in the next 10 seconds. And then at the same time every year, it happens again. It is far better to operate under the assumption that is impossible and will never happen, then to say "I believe in the possibility, however remote that will happen to me I can not know for sure."


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.