With that info in mind, James, I'd say that sexual orientation is a concept in search of a justification… And that the "scientific" evidence offered (so far?) is just bad statistics.
Would you say the same thing if you were gay? Or can't you see that far?
It is quite plain that what you, ersi and others abhor--is change. You fear it and even dread it. Rather than try to understand what the make up of our society really is, so perhaps we can get along better through that understanding, you want to keep the status quo. Ersi says he doesn't hate queers, so I'm sure he doesn't hate 'niggers' either, or spics or wops or guineas, or kikes. He knows 'queer' is a slur, so please don't defend him. As social beings we stink, bees do better than us.
You Oak, use what science doesn't know yet to defend your attitude toward these people--how rational is that? Bad statistics before the truth is discovered, is the norm in science. You don't have a beef with science, you are just trying to justify your ugly feelings in your own mind. Have another drink, it's much easier than looking up silly quotes to back your prejudices.
Some of the comments here reinforce the idea that we are still quite primitive as social beings. Technologically we are awesome (right rj?), but we are still basically a warlike civilization. Some of the people here mouth the words that they 'tolerate' certain minorities, but it is clear that they are not 'tolerant' of them. For many here, if the LGBT community and other minorities will just sit in the corner with their own kind and shut up, then they can be tolerated--somewhat anyway. God forbid that LGBTs should celebrate their recognition out in the open--better to go to a bullfight than see that shit. Some people here simply don't realize that but for the grace of their 'phantom' god, go they.
There is no empathy here, no walking in another man's shoes, no concern for a fellow man, whatsoever by some. I have a transexual friend and quite frankly, she could easily hold her own with the best of the members here (she is honestly quite amazing--but then I'm amazed by Bozo the Clown--right? ).
It may not show, but I have a lot of respect for many of the members here. That respect, in certain cases, has lost some of it's shine.
James, how can there be "human rights" if there is no free will, no praise, no blame? Do you begin to see why I consider the "no free will" position to be incoherent? (If its a choice between reductionism and free will, you're on the horns of a dilemma…)
I have said before and I will say it again, the illusion of free will is so complete that no one (even those of us who can grasp it), will ever live their life as if it there is no free will--think about it for a moment before ridiculing it out of hand.
Every decision that you make is downstream from the subconscious and conscious thoughts (data), that sifts through your mind to arrive at the only solution or result that is possible based on that accumulated data--the mind has nothing else to work with. Going back in time and doing it again--with all else being equal--will only produce the one and only and same result. One has to invoke the supernatural/metaphysical realm to give the mind complete autonomy over what it is--a living machine--and I don't buy any of that nonsense.
We are all egotistical sons of bitches who like to think we are independent of our circumstances, but we can never change or escape from what has already been set in motion...nevaaaa.
Transsexuals, if they are real transsexuals, would be the same kind of situation, what I don't understand is why they aren't locked up in psychiatric hospitals for treatment but instead are shown in the media circus as... what? clowns? celebrities? examples??
India has about 500,000 transsexuals and that developing nation recently recognized them as the "third gender" with equal rights under the law. Acknowledgment of transgenders as a third gender is not a social or medical issue--it is a human rights issue. Is this something that you and/or your country would applaud?
I'm not a shill for religions, so I'm not sure why you mention this in response to my comment. I don't think that 'societies' accept much of anything but people do.
Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. And "The highest percentage ever of Americans – a 63% supermajority - back the freedom to marry as a constitutional right for gay couples." I can't do a Venn diagram, but it's pretty clear that there's a significant overlap of Christians (religious) and those who accept the LGBT community.
Certainly no offense intended my friend, it's just that the large number of Christians who accept rights for gay couples and the even larger number of Christians who have premarital sex, just goes to show that the morality of the religion is largely ignored in the US of A. How does religion contribute anything to morality? The devotees thumb their noses at what Christianity calls morality and the new morality that comes in stands on higher ground. It seems people have a better innate morality than what the Church has to offer.
