Those Fanatical Atheists... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/19/2007 10:42:21 AM · #80

Originally posted by Kemptonreporter:

I hope you can forgive me for harbouring doubts and suspicions about someone who ultimately holds a nihilistic view on life.

... and that Sir is a quantum leap. Surely you can't be suggesting that an atheism and nihilism are the same.

Ray

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

05/19/2007 11:04:01 AM · #81

Chris Hitchens

Speaking of anti-religion types....I took this picture of Christopher Hitchens the other day who wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He was giving a homeless guy some money.

Message edited by author 2007-05-19 11:20:16.

05/19/2007 12:05:04 PM · #82

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Before the idea gets lots, I am not advocating homosexuality is evil, I am saying that if you propose that "good and evil" are Darwinian (as I guess Dawkins was and Louis as an extension) then you must equate "good and evil" with reproductive potential and my following of that argument would say that homosexuality is "evil" in the sense that such actions are detrimental to the passing on of your genes.

I am almost literally on my way out the door. We did not discuss "good and evil" but rather morality, and I specifically used the word "altruism" when referring to the evolutionary origin of it. In my view it no longer furthers the argument to use loaded words like "good" and "evil" (your choice of words), and indeed, I sensed some sort of trap when asked whether I believe in the "evilness" of homosexuality.

Others answering after me otherwise sufficiently stated my views.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

05/19/2007 12:31:27 PM · #83

I think that DrAchoo was probably a little jumped upon.

His central point that Atheism doesn't import any specific morality is right. Conversely religion purports to import a specific morality (don't kill, hate homosexuals etc).

I would argue that religion does not offer any single set of moral standards - the moral standards offered by, say, the church are constantly changing to reflect society. I predict that homosexuality will be increasingly accepted by religion (as is already becoming the case in the example of gay ministers) as it becomes increasingly accepted by society. Religion needs to adapt to survive: the world's history is littered with dead religions that did not evolve with society fast enough.

That brings me on to the other point where I think that DrAchoo had a good point: the evolutionary pressure v homosexuality. However, there are a number of good reasons why homosexuality might persist wthin evolution (indeed, it appears to have done so in many species of animal).

It is not wholly genetic. Homosexual men still have children for other reasons - indeed, with fewer children, they may be better predisposed towards survival, as may be the children of their siblings. The Camperio-Ciani, Corna et al. 2004 study found that the female maternal relatives of gay men have more offspring than those of heterosexual men, as if a gene predisposing simultaneously to male homosexuality and female â��hyper-heterosexualityâ�� were being transmitted on the X chromosome.

So: DrAchoo was right that there is a question to be answered, but (perhaps) did not appreciate that there are a number of potential answers within evolution. I would question whether there are such plausible answers within Christianity (don't know enough about the others): a perfect and loving God would surely have not incorporated a gene for sinful homosexuality within his creation?

05/19/2007 12:47:48 PM · #84

Originally posted by Louis:

In my view it no longer furthers the argument to use loaded words like "good" and "evil" (your choice of words), and indeed, I sensed some sort of trap when asked whether I believe in the "evilness" of homosexuality.

To quote

Originally posted by Louis:

Furthermore, basic morality (good vs. evil, empathy, and kindness) is a Darwinian concept,

If you can find a post of mine earlier than yours that uses "good" and "evil", then I'll take it back. Otherwise, you were the one to introduce the words, not me.

I wasn't trapping you. I just sensed you had hung yourself with your own words and knew you would start backpeddling when faced with the uncomfortable conclusions to your own argument...

Message edited by author 2007-05-19 13:00:33.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

05/19/2007 01:07:34 PM · #85

Originally posted by Kemptonreporter:

BTW - Feel free to contact me so that I can share my empirical evidence with you for the concrete and undeniable proof of God's existence.

Why not just share it with us? It would be interesting to see.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/19/2007 01:15:33 PM · #86

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Kemptonreporter:
BTW - Feel free to contact me so that I can share my empirical evidence with you for the concrete and undeniable proof of God's existence.

Why not just share it with us? It would be interesting to see.

Good luck with that one.

