Clydey and Friends' Philosophical Paradise [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Clydey and Friends' Philosophical Paradise

Pages : [1] 2 3

Clydey
11-29-2008, 11:19 PM
Let's move the discussion to this thread. Is there a moderator with the patience to move some of the posts from the ACC thread to here?

Clydey
11-29-2008, 11:30 PM
Clydey really read your quote once again, the italic lines are the exact and the only things that you are doing.

Procreation and lesser species have always been an easy bait for the naive to categorize something as preferable or not to the species. But human species isn't and animal collective per se, civilization is far more complex than that, it is a big leap away from what is a human in term of 'species' therefore, Darwinian argument in its original or even slightly modernized form are never enough to clearly define a right path of humankind or the lesser parts of it, the dead-ends, while it seem quite sufficient when it comes to other animal species and their evolutionary path.
I suggest you concentrate more on your studies and your hobbies and a little less on forums like this, and if you consider my suggestion malicious or patronizing, please don't as i wish the same thing to myself, oh how i wish for it..

You're not getting it. I have said repeatedly that homosexuality is not wrong and that I am not prescribing Social Darwinism. I also did not suggest that there was a right path. My argument is purely an evolutionary one. It is other people who are taking me in a different direction.

It is a simple fact that homosexuals are much, much less likely to pass on their genes. You are taking the argument in a different direction completely. The only thing I have stated is that homosexuals are inferior from an evolutionary perspective. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not saying that they are worth less, nor am I advocating Social Darwinism. It is simply a fact that heterosexuals are more likely to pass on their genes.

Clydey
11-29-2008, 11:35 PM
What's the argument then? This is something where "science" does fail at times in that it doesn't say -anything-; nothing you are saying is relevant to anyone anywhere in the world.

Pointless discussion isn't worth it when you can come out in a worse light afterwards.

There is no argument. Prima Donna stated a fact, but used incorrect terms. People misunderstood what he said about homosexuals being biologically inferior.

He simply meant that they are less likely to pass on their genes. What I am saying is separate to the gay marriage issue in the other thread. I joined in and attempted to clarify what I thought Prima Donna meant about biological inferiority. As he attested, I did clarify it.

It was at that point that people started foaming at the mouth, thinking I was calling homosexuals morally inferior.

Garson007
11-29-2008, 11:35 PM
You need to do a lot more than playing Prima Trolla's game in order to be considered a clown worthy of ACC Final. The whole "biologically inferior" bullshit was spewed as an argument against gay marriage, it wasn't a discussion on Darwinism. If keeping gays from marrying is right due to their less likeness to pass on their genes, the same must be applied to a wide range of circumstances. For fairness' sake everyone must then take tests on fertility, male potency and so forth before getting a marriage license. No fuckíng one marrying here until they absolutely prove they can and will pass on their genes.
I haven't read the thread myself and considering that the topics discussed under a thread normally evolve quite a bit from page to page it wouldn't be so absurd of me to remark that he might not have meant it in that light. However, was it in reply to being awarded marriage rights, then yes, you are 100% correct and Prima is one bit AC.

Garson007
11-29-2008, 11:45 PM
There is no argument. Prima Donna stated a fact, but used incorrect terms. People misunderstood what he said about homosexuals being biologically inferior.

He simply meant that they are less likely to pass on their genes. What I am saying is separate to the gay marriage issue in the other thread. I joined in and attempted to clarify what I thought Prima Donna meant about biological inferiority. As he attested, I did clarify it.

It was at that point that people started foaming at the mouth, thinking I was calling homosexuals morally inferior.
I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that it has no relevance. I don't know how Prima came to creating this "biological inferior" debacle and still think that it was somehow relevant. Points of interest, while nice and all, is not useful when people are arguing something completely different and can only interpret what has been said negatively.

From what I understand Prima was out trolling, trying to lure people into a flame-fest. There really is no other explanation to bring this up. Unless, of course, he's once again thinking he has to show everyone just how delusional he is about his own intellect.

Clydey
11-29-2008, 11:50 PM
I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that it has no relevance. I don't know how Prima came to creating this "biological inferior" debacle and still think that it was somehow relevant. Points of interest, while nice and all, is not useful when people are arguing something completely different and can only interpret what has been said negatively.

From what I understand Prima was out trolling, trying to lure people into a flame-fest. There really is no other explanation to bring this up. Unless, of course, he's once again thinking he has to show everyone just how delusional he is about his own intellect.

I don't think he was trolling. He aired some unpopular views (judging by how they were received on here), but he wasn't trolling.

I can't recall why it was relevant to the initial argument. I came in when someone raised Prima's statement in a completely different thread. I simply clarified what he meant. I didn't state anything radical. I lost count of how many times I said that I was referring purely to their capacity to procreate.

LinkMage
11-29-2008, 11:55 PM
You are already out of the ACC, Clydey. Already started campaigning for next year?

JolánGagó
11-29-2008, 11:55 PM
I haven't read the thread myself and considering that the topics discussed under a thread normally evolve quite a bit from page to page it wouldn't be so absurd of me to remark that he might not have meant it in that light. However, was it in reply to being awarded marriage rights, then yes, you are 100% correct and Prima is one bit AC.

It was the star point on Prima Trolla's defense of the ban on gay marriage.

q.j.
11-29-2008, 11:59 PM
I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that it has no relevance. I don't know how Prima came to creating this "biological inferior" debacle and still think that it was somehow relevant. Points of interest, while nice and all, is not useful when people are arguing something completely different and can only interpret what has been said negatively.



everything that need to be said about this whole mess.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 12:00 AM
You are already out of the ACC, Clydey. Already started campaigning for next year?

Yes, I'm campaigning for the ACC by stating basic facts.

Heterosexual people are more likely to reproduce.

Someone lock me up. I'm coming out with some real crazy shit.

Garson007
11-30-2008, 12:01 AM
It was the star point on Prima Trolla's defense of the ban on gay marriage.
That's just retarded, not at all constitutional under the western world.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 12:03 AM
everything that need to be said about this whole mess.

I don't recall stating anything about relevance. I clarified what Prima Donna meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not responsible for others' poor reading comprehension. I simply could not have been any clearer.

q.j.
11-30-2008, 12:09 AM
wood from the trees, is that how you say it?

Good night clydey :)

Clydey
11-30-2008, 12:12 AM
wood from the trees, is that how you say it?

Good night clydey :)

Just about right.

G'night.

RagingLamb
11-30-2008, 03:18 AM
Homosexuality is from what I understand not a genetic trait, and hence not a heritable trait. So evolution can't really work on it. If homosexuality was "evolutionarily inferior" it would have ceased to exist a long time ago.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 03:36 AM
Homosexuality is from what I understand not a genetic trait, and hence not a heritable trait. So evolution can't really work on it. If homosexuality was "evolutionarily inferior" it would have ceased to exist a long time ago.

It didn't suggest that it was a heritable trait. It might be, but there is as yet no real evidence to support that theory. However, that is besides the point. Something needn't be heritable to impact on the species.

If all men suddenly decided to get a vasectomy, it would impact on human evolution. I am not talking about a "gay gene". I am talking about the likelihood of one's genes being passed on. Homosexuals are obviously far less likely to procreate.

And no, even if it was genetic it would not necessarily have ceased to exist. Why do you think wisdom teeth persist?

Arkulari
11-30-2008, 03:38 AM
one question: only the species that have sex for pleasure have a large number of homosexual individuals?
in my mind these two concepts have always been linked for some reason :shrug:

Clydey
11-30-2008, 03:40 AM
one question: only the species that have sex for pleasure have a large number of homosexual individuals?
in my mind these two concepts have always been linked for some reason :shrug:

Homosexuality has been observed in nature, too.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 03:52 AM
Dude having or not having wisdom teeth has no effect on someone's likelihood of passing along his or her genetic material, that's why wisdom teeth still exist. Because people with wisdom teeth keep having children.

Worker bees cannot reproduce but their species would not survive without them.

RagingLamb
11-30-2008, 03:54 AM
And no, even if it was genetic it would not necessarily have ceased to exist. Why do you think wisdom teeth persist?

I said if it was "evolutionarily inferior" it would have ceased to exist. Not if it was genetic.


It didn't suggest that it was a heritable trait. It might be, but there is as yet no real evidence to support that theory.

Yes, if anything, it seems like it's triggered by environmental events. Evolution can only work on heritable traits. So it's not accurate to call homosexuals "inferior from an evolutionary perspective", since evolution does not act on homosexuality.

However, that is besides the point. Something needn't be heritable to impact on the species. If all men suddenly decided to get a vasectomy, it would impact on human evolution. I am not talking about a "gay gene". I am talking about the likelihood of one's genes being passed on. Homosexuals are obviously far less likely to procreate.

You don't know that for sure. But let's assume that homosexuals are in fact less likely to pass on their genes. This will do absolutely nothing to homosexuality itself. And I'm not sure how it really matters how much of their genes they will pass on.

LocoPorElTenis
11-30-2008, 04:03 AM
Worker bees cannot reproduce but their species would not survive without them.

Great example. A priori, inability to reproduce is NOT a sure sign of lack of Darwinian adaptation. Individuals who are unable to reproduce may help the species perpetuate in other ways, for example by keeping individuals who can reproduce safe and healthy. And indeed this has been observed from gay individuals in some species. Besides, gay homo sapiens can and often do reproduce, though I guess at a lower rate than heterosexuals.

LinkMage
11-30-2008, 04:04 AM
Homosexuality is from what I understand not a genetic trait, and hence not a heritable trait. So evolution can't really work on it. If homosexuality was "evolutionarily inferior" it would have ceased to exist a long time ago.


Great post. Exactly what I think and why this thread is ridiculous.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:05 AM
Dude having or not having wisdom teeth has no effect on someone's likelihood of passing along his or her genetic material, that's why wisdom teeth still exist. Because people with wisdom teeth keep having children.

Worker bees cannot reproduce but their species would not survive without them.

Homosexuals can and do still reproduce. They just don't do it nearly as often as heterosexuals. The point I was making when I mentioned wisdom teeth is that evolution isn't perfect. And that even if homosexuality was a heritable trait, it would not automatically be wiped out.

Anyway, it is besides the point. The simple fact is that homosexuals are much less likely to pass on their genes. It is indisputable. People need to stop taking it the wrong way. It does not mean that homosexuals are morally inferior.

It cannot be disputed that they are inferior from an evolutionary perspective. Arguing otherwise is absurd. I thought we had cleared this up earlier when everyone seemingly began to understand the simplicity of what I was saying. I am not advocating social darwinism or saying that homosexuals are worth less than heterosexuals. I clarified what Prima Donna was trying to say. That's all.

And I don't see what parallels you are drawing between worker bees and homosexuals. Humanity would survive without homosexuals. It is in no way similar to worker bees being a necessity for their species.

GlennMirnyi
11-30-2008, 04:05 AM
I doubt any evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

It's just a matter of taste.

In Ancient Greece and Rome, it was the only kind of intercourse intended for pleasure.

Were all Romans and Greeks genetically homosexual?

Bullshit.

RagingLamb
11-30-2008, 04:06 AM
Great example. A priori, inability to reproduce is NOT a sure sign of lack of Darwinian adaptation. Individuals who are unable to reproduce may help the species perpetuate in other ways, for example by keeping individuals who can reproduce safe and healthy. And indeed this has been observed from gay individuals in some species. Besides, gay homo sapiens can and often do reproduce, though I guess at a lower rate than heterosexuals.

Is there any real evidence for this? Or do gay individuals have a reduced desire to have children? I don't think this is true.

RagingLamb
11-30-2008, 04:09 AM
Homosexuals can and do still reproduce. They just don't do it nearly as often as heterosexuals. The point I was making when I mentioned wisdom teeth is that evolution isn't perfect. And that even if homosexuality was a heritable trait, it would not automatically be wiped out.

Well if your argument that homosexuality is coupled with fewer offspring is true, then homosexuality would be wiped out if it was genetic, since it would obviously affect sexual reproduction.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:12 AM
The point I was making when I mentioned wisdom teeth is that evolution isn't perfect.

how the hell do wisdom teeth show that evolution isn't perfect? wisdom teeth are an example of how amazing evolution is.

Humanity would survive without homosexuals. It is in no way similar to worker bees being a necessity for their species.

yeah, and humanity will survive with homosexuals.

Arkulari
11-30-2008, 04:13 AM
males in general feel less need to reproduce than females, maybe because we have only a small age window to reproduce, unlike males who can fertilize till old age, so they usually don't hurry much about getting offspring as we females do :shrug:

in my mind, reproduction is more a matter of genre and age than a matter of sexual preference :shrug:

the homosexual male needs to find a suitable womb to fertilize, while homosexual females only need the fertilizer, which I think is easier, specially with sperm banks and such ;)

RagingLamb
11-30-2008, 04:17 AM
^males could donate to sperm banks.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:20 AM
there are also egg donors and gestational surrogates so really $$$ is the only thing keeping a gay man from passing his own genes on to his child.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:20 AM
I said if it was "evolutionarily inferior" it would have ceased to exist. Not if it was genetic.



No, that is not necessarily true. Under no circumstances can you guarantee the extinction of homosexuality unless all we had were same sex couples who refused to have sex with anything but their own gender. Homosexuals can still reproduce and they do still reproduce.


Yes, if anything, it seems like it's triggered by environmental events. Evolution can only work on heritable traits. So it's not accurate to call homosexuals "inferior from an evolutionary perspective", since evolution does not act on homosexuality.


It has nothing to do with passing on a homosexual gene. It has to do with the likelihood that homosexuals will procreate.


You don't know that for sure. But let's assume that homosexuals are in fact less likely to pass on their genes. This will do absolutely nothing to homosexuality itself. And I'm not sure how it really matters how much of their genes they will pass on.

Yes, I do know that for a fact. You do know that same-sex couples can't conceive naturally, right?

Heterosexual couples can and do. For a homosexual to reproduce, they would have to have intercourse with the opposite sex. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

It is much, much more likely that homosexuals will not pass on their genes. How on earth can you argue otherwise?

You just aren't getting it. This is about what best serves the species, not about passing on certain heritable traits.

Arkulari
11-30-2008, 04:21 AM
^males could donate to sperm banks.

I know, but it's not the same, 'cuz they cannot choose who will get their sperm
while women can choose whose sperm they want :)


there are also egg donors and gestational surrogates so really $$$ is the only thing keeping a gay man from passing his own genes on to his child.

of course, but my point is that males have to go and find all that, while women just need to look at a catalogue and choose what they want ;)


I haven't met the first son/daughter of a homosexual couple that is a homosexual as well, it isn't genetically transferred nor goes in the environment

is simply something in the genes of every individual that makes them get their sexual orientation :shrug:

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:23 AM
Heterosexual couples can and do. For a homosexual to reproduce, they would have to have intercourse with the opposite sex. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

OK, I'm starting to understand. In my country, where I live, we have stuff like in vitro fertilization and all kinds of stuff whereby people - homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, you name it - can reproduce without having intercourse with anyone. It happens all the time, every day, hundreds or thousands of times over. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:23 AM
how the hell do wisdom teeth show that evolution isn't perfect? wisdom teeth are an example of how amazing evolution is.



yeah, and humanity will survive with homosexuals.

Yes, but humanity would not survive without heterosexuals. It would survive without homosexuals. It is a fact that heterosexuality is better for the species. Again, that is not me saying that homosexuality is wrong.

And wisdom teeth are redundant. If anything, they do more harm than good. We no longer need them, yet we still have them. Evolution is astounding. It isn't perfect.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:26 AM
OK, I'm starting to understand. In my country, where I live, we have stuff like in vitro fertilization and all kinds of stuff whereby people - homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, you name it - can reproduce without having intercourse with anyone. It happens all the time, every day, hundreds or thousands of times over. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

That is not nature, however. Evolution deals with natural selection. We are talking about evolution, a natural phenomenon. From a purely evolutionary perspective, where we do not take technology into account, heterosexuality is more desirable.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:26 AM
I know, but it's not the same, 'cuz they cannot choose who will get their sperm
while women can choose whose sperm they want :)

In my country, we have such things as egg donors, and the men can choose where to put their sperm just as easily as women can choose whose sperm they get.

wildegirl05
11-30-2008, 04:26 AM
clydey, you're making assumptions that then prove your "case".

you're assuming sexuality falls into two categories - homo and hetero. it could be fluid continuum.

you're assuming that homosexuals are unlikely to have sex merely to reproduce, if they have the urge to recreate - do you have stats to back this up? i'm guessing all you're making is the very simplistic argument that two members of the same gender having sex together cannot produce offspring. that's about all the "fact" there is. from there to making claims about evolution/procreation and sexuality is just giant leaps of "what ifs" and suspending the use of technology and as has been pointed out already - completely irrelevant and pointless to anything related to gay rights.

you're also assuming that heterosexuals and procreation are somehow givens. again, outside of the tab a/slot b sorta basic argument, it just ignores information on choices/ability/a host of socio-economic factors - all of which have huge impacts on procreation and "serving" the human species.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:28 AM
From a purely evolutionary perspective, where we do not take technology into account, wisdom teeth are more desirable.