The same start alec self aggrandisement thinking is rather selective. They go out to attack Christianity and show how free they are to do it. However they are as open-minded as a certified idiot. They don't exercise their wonderful liberal smugness regarding religion when it comes to Islam do they? And why - because they know they would be harried, lives threatened and all hell let loose.
Pretty good reasons in my book - you think Christians should do the same - they already have.
Scientism appears at its most desperate in matters of evolution, where things clearly explicable in physical terms (astronomy, electronics, combustion) bump up against things not nearly so explicable (life, consciousness, motivations). Scientism always finds a way, however strained, to avoid the ravages of doubt. Conceding or even considering anything outside of that small scientific box would open up a Whole Lot of Doubt.
If you wish to give 'life' to science then it could be said that science is better than human beings, sure. Science, for what it is, already has all the answers, it is simply left to humans to slowly ferret them out and prove them. If there are questions that science can't answer yet, why do you so quickly assume they never will? Does the idea that science may some day answer the questions of life, consciousness and motivations scare you? If there is no free will, would you jump off the nearest high bridge?
Homosexuals don't breed homosexuals, so there is no environmental pressure to eliminate them by natural selection. Why is this not so painfully obvious to a man like you and what idiot homophobe are you quoting here anyway? (Your source link is unavailable). Homosexuality is not a human trait, i.e. there is no gene for it. Identical twin studies worldwide have proven this over and over in the past two decades where nature and prenatal nurture are 100% equivalent, therefore, homosexuality must be caused by post-natal factors. Cochran has methodically eliminated all other possible causes for homosexuality and has determined that it is likely caused by a yet unidentified pathogen--a non-lethal pathogen. (One in seven humans died of TB, before that pathogen was identified and drug resistant strains are still being fought in the 21st century). The reductio ad absurdum can sometimes be a useful method of getting at the truth, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"--not strictly scientific, but it can point one in the right direction.
And, as Razib Khan reiterated recently, "Because of the nature of the academy outside of religious colleges there is often silence from this minority [religious scientists…] lest they be pigeon-holed as out of step with the social culture of science. That’s human nature. And scientists can’t escape that, whether they are in the majority, or the minority. For all the talk of logic and empiricism, scientists are all too human in their basic wiring."
Wasn't Science supposed to investigate "the basic wiring"? So, what went wrong?
It seems that science has the most difficulty coping, in this case.
Is this suppose to say anything meaningful or just point out the obvious? Do you see scientists as highfalutin cowboys willing to have a showdown at high noon with anyone who challenges them? They have a competitive spirit just like most people, and just like most people, they will sometimes go awry in their zeal to win. I can't think of a single pursuit, venture, enterprise or activity of man where this is not applicable--(not even religion of course...especially not religion!). And what makes you think scientists would be immune to what their peers think of them?
Get real Jimbo, certainly not true in any Abrahamic religion where morality is still dictated by the dead from books written millennia ago. Societies all across the world are accepting the LGBT community for who they are (people), religious text condemns it as an abomination and detestable in the eyes of god (Lev. 18:22, 20:13), and the major religions still adhere to this today. Religion wishes to dictate all sexual behavior across the board: most people in the US ignore this anyway (97% have premarital sex), so is religion really keeping pace with the times?--Hardly.
EDIT: I must apologize for doing this poorly written post (my first), in a rare Sangria stupor (mangos are in season here), I will leave the drinking and driving up to Oak from now on.
Olympic gold medalists Bruce Jenner was born with a sexual identity disorder that science has identified, religion has a problem with that--based on what? What is the morality/ethics of religion based on in the modern world?
What if Caitlyn Jenner were to back a certain US president in the upcoming elections? Would it be ethical for her to speak up today and influence something so important to this country and the world? Is Bill Mayers mockery of Caitlyn that she is not a 'Rosa Parks' funny--or more idiotic bigotry and misunderstanding?