Ray

jonnienye

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/19/2007 02:40:06 PM · #87

sorry,thought i heard there was a godzilla sighting here...wrong thread

05/19/2007 06:33:48 PM · #88

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To quote [etc]

Yes, I understand I started it, which is why I qualified by saying "no longer any useful", given that it was my opinion that you were intentionally using emotionally charged words to suit whatever argument you were coming up with.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wasn't trapping you. I just sensed you had hung yourself with your own words and knew you would start backpeddling when faced with the uncomfortable conclusions to your own argument...

And this is not a trap? How did I know then that you were fishing for non-existent loopholes? Your logic sincerely escapes me; if you care to, point out how I've hanged myself, and I'll gladly show you once again how wrong you are. :P

05/19/2007 06:43:42 PM · #89

Originally posted by Matthew:

His central point that Atheism doesn't import any specific morality is right.

I think his point was that atheism does not exist to espouse morality, not that it doesn't import any specific morality. It may be a fine distinction, but my counter opinion was that, in fact, atheism does exist to espouse morality, by way of rejecting not just the unsubstantiated, unscientific claims of religion, but also the tenets of religion that in any other context would be considered highly immoral.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I would question whether there are such plausible answers within Christianity (don't know enough about the others): a perfect and loving God would surely have not incorporated a gene for sinful homosexuality within his creation?

I think you'll find few fundamentalist Christians who would regard homosexuality as genetic, whatever the evidence may be. The operative word for such lunkheads is choice.

05/19/2007 07:30:23 PM · #90

Originally posted by Louis:

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. First you state that basic morality (good and evil) is Darwinian. (Perhaps your idea of Darwinism is different than commonly held. We may do well to have you explain what you mean in this sentence.) Then you go on to invoke a much more limited word "altruism" when faced with actually declaring something to be good or evil under Darwinian morality.

Basically you are trying to imply that a morality founded upon Darwinian principles is both widely grounded and complex while at the same time being very limited so as to skirt difficult issues as to whether something like homosexuality is right or wrong.

I'll let you start over if you want and explain to me how you feel morality is Darwinian.

Hey Matthew, do you have a more complete citation for that study? It would be interesting to read.

Message edited by author 2007-05-19 19:31:43.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

05/19/2007 08:15:09 PM · #91

I found the study. It's a pretty interesting read. Here's the reference in case people have online access to journals through work or school...

Camperio-Ciani A. Corna F. Capiluppi C. Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. [Comparative Study. Journal Article] Proceedings. Biological Sciences/The Royal Society. 271(1554):2217-21, 2004 Nov 7.

I do have some criticisms, but I don't need to go into them. Like good scientists the authors are actually openly critical of their results and mention possible shortcomings (only some of which I came up with myself) themselves. For those who don't want to or can't read it, just so it isn't incorrectly assumed that the answer has definitively been found, a quote from the authors themselves...

"Finally, we emphasize that over 79% of the variance in
male sexual orientation in our sample remains unaccounted
for by the factors of an excess of maternal homosexual
kin and number of older brothers. This is consistent
with theoretical and empirical studies, which show that
individual experiences are a powerful determinant of
human sexual behaviour and self-identity. Indeed, it is still possible that the higher incidence of homosexuality in the maternal line results from culturally, rather than genetically, inherited traits."
(sorry about the formatting)

Message edited by author 2007-05-19 20:16:31.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

05/19/2007 08:37:04 PM · #92

Can I butt in here and ask just *HOW* a thread on atheism turned into a moral debate on homosexuality? Seriously people.. like there's nothing more immoral you can fixate on. Like only atheists are homosexual.

I can't *believe* this place sometimes.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

05/19/2007 08:42:53 PM · #93

Originally posted by Artyste:

Did you read the whole thread? It came up because we were talking about morality in a Darwinian model. The idea of genetic fitness (ie. the ability to create offspring) came up and homosexuality sprang from that.

We're not picking on you...

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

05/19/2007 08:46:36 PM · #94

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Artyste:
Can I butt in here and ask just *HOW* a thread on atheism turned into a moral debate on homosexuality? Seriously people.. like there's nothing more immoral you can fixate on. Like only atheists are homosexual.

I can't *believe* this place sometimes.

Did you read the whole thread? It came up because we were talking about morality in a Darwinian model. The idea of genetic fitness (ie. the ability to create offspring) came up and homosexuality sprang from that.

