Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

12/29/2009 08:38:06 PM · #3451

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The deliciously ironic thing is if atheism becomes wildly successful and 100 years from now 80% of Americans are atheist, Shannons argument would then work against him.

Uh, no... I've never made the argument that something must be false simply because most people believe it. That's just redirecting your own fallacy. If most people believe the earth is held in orbit by gravity, whether the knowledge came from their parents or not, that can at least be logically demonstrated even without satellite proof. In other words, there's good reason to believe the possibility aside from just being told so. OTOH, if most people believe the earth is held in place by giant turtles or pillars, then they're ONLY going by what the other person said. It makes no rational sense, and there's no other compelling reason to believe it.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And frankly, this quote, "It seems to rely upon early, repetitive indoctrination and fear of repercussion rather than any sort of evidence or reasoning." is quite insulting.

Do tell... what other basis is there to believe the premise? By your own declarations it cannot be hard evidence, and all similar stories are considered myths. So, other than simply being told it's true (like Santa Claus) and/or believing it just in case it might be true and fearing the claimed consequences of disbelief, what else is there for believing one particular sect's vision?

Message edited by author 2009-12-29 20:52:47.

12/29/2009 08:46:55 PM · #3452

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And frankly, this quote, "It seems to rely upon early, repetitive indoctrination and fear of repercussion rather than any sort of evidence or reasoning." is quite insulting.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Do tell... what other basis is there to believe the premise? By your own declarations it cannot be hard evidence, and all similar stories are considered myths. So, other than simply being told it's true (like Santa Claus) and/or believing it just in case it might be true, what else is there for believing one particular sect's vision?

Oh, come now, Shannon.....certainly you know the answer to that!

Because his sect is right!

12/29/2009 09:33:17 PM · #3453

I'm gonna stop before I really start saying things I regret. Sorry if I get turned off to the conversation when I've been called a brainwashed, moral infant who has no rational thoughts in his mind.

Tell me what the view is like at the top there Shannon? (or your lackey Jeb could, too) It must be nice to know you are better than the vast majority of humans who have ever existed.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/29/2009 09:46:49 PM · #3454

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Unlike you "Lackeys of the Word", I'm nobody's lackey, and neither do I feel that I'm better than anyone else.

That seems to be the domain of you Christians.

Going back, once again, to the question you won't answer about your statement....

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I bring my personal experience to the table and decide gay marriage should not be allowed.

Who do you think you are to decide anyone should or should not be married?

You have no right, nor authority to make any such decision.

And you have the stones to call others arrogant or accuse others of thinking they're better than the next guy?

Look to yourself......YOU are the one that's doing that.

Message edited by author 2009-12-29 21:47:17.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

12/29/2009 09:56:33 PM · #3455

In answer to the title of this thread...evolution is certainly in the works.

Vt. judge: Birth mom must give child to ex-partner.

WoooBoy! What a mess, eh? They better get this kind of scenario worked out because it's certainly repeatable. I mean after all, it's not like there's EVER going to be a blood connection between both "parents" with ANY child in a same sex union now is there.

I'm actually on the side of the lesbian Mom in this case. Her partner, and their union, dissolved when the baby was not quite a year old. Can you imagine having to give up your child in a case like this?!

Sure, there's a parallel with heterosexual parents that have a child thru artificial insemination, but at least then, when someone is trying to explain to the kid years down the road "where's Dad?" it's a little easier to sort out (kinda) even if the "Dad" isn't the blood parent.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/29/2009 10:30:03 PM · #3456

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And frankly, this quote, "It seems to rely upon early, repetitive indoctrination and fear of repercussion rather than any sort of evidence or reasoning." is quite insulting.

Do tell... what other basis is there to believe the premise? By your own declarations it cannot be hard evidence, and all similar stories are considered myths. So, other than simply being told it's true (like Santa Claus) and/or believing it just in case it might be true and fearing the claimed consequences of disbelief, what else is there for believing one particular sect's vision?

While I don't necesarily disagree with you it's much more complicated than that. Have you ever put on a nice suit and felt a rush of pride? And then danced in the rain with it on? Sometimes we make irrational choices and are better for it. Besides, how can one gain acceptance or tolerance toward gay marriage when there's no reciprocation?

12/29/2009 10:37:29 PM · #3457

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Sorry if I get turned off to the conversation when I've been called a brainwashed, moral infant who has no rational thoughts in his mind.