I am not a theist, Belfrager… I am a rationalist, which places my principles much closer to -say- the Catholic church than most Imams. (The various protesters don't offer anything of value, that I can see.) The object of my derision is not James himself… It is the anti-religious, who would make "Science" a new religion. We don't need a new religion…
If my enthusiasm for science runneth over, it is only because science gets the job done and answers the questions plaguing man since we came down from the trees (the historical evidence of which is etched in every cell of your body, Bel). If I am going to pin the hopes of mankind on any one thing, it would be on science. But not just science itself, it will be the triumph of science over religion (reality over fantasy), that will win the day. Religion is no longer benign, it is a malignant cancer within mankind that needs to be eliminated for us to ever hope to live in peace, tranquility and prosperity. Century after century after century, it's the same ol' crap--religious wars, innocent people dying and education being stifled. Quite fittingly, education is the force by which religion will end and join the 'horse & buggy' in the museums.
China holds the promise of what future government could be. Given an evolution towards democracy. Policies to combat corruption or control religion wouldn't be so taboo inside a pseudo-communist state and the level of efficiency could be hard to compete with.
Monday morning quarterbacking 70 years after the game has been played is going to accomplish what to anyone's satisfaction? Did the nuclear assault save a million allied lives and cause Japan's surrender or was it a war crime? There is plentiful evidence for both schools of thought.
Many hundreds of thousands of allied lives were spared by the use of atomic weapons, there is little doubt of that. On the other hand, Japan's economy was collapsing in the summer of '45 because the US Naval Fleet blockade (subs), had effectively strangled oil and raw materials supply lines. If our fleet had simply lingered offshore for a few more months, we could have witnessed the Japanese people starve to death or perish under conventional bombing--much more humane to some here I'm sure. In short, today's evidence indicates that the Japanese had no chance of sustaining effective resistance. However, much that we now know was then uncertain (hence the 20/20 hindsight).
In a discussion of what is humane in wartime, nobody here is arguing the use of nuclear bombs in the context of the March of 1945 fire-bombing raids that preceded it. 500,000 Japanese citizens were killed in those raids, more than twice as many as in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I seriously doubt that anyone involved in the decision making of using the A-Bomb saw themselves as setting a precedent for mass destruction in scale--in efficiency, yes I'm sure. More people died in the single March 9 incendiary attack on Tokyo than in the initial blast at Hiroshima (little was known then about the effects of radiation--Marie Curie probably died without knowing what killed her). Massive death and destruction was being rained on Japan in 1945, is it a war crime simply because we found a more efficient method of doing what we were going to do anyway?
In August 1945, 50 million people had already died and I'm sure both sides were desensitized to killing. Moreover, amid a world sick of death in the cause of defeating evil, I'm sure allied lives seemed precious indeed--while our enemy in turn, seemed neither to value his own nor those of the innocent. Those here who condemn the architects of Hiroshima seem to lack a certain humility in recognizing the frailties of decision-making mortal men grappling with dilemmas they have been spared. The allies spent $2 billion dollars on a huge gamble and it paid off--what extraordinary initiative at that time would have been needed for Truman to halt its deployment? Truman's judgement may seem wrong in the eyes of posterity, but can't one see how right it must have seemed to most of his contemporaries? (Please check your conspiracy theories at the door).
If somebody came out here to say "religious differences are the big problem of the world in the 21st century", the answer would be: "you must be kidding!".
Currently, religious differences are not the biggest problem facing the planet or any area thereof, including the volatile Middle East (I said nothing of the kind). It simply has the very real potential for there to be no more problems, evermore, facing mankind.
And you don't mean the certain reckless country who actually used nuclear weapons?
I don't suppose you would like to entertain the thought that the use of atomic bombs in WWII could--in the end-- prove to be the deterrent that keeps us from using the extinction level bombs we have today? (Not that anyone had that thought in mind at the time) Fat Boy was 15 kilotons, today they are 15,000 kilotons.