We're not picking on you...

Heh, I wouldn't be be so egotistical to take it *personally*, but my point stands. It's a stupid, inane, pointless path that was taken in the first place.

05/19/2007 10:12:30 PM · #95

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

First you state that basic morality (good and evil) is Darwinian... Then you go on to invoke a much more limited word "altruism" when faced with actually declaring something to be good or evil under Darwinian morality.

For some reason, you've made a connection where there was none intended. I mentioned "good vs. evil" exactly once, when describing something I referred to as "basic morality" as commonly understood by people now, also describing it in the same sentence with the words "empathy" and "kindness". I referred to morality, not "good vs. evil", as a Darwinian concept according to a theory by Richard Dawkins.

Then I went on to outline the theory. There's no need to repeat it here. I carefully chose the word "altruistic" to describe how morality was a trait beneficial to close members of the same species who helped each other further their existence along by showing nurturing kindness.

I understand how you may have emotionally responded to the terms "good" and "evil", but I made no claims, and implied nothing other than that which you've just read. You asked a question that did not follow from the argument, namely, is homosexuality evil, in my view picking up on the emotionally loaded word "evil", mentioned just once in passing and in order to define what most now think of as "morality", in order to try to lure me into some kind of semantic morass of your own design. Not an uncommon tactic.

Your question regarding homosexuality is largely irrelevant in my opinion. You seem to be suggesting that the entire theory of the primeval evolutionary roots of morality falls flat on its back as soon as you introduce buggery into the equation. I don't quite understand, but let's see. Your logic seems to look something like this:

It is put forward that morality is a product of evolution, where close members of a species have helped ensure each others' continued existence by showing altruism, and that this trait is carried on today so that members can now be universally altruistic.

Some members of the species are homosexual and do not pass on their genes.

Conclusion: Due to the evolutionary roots of morality, homosexuality must be evil (or "non-altruistic" if you like).

I admit to having a very difficult time following this line of argument.

05/19/2007 10:25:40 PM · #96

Originally posted by Matthew:

I would argue that religion does not offer any single set of moral standards - the moral standards offered by, say, the church are constantly changing to reflect society. I predict that homosexuality will be increasingly accepted by religion (as is already becoming the case in the example of gay ministers) as it becomes increasingly accepted by society. Religion needs to adapt to survive: the world's history is littered with dead religions that did not evolve with society fast enough.

It's not just homosexuality that will deal the final blow. What about the protesting Catholic parishioners of Asson, who want their non-celibate priest back? Surely this is a signal to the Catholic heirarchy. If not, perhaps it's a signal of its death throes.

Message edited by author 2007-05-19 22:34:43.

05/19/2007 10:36:35 PM · #97

OK, I'll start over. I'll try to avoid these loaded words of good and evil.

I do understand altruism. I'll even grant your your definition although there would be those who disagree. (Some would consider altruism to only occur when "behavior by an individual increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.")

My questions would be as follows.

A) Where does homosexuality fall in this equation? or does it fall outside the moral realm of what I will term "darwinian morality"?

B) If you were to sum up the essence of darwinian morality, how would you do so? Would "actions which increase the survival of the species are to be considered moral" suffice?

C) Are animals "moral"? Are plants "moral"?

05/19/2007 11:20:30 PM · #98

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

A) Where does homosexuality fall in this equation? or does it fall outside the moral realm of what I will term "darwinian morality"?

As stated, I don't understand this question to be relevant given what was being discussed, and certainly don't understand why I am to have an opinion on this. If you had some proposition of your own that you wanted to put forward first...? One that you actually believed in, of course.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

B) If you were to sum up the essence of darwinian morality, how would you do so?

Already done in my previous response. Here it is again: morality is a product of evolution, where close members of a species have helped ensure each others' continued existence by showing altruism, and this trait is carried on today so that members can now be universally altruistic (instead of selectively so to closely related members).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

C) Are animals "moral"? Are plants "moral"?

I don't know. Do non-human animals and plants show the same traits as outlined above? Again, if you have some argument you want to put forward, presumably one that shows how the theory fails given some postulate concerning homosexuality and moral/amoral plants and animals, I'm listening.