I noted a very strong parallel between the formation of two beliefs familiar to most of us and asked what the difference was. It's not an accusation. I believed in both at one time, and certainly didn't consider myself an irrational moron, etc. even in retrospect. You drew parallels between gay marriage and pedophilia/murder... and then throw a hissy fit over this?!? You might not like the question, but at least we all answered yours to explain the difference!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It must be nice to know you are better than the vast majority of humans who have ever existed.

Holding your personal belief to be fact while all others, including those before it, are mythsâ�� while repeatedly refusing to answer how you arrived at that particular conclusionâ�� is an entire Calphalon set, with a bonus roasting pan, calling the kettle black.

Message edited by author 2009-12-29 23:01:54.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/29/2009 10:57:31 PM · #3458

Originally posted by yanko:

how can one gain acceptance or tolerance toward gay marriage when there's no reciprocation?

Tolerance means "to avoid fearing, hating, oppressing or discriminating against persons whose religious beliefs happen to be different from yours." It doesn't mean one can't question the belief. Jason's more than welcome to believe whatever he wants and practice it as he sees fit (provided he doesn't harm others or prevent them from doing the same). Crying foul at the comparison of one belief to any other (whether Santa Claus or Hercules) suggests that the person views these other beliefs with contempt, as if they could only be the object of ridicule, when each is taken equally seriously by its adherents.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/29/2009 11:56:43 PM · #3459

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It must be nice to know you are better than the vast majority of humans who have ever existed.

Holding your personal belief to be fact while all others, including those before it, are mythsâ�� while repeatedly refusing to answer how you arrived at that particular conclusionâ�� is an entire Calphalon set, with a bonus roasting pan, calling the kettle black.

C'mon, Shannon. There *have* been hard-core Christians in these several threads expressing that position, but Doc isn't one of them and you know it. You, on the other hand, are tossing out thousands of years of the human experience with the conclusion "they were all brainwashed idiots," and THAT's what Doc's referring to. It's as if you have absolutely zero tolerance in you, for all the lip service you pay to the concept. The only difference between you and the religious zealot (as far as your communications/attitude in these threads goes) is that you don't believe in God.

And you don't see this at all, which is a little scary, given how rational/logical you paint yourself as.

R.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/30/2009 12:19:02 AM · #3460

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's as if you have absolutely zero tolerance in you...

This round to Shannon. Nothing he's said has been anything like you or Jason have characterized it. And I don't understand why you don't take Jason to task for:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Tell me what the view is like at the top there Shannon? (or your lackey Jeb could, too) It must be nice to know you are better than the vast majority of humans who have ever existed.

Show me the like character jabs scalvert has engaged in. And don't give me this "brainwashed idiots" thing. If you can't call a spade a spade during the course of an argument about something as ethereal as religion because the subject matter is inviolate, what kind of discourse are we at liberty to engage in here?

12/30/2009 12:42:46 AM · #3461

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tell me what the view is like at the top there Shannon? (or your lackey Jeb could, too) It must be nice to know you are better than the vast majority of humans who have ever existed.

Show me the like character jabs scalvert has engaged in. And don't give me this "brainwashed idiots" thing. If you can't call a spade a spade during the course of an argument about something as ethereal as religion because the subject matter is inviolate, what kind of discourse are we at liberty to engage in here?

Louis, I think that in civil discourse there is a difference between "I do not accept X because it makes no rational sense to me." and "You believe in X only because you are indoctrinated or you are scared of being punished because there is no rational reason to believe." How can I not take such as an insult?

And, Jeb, I got a little out of hand with you, but frankly you are pretty infamous for the "pile on" comment. BTW, I've really only ignored your question because there are literally already 3500 posts with the answer (well, minus the rabbit track posts). I'm trying to cut down on the "again and again" stuff.

Message edited by author 2009-12-30 00:42:59.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/30/2009 12:55:39 AM · #3462

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Holding your personal belief to be fact while all others, including those before it, are mythsâ�� while repeatedly refusing to answer how you arrived at that particular conclusionâ�� is an entire Calphalon set, with a bonus roasting pan, calling the kettle black.

There *have* been hard-core Christians in these several threads expressing that position, but Doc isn't one of them and you know it. You, on the other hand, are tossing out thousands of years of the human experience with the conclusion "they were all brainwashed idiots," and THAT's what Doc's referring to.

Uh, yeah, he *IS* one of them. Think about it... anyone who believes in a particular version of God (any god) is by default holding that belief to be true while the others are not. How can you possibly deny that? Professing any religious faith MUST come at the expense of the alternatives because each claims exclusivity.