Arkulari
11-30-2008, 04:30 AM
In my country, we have such things as egg donors, and the men can choose where to put their sperm just as easily as women can choose whose sperm they get.

yeah, but then, they have to find who can carry those ;)
I have a male gay friend who wanted to get his own biological child and besides choosing eggs, he had to choose the surrogate, pay her, pay for the insemination, all their necessities, etc
it's way more difficult and expensive for a male to do that, besides it's something very hard to ask from a female friend, pregnancy and childbirth is not something easy, unlike coming in a cup ;) :wavey:

wildegirl05
11-30-2008, 04:31 AM
That is not nature, however. Evolution deals with natural selection. We are talking about evolution, a natural phenomenon. From a purely evolutionary perspective, where we do not take technology into account, heterosexuality is more desirable.

nope, from a purely evolutionary standpoint - a viable sperm fertilizing an available egg is desirable. that's it. sexuality is only one aspect of procreation, not all of it.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:31 AM
clydey, you're making assumptions that then prove your "case".

you're assuming sexuality falls into two categories - homo and hetero. it could be fluid continuum.

you're assuming that homosexuals are unlikely to have sex merely to reproduce, if they have the urge to recreate - do you have stats to back this up? i'm guessing all you're making is the very simplistic argument that two members of the same gender having sex together cannot produce offspring. that's about all the "fact" there is. from there to making claims about evolution/procreation and sexuality is just giant leaps of "what ifs" and suspending the use of technology and as has been pointed out already - completely irrelevant and pointless to anything related to gay rights.

you're also assuming that heterosexuals and procreation are somehow givens. again, outside of the tab a/slot b sorta basic argument, it just ignores information on choices/ability/a host of socio-economic factors - all of which have huge impacts on procreation and "serving" the human species.

I'm sure many do have the desire to reproduce. It's a fact that they do not reproduce as often as heterosexuals though. Asking for evidence to back that statement is ridiculous. It is common sense.

There are ways for homosexuals to pass on their genes, such as a surrogate pregnancy or artificial insemination. However, these are not as convenient as a traditional relationship. Nowhere near as convenient, in fact.

wildegirl05
11-30-2008, 04:32 AM
yeah, but then, they have to find who can carry those ;)
I have a male gay friend who wanted to get his own biological child and besides choosing eggs, he had to choose the surrogate, pay her, pay for the insemination, all their necessities, etc
it's way more difficult and expensive for a male to do that, besides it's something very hard to ask from a female friend, pregnancy and childbirth is not something easy, unlike coming in a cup ;) :wavey:

there is surrogate outsourcing.

wildegirl05
11-30-2008, 04:33 AM
I'm sure many do have the desire to reproduce. It's a fact that they do not reproduce as often as heterosexuals though. Asking for evidence to back that statement is ridiculous. It is common sense.

There are ways for homosexuals to pass on their genes, such as a surrogate pregnancy or artificial insemination. However, these are not as convenient as a traditional relationship. Nowhere near as convenient, in fact.

it is not ridiculous in the least. do you know if homosexual men are less likely to contribute their sperm to a sperm bank, for instance? or that lesbian women are less likely to want to carry a child? i don't know the stats but i certainly wouldn't consider those scenarios ridiculous.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:33 AM
nope, from a purely evolutionary standpoint - a viable sperm fertilizing an available egg is desirable. that's it. sexuality is only one aspect of procreation, not all of it.

Yes, but the natural desire to be with someone of the opposite sex more readily lends itself to reproduction.

I'm not disputing that homosexuals can and do pass on their genes. They simply do not do it with the same frequency. Therefore, it is less desirable from an evolutionary viewpoint.

RagingLamb
11-30-2008, 04:34 AM
This is about what best serves the species, not about passing on certain heritable traits.


are you saying the species would be better served if there was no homosexuality?

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:35 AM
That is not nature, however. Evolution deals with natural selection. We are talking about evolution, a natural phenomenon. From a purely evolutionary perspective, where we do not take technology into account, heterosexuality is more desirable.

why would you not take technology into account when you are taking technology into account when declaring the redundancy of wisdom teeth?

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:35 AM
yeah, but then, they have to find who can carry those ;)
I have a male gay friend who wanted to get his own biological child and besides choosing eggs, he had to choose the surrogate, pay her, pay for the insemination, all their necessities, etc
it's way more difficult and expensive for a male to do that, besides it's something very hard to ask from a female friend, pregnancy and childbirth is not something easy, unlike coming in a cup ;) :wavey:

Precisely. Hit the nail on the head.

It just isn't as convenient. Heterosexuality is more convenient if one wants to reproduce.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:36 AM
why would you not take technology into account when you are taking technology into account when declaring the redundancy of wisdom teeth?

What do wisdom teeth have to do with technology?

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:38 AM
If not for technology (i.e., dentistry), people would still need their wisdom teeth. Duh.

wildegirl05
11-30-2008, 04:38 AM
Yes, but the natural desire to be with someone of the opposite sex more readily lends itself to reproduction.

I'm not disputing that homosexuals can and do pass on their genes. They simply do not do it with the same frequency. Therefore, it is less desirable from an evolutionary viewpoint.

these are hypothesis that you're passing off as facts. you need to know:

a) whether the majority of homosexuals are in monogamous same-sex partnerships
b) whether or not they contribute their genetic material for the cause of reproduction (they only need to do it for as often as it takes to get a woman pregant)

there need to be social studies undertaking to prove this is true for the entirety of the world before you can pass it off as common sense. you're talking like someone who doesn't understand the social constructs of sexuality. just because two people of the same sex having sex cannot produce an offspring directly does not suppose all these assumptions of yours, sorry to say.

Arkulari
11-30-2008, 04:38 AM
there is surrogate outsourcing.

I know, my point is: if the female is willing and fertile, it's just a matter of getting the sperm in whatever way and it will be done; while males have to find eggs, surrogates and pay for everything her and the child(ren) would need, it's way more expensive :D

if we had sex only for reproduction purposes, then millions in the world would never get laid :shrug:

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:38 AM
are you saying the species would be better served if there was no homosexuality?

Obviously. And no, that is not me saying that I want homosexuality wiped out. If everyone who was homosexual suddenly became heterosexual, they would be more likely to reproduce.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:39 AM
If not for technology (i.e., dentistry), people would still need their wisdom teeth. Duh.

:haha:

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

wildegirl05
11-30-2008, 04:39 AM
I know, my point is: if the female is willing and fertile, it's just a matter of getting the sperm in whatever way and it will be done; while males have to find eggs, surrogates and pay for everything her and the child(ren) would need, it's way more expensive :D

it's expensive for women to undergo invitro fertilization. and lesbian couples choose surrogates as well.

RagingLamb
11-30-2008, 04:41 AM
Obviously. And no, that is not me saying that I want homosexuality wiped out. If everyone who was homosexual suddenly became heterosexual, they would be more likely to reproduce.

If homosexuals are less likely to produce offspring, or likely to produce fewer offspring, then in a world where overpopulation is a major threat to our species, then if anything, homosexuality is something that really serves our species. not the other way around.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:42 AM
these are hypothesis that you're passing off as facts. you need to know:

a) whether the majority of homosexuals are in monogamous same-sex partnerships
b) whether or not they contribute their genetic material for the cause of reproduction (they only need to do it for as often as it takes to get a woman pregant)

there need to be social studies undertaking to prove this is true for the entirety of the world before you can pass it off as common sense. you're talking like someone who doesn't understand the social constructs of sexuality. just because two people of the same sex having sex cannot produce an offspring directly does not suppose all these assumptions of yours, sorry to say.

So you are seriously suggesting that homosexuals might reproduce as frequently as heterosexuals?

That is ridiculous.

Let me ask you this. Do you want a child at some point?

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:43 AM
:haha:

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

:confused: mmm... ok, so when you run out of arguments you just :haha: OK. You do know why people have wisdom teeth, don't you? If it weren't for fluoride toothpaste and dentists and all that, wisdom teeth would still come in very handy.

Arkulari
11-30-2008, 04:43 AM
it's expensive for women to undergo invitro fertilization. and lesbian couples choose surrogates as well.

only sometimes :o ;)
that's why I said before, if the female is willing, otherwise it's the same as male :D
another thing to consider is that no matter the sexual orientation, there's a difference between males and females (in reproduction terms): the biological clock :o
males can wait a long time to get biological offspring, females can't wait forever :p

wildegirl05
11-30-2008, 04:46 AM
So you are seriously suggesting that homosexuals might reproduce as frequently as heterosexuals?

That is ridiculous.

Let me ask you this. Do you want a child at some point?

i'm seriously suggesting that i don't know and neither can you. and seriously suggesting that your argument has a lot of holes in it, unlike what you seem to think.

also, i have no desire to convince you of anything by bringing my personal choices into it. it is not something that can be resolved with anecdotal evidence.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:48 AM
If homosexuals are less likely to produce offspring, or likely to produce fewer offspring, then in a world where overpopulation is a major threat to our species, then if anything, homosexuality is something that really serves our species. not the other way around.

Evolution does not take into account outside sources, technological advancements etc. Evolution, for better or worse, drives us to procreate.

You have to look at evolution at its most basic: survival of the species. Evolution does not know how big our planet is or whether overpopulation would be an issue. It simply drives us to procreate.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:50 AM
:confused: mmm... ok, so when you run out of arguments you just :haha: OK. You do know why people have wisdom teeth, don't you? If it weren't for fluoride toothpaste and dentists and all that, wisdom teeth would still come in very handy.

It has nothing to do with toothpaste. It has to do with the evolution of the skull.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:53 AM
i'm seriously suggesting that i don't know and neither can you. and seriously suggesting that your argument has a lot of holes in it, unlike what you seem to think.

also, i have no desire to convince you of anything by bringing my personal choices into it. it is not something that can be resolved with anecdotal evidence.

Use your common sense.

It's pointless arguing with someone who adopts such extreme skepticism. Should I provide proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, too?

And when I asked the question, I was trying to illustrate a point. You are more likely to want children with a man you are committed to than a man who wants you to act as a surrogate.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:54 AM
How do you know that the presence of adults who don't reproduce didn't have some evolutionary benefit to the species?

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:56 AM
It has nothing to do with toothpaste. It has to do with the evolution of the skull.

if we didn't brush our teeth, or get fillings at the dentist, our back molars would fall out by the time we were 18ish, and we would need more teeth to replace them and help us chew our food.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 04:57 AM
You are more likely to want children with a man you are committed to than a man who wants you to act as a surrogate.


mmm, not if he paid me a shitload of $$$

Clydey
11-30-2008, 04:58 AM
How do you know that the presence of adults who don't reproduce didn't have some evolutionary benefit to the species?

Because the basic aim of evolution is procreation. The mechanism of evolution doesn't think. It doesn't consider technology or morality. We are driven to reproduce so that the species can endure when we are gone.

wildegirl05
11-30-2008, 05:00 AM
Use your common sense.

It's pointless arguing with someone who adopts such extreme skepticism. Should I provide proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, too?

And when I asked the question, I was trying to illustrate a point. You are more likely to want children with a man you are committed to than a man who wants you to act as a surrogate.

i am using my common sense, i suggest you use some logic. and not the logic that's limited to the slot a/tab b kind. logic that suggests that you don't know how sexuality plays out in different social constructs and that we really have no reliable data on whether sexuality is fluid or not and whether homosexuals are in primarily homosexual relationships and what their attitudes are about procreation.

sexuality and reproduction are not convincingly tied unless you're making some really basic, irrelevant argument that homosexual sex itself cannot lead to procreation. you're not accounting for anything beyond that simple fact. i'm suggesting you read up on the social construct of sexuality and decide for yourself.

like i said, my personal choices are just that. they're influenced by my particular socio-economic-gender-race-cultural-sexual background. to try to "prove" a point by relying on what you imagine will be my response is ludicrous.

and i'm done with this. like i said, i really SERIOUSLY have no desire to convince you of anything.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:00 AM
if we didn't brush our teeth, or get fillings at the dentist, our back molars would fall out by the time we were 18ish, and we would need more teeth to replace them and help us chew our food.

No, we wouldn't. Wisdom teeth are redundant now.

I assume you think there's a reason we still have an appendix?

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 05:03 AM
but sustaining the species isn't limited to conception. the next generation has to be fed and cared for and all that crap. if evolution doesn't take that into consideration, where did the worker bees come from?

Arkulari
11-30-2008, 05:06 AM
wisdom teeth are vestigial parts of our bodies, the evolution took out the need for them, but didn't take them out of our bodies even if those didn't fulfill an specific function

not all humans have them and their presence depends on ethnics and diet :shrug:

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 05:10 AM
No, we wouldn't. Wisdom teeth are redundant now.

ok so you're saying if our molars got rotten or broken or worn down and fell out before we hit adulthood, having some brand new ones wouldn't be helpful?

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:10 AM
but sustaining the species isn't limited to conception. the next generation has to be fed and cared for and all that crap. if evolution doesn't take that into consideration, where did the worker bees come from?

Evolution concerns the ability pass on our genes through reproduction. It "selects" for that. Evolution isn't an entity that thinks. Worker bees carry out necessary tasks. That is why they exist. They are not like wisdom teeth or the appendix. They have a very real purpose.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 05:11 AM
the evolution took out the need for them

no, technology took out the need for them.

prima donna
11-30-2008, 05:12 AM
Clyde, can we now officially refer to you as the Christopher Hitchens of MTF ?

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 05:13 AM
They have a very real purpose.

Exactamundo! :yeah: They have a very real purpose, the continuation of the species, despite the fact that they can't reproduce.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:13 AM
ok so you're saying if our molars got rotten or broken or worn down and fell out before we hit adulthood, having some brand new ones wouldn't be helpful?

No, they wouldn't. We don't need those particular teeth at all and they aren't helpful.

Anyone who has studied evoluton for more than a couple of weeks knows that wisdom teeth are redundant. Feel free to do your own research. No need to take my word for it.

RagingLamb
11-30-2008, 05:14 AM
Evolution does not take into account outside sources, technological advancements etc. Evolution, for better or worse, drives us to procreate. You have to look at evolution at its most basic: survival of the species. Evolution does not know how big our planet is or whether overpopulation would be an issue. It simply drives us to procreate.

So I have to adopt your somewhat fictitious description of homosexuality so I can maybe entertain the idea that somehow homosexuality is undesirable from and evolutionary perspective?

I'm not sure what you think evolution is, but evolution is simply change in the genetic make-up of a population over time (i.e. successive generations). A species, and therefore its evolution, are affected by all the things that you're trying to rule out in your above post: available resources in the environment, outside influences, e.g. catastrophes that cause major extinction events, and so on.

The title of your thread is "Homosexuality and evolution" You admit that homosexuality is not a genetic trait, and therefore you have to admit that it cannot be operated upon by evolution, making this whole thread pointless, But no matter.

Your point was that homosexuality does not serve the species, and if anything it clearly does serve the species by reducing overpopulation, IF your claim that homosexuals reproduce less is correct.

If your claim is incorrect and homosexuals do reproduce as much as heterosexuals (through whatever means), then your whole argument, which relies on the reproduction assumption, is invalid. No matter how you look at it, there isn't anything to argue here.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:14 AM
Exactamundo! :yeah: They have a very real purpose, the continuation of the species, despite the fact that they can't reproduce.

Yes, but homosexuals are not necessary. Worker bees are.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 05:14 AM
Dude, I know they are redundant.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:17 AM
Clyde, can we now officially refer to you as the Christopher Hitchens of MTF ?

I wish I was half as articulate or half as knowledgeable as Hitchens. Absolute genius.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 05:18 AM
Yes, but homosexuals are not necessary. Worker bees are.

But how do you know that homosexuals were not necessary, or at least advantageous, at some point in the course of human evolution? They might have had some purpose, now completely redundant due to modern technology, just like wisdom teeth.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:20 AM
So I have to adopt your somewhat fictitious description of evolution so I can maybe entertain the idea that somehow homosexuality is undesirable from and evolutionary perspective?

I'm not sure what you think evolution is, but evolution is simply change in the genetic make-up of a population over time (i.e. successive generations). A species, and therefore its evolution, are affected by all the things that you're trying to rule out in your above post: available resources in the environment, outside influences, e.g. catastrophes that cause major extinction events, and so on.

The title of your thread is "Homosexuality and evolution" You admit that evolution is not a genetic trait, and therefore you have to admit that it cannot be operated upon by evolution, making this whole thread pointless, But no matter.

Your point was that homosexuality does not serve the species, and if anything it clearly does serve the species by reducing overpopulation, IF your claim that homosexuals reproduce less is correct.

If your claim is incorrect and homosexuals do reproduce as much as heterosexuals (through whatever means), then your whole argument, which relies on the reproduction assumption, is invalid. No matter how you look at it, there isn't anything to argue here.

Way to completely misrepresent what I said.

Of course evolution is guided by our environment. However, it does not think, "The world isn't big enough, so homosexuality is beneficial to the species."

At no point have I ever suggested that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Did you follow the other thread or just leap in here, oblivious to all context?

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:22 AM
But how do you know that homosexuals were not necessary, or at least advantageous, at some point in the course of human evolution? They might have had some purpose, now completely redundant due to modern technology, just like wisdom teeth.

Such as?

You're grasping at straws. The only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is sexual preference. What could they do that heterosexuals could not?

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 05:22 AM
dude why do you keep talking about what evolution "thinks"? evolution doesn't "think" anything it just happens.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:24 AM
dude why do you keep talking about what evolution "thinks"? evolution doesn't "think" anything it just happens.

That's exactly what I've been saying.

"However, it does not think, 'The world isn't big enough, so homosexuality is beneficial to the species.'"

