Those Fanatical Atheists... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/18/2007 10:44:07 PM · #51

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You guys keep thinking that I'm saying that atheists are amoral. They are not. But the term "atheism" does not conjure up a stereotypical code of conduct in ones mind because no such stereotypical code of conduct exists. One atheist may follow hedonism, one may follow utilitarianism (both moral codes which are not founded in religion).

I agree with the denotation of what you say, but the clear connotation or implication of the (para)phrase "atheism doesn't concern itself with morality" is that its adherents don't either.

I'm pretty sure that when I've seen results of those ethical or personality tests which rate such things, professed atheists tend to score as high or higher on the "morality scale" as do the devout of any organized religion.

05/18/2007 10:46:48 PM · #52

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I agree with the denotation of what you say, but the clear connotation or implication of the (para)phrase "atheism doesn't concern itself with morality" is that its adherents don't either.

Well, frankly, I do not agree with the connotation (well, not totally) either, but I was using the connotation to try to explain why people might not like an atheist for a president. If they believed the connotation, it would probably make sense.

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 22:47:01.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/18/2007 10:49:38 PM · #53

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If someone allowed a black man to die from syphillus (when treatment was available) so as to record the natural history of that disease, wouldn't one assume that person could be none other than a scientist?

... who probably (given the era and locale) went to church every Sunday.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

All I was trying to say was atheism is not concerned with telling people how to act. Religion is. That's all I'm say. Tie that into my poor attempt at explaining why only 45% of Americans think an atheist would make a good president and you have my whole argument.

I thought most Americans -- especially "conservatives" -- were supposed to be against those in government telling them what to do.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/18/2007 10:50:39 PM · #54

BTW: it's syphilis

05/18/2007 10:51:00 PM · #55

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I thought most Americans -- especially "conservatives" -- were supposed to be against those in government telling them what to do.

Unfortunately conservatives have hijacked my religion... :(

05/18/2007 10:51:53 PM · #56

Originally posted by GeneralE:

BTW: it's syphilis

Thanks, like Einstein, spelling isn't my hot suit... ;)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/18/2007 10:52:23 PM · #57

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I thought most Americans -- especially "conservatives" -- were supposed to be against those in government telling them what to do.

Unfortunately conservatives have hijacked my religion... :(

Actually, it's more that fundamentalist religion has hijacked consrvatism in general and the Republican Party in particular.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/18/2007 10:54:09 PM · #58

In my years of medical training, I'd say about 35% of those in the medical fields spell it the way you did -- NBD (unless you get it!) : )

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

05/18/2007 11:06:50 PM · #59

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So Louis, do you and/or Dawkins consider homosexuality to be evil? It seems to carry a very strong negative influence on whether genes are passed on or not...

Thank you for pointing out that you have apparently not understood evolutionary theory, as I suggested. There is no genetic imperative insinuated by every sexual act. There is no sustaining imperative suggested by every act of eating. There is no continuance imperative suggested by every act of altruism. Organisms are the sum of all their parts, more than mere blobs seeking to effuse genetic material onto one another. Evolution is discreet, impassive, implacable, and inevitable; but it is not predictably lifeless.

To directly answer this rather mysterious question, no, homosexuality is not "evil", whatever that means.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

05/18/2007 11:11:32 PM · #60

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

A scientist, yes, but not necessarily an Athiest. You have no way of knowing whether the scientist was Athiest, Jewish or devout Catholic. Science isn't a belief system- it's just a way of proving or disproving an hypothesis. It's the method, not the motivation.

P.S.- Mengele was raised a staunch Catholic.

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 23:22:31.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

05/18/2007 11:36:29 PM · #61

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So Louis, do you and/or Dawkins consider homosexuality to be evil? It seems to carry a very strong negative influence on whether genes are passed on or not...

Thank you for pointing out that you have apparently not understood evolutionary theory, as I suggested. There is no genetic imperative insinuated by every sexual act. There is no sustaining imperative suggested by every act of eating. There is no continuance imperative suggested by every act of altruism. Organisms are the sum of all their parts, more than mere blobs seeking to effuse genetic material onto one another. Evolution is discreet, impassive, implacable, and inevitable; but it is not predictably lifeless.

To directly answer this rather mysterious question, no, homosexuality is not "evil", whatever that means.

Whoa, hold on Louis. I quite understand evolutionary theory. If one individual has sex with the opposite gender less frequently than another individual, over time that individual's genetic code will be less represented in the genetic pool. It's as simple as that. Survival of the fittest at its absolute core. I don't think I'm making a big assumption that homosexuals, on average, have sex with women less often than heterosexuals. That's not to say they never do, but it is to say they do it less.

So let me go back to point out that I said...
evil being "anything that decreases the individual's chances of passing his genetic code on".

and you followed...

"it is an assertion Dawkins makes and that I find quite reasonable."

we then are faced with the obviousness of the fact that homosexuals have intercourse with women less frequently than heterosexuals and they do so because of their homosexual tendancies. I can only conclude that both you and Dawkins would say that homosexuality is "evil".

but you tell me that's not the case.