I did not say "brainwashed idiots"- that was Doc flying off the handle. You and he and I, and probably everyone else in this thread, likely agree that Hercules, Odin, Osirus and countless other ancient deities were myths, so how would you characterize those people as YOU toss out thousands of years of human experience? Surely not "a brainwashed moral infant who has no rational thoughts in his mind," as Achoo invented. I used Santa Claus because it was the nearest relevant belief that we can identify with. Most of us learned these fantastic stories from people we respect, believed them to be true ourselves, and didn't suddenly disbelieve due to age or maturity or greater intellectâ�� it's just that doubt itself wasn't taboo and the story was eventually demonstrated as false for each of us. If there were no way to disprove St. Nick (no catching parents in the act, no "made in China" labels, and the occasional "impossible" gift), and more to gain by continuing the story, how many [intelligent, rational, insert any favorable term you like] people would continue to fervently believe it all their lives? How did we learn to personally believe that story as true any differently than religion? Getting hung up on the Santa Claus thing at face value is a cop outâ�� the exact same question and principle applies to Greek or Egyptian mythology, so substitute one of those if it makes you feel any better: "what other basis is there to believe the premise? By your own declarations it cannot be hard evidence, and all similar stories are considered myths. So, other than simply being told it's true (like Zeus) and/or believing it just in case it might be true and fearing the claimed consequences of disbelief, what else is there for believing one particular sect's vision?"

Message edited by author 2009-12-30 01:07:19.

Louis

Nikon D800

12/30/2009 12:56:34 AM · #3463

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tell me what the view is like at the top there Shannon? (or your lackey Jeb could, too) It must be nice to know you are better than the vast majority of humans who have ever existed.

Show me the like character jabs scalvert has engaged in. And don't give me this "brainwashed idiots" thing. If you can't call a spade a spade during the course of an argument about something as ethereal as religion because the subject matter is inviolate, what kind of discourse are we at liberty to engage in here?

Louis, I think that in civil discourse there is a difference between "I do not accept X because it makes no rational sense to me." and "You believe in X only because you are indoctrinated or you are scared of being punished because there is no rational reason to believe." How can I not take such as an insult?

By taking it for what it is: an academic argument. Note, though, the lack of the word "you" in any of his responses -- he's not addressing any specific individual. So you are misquoting him at best, taking what he says out of context at worst. He took a cat-swipe with the kettle thing, but not until you accused him of megalomania.

I think calling believers indoctrinated is right on the mark. If one is not indoctrinated into a religion, how does one acquire it? The only reason I was ever Catholic was because I was indoctrinated as a child. I think pointing out the motivational fear of punishment is accurate. There is a Christian mantra from many quarters that accuses atheism of embracing or wallowing in immorality, because without God there is no moral compass. The corollary assumption can only be that without that moral compass, the fear of punishment evaporates, and the human being is free to rape and pillage at will (and this has literally been said many times). The very concept of "fear of God" or "God fearing" is institutionalized in Christianity. What's so insulting about pointing it out?

Religion (and believers) can no longer cry foul when the weakest parts of the edifice are pointed out.

12/30/2009 01:10:39 AM · #3464

Originally posted by Louis:

Note, though, the lack of the word "you" in any of his responses -- he's not addressing any specific individual.

Well now I did. In bold. However, it's not a character assassination. Can anyone deny with a straight face that we ALL disregard thousands of years of devout, popular beliefs as myth? It doesn't mean those people were stupid, immature, ill-informed or any other slight, and yet many of us continue to acquire and maintain beliefs that would be indistinguishable from those mythologies.

Message edited by author 2009-12-30 01:16:55.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

12/30/2009 02:12:33 AM · #3465

An aside, from Wiki:

The Canon EOS (Electro-Optical System) autofocus 35 mm film and digital SLR camera system was introduced in 1987 with the Canon EOS 650 and is still in production as Canon's current dSLR system. The acronym EOS was chosen for Eos, the Titan Goddess of dawn in Greek mythology.

Carry on.

12/30/2009 07:01:33 AM · #3466

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

[ BTW, I've really only ignored your question because there are literally already 3500 posts with the answer (well, minus the rabbit track posts).

Well, no. The reason that I glommed onto the question was that you actually came out and stated that "You decide" that gay marriage should not be permitted.

That's, if nothing else, at least honest, yet you no more have the right or authority to decide that than you do to assign the fees for parking tickets, or the hours of the convenience store down the block.

You may object to them, but you do not get to decide that they are wrong.

Where the difference lies between these things is when you step on people's rights by trying to impose your religious belief system onto them.

You are not permitted to do that by virtue of the way our laws are.

You're talking about denying rights of people who have no control over their sexual orientation because of a belief.

Can you not see how wrong that is?