Sounds all nice and quite tidy ensbb3. Things will work themselves out--unless they don't. Just recently, we have lost two towering buildings, thousands of people, billions of dollars and countless billions more to protect ourselves against religion. Were it a handful of radical extremists, perhaps we could sufficiently gird ourselves and wait them out, but there are hundreds of millions of religious people who would just as soon see the US suffer greatly--or simply go up into smoke altogether. If you think that religion, science and politics will cooperatively play patty-cake until it all comes out in the wash one day, then you are an ostrich my friend. Don't get me wrong, I rather enjoy your posts ensbb3, but I would no sooner try to convert a religious person to something else than I would adopt religion for myself. I am an optimist and I see the world improving, to the benefit of all, in many ways; things are getting better every day except in the realm of governing ourselves. Religion is a dangerous and antagonistic force in the 21st century where we have the technology to destroy ourselves at the push of a button. No one thinks it will really happen, but until we have the ability to conduct ourselves responsibly (in another century or two probably), we are but reckless children playing with loaded guns. I don't foresee a doomsday day scenario, after all I am an optimist, but I believe that if any one thing is going to destroy us before the sun fries the inner planets--it will be over our religious differences (Oak would say global warming, rj would say the meddling US [duh], and ersi would say gremlins--or the ressurection of communism). What would you say?
Er — I think ersi means you are convicting yourself…
Of what? Being concerned that religious differences keep this world from the peace and happiness we all deserve? If certain reckless countries obtain modern nuclear weapons (ones that make the Japanese bombs look like firecrackers), all of the hope and dreams of mankind will go up in a mushroom cloud of smoke. People prosper and are at peace without religious concerns, how can religion be a good thing? And because I attempt to point this out (none too eloquently I might add), to a group of self proclaimed intellectuals who cling to religion like it was their 'baba', I get taken to the woodshed by the alcoholic-know-it-all-clown of this forum. If religion on a global scale was not the threat to human welfare, happiness, progress and perhaps even survival that it presently is, I'm sure I would have maintained the more laissez faire philosophy of my youth. Religion is not a good thing no matter how you slice it--it is the big lie (and joke) on mankind--we should be ashamed of ourselves. Therefore Oak, as the sotted court jester of DnD, prance around and dance for us once again please--whoopee we're all gonna die!
In turn, you are evidently unaware of real-life atheist indoctrination, which used to be common in Communist countries. Only blissful ignorance can explain why you are so eager for it.
Forced religious indoctrination by a ruler often backfires, but there is no need for this with atheism--global secularization happens quite spontaneously. There is a specific version of this thesis that I favor, it is known as 'the existential security hypothesis'. The basic idea is that as people become more affluent, they are less worried about lacking for basic necessities or of dying early from violence or disease. In other words they are secure in their own existence--they do not feel the need to appeal to supernatural entities to calm their fears and insecurities. The idea that improving living conditions are associated with a decline in religion is supported by a mountain of evidence (which I can provide upon request).
The 9 most godless countries in a 2004 survey were Denmark, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom (this excludes Estonia as a formerly communist country). Half of the populations of these countries disbelieve in God. The GDP of these countries averaged almost $30,000 compared to about $11,000 for the average country in the world. How long will it take before the world economy has expanded sufficiently that the GDP of the average country has caught up to the average for the godless countries in 2004? If one uses the average global growth rate of GDP for the last 30 years of 3.33%, the atheist transition would occur in 2035.
Of course, belief in God is not the only relevant measure of religion. An individual may believe in God in a fairly perfunctory way without religion affecting his or her daily life. Therefore, if one asks people if religion is important in their daily lives, as Gallup has done, then the countries with the least depth of religious commitment are South Korea, Canada, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay, France and Germany. Once again, at a growth rate of 3.33% per year it would be 2041 before the average country in the world would be at an equivalent level of affluence as these godless nations.
Is the loss of religious belief something to fear, as you seem to suggest ersi? Antithetical to the claims of many religious authorities, godless countries are highly moral with an unusual level of social trust, low crime, economic equality and a high level of civic participation. Right about now the world could do with some of that.