Learn to read.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 05:30 AM
Such as?

You're grasping at straws. The only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is sexual preference. What could they do that heterosexuals could not?

if homosexuals can't reproduce naturally (which as you keep pointing out, they can't), they can contribute to the care and feeding of their nieces and nephews. If you have two straight guys, they're both gonna have kids and both need to concentrate on taking care of their own kids. you have a straight guy with a gay brother, maybe his brother is gonna go out with the hunters and bring home some bison meat for his brothers kids. Maybe if you have a gay brother, your kids are much more likely to survive into adulthood cuz they didn't have to compete with their cousins for food or whatever. If you have two straight sisters and one dies in childbirth, who's gonna take care of her baby? her sister has kids of her own she's gotta nurse and clean and protect from sabre-tooth-tigers, but if she has a lesbian sisters, with no kids of her own, she can do it. I have no fucking clue if any of this is true but come on dude, use your imagination.

even today, childless gay people (and lots of people without kids) pay taxes for all kinds of shit that benefits other people's kids while using none of those resources for their own kids (cuz they don't have any).

~Maya~
11-30-2008, 05:33 AM
But how do you know that homosexuals were not necessary, or at least advantageous, at some point in the course of human evolution? They might have had some purpose, now completely redundant due to modern technology, just like wisdom teeth.

:yeah:
We also cannot totally exclude gene variants when it comes to homosexuality. If there are some gene variants somewhat responsible for homosexual behavior, then those traits might have other, beneficial effects just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anemia is maintained because it reduces the severity or prevents a person from contracting malaria.

Clydey, why are you totally excluding the genetic factor?

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:34 AM
if homosexuals can't reproduce naturally (which as you keep pointing out, they can't), they can contribute to the care and feeding of their nieces and nephews. If you have two straight guys, they're both gonna have kids and both need to concentrate on taking care of their own kids. you have a straight guy with a gay brother, maybe his brother is gonna go out with the hunters and bring home some bison meat for his brothers kids. Maybe if you have a gay brother, your kids are much more likely to survive into adulthood cuz they didn't have to compete with their cousins for food or whatever. If you have two straight sisters and one dies in childbirth, who's gonna take care of her baby? her sister has kids of her own she's gotta nurse and clean and protect from sabre-tooth-tigers, but if she has a lesbian sisters, with no kids of her own, she can do it. I have no fucking clue if any of this is true but come on dude, use your imagination.

even today, childless gay people (and lots of people without kids) pay taxes for all kinds of shit that benefits other people's kids while using none of those resources for their own kids (cuz they don't have any).

I never at any point said that homosexuals cannot produce naturally. Of course they can. They simply choose partners that they cannot reproduce with.

Worker bees evolved for a purpose. They were selected. Homosexuality is not selected. It's not a heritable trait.

Homosexuals can reproduce. Worker bees cannot. It's that simple.

LinkMage
11-30-2008, 05:36 AM
:yawn:
:zzz:

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:37 AM
:yeah:
We also cannot totally exclude gene variants when it comes to homosexuality. If there are some gene variants somewhat responsible for homosexual behavior, then those traits might have other, beneficial effects just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anemia is maintained because it reduces the severity or prevents a person from contracting malaria.

Clydey, why are you totally excluding the genetic factor?

I'm not totally excluding it. As I said on the first page, there is no real evidence to suggest that there is a "gay gene". That's why I'm continuing as though it's not heritable. Until there's real evidence, I'm not goig to argue as though it's likely.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 05:37 AM
Ok then revise it to say "homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally with each other."

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:40 AM
Ok then revise it to say "homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally with each other."

Yes, but they can reproduce and there is no real evidence to suggest that it is a heritable trait. Therefore, evolution hasn't selected it. Worker bees, on the other hand, cannot reproduce and have been selected for a purpose other than their own ability to reproduce.

~Maya~
11-30-2008, 05:44 AM
I'm not totally excluding it. As I said on the first page, there is no real evidence to suggest that there is a "gay gene". That's why I'm continuing as though it's not heritable. Until there's real evidence, I'm not goig to argue as though it's likely.

Then, how can you argue that homosexuals are evolutionary inferior? There is a lack of evidence to support such argument. Hence, the argument is pointless.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 05:49 AM
Then, how can you argue that homosexuals are evolutionary inferior? There is a lack of evidence to support such argument. Hence, the argument is pointless.

I've been over this continuously. That isn't the argument I'm making.

You'll forgive me if I don't restate the same thing again. I'm not trying to be awkward. I'm just tired of reiterating the same thing over and over. Forgive me, dude.

Snoo Foo
11-30-2008, 06:12 AM
they can reproduce

so much for your biological-evolutionary-inferiority idea :yeah:

Clydey
11-30-2008, 06:15 AM
so much for your biological-evolutionary-inferiority idea :yeah:

I didn't say they were biologically inferior. I stated explicitly that they are in no way biologically inferior. I'm not getting through to you, so we might as well end the discussion.

opeth84
11-30-2008, 06:26 AM
It cannot be disputed that they are inferior from an evolutionary perspective. Arguing otherwise is absurd. I thought we had cleared this up earlier when everyone seemingly began to understand the simplicity of what I was saying. I am not advocating social darwinism or saying that homosexuals are worth less than heterosexuals. I clarified what Prima Donna was trying to say. That's all.


Originally Posted by gio View Post
Then, how can you argue that homosexuals are evolutionary inferior? There is a lack of evidence to support such argument. Hence, the argument is pointless.


I've been over this continuously. That isn't the argument I'm making.

You'll forgive me if I don't restate the same thing again. I'm not trying to be awkward. I'm just tired of reiterating the same thing over and over. Forgive me, dude.


Your not making much sense then because that is exactly what you said. Im in a relationship myself with a girl who was born a genetic male. I don't consider myself homosexual but im sure that i would be classed that under your general grouping of straight or gay. But it's so much deeper then that. And then add bi-sexual people to the mix. And theres straight heterosexual people who choose to never have children, are they any less evolutionary inferior then a homosexual who also chooses not to procreate?

prima donna
11-30-2008, 06:31 AM
Good grief!

Clydey
11-30-2008, 06:34 AM
Your not making much sense then because that is exactly what you said. Im in a relationship myself with a girl who was born a genetic male. I don't consider myself homosexual but im sure that i would be classed that under your general grouping of straight or gay. But it's so much deeper then that. And then add bi-sexual people to the mix. And theres straight heterosexual people who choose to never have children, are they any less evolutionary inferior then a homosexual who also chooses not to procreate?

Read both threads. I'm not going to answer the same question continuously. I am saying that homosexuals are inferior from an evolutionary perspective, but not in the way gio thinks. It's time the discussion ended, as we're getting nowhere. Agree to disagree.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 06:35 AM
Good grief!

Tell me about it.

JolánGagó
11-30-2008, 06:40 AM
Some people are campaigning a bit too early for ACC 2009 :retard:

prima donna
11-30-2008, 06:43 AM
I can't believe some of the things that I'm reading.

opeth84
11-30-2008, 06:55 AM
Read both threads. I'm not going to answer the same question continuously. I am saying that homosexuals are inferior from an evolutionary perspective, but not in the way gio thinks. It's time the discussion ended, as we're getting nowhere. Agree to disagree.

I see what your saying mate but i just think there is still way too many variables here. I know your not trying to offend anyone but using the word "inferior" won't help.

I can't believe some of the things that I'm reading.


Good grief!

Just what i think when i read all of your troll posts :)

LocoPorElTenis
11-30-2008, 08:02 AM
Because the basic aim of evolution is procreation. The mechanism of evolution doesn't think. It doesn't consider technology or morality. We are driven to reproduce so that the species can endure when we are gone.

Your understanding of evolution is very limited (and wrong). In many species there are infertile individuals who do help the continuation of the species as a whole (worker bees, gay animals who nurture indirect relatives, etc). They are a clear evolutionary advantage. I have no idea how the bees evolved in this way, I guess that's a pretty interesting question, but what is clear is that the social organization of bees (in which a small minority of individuals can reproduce) has been advantageous to species of bees as they have thrived for millions of years.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 12:43 PM
Your understanding of evolution is very limited (and wrong). In many species there are infertile individuals who do help the continuation of the species as a whole (worker bees, gay animals who nurture indirect relatives, etc). They are a clear evolutionary advantage. I have no idea how the bees evolved in this way, I guess that's a pretty interesting question, but what is clear is that the social organization of bees (in which a small minority of individuals can reproduce) has been advantageous to species of bees as they have thrived for millions of years.

I have a very healthy understanding of evolution. Your inability to comprehend my meaning is the issue. Homosexuals are not infertile. They are not the same as worker bees. This is like banging my head off of a brick wall.

Worker bees have an evolutionary purpose. They were selected. Homosexuality is not a heritable trait and was not selected. There is a very clear difference. Worker bees cannot reproduce, whereas homosexuals can. These are differences that you seem to be missing.

I'm being as clear as I can. The only point I made is that homosexuals are less likely to pass on their genes because of their sexual preference. It's that simple.

scoobs
11-30-2008, 01:02 PM
Evolution does not take into account outside sources, technological advancements etc. Evolution, for better or worse, drives us to procreate.

You have to look at evolution at its most basic: survival of the species. Evolution does not know how big our planet is or whether overpopulation would be an issue. It simply drives us to procreate.

Evolution does not know how big our planet is or whether overpopulation would be an issue but these are still very important evolutionary factors. In nature, a "successful" species will continue to procreate until it reaches a natural barrier to population growth - usually availability of habitable land or resources like food, water etc. At that point competition takes over for these limited resources and according to Darwin, the members of the species with "better" characteristics will outlast the weaker ones and survive the competition and go on to procreate, thus ensuring the beneficial characteristics are passed on genetically and thus promoting evolution, achieving a balance with the environment in which they live.

Man is a slightly different matter because increasingly, man's own activities have interfered with this "weak will perish, strong will survive" model. Because of thing like government, organization, social conscience, man is in many cases not reduced to the simple competition for survival in their immediate environment. This allows the continuation of characteristics that might not be considered the "strongest" in pure evolutionary terms.


I doubt any evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

It's just a matter of taste.

In Ancient Greece and Rome, it was the only kind of intercourse intended for pleasure.

Were all Romans and Greeks genetically homosexual?

Bullshit.

Well the jury's still out on whether homosexuality is a genetic factor, as a result of environmental factors, or some combination of the two. I find it largely irrelevant, anyway. I do know I did not make any conscious choice to be homosexual, it's just something that I am, and I felt attraction towards other men (not sexually, but simply finding them attractive) when I was still a young child and didn't have the first idea what it meant or whether it was a good idea. Even now, where in large parts of the world it's "easier" to be homosexual that it has been for a good many hundreds of years, I'm not sure many would consciously choose to be so. If it is a matter of taste, in my case and many cases, it's a taste that I got whether I liked it or not, like my love of chocolate and my loathing of celery.

I think what ancient Roman and Greek times etc shows is that homosexuality - at least in the sense of performing homosexual acts - can be an acquired taste. Such is also shown in places like prisons, where the absence of opportunities with the opposite sex lead people to "make do" with what they can get. It might not be their preferred option but they can still do it and get pleasure out of it. Once the initial mental block is overcome about doing it homosexually, they discover that the anatomical arrangements are slightly different and maybe not their first choice, but there's still a lot of fun to be had in spite of that.

scoobs
11-30-2008, 01:06 PM
I have a very healthy understanding of evolution. Your inability to comprehend my meaning is the issue. Homosexuals are not infertile. They are not the same as worker bees. This is like banging my head off of a brick wall.

Worker bees have an evolutionary purpose. They were selected. Homosexuality is not a heritable trait and was not selected. There is a very clear difference. Worker bees cannot reproduce, whereas homosexuals can. These are differences that you seem to be missing.

I'm being as clear as I can. The only point I made is that homosexuals are less likely to pass on their genes because of their sexual preference. It's that simple.
I don't see where this certainty arises that "homosexuality" is not a heritable trait.

Yes, homosexuality is not a directly dominant/recessive characteristic so it's not directly passed on in the same way as blue eyes, haemophilia and so on.

However they may be a genetic component to it which, in combination with other factors, perhaps to do with chemical balances in the womb at certain key development points in the foetus, may lead to a greater likelihood that the child will ultimately display homosexual tendencies. The point is, the jury is still out on how much it can be put down to genetics, so it seems silly to baldy assert that it has nothing at all to do with evolution.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 01:16 PM
Evolution does not know how big our planet is or whether overpopulation would be an issue but these are still very important evolutionary factors. In nature, a "successful" species will continue to procreate until it reaches a natural barrier to population growth - usually availability of habitable land or resources like food, water etc. At that point competition takes over for these limited resources and according to Darwin, the members of the species with "better" characteristics will outlast the weaker ones and survive the competition and go on to procreate, thus ensuring the beneficial characteristics are passed on genetically and thus promoting evolution, achieving a balance with the environment in which they live.

Man is a slightly different matter because increasingly, man's own activities have interfered with this "weak will perish, strong will survive" model. Because of thing like government, organization, social conscience, man is in many cases not reduced to the simple competition for survival in their immediate environment. This allows the continuation of characteristics that might not be considered the "strongest" in pure evolutionary terms.



I totally agree. At no point have I contradicted anything that you said. To put it simply, self-awareness is what separates us from other species'. We do not follow Darwinian principles. We care for our sick, we help those who are less fortunate than us.

The only point I was trying to make is that homosexuals are much less likely to pass on their genes. It isn't hard to grasp, but people continually came along and completely misunderstood what I was saying.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 01:23 PM
I don't see where this certainty arises that "homosexuality" is not a heritable trait.

Yes, homosexuality is not a directly dominant/recessive characteristic so it's not directly passed on in the same way as blue eyes, haemophilia and so on.

However they may be a genetic component to it which, in combination with other factors, perhaps to do with chemical balances in the womb at certain key development points in the foetus, may lead to a greater likelihood that the child will ultimately display homosexual tendencies. The point is, the jury is still out on how much it can be put down to genetics, so it seems silly to baldy assert that it has nothing at all to do with evolution.

I am approaching the discussion as though homosexuality is not a heritable trait. As yet there is no real evidence for it. If you read the first page, you will notice that I said that homosexuality might be genetic, but that I'm not going to take into consideration everything that might be true. It's best to deal with known facts, not conjecture.

scoobs
11-30-2008, 01:30 PM
I am approaching the discussion as though homosexuality is not a heritable trait. As yet there is no real evidence for it. If you read the first page, you will notice that I said that homosexuality might be genetic, but that I'm not going to take into consideration everything that might be true. It's best to deal with known facts, not conjecture.
So are you going to start a discussion starting with the base assumption that homosexuality is a genetic trait, in the interests of covering all sides of this?

I can see the point of making one basic assumption and then following that line to its logical conclusion but in the interests of balance the other possibility should be considered and followed logically too, no?

Clydey
11-30-2008, 01:40 PM
So are you going to start a discussion starting with the base assumption that homosexuality is a genetic trait, in the interests of covering all sides of this?

I can see the point of making one basic assumption and then following that line to its logical conclusion but in the interests of balance the other possibility should be considered and followed logically too, no?

I follow the evidence, not assumptions. While homosexuality may very well be genetic, evidence does not yet support the claim. I'm not going to factor unsupported claims into every argument. I conceded that it's possible, but there is no point taking into account everything that might be possible.

MisterQ
11-30-2008, 01:42 PM
Well the jury's still out on whether homosexuality is a genetic factor, as a result of environmental factors, or some combination of the two. I find it largely irrelevant, anyway. I do know I did not make any conscious choice to be homosexual, it's just something that I am, and I felt attraction towards other men (not sexually, but simply finding them attractive) when I was still a young child and didn't have the first idea what it meant or whether it was a good idea. Even now, where in large parts of the world it's "easier" to be homosexual that it has been for a good many hundreds of years, I'm not sure many would consciously choose to be so. If it is a matter of taste, in my case and many cases, it's a taste that I got whether I liked it or not, like my love of chocolate and my loathing of celery.


Are those who loathe celery evolutionarily inferior?

Both sides have a strong case. In today's hypercaloric environment, a loathing of celery could surely divert one to white breads and candies. Not good for the species! But in days gone by, a celery aversion could lead one to stop get off his/her primitive behind and go slay a yak or something, with much greater caloric yield for the long winters.

scoobs
11-30-2008, 01:51 PM
I follow the evidence, not assumptions. While homosexuality may very well be genetic, evidence does not yet support the claim. I'm not going to factor unsupported claims into every argument. I conceded that it's possible, but there is no point taking into account everything that might be possible.
Whoa, hold on there.

Evidence does not support the claims that it is NOT genetic at the moment either.

It's simply unknown either way.

You are making the assumption that it isn't and basing your argument on it. The evidence does not contradict your assumption but let's be clear, the evidence does not support it either - you are proceeding as though it does.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 02:01 PM
Whoa, hold on there.

Evidence does not support the claims that it is NOT genetic at the moment either.

It's simply unknown either way.

You are making the assumption that it isn't and basing your argument on it. The evidence does not contradict your assumption but let's be clear, the evidence does not support it either - you are proceeding as though it does.

You can prove that homosexuality is genetic. You cannot prove that it isn't. We may never be able to. Certain claims simply cannot be debunked.