Saying for one second that your view has any veracity, how can you justify it from a standpoint of law in a free country?

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

12/30/2009 07:51:19 AM · #3467

Originally posted by scalvert:

It doesn't mean those people were stupid, immature, ill-informed or any other slight, and yet many of us continue to acquire and maintain beliefs that would be indistinguishable from those mythologies.

That was why I was so surprised when Jason called me on my acknowledgement of my irrational belief in God.

I refuse to overlook the evidence that's right in front of me in favor of an unsupported belief, yet I do embrace some beliefs that aren't supportable. But I make that choice knowingly, and would never try to make someone else see it my way. Part of what I love about the society that I live within is that I am free to believe what I want.....as long as I don't force my views, especially as it pertains to unsupported belifs, on others.

Faith and beliefs are personal, and have no business outside of your relationship with them. That's what religious freedom is......a two way street.....freedom OF religion, and freedom FROM religion.

Where I draw the line is when someone says, "I don't care about your supported facts & logic, and don't believe them, however I maintain that everything that is said in the Bible is true.".

That's fine if that's the way you want to look at life, but you're openly stating that you'll refuse to believe anything even in the face of concrete evidence.

Thing is, you don't have any more right to that than a Muslim does for his "Word".

Look where that's getting them!

You cannot get along in a society where you share it with people who don't share your beliefs. It simply will not work. You will always be attempting to impose your beliefs on them, even if their tenet towards you is to allow you the privilege and respect of not trying to force their beliefs on you.

When you do that, you become arrogant, and entitled, not to mention elitist, and you will meet resistance. You cannot succeed, or even get along in society if you constantly try to force others to do it your way.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

12/30/2009 10:14:58 AM · #3468

Originally posted by Louis:

I think calling believers indoctrinated is right on the mark. If one is not indoctrinated into a religion, how does one acquire it? The only reason I was ever Catholic was because I was indoctrinated as a child.

Religion is indoctrination, in the specific and in the general. This is clear to those standing outside a particular belief system, but is almost never clear to the person sitting in the position of faith. Growing up in a faith, I certainly did not believe that my worldview was the product of early and ongoing indoctrination from church, family and friends who not only provided a self-reinforcing reference for the "logic" of my faith, but through whose association I was provided with very real benefits and incentives for not questioning the religious precepts. It was only after I moved away from my faith that I began to see it as the system of indoctrination that it actually was, and then only after more time away and study of other religions and religion more broadly that I saw that there is a more general indoctrination favoring adoption of some flavor of the majority religious belief (Christianity in the US, for example).

There is some recent research indicating that the historically accurate trend of believers adhering almost exclusively to the same specific religious belief system of their parents in adulthood is no longer as strong as it used to be. This is most likely the result of the "intrusion" if our modern information systems - the radio, television (and most strongly) the Internet - which provide information about competing belief systems to an extent that was never available in the past, and in the case of the Internet, are able to provide a virtual community that can provide support for the believer that may want to "jump the fence." (Note, that this also applies to the rise - or at least awareness - of atheism. The alternative of non-belief is more widely known and accepted, and even for those individuals locked in a strongly faith-based community or environment, the Internet can provide support and community.)

I think this expansion of awareness likely means that more people believe more strongly that they have arrived at whatever belief they currently hold by way of conscious reason, than merely by inherited faith, as believers may have been more willing to acknowledge in previous years. ("X church was good enough for may dad and granddad and so its good enough for me," probably is not as acceptable today as it might have been 20, 50, or 100 years ago.) Even if one's understanding or awareness of other belief systems is merely superficial, I think there is probably a tendency to see ones own faith, or lack thereof, as being the result of a conscious, informed choice, and others faith, or lack thereof, as being something they have merely inherited or have come about through non-rational processes.

Originally posted by Louis:

I think pointing out the motivational fear of punishment is accurate. There is a Christian mantra from many quarters that accuses atheism of embracing or wallowing in immorality, because without God there is no moral compass. The corollary assumption can only be that without that moral compass, the fear of punishment evaporates, and the human being is free to rape and pillage at will (and this has literally been said many times). The very concept of "fear of God" or "God fearing" is institutionalized in Christianity. What's so insulting about pointing it out?

Yes - this is the core of the "there can be no objective morality outside of religion" argument. What the argument really amounts to is that the religious believer cannot see how objective morality can be possible without enforcement of that morality. But if there actually is right or wrong, then that distinction exists whether or not there is reward for right action and punishment for wrong action. In other words, morality may very well be objectively knowable without god, but without god, justice is simply that which we make ourselves.