Can I get a witness to the logical conclusions of the argument (even if you don't agree with the conclusion yourself)?

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 23:38:51.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

05/18/2007 11:53:27 PM · #62

I don't really want to get drawn into this debate -- I'm more than happy to let the Doc and Shannon duel it out instead of shooting for DPL. However, Doc, I do want to point out that evolution is less concerned with individual reproduction as it is with maintaining a sustainable population that is able to reproduce. Therefore, factors that help control that population can be seen as aiding that population's ability to reproduce in a sustainable manner. If every individual reproduced at their maximum capability, a population would quickly outgrow its available resources, and would likely die out.

As for the morality of this, well, I agree with you that science has no concern with morality. So to say homosexuality is evil or not is not a question that science would even attempt to answer.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

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

05/19/2007 12:08:31 AM · #63

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

evil being "anything that decreases the individual's chances of passing his genetic code on".

Interesting definition of evil. I guess that means ugly people are evil. ;-)

As Eqsite pointed out, science has no concern with morality. We might view cannibalism as morally evil, but it serves mantids and black widows well. Some animals can even change gender, making any moral argument of sexual orientation moot.

Do note that evolutionary changes tend to take place on time scales well beyond our limited written history. For all we know, homosexuality was far more prevalent 15,000 years ago and HAS been on the decline. It's also entirely possible (perhaps likely) that homosexual tendencies are tied to genes which DO offer a survival advantage in other ways, and an increased number of siblings offset the otherwise perceived disadvantage.

Message edited by author 2007-05-19 00:14:30.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/19/2007 12:14:43 AM · #64

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
evil being "anything that decreases the individual's chances of passing his genetic code on".

Interesting definition of evil. I guess that means ugly people are evil. ;-)

Does that mean that Buddhist Monks, the Pope, Catholic priests and all others that practice celibacy are evil?

Ray

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

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

05/19/2007 12:16:33 AM · #65

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Does that mean that Buddhist Monks, the Pope, Catholic priests and all others that practice celibacy are evil?

Nah... I've got cardinals flirting with each other in my back yard. ;-)

fotomann_forever

05/19/2007 12:19:53 AM · #66

YUM!

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/19/2007 12:20:08 AM · #67

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Does that mean that Buddhist Monks, the Pope, Catholic priests and all others that practice celibacy are evil?

Nah... I've got cardinals flirting with each other in my back yard. ;-)

Did you get a close look at them... I mean real close... they really could be evil you know. :O)

Ray

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/19/2007 12:53:02 AM · #68

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.

rjkstesch

Nikon D700

05/19/2007 12:56:20 AM · #69

Interesting discussion.

I'd like to go back to the original question of the 45% rate given for an atheist for president and why that may be when other groups have higher scores.

Looking at the religious categories, it is my belief that the average American feels they can assume the moral compass the candidate is using, based on the assumption that the candidate follows the precept of that religion. Either they know the creed of the religion or could easily find the creed.

Looking at the atheist category, it is my belief that the average American feels unsure as to what the moral compass is for the candidate. As the atheist category as a whole doesn't share a commonly known creed or set of moral beliefs, the average voter is left without the ability to make assumptions based on commonly known precepts other than the choice to not believe in a supreme being. I believe that many people take the next step in their assumptions to assume that without a belief in a supreme being, there must not be a belief in a guiding moral code. Unless a person is challenged on the assumption, or engages in an opportunity to examine their assumption, the assumptions continue and flavor their judgement.

Looking at the racial category/categories, it is my belief that enough Americans have examined their assumptions about individuals within the race, that the creed/ moral code is based on the individual instead of the race. The moral code of many people of ethnicity within the US has been on display and discussed within the public eye. This type of display is much less common for identified atheists.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/19/2007 01:01:51 AM · #70

Heh. That's what i said. Just a lot more eloquently and without ruffling feathers...

rjkstesch

Nikon D700

05/19/2007 01:06:04 AM · #71

Not ruffling feathers... it's my specialty. And, all of you have been much more eloquent that I am. I talk to elementary students, their parents and teachers and all day. Plainness works best.

Message edited by author 2007-05-19 01:09:40.

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

05/19/2007 01:07:17 AM · #72

Originally posted by rjkstesch:

Not ruffling feathers... it's my specialty.

My specialty is allergy.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

05/19/2007 01:32:54 AM · #73

Originally posted by rjkstesch:

Interesting discussion.

I'd like to go back to the original question of the 45% rate given for an atheist for president and why that may be when other groups have higher scores.

Just finished reading the thread and was about to jump in and defend Doc with basically exactly what Becky has just said. The majority of Americans believe in God, and if you're a believer you want another believer leading you. Actual denomination will take a back seat to the simple fact of belief in a Supreme Being. Makes perfect sense to me, as far as interpreting the poll goes.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's a "miracle" the atheists can even poll 45% :-)

R.