There is no proof that unicorns don't exist. Should I hedge my bets?

its.like.that
11-30-2008, 02:05 PM
In my country, we have such things as egg donors, and the men can choose where to put their sperm just as easily as women can choose whose sperm they get.

your country sounds kinda gay dude.

scoobs
11-30-2008, 02:10 PM
You can prove that homosexuality is genetic. You cannot prove that it isn't. We may never be able to. Certain claims simply cannot be debunked.

There is no proof that unicorns don't exist. Should I hedge my bets?
You cannot, with the technology we have, prove that it is. There is no overwhelming proof in either direction.

This isn't about trying to prove a negative. Either they will be able to prove homosexuality is wholly or partly genetically based in the future, or they will not. They have mapped the human genome but they are a long long way from understanding what every single gene may or may not have an impact on and knowledge in this area is in constant development. One would assume, given the dogged determination of scientists, that at some point they will be able to give a strong inclination towards an assertion on this matter and that will have to settle the question. They will either assert with confidence that there are genetic factors, or with sufficient understanding of the genome assert that no evidence has been found to suggest a genetic link, thereby by default proving that it is down to environment or other factors.

At the moment nothing has been proved either way and indeed, there is no reason at all other than personal opinion for people to assume one probable cause is the more likely than the other.

So you are making an assumption for the purposes of this argument while declaring making the other assumption is invalid and pointless. Interesting.

cmurray
11-30-2008, 02:10 PM
I shouldn't even respond to this thread. Really, I ought to know better - but what the hell.

I fail to see why evolution has anything to do with this topic whatsoever. As you've stated Clydey, humans generally do not adhere to a strict interpretation of survival of the fittest anyway. We're still looking for a cure for cancer, AIDS and heart disease. Pure Darwinism would dictate that it would be a GOOD thing to eliminate these weaker members from the gene pool. Obviously, we don't think that way.

Your argument that homosexuals are inferior based on their odds of procreating is bad logic. The fact of the matter is that if they are CAPABLE of procreating, then they are not inferior. If you had said that a sterile man or woman is evolutionarily inferior, I might agree on some level. But your argument that they are "less likely" to have offspring doesn't matter. There was a time that it was highly unlikely for an unmarried person to have children. According to your theory, single people would then have been inferior. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

scoobs
11-30-2008, 02:14 PM
I shouldn't even respond to this thread. Really, I ought to know better - but what the hell.

I fail to see why evolution has anything to do with this topic whatsoever. As you've stated Clydey, humans generally do not adhere to a strict interpretation of survival of the fittest anyway. We're still looking for a cure for cancer, AIDS and heart disease. Pure Darwinism would dictate that it would be a GOOD thing to eliminate these weaker members from the gene pool. Obviously, we don't think that way.

Your argument that homosexuals are inferior based on their odds of procreating is bad logic. The fact of the matter is that if they are CAPABLE of procreating, then they are not inferior. If you had said that a sterile man or woman is evolutionarily inferior, I might agree on some level. But your argument that they are "less likely" to have offspring doesn't matter. There was a time that it was highly unlikely for an unmarried person to have children. According to your theory, single people would then have been inferior. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
In the context of the population explosion on this planet and the likely competition for resources that will ensue if that growth is not checked, I for one think homosexuality, and the decreased likelihood of procreation that ensues, is a good thing for the planet and mankind. One of the best ways I can conserve the planet at this critical time is to not inflict another branch to the human family tree upon it :)

Clydey
11-30-2008, 02:19 PM
I shouldn't even respond to this thread. Really, I ought to know better - but what the hell.

I fail to see why evolution has anything to do with this topic whatsoever. As you've stated Clydey, humans generally do not adhere to a strict interpretation of survival of the fittest anyway. We're still looking for a cure for cancer, AIDS and heart disease. Pure Darwinism would dictate that it would be a GOOD thing to eliminate these weaker members from the gene pool. Obviously, we don't think that way.

Your argument that homosexuals are inferior based on their odds of procreating is bad logic. The fact of the matter is that if they are CAPABLE of procreating, then they are not inferior. If you had said that a sterile man or woman is evolutionarily inferior, I might agree on some level. But your argument that they are "less likely" to have offspring doesn't matter. There was a time that it was highly unlikely for an unmarried person to have children. According to your theory, single people would then have been inferior. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

They are capable of it, but they choose partners that they cannot reproduce with. I made a simple statement that people failed to grasp. When I say "from an evolutionary perspective", I'm not talking about selection. I am simply talking about the likelihood of reproducing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Heterosexual people are more likely to reproduce. That is what it boils down to. Everything else is, quite frankly, irrelevant. This whole discussion evolved from certain posters' inability to understand a simple statement. I made no claim beyond stating that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. You don't agree with my definition of evolutionary inferiority. That's fine. We're merely arguing semantics.

cmurray
11-30-2008, 02:19 PM
In the context of the population explosion on this planet and the likely competition for resources that will ensue if that growth is not checked, I for one think homosexuality, and the decreased likelihood of procreation that ensues, is a good thing for the planet and mankind. One of the best ways I can conserve the planet at this critical time is to not inflict another branch to the human family tree upon it :)

That too. Maybe it's just a built-in fail-safe. Who knows.

scoobs
11-30-2008, 02:22 PM
That too. Maybe it's just a built-in fail-safe. Who knows.
Right.

And I've decided I don't care - it's Sunday, and I can find better things to do then do the whole homosexuality debate again - I got sucked in too far as it is :)

Clydey
11-30-2008, 02:22 PM
You cannot, with the technology we have, prove that it is. There is no overwhelming proof in either direction.



And what overwhelming proof is there that unicorns don't exist?

Clydey
11-30-2008, 02:25 PM
Right.

And I've decided I don't care - it's Sunday, and I can find better things to do then do the whole homosexuality debate again - I got sucked in too far as it is :)

What we are debating is completely besides the point. This grew out of people misunderstanding what I meant.

Homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. That's all I said, yet people took it the wrong way and the discussion evolved into something else entirely.

I have a shitload to do for uni on Tuesday. I really don't want to be discussing this either, but I have to continually clarify my position.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 02:28 PM
That too. Maybe it's just a built-in fail-safe. Who knows.

It may well be. However, what has been lost in all of this is what I originally said. I made no claim beyond one simple statement, until people started foaming at the mouth because they thought I was suggesting that homosexuals are somehow morally or biologically inferior.

scoobs
11-30-2008, 02:29 PM
And what overwhelming proof is there that unicorns don't exist?
Totally irrelevant aside.

But to answer your question.

The majority of the surface of the planet has been explored and no evidence of this creature has been found. It would be dumb to assert that the creature does not exist if the Earth had been 5% mapped but inevitably you reach a point where you would expect to find the evidence or you can conclude that it most likely doesn't exist. That's where we are with unicorns.

Since we are a long way from even getting close to understanding the human genome, it's way too soon to assert that there is no evidence. There's no evidence to this date. In time, scientists will reach a point where they know the genome much better and may well be able to say at that point that it's highly unlikely to be genetic. We are not at that time yet.

What you are doing is sitting in Cheadle and saying there are no unicorns because nobody has ever seen them, but nobody has ever been to Australia so how can they possibly know that?

scoobs
11-30-2008, 02:31 PM
What we are debating is completely besides the point. This grew out of people misunderstanding what I meant.

Homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. That's all I said, yet people took it the wrong way and the discussion evolved into something else entirely.

I have a shitload to do for uni on Tuesday. I really don't want to be discussing this either, but I have to continually clarify my position.
Well I don't see why. Homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. I don't find that at all controversial. I know I'm less likely to reproduce, I have no intention of doing so at all. Even though from time to time I muse that it's unfair to the world to deny it my progeny, not to pass one some of the wonder that is me, but I concluded the best way to leave the world a legacy is to spend my time contributing to pointless debates on the internet in the hope that these writings will someday be discovered and I will be canonized posthumously :)

l_mac
11-30-2008, 02:38 PM
scoobs :lol:

Clydey, what is your argument/point?

Clydey
11-30-2008, 02:38 PM
Totally irrelevant aside.

But to answer your question.

The majority of the surface of the planet has been explored and no evidence of this creature has been found. It would be dumb to assert that the creature does not exist if the Earth had been 5% mapped but inevitably you reach a point where you would expect to find the evidence or you can conclude that it most likely doesn't exist. That's where we are with unicorns.

Since we are a long way from even getting close to understanding the human genome, it's way too soon to assert that there is no evidence. There's no evidence to this date. In time, scientists will reach a point where they know the genome much better and may well be able to say at that point that it's highly unlikely to be genetic. We are not at that time yet.

What you are doing is sitting in Cheadle and saying there are no unicorns because nobody has ever seen them, but nobody has ever been to Australia so how can they possibly know that?

There's also nothing to suggest that homosexuality is genetic. We have discovered a great deal about genetics, heritable traits etc. The longer we go without discovering a "gay gene", the more likely it is that no such gene exists. Therefore, at this moment the evidence suggests that it is more likely that homosexuality is not genetic.

You do realise that not every species leaves behind traces of its existence? The reason the fossil record is incomplete is precisely because fossilization is extremely rare.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 02:41 PM
scoobs :lol:

Clydey, what is your argument/point?

My point was that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. That's all. I simply clarified what Prima Donna was trying to say. From there, people started foaming at the mouth because they thought I was suggesting that homosexuals are morally and biologically inferior.

This was despite me stating explicitly that I was making no such claim.

JolánGagó
11-30-2008, 02:45 PM
I really don't want to be discussing this either, but I have to continually clarify my position.

After repeating the same bullshit 193287736 times you can be sure your position is utterly clear. Would you now shut up and move on? :rolleyes:

Clydey
11-30-2008, 02:46 PM
Well I don't see why. Homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. I don't find that at all controversial. I know I'm less likely to reproduce, I have no intention of doing so at all. Even though from time to time I muse that it's unfair to the world to deny it my progeny, not to pass one some of the wonder that is me, but I concluded the best way to leave the world a legacy is to spend my time contributing to pointless debates on the internet in the hope that these writings will someday be discovered and I will be canonized posthumously :)

That's why this discussion is pointless. The only reason I created this thread was to clarify the simplicity of what I was saying. People seemingly couldn't grasp it and thought I was passing judgement on homosexuality. That was never the case.

I'm worried that I won't finish my uni work now. I'm incapable of walking away when my opinions are being misrepresented. It's my cross to bear.

scoobs
11-30-2008, 02:46 PM
There's also nothing to suggest that homosexuality is genetic. We have discovered a great deal about genetics, heritable traits etc. The longer we go without discovering a "gay gene", the more likely it is that no such gene exists. Therefore, at this moment the evidence suggests that it is more likely that homosexuality is not genetic.

You do realise that not every species leaves behind traces of its existence? The reason the fossil record is incomplete is precisely because fossilization is extremely rare.
We have discovered a great deal.

We also have an awful lot more that remains undiscovered - we are nowhere near the point where scientists are prepared to conclude that it isn't genetic, so I don't see why you are prepared to conclude that, except your own opinions on the matter predispose you to do so.

You said the Unicorn DOES not exist, not DID not exist. It may well have existed but no records of it have been found and never will. Perhaps, as you say, if it did exist, it never fossilized.

We can have a whole metaphysical debate on that. Can a creature that lived but left no evidence of having lived be considered to have existed? :)

scoobs
11-30-2008, 02:47 PM
That's why this discussion is pointless. The only reason I created this thread was to clarify the simplicity of what I was saying. People seemingly couldn't grasp it and thought I was passing judgement on homosexuality. That was never the case.

I'm worried that I won't finish my uni work now. I'm incapable of walking away when my opinions are being misrepresented. It's my cross to bear.
Yeah that's something you'll need to get a grip on. Now is it a genetic trait or does it come from environmental factors, I wonder? I think it must be genetic, in the absence of any proof that it's environmental to this date :)

Clydey
11-30-2008, 02:48 PM
After repeating the same bullshit 193287736 times you can be sure your position is utterly clear. Would you know shut up and move on? :rolleyes:

It obviously isn't clear, since people keep coming in and asking the same questions over and over.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 02:52 PM
We have discovered a great deal.

We also have an awful lot more that remains undiscovered - we are nowhere near the point where scientists are prepared to conclude that it isn't genetic, so I don't see why you are prepared to conclude that, except your own opinions on the matter predispose you to do so.

You said the Unicorn DOES not exist, not DID not exist. It may well have existed but no records of it have been found and never will. Perhaps, as you say, if it did exist, it never fossilized.

We can have a whole metaphysical debate on that. Can a creature that lived but left no evidence of having lived be considered to have existed? :)

In the interest of keeping my sanity, I'm not going to answer each of those points. I'm just hoping someone will lock the thread. Such a pointless discussion, all resulting from peoples' inability to understand a simple statement.

q.j.
11-30-2008, 02:55 PM
My point was that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. That's all. I simply clarified what Prima Donna was trying to say. From there, people started foaming at the mouth because they thought I was suggesting that homosexuals are morally and biologically inferior.

This was despite me stating explicitly that I was making no such claim.

this is ridiculous, prima donna started saying xy times that homosexuals are biologically inferior, and then started to explain himself that it is because of the fact that they cannot directly, through homosexual intercourse reproduce, and you are trying to validate his first remark by proving his second, extracting the original connotation from the first one, only to wind up giving meaning and validity to his first point.

Get a clue Clydey

or don't.

scoobs
11-30-2008, 02:56 PM
Well there you go.

Like PD with his "I did nothing wrong!" assertions then admitting he used polemical devices to spark interest (translation: I post inflammatory remarks in emotive language to sucker people into responding), if you're going to use words like "inferior" in your assertions, which CAN BE taken as perjorative even you don't intend them to be in that context, then you shouldn't be surprised if you get a reaction. There are ways you could have expressed the sentiment without bringing controversy down upon your head.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 03:00 PM
this is ridiculous, prima donna started saying xy times that homosexuals are biologically inferior, and then started to explain himself that it is because of the fact that they cannot directly, through homosexual intercourse reproduce, and you are trying to validate her first remark by proving her second, extracting it's original connotation from her first one, therefore giving meaning and validity to her first point.

Get a clue Clydey

or don't.

He said one thing and I clarified what I thought he meant. He confirmed that I was right. If he says that is in fact what he was getting at, who am I to doubt him? He knows what he meant. I can only attempt to clarify what I think he meant.

Take it up with him if you don't like it and quit acting like a spoiled brat.

JolánGagó
11-30-2008, 03:03 PM
Such a pointless discussion, all resulting from peoples' inability to understand a simple statement.

No, I think it's all resulting from your inability to state and, if needed, explain a point without resorting to pseudo-dialectical bullshit. If your point is based on things like "there is no conclusive proof that gayness is genetic, so it must be acquired" you can't expect people just to swallow your theory with a glass of water.

In other words: stick to what you know best. It's utterly clear that you don't know shit about evolution but luv a lenghty bullshiting spree. Parole parole parole....

Clydey
11-30-2008, 03:05 PM
Well there you go.

Like PD with his "I did nothing wrong!" assertions then admitting he used polemical devices to spark interest (translation: I post inflammatory remarks in emotive language to sucker people into responding), if you're going to use words like "inferior" in your assertions, which CAN BE taken as perjorative even you don't intend them to be in that context, then you shouldn't be surprised if you get a reaction. There are ways you could have expressed the sentiment without bringing controversy down upon your head.

I repeated over and over that I was not suggesting that homosexuals are worth less than heterosexuals. I continuously emphasised that I was referring to the likelihood that they will reproduce. I am not responsible for peoples' inability to grasp the meaning of a simple statement. I used "inferior" in a very specific context. I made that absolutely clear.

Clydey
11-30-2008, 03:07 PM
No, I think it's all resulting from your inability to state and, if needed, explain a point without resorting to pseudo-dialectical bullshit. If your point is based on things like "there is no conclusive proof that gayness is genetic, so it must be acquired" you can't expect people just to swallow your theory with a glass of water.

In other words: stick to what you know best. It's utterly clear that you don't know shit about evolution but luv a lenghty bullshiting spree. Parole parole parole....

Ok, I'll stop spouting pseudo-dialectical bullshit. :lol:

JolánGagó
11-30-2008, 03:11 PM
Good.

its.like.that
12-01-2008, 09:59 AM
I think that Feliciano Lopez is gay.

opeth84
12-01-2008, 12:14 PM
I think that Feliciano Lopez is gay.

And is he less likely to reproduce a davis cup effort like 2008 again. :p

alfonsojose
12-01-2008, 01:23 PM
You're not getting it. I have said repeatedly that homosexuality is not wrong and that I am not prescribing Social Darwinism. I also did not suggest that there was a right path. My argument is purely an evolutionary one. It is other people who are taking me in a different direction.

It is a simple fact that homosexuals are much, much less likely to pass on their genes. You are taking the argument in a different direction completely. The only thing I have stated is that homosexuals are inferior from an evolutionary perspective. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not saying that they are worth less, nor am I advocating Social Darwinism. It is simply a fact that heterosexuals are more likely to pass on their genes.

half of men i've met online are married with kids. :cuckoo: Have you ever heard the word CLOSET?

GhostUnholy
12-01-2008, 08:16 PM
Clydey's just saying homosexuals are less reproductively fit, which could be true, if all heterosexual couples had kids and as alfonsojose said, if there were no closet homosexuals who were involved in hetero relationships, etc.

But, people started talking about heritability and why homosexuals wouldn't have dissappeared from the population, and such views are oversimplifications that assume the presence of a "homosexuality gene" or lack thereof.