Message edited by author 2009-12-30 10:52:27.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

12/30/2009 10:45:21 AM · #3469

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

It was only after I moved away from my faith that I began to see it as the system of indoctrination that it actually was, and then only after more time away and study of other religions and religion generally that I saw that there is a more general indoctrination favoring adoption of some flavor of the majority religious belief (Christianity in the US, for example) in general.

A 3-star general in one sentence. Salute! ;-)

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

12/30/2009 10:53:50 AM · #3470

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
It was only after I moved away from my faith that I began to see it as the system of indoctrination that it actually was, and then only after more time away and study of other religions and religion more broadly that I saw that there is a more general indoctrination favoring adoption of some flavor of the majority religious belief (Christianity in the US, for example).

A 3-star general in one sentence. Salute! ;-)

The very model of a modern major-general. Although, I'm sure I do not have the foggiest idea of what you might be referring to, I would never mangle a sentence so grotesquely. (Don't you just love the edit function.)

Message edited by author 2009-12-30 11:03:16.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

12/30/2009 11:31:42 AM · #3471

Ribbing Louis, I'll recall he was the last person on the thread to be "highly offended"... ;)

I think the word "indoctrination" is being used purposely as an insult. Wiki says this: Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such it is used pejoratively, often in the context of political opinions, theology or religious dogma.

I pride myself on being a rational, thoughtful, questioning individual. I also take pride that I am not a unique individual in my religion. I still take it as an insult that after two or three years Shannon's view of my opinions are that they only exist because I was "indoctrinated" in them and choose not to question them. That somehow if I were only to do so, I would be like him. If he cannot see after all this time that I ask questions and explore ideas and STILL remain with the conclusions I hold, then it reflects only a blind obstinance on his part.

Message edited by author 2009-12-30 11:32:51.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

12/30/2009 11:58:05 AM · #3472

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think the word "indoctrination" is being used purposely as an insult. Wiki says this: Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected and requirement not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such it is used pejoratively, often in the context of political opinions, theology or religious dogma.

Yes, it is being used pejoratively, but a pejorative does not a personal insult make. You and Shannon will have to work out your personal issues amongst yourselves, but as Louis has stated, you cannot take as personal insult an academic/intellectual attack on a weak point of your argument. The underlined portion of your description of indoctrination above is an excellent description of why indoctrination applies to religious belief generally (there I go again), if even perhaps not to your belief individually.

The expectation not to question or critically examine is exactly the attitude those of us who grew up in religions were exposed to when we did start asking the "wrong" questions and the exact opposite of the whole point of scientific inquiry. I believe I have said in other threads that I have no problem crediting you, personally, with a well-thought out and rational conception of your belief. but, this is quite demonstrably not the case for the vast majority of believers, and there is a very real (and revived) trend in modern evangelical christianity that actively discourages and despises logic, reason and scientific curiosity about the world. To deny this is simply to deny the reality of modern christianity in the United States. Does this anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-rational expression of christianity represent the sum total of the belief system? Of course not, but it is the most vocal, most influential and arguably the largest portion of the current system, and is exactly the expression of christianity against which non-believers and more rational believers point their resistance.

Even you, Doc, have personally indicated that at some point your faith rests on a conscious rejection of what you consider to be potentially troubling naturalistic explanations. This may be a "rational" choice from your standpoint as a believer, but I would suggest, with no personal insult intended, that it also represents a fulcrum point in your belief at which your prior and current indoctrination begins to overrule your otherwise questioning nature.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

12/30/2009 12:07:43 PM · #3473

And today, according to DPC, is Wednesday December 30, 2009.

12/30/2009 12:29:53 PM · #3474

"Wiki says this: Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and sceptical scrutiny of one's own ideas."

You don't seem to be disputing the statement, just crying foul because it doesn't sound flattering...? How about, "religion uses persistent, early instruction to impart ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or methodologies with the expectation that people are not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned." Better?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but from all appearances the questions you ask and concepts you explore in these threads have never been about your personal beliefs. You question the alternatives, under the assumption that your belief (absolute morality, homosexuality is a choice, etc.) is still the only possibility, and therefore avoid critical examination by measuring everything against that skewed yardstick. It's sort of like the Church considering Galileo's discovery: they ask questions and explore ideas... as long as it means the universe still rotates around the earth. If the belief itself is questioned (as in this recent exchange), you invariably cry foul and/or change the subject to avoid a response. Jason, I'm NOT trying to hurl insults here. The above description of indoctrination appears to be an apt description of how religious belief is acquired. I can't help that the word holds a negative connotation for you, but I can't think of a more appropriate term, and you still haven't offered anything to suggest it doesn't fit.