Genetics are not black and white. Homosexuality could depend on a combination of many genes working together, that each individually yield a reproductive advantage, and thus the combination of allelles producing homosexuality could be created time and time again without fading from the population.

Second, lets consider homosexual men only for an second, because I don't know anything about the effect of hormones on females in the womb. Now consider, what if there were no "gay gene" per say, but instead whether or not a child came out as homosexual depended on the testosterone levels generated by the fetus in the womb (I think this is how it works?), or even depended on levels of simple amino acid hormones crossing the placenta from the mother. Obviously this is all just hypothetical speculation, but perhaps homosexuality could depend on a genes in the MOTHER that regulated the DEVELOPMENT of a child, not on its genetics.

As well, what about the issue of gene EXPRESSION vs. inheritance?

These mechanisms are too subtle for us to sit back and argue about without a good deal more research.

Sunset of Age
12-01-2008, 09:46 PM
^^ Great post. You seem to know quite a bit about genetics and the influence of hormones on a child in the womb...

Are you a doc or a medical biologist (or studying)?

As for the 'homosexuals don't procreate'-opinion - like Alfonsojose said, there still is the CLOSET, and I don't think I am exaggerating if I state that the majority of gays is married with kids, if only regarding the large parts of this planet where being gay is still considered 'a sin', deviant behaviour, etc.

Just try coming out in Iran, for instance. You might well end up hanging from a rope. :help:

~*BGT*~
12-01-2008, 10:51 PM
My point was that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. That's all. I simply clarified what Prima Donna was trying to say. From there, people started foaming at the mouth because they thought I was suggesting that homosexuals are morally and biologically inferior.

This was despite me stating explicitly that I was making no such claim.

Are elderly couples, men with vasectomies and women on birth control biologically inferior?

Sunset of Age
12-01-2008, 11:01 PM
Are elderly couples, men with vasectomies and women on birth control biologically inferior?

Not even to mention the couples who decide to stay childfree, for very good reasons... obviously inferior people, not wanting to pass on their genes! ;)

Clydey
12-02-2008, 12:59 AM
Are elderly couples, men with vasectomies and women on birth control biologically inferior?

Quote where I said that homosexuals are biologically inferior.

Take your time. You'll need it.

Clydey
12-02-2008, 01:00 AM
Not even to mention the couples who decide to stay childfree, for very good reasons... obviously inferior people, not wanting to pass on their genes! ;)

I didn't say homosexuals were biologically inferior. This is what happens when people don't take the time to properly read others' arguments.

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 01:02 AM
I didn't say homosexuals were biologically inferior. This is what happens when people don't take the time to properly read others' arguments.

You didn't say so, I know. I know you're okay, you're just being at the nasty end of recieving the hitting lately. I just wanted to point this out to some others, who obviously didn't give the whole subject a 'second thought'. ;)

JolánGagó
12-02-2008, 01:09 AM
Wasn't this stupid "discussion" already over? :scratch:

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 01:12 AM
Wasn't this stupid "discussion" already over? :scratch:

Unfortunately, as long as Planet Earth is still ruled by Silly Religions and combined prejudice, it is never over... :sad:

GhostUnholy
12-02-2008, 01:32 AM
^^ Great post. You seem to know quite a bit about genetics and the influence of hormones on a child in the womb...

Are you a doc or a medical biologist (or studying)?



Thanks. :)
I wish. I'm a sophomore still majoring biological sciences, but I'm trying to get into med school.

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 01:48 AM
Thanks. :)
I wish. I'm a sophomore still majoring biological sciences, but I'm trying to get into med school.

I somewhere got that impression. ;) :yeah:

Arkulari
12-02-2008, 01:56 AM
Unfortunately, as long as Planet Earth is still ruled by Silly Religions and combined prejudice, it is never over... :sad:

Karin, the issue isn't religion on itself, it's the use some people make of them: fundamentalists, haters, etc; the religions are basically codes of behavior, how people should live (see the Torah for jewish, the Bible for christians, the Qur'an for muslims, etc), and it's up to everyone to take that and make the best or the worst of it but it never actually teaches hate :shrug:

the whole issue is the human nature, that always twists words and make things to their advantage, for example, where in the Bible it says that drinking coffee or smoking isn't permited? :shrug:, it doesn't, but still people take that and twist the words to get what they want :shrug:

even if religions didn't exists, prejudice is an even bigger part of the human race, our inability to respect differences and to live in peace, our most basic animal tells us to reject those who aren't exactly like us :sad:

see in the communist countries, religion wasn't permitted and yet there were tons of prejudices against the homosexuals :sad:

there's nothing more dangerous than a religious/atheist fanatic, because you can buy a normal terrorist, but you cannot buy their faith/lack of :eek:

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 02:12 AM
^^ Great post, Nat.

Still I can't help but to see a lot of prejudice coming mainly from religiously-inspired folks.

As such I'm particularly vulnerable to those who think that they are 'Morally Superior' because they have some kind of 'god' to bow for.

Well, eh - NO. I follow very simple rules - 'don't do to others which you don't want to see done to yourself' - and in that case, there's no 'god' necessary...

In fact, I don't think worshiping a 'god' is necessary at all... :)

JolánGagó
12-02-2008, 02:16 AM
Religious overzeal is just one manifestation of human intolerance. Witness Political correction, nothing to do with religion but IMO the biggest danger right now to some of the basic liberties in our so called "free world".

GhostUnholy
12-02-2008, 02:24 AM
MrsFedex: That's true to an extent, but there are VERY questionable claims in all of those texts, and those for other religions. I do agree though that its human nature and not religion to blame. I guess my disagreement is that I see religion as a product of human nature; I don't see it as human nature distorting religion.

Personally I agree with Stupid Dream (can I just call you Karin since everyone seems to?), religion is not necessary to be an ethical person. I can decide for myself what's right and what's wrong based on a combination of rationality and care for others.

The other thing worth noting I think is that Atheism is every bit as much a religion as Christianity or Islam, it simply requires faith that god doesn't exist. It's still faith all the same and is thus irrational.

And the last amendment I'd make to your otherwise good post MrsFedex is that of course anyone given to ideologically driven violence is dangerous. For instance, the example of communism that you brought up. Sure communism and nazism both embraced some ideals founded in athiesm (LOL @ hitler making a deal with the pope), but the ideologies that drove the radicalism in those countries was not at all religious in nature.

Just my 2 cents. :)

Clydey
12-02-2008, 02:34 AM
MrsFedex: That's true to an extent, but there are VERY questionable claims in all of those texts, and those for other religions. I do agree though that its human nature and not religion to blame. I guess my disagreement is that I see religion as a product of human nature; I don't see it as human nature distorting religion.

Personally I agree with Stupid Dream (can I just call you Karin since everyone seems to?), religion is not necessary to be an ethical person. I can decide for myself what's right and what's wrong based on a combination of rationality and care for others.

The other thing worth noting I think is that Atheism is every bit as much a religion as Christianity or Islam, it simply requires faith that god doesn't exist. It's still faith all the same and is thus irrational.



Atheism requires faith? I really have no idea how you could come to that conclusion. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in deities. It is nothing more and nothing less. That does not require faith. Tell me, do you think that not believing in Zeus requires faith? If I do not believe in Zeus, am I being irrational?

Not believing in something has nothing to do with faith. There are many, many things we do not believe in. Religious people assert that there is a god. The burden of proof, therefore, is on them. To call a lack of belief in a supernatural entity irrational is absurd.

Arkulari
12-02-2008, 02:36 AM
As usual Karin: AWESOME :rocker2: :hug:

excellent post Ghost! (I'm Nat, what's your name? :D )

I think the main point of my post is that not every religious person is a fanatical or thinks it's morally superior to others (I'm catholic and yet I don't keep preaching at anyone, to each one its own)

of course, you know some people that are... :eek:, I know some Opus Dei dudes that make the Pope look liberal :rolleyes:

you cannot judge all religious people on the same basis, my religion gives me sense of peace and a balance to my life, other people don't need it and that's absolutely respetable as well, it's just a way to see life :)

BTW: I agree with you in that are very questionable stuff in the religion books, but you have to understand the time and the culture in which those were written, a lot of things can be still applied in our times (like the Gospels and the Epistles) and others cannot (like Leviticus or the Ecclesiastes, which are more about history than religion itself for christians); also, it all depends on the interpretation you give them, they are usually vague enough to allow a lot of different interpretations ;)

the whole point in here goes beyond religion and politics, it's INTOLERANCE and FEAR OF DIFFERENCES, it's present in every culture, in every politic system, the homosexual population has been one of the most hated and it all comes down to rejection of those who are different :sad:

Clydey: atheism is a faith, because you cannot scientifically prove that God doesn't exist or exist, so it's all about having faith on a higher entity or having other kind of faith (for example, many atheists I know are humanists and have faith on mankind) the rational approach to that matter is called agnosticism: you can't prove that it exists, but cannot prove that it doesn't ;)

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 02:39 AM
Atheism requires faith? I really have no idea how you could come to that conclusion. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in deities. It is nothing more and nothing less. That does not require faith. Tell me, do you think that not believing in Zeus requires faith? If I do not believe in Zeus, am I being irrational?

Not believing in something has nothing to do with faith. There are many, many things we do not believe in. Religious people assert that there is a god. The burden of proof, therefore, is on them. To call a lack of belief in a supernatural entity irrational is absurd.

:)

The whole thing is that some people - yes, that includes me - think there's no need to believe in a 'god'. Why do you feel the need there should be 'Someone looking after us?'- I don't get it. Just treat your fellows like you want to be treated youself, eh?
In the end, all of us just end up 'Dust to Dust'. And there's nothing wrong with that, I think...

Clydey
12-02-2008, 02:46 AM
As usual Karin: AWESOME :rocker2: :hug:

excellent post Ghost! (I'm Nat, what's your name? :D )

I think the main point of my post is that not every religious person is a fanatical or thinks it's morally superior to others (I'm catholic and yet I don't keep preaching at anyone, to each one its own)

of course, you know some people that are... :eek:, I know some Opus Dei dudes that make the Pope look liberal :rolleyes:

you cannot judge all religious people on the same basis, my religion gives me sense of peace and a balance to my life, other people don't need it and that's absolutely respetable as well, it's just a way to see life :)

the whole point in here goes beyond religion and politics, it's INTOLERANCE and FEAR OF DIFFERENCES, it's present in every culture, in every politic system, the homosexual population has been one of the most hated and it all comes down to rejection of those who are different :sad:

Clydey: atheism is a faith, because you cannot scientifically prove that God doesn't exist or exist, so it's all about having faith on a higher entity or having other kind of faith (for example, many atheists I know are humanists and have faith on mankind) the rational approach to that matter is called agnosticism: you can't prove that it exists, but cannot prove that it doesn't ;)

You cannot prove a negative. Can you scientifically prove that fairies don't exist? Of course you can't.

Richard Dawkins described what he feels is a sliding scale of belief.

1. Total belief in a supernatural deity.

4. Undecided.

7. Total disbelief.

Most atheists would consider themselves a 6 on that scale. They have a firm belief that God doesn't exist, but don't assert with 100% conviction. We cannot be certain of anything, after all. Therefore, technically we are agnostics. In practice, we are atheists.

I am an Afairiest, too. I don't believe that fairies exist, but I cannot say that with 100% certainty. No one can. The point is that if you say a supernatural deity exists, the burden of proof is on you. It is literally impossible for anyone to debunk that claim, just as it is impossible for anyone to disprove the existence of fairies.

Is my lack of belief in fairies also irrational?

Arkulari
12-02-2008, 02:48 AM
I do get your point now Clydey ;)
it's up to everyone to believe or not, as long as you don't hurt others, you're free to do with your life and your beliefs (or lack of) as you please :)
what I cannot stand on any level is intolerance, which is the mother (greed is the father :p ) of all human issues :rolleyes:

Clydey
12-02-2008, 02:50 AM
:)

The whole thing is that some people - yes, that includes me - think there's no need to believe in a 'god'. Why do you feel the need there should be 'Someone looking after us?'- I don't get it. Just treat your fellows like you want to be treated youself, eh?
In the end, all of us just end up 'Dust to Dust'. And there's nothing wrong with that, I think...

Exactly. Treat others as you would wish to be treated. The golden rule. As you say, we do not need faith to be good people.

In actual fact, the bible would be a horrible place from which to build a code of ethics. Anyone who has read the old testament knows how appalling our society would be if we got our morality from the bible. It advocates ****, slavery, murder etc.

Over and above all that, I'm interested in the truth. Even if belief in God and subscribing to religion made me eternally happy, I could not force myself to believe in something I believe is completely false.

Clydey
12-02-2008, 02:53 AM
I do get your point now Clydey ;)
it's up to everyone to believe or not, as long as you don't hurt others, you're free to do with your life and your beliefs (or lack of) as you please :)
what I cannot stand on any level is intolerance, which is the mother (greed is the father :p ) of all human issues :rolleyes:

Yes, people are free to believe what they want to believe. I was raised Catholic, in actual fact. I merely objected to another poster suggesting that disbelief in deities is irrational. I really wanted to leave this thread alone, but that comment dragged me back in :lol:

It's unfortunate that religion can be used as a tool for hate. That's the problem. Religion is a powerful tool that allows a person to justify almost any action.

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 02:53 AM
Is my lack of belief in fairies also irrational?

Just as irrational as believing in a 'god' I think. ;)

In Richard Dawkins's Scale of Atheism, I guess I score a 6/7.
Thing is, I have no problem with that at all. One day, we'll just decease to excist, and what's the problem? Come on. I'll just be buried or cremated, and my dust will enable plants to grow - and that's just IT. No need to make ourselves any more important than just *that*.

As long as you're allowed to roam 'Planet Earth', just make the best of it. That's ALL of a religion that I feel attracted to, nothing more... nothing less. ;)

Clydey
12-02-2008, 02:57 AM
Just as irrational as believing in a 'god' I think. ;)

In Richard Dawkins's Scale of Atheism, I guess I score a 6/7.
Thing is, I have no problem with that at all. One day, we'll just decease to excist, and what's the problem? Come on. I'll just be buried or cremated, and my dust will enable plants to grow - and that's just IT. No need to make ourselves any more important than just *that*.

As long as you're allowed to roam 'Planet Earth', just make the best of it. That's ALL of a religion that I feel attracted to, nothing more... nothing less. ;)

I think your stance on religion is pretty close to my own. I'm maybe a little more hostile to the concept of religion than you.

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 02:58 AM
In actual fact, the bible would be a horrible place from which to build a code of ethics. Anyone who has read the old testament knows how appalling our society would be if we got our morality from the bible. It advocates ****, slavery, murder etc.

Yep. Atrocious book, and some call it the 'Word of God???' :retard:

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 03:01 AM
I think your stance on religion is pretty close to my own. I'm maybe a little more hostile to the concept of religion than you.

Let's just say that I'm still open to surprises for that matter, but so far, I haven't seen anything near to that yet - I'm nursing a friend of mine, ten years my junior, who'se suffering from lethal cancer right now.

Thank you God, you FUCKING Misantrope, is all I have to say about that. :angel:

EDIT: If a god indeed exists - it's a bloody Misantrope.
I don't mind going to HELL for saying this!

Clydey
12-02-2008, 03:03 AM
Yep. Atrocious book, and some call it the 'Word of God???' :retard:

You can't really excuse it either. God's word is supposed to be inerrant, so I have no idea how one reconciles one's morality with the old testament.

Don't even get me started on honour killings. I read a horrible story not so long ago about a young muslim girl who became friends with someone in the British army. Her father objected to this and began to beat her to death for bringing shame on the family. Her mother called on her brothers to stop the father. However, the brothers joined in and helped their father beat the girl to death.

That infuriates me.

Clydey
12-02-2008, 03:05 AM
Let's just say that I'm still open to surprises for that matter, but so far, I haven't seen anything near to that yet - I'm nursing a friend of mine, ten years my junior, who'se suffering from lethal cancer right now.

Thank you God, you FUCKING Misantrope, is all I have to say about that. :angel:

EDIT: If a god indeed exists - it's a bloody Misantrope.
I don't mind going to HELL for saying this!

Exactly. You just have to look at what goes on in the world, all the injustices, the atrocities. If a God does exist, is it a God even worth worshipping?

Arkulari
12-02-2008, 03:06 AM
very valid points guys, but like I said: you cannot judge all religious people for the mistakes of some of them ;)

and I gotta repeat myself: more dangerous than religion itself is INTOLERANCE, you can be religious and be tolerant or atheist and intolerant or all the way around, both things aren't mutually exclusive ;)

I don't agree with everything the church does, but I do try to live my religion as I think it should be lived, don't follow the Bible blindly (after all, there's free will ;) ) I live happy and it gives me a sense of direction and of peace, so it's good for me :)

my family is very religious (my mom goes to church every day :lol: ), I have two uncles who are jesuits but still I'm not a blind follower and I can respect atheists and other religions, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything :shrug:

it's not about critics of other people's beliefs or lack of them, it's about respecting each other as humans and our differences :)

~*BGT*~
12-02-2008, 03:09 AM
Quote where I said that homosexuals are biologically inferior.

Take your time. You'll need it.

Clydey, shut up! :rolleyes:

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 03:35 AM
Exactly. You just have to look at what goes on in the world, all the injustices, the atrocities. If a God does exist, is it a God even worth worshipping?

I don't think so. I will be very happy rotting down in the ground when I die. :angel:

and I gotta repeat myself: more dangerous than religion itself is INTOLERANCE, you can be religious and be tolerant or atheist and intolerant or all the way around, both things aren't mutually exclusive ;)


:worship:

BTW, don't misunderstand me - I think there is a lot of value in religion after all - but I'd rather follow Jesus' words than the official Church's. Jesus was indeed a Good Fella - but OMG, not his followers, I think - the institutional Catholic Church, I mean.

Yep, for your information, I was brought up as a catholic as well. ;)

Arkulari
12-02-2008, 03:42 AM
I'm a catholic, but sometimes the church is... :eek:

I know excellent people on it, some awesome priests and missionaries who are very devoted to help people, but usually higher ranges like bishops are :shout:

I'm not blind to the sins of the church I belong to, but like I said: it is formed by humans, so there are a lot of the best and worst of humanity on it ;)

I don't know if you speak spanish (if you don't I can translate), but there is a beautiful song about this...

it's called Jesus verbo no sustantivo (Jesus is a verb, not a sustantive)

2xPe9_D0q_M

Ayer, Jesus afino mi guitarra y agudizo mis sentidos, me inspiro
Papel y lapiz en mano apunto la cancion y me negue a escribir
Porque hablar y escribir sobre Jesus es redundar, seria mejor actuar
Luego, algo me dijo que la unica forma de no redundar es decir la verdad
Decir que a Jesus le gusta que actuemos no que hablemos
Decir que Jesus es mas que cinco letras formando un nombre
Decir que Jesus es verbo no sustantivo

Jesus es mas que una simple y llana teoria
¿Que haces hermano leyendo la Biblia todo el dia?
Lo que alli esta escrito se resume en amor vamos, ve y practicalo
Jesus hermanos mios es verbo, no sustantivo

Jesus es mas que un templo de lujo con tendencia barroca
El sabe que total a la larga esto no es mas que roca
La iglesia se lleva en el alma y en los actos no se te olvide
Que Jesus hermanos mios es verbo, no sustantivo

Jesus es mas que un grupo de señoras de muy negra conciencia
Que pretenden ganarse el cielo con club de beneficencia
Si quieres tu ser miembro activa, tendras que presentar a la directiva
Tu cuenta de ahorros en Suiza y vinculos oficiales

Jesus es mas que persignarse, hincarse y hacer de esto alarde
El sabe que quiza por dentro la conciencia les arde
Jesus es mas que una flor en el altar salvadora de pecados
Jesus hermanos mios es verbo, no sustantivo

Jesus convertia en hechos todos sus sermones
Que si tomas cafe es pecado dicen los Mormones
Tienen tan poco que hacer que andan inventando cada cosa
Jesus hermanos mios es verbo, no sustantivo

Jesus no entiende por que en el culto le aplauden
Hablan de honestidad sabiendo que el diezmo es un fraude
A Jesus le da asco el pastor que se hace rico con la fe
Jesus hermanos mios es verbo, no sustantivo

De mi barrio la mas religiosa era doña Carlota
Hablaba de amor al projimo y me poncho cien pelotas
Desde niño fui aprendiendo que la religion no es mas que un metodo
Con el titulo prohibido pensar que ya todo esta escrito

Me bautizaron cuando tenia dos meses y a mi no me avisaron
Hubo fiesta piñata y a mi ni me preguntaron
Bautizame tu Jesus por favor asi entre amigos
Se que odias el protocolo hermano mio

Señores no dividan la fe las fronteras son para los paises
En este mundo hay mas religiones que niños felices
Jesus penso "me hare invisible para que todos mis hermanos
Dejen de estar hablando tanto de mi y se tiendan la mano"

Jesus eres el mejor testigo del amor que te profeso
Tengo la conciencia tranquila por eso no me confieso
Rezando dos padres nuestros el asesino no revive a su muerto
Jesus hermanos mios es verbo no sustantivo

Jesus no bajes a la tierra quedate alla arriba
Todos los que han pensado como tu ya estan boca arriba
Olvidados en algun cementerio, de equipaje sus ideales
Murieron con la sonrisa en los labios porque fueron
Verbo y no sustantivo

GhostUnholy
12-02-2008, 03:53 AM
excellent post Ghost! (I'm Nat, what's your name? :D )

I'm Rohan, good to meet(?) you. :)
I agree with your clarifications too.

You cannot prove a negative. Can you scientifically prove that fairies don't exist? Of course you can't.

Most atheists would consider themselves a 6 on that scale. They have a firm belief that God doesn't exist, but don't assert with 100% conviction. We cannot be certain of anything, after all. Therefore, technically we are agnostics. In practice, we are atheists.

I am an Afairiest, too. I don't believe that fairies exist, but I cannot say that with 100% certainty. No one can. The point is that if you say a supernatural deity exists, the burden of proof is on you. It is literally impossible for anyone to debunk that claim, just as it is impossible for anyone to disprove the existence of fairies.

Is my lack of belief in fairies also irrational?

While you are right, deductive reasoning cannot prove that god doesn't exist, you need to recognize something.

The statement of Atheism is that God does not exist. (a negative)
Therefore, you are stating that the universe was not created by god. (a negative)
Therefore you are stating that reality/the universe originated by some other means.

You could demonstrate that "god", in one of the senses denoted by an organized religion, does not exist by determining a true, and obviously different, origin and nature of reality/the universe. Yes I realize this is impossible for us now, but who can say whether or not it will ALWAYS be beyond the means of humanity?

The issue is not really one of disproving a negative.

Second, I know i just played off semantics here. When I said athiesm is irrational, I mean to say that belief that no kind of higher power exists in the world, as any higher power of any kind could be given a symbol, or not if you so chose, and called a deity. Given our limited knowledge regarding the origins of the universe I think it would be irrational for anyone to claim pure athiesm and say with 100% conviction that no higher power exists. And I assume you mean disproving the existence of the specific dieties postulated by the organized religions that exist in our world. In that you would be correct, it is no different than trying to disprove the belief in fairies, or any other imaginary construct.

Also, you are right. Being a 6 on the scale of athiesm technically makes you an agnostic. Which is rational.

:)

In the end, all of us just end up 'Dust to Dust'. And there's nothing wrong with that, I think...

Here's my personal (and i guess probably strange) view:
The laws of conservation of energy and matter are essentially an athiest/agnostic's immortality, especially if you consider frames of reference. One frame of reference could be the level of society, where we view things on the level of organisms (ourselves). Another frame of reference could be the molecular or cellular levels. Alternatively, you could look at the universe as a single isolated system. You as a human being are simply a piece of that system, composed of simpler parts (matter and energy when it gets down to it). When you die, it is not some spiritual event, those simpler parts are simply being recycled to construct other elements of the greater isolated system. There is nothing to fear or be sad about in dying, you are simply changing form from being one part of reality at large to another.

I thank physics and chemistry for my peace of mind. :)

Arkulari
12-02-2008, 03:57 AM
chemists to the power! :rocker2: :lol:
nice to meet you Rohan! :hug: :yeah:

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 04:06 AM
I'm Rohan, good to meet(?) you. :)
I agree with your clarifications too.

I thank physics and chemistry for my peace of mind. :)

Hi there, Rohan! Beautiful name you have... :worship:

Yeah, I fully agree with you there. My dust will supply the grass, the birds, the animals to live on... nothing wrong with that.
In all, I think it is a kind-of-a-comforting thought.

Isn't it a rather egocentric thought that we, mere stupid humans, are more important than that? I think so. Face it, Planet Earth has been there without us for a gazillion of years - don't overestimate your personal importance... ;)

Clydey
12-02-2008, 04:20 AM
While you are right, deductive reasoning cannot prove that god doesn't exist, you need to recognize something.

The statement of Atheism is that God does not exist. (a negative)
Therefore, you are stating that the universe was not created by god. (a negative)
Therefore you are stating that reality/the universe originated by some other means.



You are presupposing that there was a beginning. We seek patterns. It is what the mind demands. Since everything else has a beginning, we assume the universe must also have a beginning. In reality, it is most logical to suggest that there was in fact no beginning.

By stating that the universe had a beginning, all you are doing is postulating an infinite regress. God created the universe, but who created God? Who created the God that created the God that created the universe? It just goes on and on.

Atheists do not state that God does not exist. We state that we believe there exists no God. It is no more irrational than not believing in fairies or unicorns.



You could demonstrate that "god", in one of the senses denoted by an organized religion, does not exist by determining a true, and obviously different, origin and nature of reality/the universe. Yes I realize this is impossible for us now, but who can say whether or not it will ALWAYS be beyond the means of humanity?



By that criteria, we have already disproved God's existence. The Genesis story has long since been debunked, so that proves that <insert holy book of your choice here> is mistaken.

There are so many Gods people have believed in over the years that you would need to specify which God we're trying to disprove. If the universe does have an origin, discovering it would not disprove the existence of a supreme being. Such a discovery would simply mean that the universe wasn't created by a supreme being. It is utterly impossible to disprove any God's existence. It doesn't matter what technology we have. You simply cannot disprove something like that.

As we know, religion changes with the times. Catholics have been forced to reconcile their beliefs with the theory of evolution. Debunking parts of the bible does not disprove God's existence. It can't be done.



The issue is not really one of disproving a negative.


Yes, it is. As I explained, discovering the universe's origins does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a deity, just as the theory of evolution did not debunk the Judaeo-Christian God.

GhostUnholy
12-02-2008, 04:52 AM
long post

I'll respond to this one tomorrow after I finish my paper.

Aloimeh
12-02-2008, 05:35 AM
Homosexuals are not biologically inferior, but they are morally in the wrong.

Evolution by mutation and natural selection doesn't speak of biological superiority or inferiority but of reproductive fitness. Mutations occur in genes, but natural selection operates on phenotypes (i.e. traits), not genotypes (i.e. genes). And phenotypes are the product of both genetic and environmental influences that may interact in a deterministic and/or chaotic manner. See below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/health/31age.html?pagewanted=print

Josephine Tesauro never thought she would live so long. At 92, she is straight backed, firm jawed and vibrantly healthy, living alone in an immaculate brick ranch house high on a hill near McKeesport, a Pittsburgh suburb. She works part time in a hospital gift shop and drives her 1995 white Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera to meetings of her four bridge groups, to church and to the grocery store. She has outlived her husband, who died nine years ago, when he was 84. She has outlived her friends, and she has outlived three of her six brothers.

Mrs. Tesauro does, however, have a living sister, an identical twin. But she and her twin are not so identical anymore. Her sister is incontinent, she has had a hip replacement, and she has a degenerative disorder that destroyed most of her vision. She also has dementia. “She just does not comprehend,” Mrs. Tesauro says.

Even researchers who study aging are fascinated by such stories. How could it be that two people with the same genes, growing up in the same family, living all their lives in the same place, could age so differently?...

Some might argue that environmental influences are in fact the mediators of natural selection, but I'm not so sure about that. There are clearly many environmental influences that at face value would not in and of themselves obviously influence reproductive fitness.

So, when we come to the question of homosexuality, we get at the core of reproductive fitness. If one's phenotype negatively affects reproductive fitness by causing disinterest in intercourse with members of the opposite sex, then natural selection would supposedly dictate that genes coding for this phenotype would be bred out. But this assumes that homosexuality is coded in genes. One suggested explanation has been that the greater "nurturing" of homosexuals to relatives' young would improve reproductive fitness of the family and thereby perpetuate the genes. The problem with this is that, from my casual observations, male homosexuals are not particularly nuturing nor is their family dynamic particularly feminine/maternal. If anything, they tend to be even more promiscuous and oriented towards youth, fitness, and physical appearance (rather than fatherhood and nurturing the infirm, elderly, and young) than heterosexual males. Lesbian females, on the other hand, do appear to be just as much, if not more so, relationship-oriented than heterosexual women, but on the other hand this is not manifested in any sort of heightened nurturing/maternal attitudes. If anything, many lesbian females come off as male-aspiring and assuming traditional male gender roles while often derisively dismissing "weak" female gender roles such as homemaker and mother. So, I find it hard to accept the "helping siblings raise young" argument at all.

On the other hand, if it is NOT coded in genes and arises as a result of environmental influences such as family dynamics, early childhood influences, self-perception, etc. then clearly, while natural selection still operates in that reproductive fitness is lower in homosexual individuals, it does not lead to changes in the overall prevalence since the phenotype is not carried in transmissible genetic elements but rather in transmissible, spontaneous, or static environmental influences. For instance, the prevalence of homosexual behavior amongst certain subsets of ancient Greek society would suggest that cultural approbation of such behavior played a huge role in the high frequency of said behavior, rather than genetic isolation of homosexuality-predisposing genetic elements in the Greek population. There is absolutely no scientific reason to reject the above view and instead suppose that such inclinations and behaviors stemmed from something innate that was later suppressed by religion and law.

Ultimately, the "nurture" side of the "nature-vs-nurture" debate is not that someone makes a conscious decision to be homosexual, but that it arises from environmental entities (rather than genetic entities) arising within the individual or external to him/her, and that this imputes responsibility to those who are homosexual and also suggests that the trait is not "hard-wired" and that abnormal sexuality may be reverted to an innate heterosexuality.

JolánGagó
12-02-2008, 06:05 AM
Stop using my avy please, thanks.

Aloimeh
12-02-2008, 06:15 AM
Stop using my avy please, thanks.

I had it before you joined.

buddyholly
12-02-2008, 06:45 AM
I have not read all this thread, but it seems to me there is little to be made from arguing that homosexuals are biologically inferior to heterosexuals because they are unlikely to reproduce and pass on their genes.
The percentage of homosexuals in the population (except for Iran) seems to be constant and so it seems that genes are unimportant in propogating the lineage. Maybe it is nature's way that homosexuals just ''use'' heterosexuals to reproduce themselves. A very clever evolutionary development. They do not have to invest major time and money in caring for their young, they let heterosexuals do it for them.

JolánGagó
12-02-2008, 06:49 AM
True but you weren't here then already. More relevant, it suits me better :)

BTW congrats, you crushed me at the ACC :sad:

Sunset of Age
12-02-2008, 06:57 AM
Homosexuals are not biologically inferior, but they are morally in the wrong.

IDIOT. enough said.

Aloimeh
12-02-2008, 02:32 PM
IDIOT. enough said.

Stunning contribution. I am not surprised.

Iván
12-02-2008, 02:47 PM
Only if God and the Devil could contribute in this thread, things would be much more clear.

buddyholly
12-02-2008, 03:45 PM
Homosexuals are not biologically inferior, but they are morally in the wrong.



By what standards?

Richard_from_Cal
12-02-2008, 04:42 PM
I have not read all this thread, but it seems to me there is little to be made from arguing that homosexuals are biologically inferior to heterosexuals because they are unlikely to reproduce and pass on their genes.
The percentage of homosexuals in the population (except for Iran) seems to be constant and so it seems that genes are unimportant in propogating the lineage. Maybe it is nature's way that homosexuals just ''use'' heterosexuals to reproduce themselves. A very clever evolutionary development. They do not have to invest major time and money in caring for their young, they let heterosexuals do it for them.

Is that a concession that homosexuals reproduce themselves by programming the young of hetrosexuals, to become homosexual? If so, I would consider that Iran might have something, in...repressing? homosexuality, by the ...judgemental method I have seen posted on the internet. ...but that might be unChristian. :yeah:

Jaztheman
12-02-2008, 05:10 PM
It's up to people what they want to do with their life and if they want to be a homosexual, then I'm not going to stop them. I don't think it is up to us to decide whether one should or should not be allowed to do something, if it is not harming others or having a bad affect on people. We are all equal on the world and despite some having more possession on materials and obects, I don't believe we should really control what one another does, up to the extent of what they are doing is harming something/someone.

GhostUnholy
12-02-2008, 09:12 PM
Before I start responding to your post Clydey, let me say a few things. You ignored half of what I said in doing so pretty much responded to a completely different argument than what I was getting at. Regardless though, after reading your post it became clear to me that our disagreement is entirely a difference in how we've defined the terms we're using and the paramters of the discussion. I suggest we stop it here as this discussion is meaningless. I will do a rush job of a response for the sake of courtesy but don't take this as a complete description of my views, nor is it without flaws because I don't have all day to sit here and define terms. This is an argument where the exact language used is extremely important and I frankly don't have the patience to start a philosophical argument about physics, which is where we'd have to go. I addressed your post out of order as well, since it makes sense to talk about some things before others.


There are so many Gods people have believed in over the years that you would need to specify which God we're trying to disprove. If the universe does have an origin, discovering it would not disprove the existence of a supreme being. Such a discovery would simply mean that the universe wasn't created by a supreme being. It is utterly impossible to disprove any God's existence. It doesn't matter what technology we have. You simply cannot disprove something like that.

As I was trying to get at in my last post, you are 100% right using the narrow usual definition of the word god. The issue of proving the existence the judeochristian god for example is no different than proving or disproving the existence of fairies. Or any other deity. I already acknowledged this in my last post, so I don't really see why you felt the need to be redundant.

What I was trying to get at with that grammatical travesty of a sentence I had in my last post regarding a "higher power" is that I am not referring to any particular "god" when I talk about atheism. This is what you failed to understand and this is why we're having a pointless argument about two different things.

God
1) traditionally would refer to a deity proposed by some religion
2) could refer to some "higher power" that governs the universe. now when I say "higher power" its because the english language lacks the the vocabulary to describe a force driving the universe that we have no conception of, so you must accept that I'm limited in how such a thing could be described. What I mean by higher power is not some sentient being guiding the universe, but something, probably something that we cannot concieve of, that is the origin of reality AS WE KNOW IT. Basically, god as im discussing it could simply be a phenomenon outside all physical laws that we can conceive. I'll deal with this statement more later though.

And I suppose you're right, there could be an independent supreme being that had nothing to do with the origin of reality and has no role in our existence, and then we couldn't disprove it, but why would we give a fuck about it then? Religion is obviously concerned with a supreme being that would have directed our creation and possibly our affairs, and THIS you can very much disprove by finding an alternate explanation.

By that criteria, we have already disproved God's existence. The Genesis story has long since been debunked, so that proves that <insert holy book of your choice here> is mistaken.

Well, as I see it, disproving the genesis story disproves the judeochristian god in the exact form postulated by the religion, for the reason mentioned above. While a supreme being may exist that did NOT do what was described in the bible/torah/quran/whatever, if it possessed all the characteristics described by those religions it would inevitably HAVE to have also performed the actions described in those books, therefore, the EXACT god they believe in does not exist if key elements of their texts are debunked. Which is exactly why I dont adhere to any existing organized religion.


As we know, religion changes with the times. Catholics have been forced to reconcile their beliefs with the theory of evolution. Debunking parts of the bible does not disprove God's existence. It can't be done.

The existence of the judeochristian god can and has indeed been dubunked, as noted above. They postulate that a God exists in a certain form with certain aims and took certain actions that were the foundation of existence. If you can prove that the story is a load of bullshit you are essentially proving that the God they described obviously doesn't exist. Because if it did, it would posess the characteristics they described and would inevitably have come to same conclusions and taken the same actions they described. Obviously this doesn't disprove the existence of any other supreme being but as noted above this isn't the aim.

You are presupposing that there was a beginning. We seek patterns. It is what the mind demands. Since everything else has a beginning, we assume the universe must also have a beginning. In reality, it is most logical to suggest that there was in fact no beginning.


Suggesting that there is no beginning is as foolish assuming there was no beginning because this is more of an issue where its an area where we have no idea as to the truth. Some people, as you noted, say I'm fucking stumpted as to how everything exists and assume the pattern of beginnings continues. Others say I'm fucking stumped as to how everything exists so I'll assume that everything is just here and that's theres nothing to explain.

Both views are flawed. There is obviously much more to learn about the nature of reality before either view could be accepted. I think at this point its just one big I don't know, and any attempt to make sense of existence at this point would be a load of shit. When I talk about origins I'm simply oversimplifying the situation as we all must when discussing such things to avoid suspending our lives precisely defining every term and the limits of every situation.


By stating that the universe had a beginning, all you are doing is postulating an infinite regress. God created the universe, but who created God? Who created the God that created the God that created the universe? It just goes on and on.


similar issues to above
-i'm not referring to some sentient physical presence
-you are assuming that the universe makes up reality in its entirety. unfortunately there are infinitely many possibilities here to discuss. I guess this boils it down to the original disagreement: you cannot say with any certainty that nothing exists outside of what we can ever physically explain. In fact, given that its even impossible for us to truly imagine any dimension beyond length, width, and depth (x,y,z axis) I'd think it'd more likely that there is a LOT we will never explain. When I say you cannot prove that there is not a "god" this is what me mean. Obviously our disagreement was one of definitions. This is why I say it is irrational to be an athiest, and rational to be an agnostic and accept that we really don't have a clue what the fuck is going on, and probably won't ever.

Just grabbed this definition from webster's dictionary:
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Intestingly, check out the definition of atheism they give:
one who believes that there is no deity

It would seem that the difference between people who choose to be atheists vs. agnostics in general is simply one of choosing the context in which the issue of religion is discussed. Do you care about whether or not some proposed deity exists or are you more concerned with, to quote, some "ultimate reality".

Talking about God only in the narrow context of a sentient deity long since ceased to make sense, so I don't even bother considering that context at this point. Apparently many still do.

And as you say, if you are a 6/7 of 7 on the scale of atheism, you are not really an athiest. Atheism requires 100% conviction.


Yes, it is. As I explained, discovering the universe's origins does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a deity, just as the theory of evolution did not debunk the Judaeo-Christian God.

Even if we were to consider the existence of a supreme being that had no relevance to our reality, the problem you described is not even one born from disproving a negative, and I'm not sure why you're pretending it is. The problem is one of discussing something that supposedly transcends the laws of the reality we're forced to work in. Which obviously is a very real problem when you're trying to address the issue logically.

GhostUnholy
12-02-2008, 09:18 PM
It's up to people what they want to do with their life and if they want to be a homosexual, then I'm not going to stop them. I don't think it is up to us to decide whether one should or should not be allowed to do something, if it is not harming others or having a bad affect on people.

Exactly, homosexuals are not harming anyone by being homosexual, so why this rush to prevent people from being happy?

Clydey
12-02-2008, 09:44 PM
And as you say, if you are a 6/7 of 7 on the scale of atheism, you are not really an athiest. Atheism requires 100% conviction.


I disagree with an awful lot of what you said. I feel that it would be pointless to continue the argument, however. From my perspective, what you're doing amounts to literary gymnastics.

The part I've quoted is something I do wish to pick you up on. You have contradicted yourself seemingly without even realising it. You said atheism requires 100% conviction, which simply is not true.

The definition of an atheist, as supplied by the link you quoted, is "one who believes that there is no deity."

The key word is "believes". An atheist is not saying with 100% conviction that there is no God. An atheist says that they do not believe there is a God. Massive difference between the two.

A 7 on the scale I provided is complete certainty that no God exists. An agnostic (4 on the scale) is someone who has not decided whether they think a God exists or not. They are undecided. Atheism is completely rational. It is no different to Aunicornism.

Whatever your definition of a deity, it cannot possibly be considered irrational to not believe in something that there is no evidence for.

GhostUnholy
12-02-2008, 10:00 PM
I disagree with an awful lot of what you said. I feel that it would be pointless to continue the argument, however. From my perspective, what you're doing amounts to literary gymnastics.

I'm not surprised it seemed that way since I tried to keep it as short as I could, not argue the points as effectively as they could. I don't feel like writing a thesis on a message board. I'm just providing some food for thought.


The part I've quoted is something I do wish to pick you up on. You have contradicted yourself seemingly without even realising it. You said atheism requires 100% conviction, which simply is not true.

The definition of an atheist, as supplied by the link you quoted, is "one who believes that there is no deity."

The key word is "believes". An atheist is not saying with 100% conviction that there is no God. An atheist says that they do not believe there is a God. Massive difference between the two.

You're right on this one, my mistake. I had actually considered deleting that part right after posting it but then left it, since I figured it would be silly to run to cover up my errors.


A 7 on the scale I provided is complete certainty that no God exists. An agnostic (4 on the scale) is someone who has not decided whether they think a God exists or not. They are undecided. Atheism is completely rational. It is no different to Aunicornism.

Whatever your definition of a deity, it cannot possibly be considered irrational to not believe in something that there is no evidence for.

This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You're repeating yourself. And yes, the definition does clearly matter, since we're not talking about anything close to the same thing.

Scotso
12-03-2008, 12:18 AM
Atheism requires faith? I really have no idea how you could come to that conclusion. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in deities.

It really depends on how the word is being used. A lot of atheists don't just have the absence of belief in a "God," but assert that there isn't one. Since they have absolutely no evidence, it does require "faith."

Generally the correct term for people who admit to not knowing is agnosticism.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 12:33 AM
It really depends on how the word is being used. A lot of atheists don't just have the absence of belief in a "God," but assert that there isn't one. Since they have absolutely no evidence, it does require "faith."

Generally the correct term for people who admit to not knowing is agnosticism.

The definition of an atheist is an absence of belief in deities. It is not an assertion. Like I said before, it is no different to an absence of belief in fairies or unicorns. Agnosticism is the term for people who are undecided. What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting that not believing in fairies requires faith. The burden of proof is on those who believe there is a deity.

I am an atheist. I firmly believe that there is no God. I would never state with certainty that no God exists, however. It's simply nonsense to say that not believing in an omnipotent space daddy requires faith.

Scotso
12-03-2008, 12:36 AM
I'm incapable of walking away when my opinions are being misrepresented. It's my cross to bear.

Aww, you poor thing. :sobbing:

~Maya~
12-03-2008, 12:39 AM
I am an Atheist. The word-God doesn't cross my mind until somebody mentions it. I don't wake up in the morning thinking about how there is no God. I don't go to bed thinking that God doesn't exist.
What faith are you talking about? And, the burden of proof is not on Atheists.

Scotso
12-03-2008, 12:39 AM
Clydey's just saying homosexuals are less reproductively fit, which could be true, if all heterosexual couples had kids and as alfonsojose said, if there were no closet homosexuals who were involved in hetero relationships, etc.

You don't even need to get into these details. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals can reproduce just as well as heterosexuals.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 12:42 AM
I am an Atheist. The word-God doesn't cross my mind until somebody mentions it. I don't wake up in the morning thinking about how there is no God. I don't go to bed thinking that God doesn't exist.
What faith are you talking about? And, the burden of proof is not on Atheists.

Precisely.

Sam Harris has a point when he says we shouldn't really have a word for not believing in deities. We don't have a word for not believing in astrology, crystal healing, leprechauns etc. Consequently, having a word for disbelief has led to people thinking that atheism is in itself a religion.

elessar
12-03-2008, 12:42 AM
Yep. Atrocious book, and some call it the 'Word of God???' :retard:
The bible is made up of so many different sources that you can't really talk about it as a whole. The old testament was written before Christ and as such isn't always in accordance with the word of Jesus. A clear example of that is "an eye for an eye" becoming "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also... Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you ...". Religions do evolve over time.
You can't really excuse it either. God's word is supposed to be inerrant, so I have no idea how one reconciles one's morality with the old testament.

Don't even get me started on honour killings. I read a horrible story not so long ago about a young muslim girl who became friends with someone in the British army. Her father objected to this and began to beat her to death for bringing shame on the family. Her mother called on her brothers to stop the father. However, the brothers joined in and helped their father beat the girl to death.

That infuriates me.
The Koran doesn't promote or even permit honour killings. Many people are scum and will remain so regardless of what religion they follow.
Exactly. You just have to look at what goes on in the world, all the injustices, the atrocities. If a God does exist, is it a God even worth worshipping?
It'd be a god that chose to give us free will, despite knowing all the crap we could do with it :shrug:


By that criteria, we have already disproved God's existence. The Genesis story has long since been debunked, so that proves that <insert holy book of your choice here> is mistaken.

There are so many Gods people have believed in over the years that you would need to specify which God we're trying to disprove. If the universe does have an origin, discovering it would not disprove the existence of a supreme being. Such a discovery would simply mean that the universe wasn't created by a supreme being. It is utterly impossible to disprove any God's existence. It doesn't matter what technology we have. You simply cannot disprove something like that.

As we know, religion changes with the times. Catholics have been forced to reconcile their beliefs with the theory of evolution. Debunking parts of the bible does not disprove God's existence. It can't be done.

Yes, it is. As I explained, discovering the universe's origins does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a deity, just as the theory of evolution did not debunk the Judaeo-Christian God.
I agree that we can never prove or disprove the existence of god.
I completely disagree about "debunking parts of the bible" though, since there is nothing to debunk. Only complete morons can think mankind was created 6000 years ago and that we lived with dinosaures, even the pope agreed the book of genesis was primarily metaphorical.

I'm an atheist and I always wonder why some people have faifth that god exists and others just don't, but as far as I'm concerned, we're all wrong because we're making assumptions based on absolutely zero facts, or at least far too few to conclude anything. Bottom line agnostics rule :rocker2:

Scotso
12-03-2008, 12:45 AM
While you are right, deductive reasoning cannot prove that god doesn't exist, you need to recognize something.

The statement of Atheism is that God does not exist. (a negative)
Therefore, you are stating that the universe was not created by god. (a negative)
Therefore you are stating that reality/the universe originated by some other means.

Oh, sorry, you beat me to it.

Scotso
12-03-2008, 12:49 AM
What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting that not believing in fairies requires faith. The burden of proof is on those who believe there is a deity.

Not believing in fairies does require faith. It's illogical to suggest anything doesn't exist, because you can't possibly have the necessary proof.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 12:51 AM
The bible is made up of so many different sources that you can't really talk about it as a whole. The old testament was written before Christ and as such isn't always in accordance with the word of Jesus. A clear example of that is "an eye for an eye" becoming "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also... Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you ...". Religions do evolve over time.

The Koran doesn't promote or even permit honour killings. Many people are scum and will remain so regardless of what religion they follow.

It'd be a god that chose to give us free will, despite knowing all the crap we could do with it :shrug:


I agree that we can never prove or disprove the existence of god.
I completely disagree about "debunking parts of the bible" though, since there is nothing to debunk. Only complete morons can think mankind was created 6000 years ago and that we lived with dinosaures, even the pope agreed the book of genesis was primarily metaphorical.


No, the pope had to find away around the fact of evolution. Before On The Origin of Species, it was widely believed that the bible had it right and that the world was 6000 years old. People only suggested it was metaphorical when there was no other option. The theory of evolution had been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, so they had to reconcile their beliefs with indisputable facts.

Agnostics are undecided. Atheists say they don't believe in God. It's up for the religious to provide proof, not non-religious people. You can't say not believing in a God is unreasonable. I could make up some crazy shit on the spot and you could not provide a shred of evidence to prove me wrong. You wouldn't believe what I was saying, but would that make you unreasonable?

I have an invisible horse that accompanies me wherever I go. Are you an agnostic when it comes to my invisible horse?

Clydey
12-03-2008, 12:53 AM
Not believing in fairies does require faith. It's illogical to suggest anything doesn't exist, because you can't possibly have the necessary proof.

No, it's not illogical. What you seem to be prescribing is Cartesian skepticism, which simply isn't practical.

Is it illogical to not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Clydey
12-03-2008, 12:55 AM
Oh, sorry, you beat me to it.

You must have missed the part where he conceded that he was wrong on that point. Here, I'll quote him for you.

"You're right on this one, my mistake. I had actually considered deleting that part right after posting it but then left it, since I figured it would be silly to run to cover up my errors."

buddyholly
12-03-2008, 01:02 AM
Generally the correct term for people who admit to not knowing is agnosticism.

Nobody knows. Does that make everyone an agnostic? May as well get rid of the term.

Atheism or theism is not about knowing, but believing. So an agnostic would be someone who doesn't know if he believes in a god or not. Nobody should be like that.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 01:04 AM
Nobody knows. Does that make everyone an agnostic? May as well get rid of the term.

Atheism or theism is not about knowing, but believing. So an agnostic would be someone who doesn't know if he believes in a god or not. Nobody should be like that.

Agree completely.

Scotso
12-03-2008, 01:05 AM
Is it illogical to not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It's illogical to say that there definitely isn't one. You can't prove something doesn't exist (even if it seems outrageous), you can only prove something does.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 01:06 AM
It's illogical to say that there definitely isn't one. You can't prove something doesn't exist (even if it seems outrageous), you can only prove something does.

You're backtracking. You know very well that's not what I said. The definition of atheism is not believing that God exists. It is not stating that God definitely does not exist.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 01:10 AM
No, I think you were right the first time. You either believe there is a god or not. There is no in between. You can't believe 70%.

When he corrected himself, it had nothing to do with the strength of one's belief. However, the strength of someone's belief can vary. For example, I'm 99% sure that God doesn't exist. Someone else might not be so sure. They may also not believe in God, but they may not believe with the same conviction as me, for example.

Scotso
12-03-2008, 01:11 AM
Nobody knows. Does that make everyone an agnostic? May as well get rid of the term.

The vast majority of the world's population "know" there is a God. If people admitted to not knowing, then you're right, everyone would be agnostic.

Atheism or theism is not about knowing, but believing. So an agnostic would be someone who doesn't know if he believes in a god or not. Nobody should be like that.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism.

They know what they believe, that it can't be proven either way. They're not people struggling to determine which is correct.

Kitty de Sade
12-03-2008, 01:13 AM
Homosexuals are not biologically inferior, but they are morally in the wrong.

I cut out the text that followed because I can't get past this part. Existence/non existence of god aside....

Resolve this comment- "Morally in the wrong."

Morally wrong by whose standards, exactly?

elessar
12-03-2008, 01:14 AM
No, the pope had to find away around the fact of evolution. Before On The Origin of Species, it was widely believed that the bible had it right and that the world was 6000 years old. People only suggested it was metaphorical when there was no other option. The theory of evolution had been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, so they had to reconcile their beliefs with indisputable facts.
No shit, Sherlock... Forgive me for assuming we were having a discussion about religious beliefs as they stand now and not as they did 200 years ago.
Agnostics are undecided. Atheists say they don't believe in God. It's up for the religious to provide proof, not non-religious people. You can't say not believing in a God is unreasonable. I could make up some crazy shit on the spot and you could not provide a shred of evidence to prove me wrong. You wouldn't believe what I was saying, but would that make you unreasonable?

I have an invisible horse that accompanies me wherever I go. Are you an agnostic when it comes to my invisible horse?
I never said that. The absence of proof is not the proof of the absence. All I said was that out of everyone, only agnostics were definitely right (well strong agnostics, that is). Atheist and theists both have beliefs that can't be substantiated.

Why the hell shouldn't people be agnostics, Buddyholly? You could argue it's the most honest position of the three.

tennizen
12-03-2008, 01:14 AM
There are many many different ways in which the word God can be interpreted. Almost all the arguments focus on debunking the Bible and conclude that God doesn't exist because Bible is wrong. Most of this unrest over religion seems to occur only among erstwhile Christians.

I personally feel very comfortable believing/practicing the Hindu religion and I don't really care whether everything that is said is true or not.Simple reasoning in such matters is overrated.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 01:15 AM
They know what they believe, that it can't be proven either way. They're not people struggling to determine which is correct.

Nothing is knowable. Everyone is technically agnostic about everything. We're agnostic about the sun rising tomorrow. God's existence cannot be proved or disproved. However, it is logical to lean one way or the other. I don't believe God exists. That is the position of atheists.

You don't know whether lerprechauns exist. I presume you don't believe they exist, though. Get my point?

elessar
12-03-2008, 01:18 AM
Anyway, too much crap in this thread, I'm going to bed. Have fun all.

tennizen
12-03-2008, 01:19 AM
Anyway, too much crap in this thread, I'm going to bed. Have fun all.

:lol::hug: Good night!

fast_clay
12-03-2008, 01:22 AM
i had a mate who once said:

why are there 5 or 6 main religions...? why not 6 billion...?

it was nice to think about for a while...

Clydey
12-03-2008, 01:23 AM
No shit, Sherlock... Forgive me for assuming we were having a discussion about religious beliefs as they stand now and not as they did 200 years ago.



Way to miss the point. The point I made, which you somehow missed, is that religious people only use the "the bible is not a literal text" defence because science has debunked parts like the book of Genesis. In other words, the pope was forced to say that the Genesis story is metaphorical because evolution has debunked it beyond all reasonable doubt.



I never said that. The absence of proof is not the proof of the absence. All I said was that out of everyone, only agnostics were definitely right (well strong agnostics, that is). Atheist and theists both have beliefs that can't be substantiated.



Of course they have it right. We're all agnostics whether we like it or not. Nothing is knowable. It isn't how we live in practice, however. You do not live your life thinking, "I don't know if leprechauns exist. There's no evidence to suggest they don't, so the chances are 50/50."

We believe what we believe based on evidence. And there is no evidence for the existence of leprechauns, just as there is none for the existence of God. And it is not up to non-believers to produce evidence. It isn't possible.

elessar
12-03-2008, 01:23 AM
Nothing is knowable. Everyone is technically agnostic about everything. We're agnostic about the sun rising tomorrow. God's existence cannot be proved or disproved. However, it is logical to lean one way or the other. I don't believe God exists. That is the position of atheists.

(Last post, really.)
Not at all, nobody can say for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow but most people will agree that given their (limited) knowledge, they're ready to assume it will, while agnostics will tell you that since they have no proof either way, they can't assume anything.

Kitty de Sade
12-03-2008, 01:25 AM
You've done the best you can, Claire. :lol: :hug:

I put myself in the agnostic category also. The only thing we know is that we don't know anything. The rest of this stuff is just an endless v-circle jerk.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 01:26 AM
Last post, really.
Not at all, nobody can say for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow but most people will agree that given their (limited) knowledge, they're ready to assume it will, while agnostics will tell you that since they have no proof either way, they can't assume anything.

And I'm ready to assume that God does not exist, since there's not a shred of proof for his/her/its existence. Perfectly logical.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 01:28 AM
You've done the best you can, Claire. :lol: :hug:

I put myself in the agnostic category also. The only thing we know is that we don't know anything. The rest of this stuff is just an endless v-circle jerk.

Everyone is agnostic. Do you live your life as an agnostic? Would you risk walking off a cliff because you're agnostic when it comes to gravity? The point is that you have an opinion, while conceding that nothing is knowable.

fast_clay
12-03-2008, 01:28 AM
i guess some people have the fortune or misfortune of being born with a blind faith... or are open(ed) to that notion... and, some are not...

Kitty de Sade
12-03-2008, 01:31 AM
Would you risk walking off a cliff because you're agnostic when it comes to gravity?

Rather strict interpretation of what I meant by the term "agnostic," although I sense you're smart enough to know that.

If I don't know anything, I can't prove the existence of gravity. What I said wasn't meant to extend to situations where my personal safety would be endangered, no.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 01:33 AM
Rather strict interpretation of what I meant by the term "agnostic," although I sense you're smart enough to know that.

If I don't know anything, I can't prove the existence of gravity. What I said wasn't meant to extend to situations where my personal safety would be endangered, no.

Why not? If you have an opinion about one aspect of the universe, why not have an opinion on another?

Are you an agnostic when it comes to leprechauns?

Kitty de Sade
12-03-2008, 01:39 AM
Why not? If you have an opinion about one aspect of the universe, why not have an opinion another?

It's not going to extend to certain situations where I'm in peril. So I can't know anything one way or the other, fine.

If I jump off the cliff, assuming I don't know if gravity exists or not, and as it turns out it DOES, I'd be seriously fucked wouldn't I?

I'd take risks when either outcome wouldn't run the possibility of me ending up in a bodybag.

Are you an agnostic when it comes to leprechauns?

Why delineate when talking about one possibility over another?

I'm agnostic, therefore, it stands to reason that would carry over into the realm of leprechauns.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 01:44 AM
It's not going to extend to certain situations where I'm in peril. So I can't know anything one way or the other, fine.

If I jump off the cliff, assuming I don't know if gravity exists or not, and as it turns out it DOES, I'd be seriously fucked wouldn't I?

I'd take risks when either outcome wouldn't run the possibility of me ending up in a bodybag.



Why delineate when talking about one possibility over another?

I'm agnostic, therefore, it stands to reason that would carry over into the realm of leprechauns.

If asked whether you believe in leprechauns would you reply that you don't know, suggesting that you're 50/50 on the issue, or would you say that you don't believe that they exist?

And you're missing the point of all this. Sure, it's fine to say that you don't know anything for certain. I'm in complete agreement. However, I'm asking whether you believe gravity exists, whether you believe god exists etc. I am not asking whether or not you know he exists, whether you can say for certain one way or the other.

We are all technically agnostics. However, it isn't practical to approach everything in life with such a Cartesian philosophy.

Kitty de Sade
12-03-2008, 01:48 AM
If asked whether you believe in leprechauns would you reply that you don't know, suggesting that you're 50/50 on the issue, or would you say that you don't believe that they exist?

I have no way of knowing one way or the other if they exist. Right.

And you're missing the point of all this. Sure, it's fine to say that you don't know anything for certain. I'm in complete agreement. However, I'm asking whether you believe gravity exists, whether you believe god exists etc. I am not asking whether or not you know he exists, whether you can say for certain one way or the other.

I didn't miss the point. I said I didn't have a clue about god. Being agnostic means just that- against knowledge. I have no more knowledge about the existence of gravity than I do about god.

We are all technically agnostics. However, it isn't practical to approach everything in life with such a Cartesian philosophy.

Why not?

Clydey
12-03-2008, 01:53 AM
I have no way of knowing one way or the other if they exist. Right.



I didn't miss the point. I said I didn't have a clue about god. Being agnostic means just that- against knowledge. I have no more knowledge about the existence of gravity than I do about god.



Why not?

Because you are suggesting that you hold no opinion on anything. You're saying you're 50/50 on whether leprechauns exist, whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. It's almost like you're saying all of this to avoid admitting that you're wrong.

Why all else would anyone be 50/50 on the subject of whether unicorns exist?

fast_clay
12-03-2008, 01:56 AM
be careful Clydey... the matrix has you...

Kitty de Sade
12-03-2008, 02:06 AM
For my purposes, "opinion" and "proof" are not synonymous.

If the only thing I know is that I don't know anything, then what of practicality?

You haven't provided an answer. So what if I adopt a non-committal position and I'm wrong? (or right, for that matter)

This is all tantamount to word salad. If the only thing I know is that I know nothing at all, then how do I know I'm engaged in this v-j/o session right now? It doesn't matter if I have a Cartesian stance or not.

It's like the concept perfect circle- we'd be here forever, and never get any closer to proving the case of god, leps, unicorns or anything else, for or against.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 02:10 AM
For my purposes, "opinion" and "proof" are not synonymous.

If the only thing I know is that I don't know anything, then what of practicality?

You haven't provided an answer. So what if I adopt a non-committal position and I'm wrong? (or right, for that matter)

This is all tantamount to word salad. If the only thing I know is that I know nothing at all, then how do I know I'm engaged in this v-j/o session right now? It doesn't matter if I have a Cartesian stance or not.

It's like the concept perfect circle- we'd be here forever, and never get any closer to proving the case of god, leps, unicorns or anything else, for or against.

Because if you are 50/50 on everything, how do you decide anything? You even contradict your own impractical philosophy and you don't even realise it.

How can you possibly state with certainty that we don't know anything? You are not an epistemological agnostic.

~Maya~
12-03-2008, 02:16 AM
Clydey, you should use this as your avatar :p
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Ebunny.jpg
Keeps going...

Clydey
12-03-2008, 02:17 AM
Clydey, you should use this as your avatar :p
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Ebunny.jpg
Keeps going...

:lol:

I'm like a dog with a bone.

Kitty de Sade
12-03-2008, 02:19 AM
Because if you are 50/50 on everything, how do you decide anything? You even contradict your own impractical philosophy and you don't even realise it.

I cannot know anything for sure, ever. If the only thing I know is that I don't know- why decide for or against anything at all?

It's not my impractical philosophy. Now who is missing the point? All I ever said was- I don't know.

I cannot prove that I am at my computer, right now, can I? You cannot provide me with mathmatical proof or any other way that cannot be contradicted.

How can you possibly state with certainty that we don't know anything? You are not an epistemological agnostic.

I can't state anything with certainty. I already said that. You cannot disprove something unknowable.

"That which is, cannot not be..." I know, I've heard it before.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 02:26 AM
I cannot know anything for sure, ever. If the only thing I know is that I don't know- why decide for or against anything at all?

It's not my impractical philosophy. Now who is missing the point? All I ever said was- I don't know.

I cannot prove that I am at my computer, right now, can I? You cannot provide me with mathmatical proof or any other way that cannot be contradicted.



I can't state anything with certainty. I already said that. You cannot disprove something unknowable.

"That which is, cannot not be..." I know, I've heard it before.

Yes, but I asked you how you would respond if asked whether you thought leprechauns exist. That is prompting you to give an opinion, not asking you for the meaning of life. You are essentially telling me that you hold no opinions whatsoever. You don't seem to realise that you can assert that something is unknowable but still hold an opinion on it.

When an atheist says that they do not believe a God exists, they are giving an opinion. They are not making a claim to know whether god exists. I reiterate, you are contradicting your own philosphy by saying that you know that you don't know anything.

Kitty de Sade
12-03-2008, 02:38 AM
Yes, but I asked you how you would respond if asked whether you thought leprechauns exist. That is prompting you to give an opinion, not asking you for the meaning of life.

Saying "I don't know," isn't an opinion.

You are essentially telling me that you hold no opinions whatsoever. You don't seem to realise that you can assert that something is unknowable but still hold an opinion on it.

That doesn't make sense. How would I assert something is unknowable if I don't know?

That's the whole point. I cannot hold an opinion without proof. I have no way of proving something unknowable, so I can't hold an opinion. They are mutually exclusive worlds.

I reiterate, you are contradicting your own philosphy by saying that you know that you don't know anything.

Ah, okay. I assumed I already typed it- I don't know if I don't know anything.

GhostUnholy
12-03-2008, 02:45 AM
Precisely.

Sam Harris has a point when he says we shouldn't really have a word for not believing in deities. We don't have a word for not believing in astrology, crystal healing, leprechauns etc. Consequently, having a word for disbelief has led to people thinking that atheism is in itself a religion.

This I agree with completely.

The definition of an atheist is an absence of belief in deities. It is not an assertion. Like I said before, it is no different to an absence of belief in fairies or unicorns. Agnosticism is the term for people who are undecided. What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting that not believing in fairies requires faith. The burden of proof is on those who believe there is a deity.

I am an atheist. I firmly believe that there is no God. I would never state with certainty that no God exists, however. It's simply nonsense to say that not believing in an omnipotent space daddy requires faith.

Apparently you missed this too. Agnosticsm is NOT being undecided. Just grabbed this off wikipedia:
"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism[1]."

This is NOT, I repeat, NOT the same as being undecided. The term is thrown around in recent terms in the broader context of being undecided by people like you since it appears to be a middle ground.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 02:53 AM
Saying "I don't know," isn't an opinion.



That doesn't make sense. How would I assert something is unknowable if I don't know?

That's the whole point. I cannot hold an opinion without proof. I have no way of proving something unknowable, so I can't hold an opinion. They are mutually exclusive worlds.



Ah, okay. I assumed I already typed it- I don't know if I don't know anything.

See, now you're contradicting what you said earlier. You previously stated that you don't anything for certain. Do try to be consistent. Not that it matters, since even your above statement is contradictory. You are actually stating that you know that you don't know if you know anything. It does not matter how you word it. You are always making some sort of assertion.

I'm going to assume that you're educated. How did you pass exams, write essays, dissertations etc. if you don't have any opinions?

GhostUnholy
12-03-2008, 02:53 AM
Sorry I just noticed scotso already posted about agnosticsm. Clydey, I just read the entire thread for the first time, and you seriously need to stop picking and choosing which assumptions are ok and which are not, and when to be practical in your thinking and when to focus on correctness. And I noticed you essentially had the same debate with scoobs that you did with me when you were talking about assumptions and a genetic foundation to homosexuality... it made me want to :banghead: . That was another case where the issue at hand had NOTHING to do with disproving a negative.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 02:59 AM
This I agree with completely.



Apparently you missed this too. Agnosticsm is NOT being undecided. Just grabbed this off wikipedia:
"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism[1]."

This is NOT, I repeat, NOT the same as being undecided. The term is thrown around in recent terms in the broader context of being undecided by people like you since it appears to be a middle ground.

Well, essentially it is a position of being undecided. I suppose undecided implies that they are willing to decide, so perhaps it's not technically correct.

Like I said before, being agnostic is technically correct. It's not practical to live one's life as an agnostic, however. We are all technically agnostic, but we do not live our lives believing that the chance of the sun rising tomorrow is 50/50.

GhostUnholy
12-03-2008, 02:59 AM
Everyone is agnostic. Do you live your life as an agnostic? Would you risk walking off a cliff because you're agnostic when it comes to gravity? The point is that you have an opinion, while conceding that nothing is knowable.

Walking off a cliff would involve disbelief in gravity. A logical person would play it safe if they didn't know whether they would float or die.
Second there is a large body of evidence supporting every physical law of motion. There is not a large body of evidence supporting either the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being.

GhostUnholy
12-03-2008, 03:02 AM
Well, essentially it is a position of being undecided. I suppose undecided implies that they are willing to decide, so perhaps it's not technically correct.

Like I said before, being agnostic is technically correct. It's not practical to live one's life as an agnostic, however. We are all technically agnostic, but we do not live our lives believing that the chance of the sun rising tomorrow is 50/50.

The chance of the sun rising tomorrow is not 50/50 what kind of bullshit is this? There is obvious evidence the sun exists. There has been intensive study of astronomy to describe the motion of the planets. While there is a chance that something we don't know may happen like the earth may stop revolving it is an incredibly small chance. I believe this is what you really mean with your god/fairy argument? That there is an incredibly small chance they may exist so it is logical to assume they don't? The trouble is, such things would lie outside of physics and we can't test them. And before you tell me I'm contradicting yourself remember I was never talking about deities in the context you were.

Clydey
12-03-2008, 03:03 AM
Sorry I just noticed scotso already posted about agnosticsm. Clydey, I just read the entire thread for the first time, and you seriously need to stop picking and choosing which assumptions are ok and which are not, and when to be practical in your thinking and when to focus on correctness. And I noticed you essentially had the same debate with scoobs that you did with me when you were talking about assumptions and a genetic foundation to homosexuality... it made me want to :banghead: . That was another case where the issue at hand had NOTHING to do with disproving a negative.

Yes, it does. Disproving the existence of unicorns is disproving a negative. How do you prove that unicorns don't exist? Searching the planet for traces of their existence, past or present, and finding no evidence of them does not disprove their existence.

Kitty de Sade
12-03-2008, 03:04 AM
See, now you're contradicting what you said earlier. You previously stated that you don't anything for certain. Do try to be consistent. Not that it matters, since even your above statement is contradictory. You are actually stating that you know that you don't know if you know anything. It does not matter how you word it. You are always making some sort of assertion.

I'll assume you are educated as well. Nice try.

If I had to backtrack to cover what I said, and you know what I meant, we'd be here all night long.

I can do that if necessary- I never tire or get heated, and I've got strong coffee at the ready.

You really need me to type it out- I don't know if I don't know if I don't know if I don't know....ad nauseum.....if I don't know anything.

Word salad and v-masturbation, nothing more.

I'm going to assume that you're educated. How did you pass exams, write essays, dissertations etc. if you don't have any opinions?

I passed through a combination of manipulation and adherence to the banking method of education. A condition totally void of the want of opinion.

EDIT: @ the uni thing again- you cannot prove or disprove something unknowable. You're in the void now.