Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 1436/1637
(27-Oct-2011 at 23:47)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
So what? That doesn't stop them being pointless or ridiculous.
So which set of values in society isn't pointless or ridiculous?

Enter moral absolutism. Are you a bigot, too, VoR?

Quote:
... and then do the same again, missing the bit at 6:11 where Dawkins says "there is no such thing as the gay gene"
Actually he is giving an explanation scenario 3 where the 'gay gene' may have manifested itself in other ways in the past.

That doesn't change the implications today, at all.

Quote:
You don't need to be an expert in genetics to know that there is no gay gene, you just need to understand the absolute basics. It is a fundamental principle of genetics that *only physical traits can be inherited*. Ever heard of the Human Genome Project? That mapped the entire human genome and guess what: no gay gene was found.
Wrong. Mapping a sequence of A-T-G-C does not show the function of DNA...

If what you say is true, then genetics would have been a done and dusted field. Guess what, Mr. pseudo-expert, we don't know what DNA does, thats why the Human Genome Project was just the beginning.

Also, "only physical traits can be inherited" is bullshit. You should read George Price, Bill Hamilton, and Richard Dawkins' (particularly his book 'The Selfish Gene'). Behaviour is very, very much encoded in DNA.

I don't know what books youve been reading, VoR. But once again I feel you are completely off the rails with what I thought were mainstream, well-established concepts in the field.

Quote:
I understand that gay activists would really, really, like there to be a gay gene, because then they could say that homosexuality is innate and, just like being black or being female, they just can't help it. Then they could position their demands for marriage to be altered to accommodate same-sex unions as a noble civil rights-issue.
It's a double-egded sword. It's like saying, because I am born with criminal tendancies then I should be given the right to express them. Society may very well reject those kinds of people, or at least heavily institutionize them, like other 'handicaps'.

Quote:
There is no gay gene in humans. None has been found and no credible scientist has ever said there is. The gay gene exists only on TV shows and out-of-context, un-provenanced You Tube clips. Homosexuality is a minority behaviour, nothing more, and as such does not qualify to be granted any special rights.
Well, I'm glad I mentioned the gay gene now.

While I do agree with you somewhat, I think that scenario 3 which Dawkins explained still means that there are a large number of genetic factors which contribute to homosexuality. Hormone balance might be one of them.

As for youtube, it's handy. People would usually NOT like to read papers for the sake of a passing internet discussion. If I can find a reputable person who backs up an argument, I'll use it.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 27-Oct-2011 at 23:56.
#101  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6808/7006
(28-Oct-2011 at 07:09)


Quote:
So which set of values in society isn't pointless or ridiculous?
The ones that are useful or of value to society.


Quote:
Actually he is giving an explanation scenario 3 where the 'gay gene' may have manifested itself in other ways in the past.
Actually he says the gay gene doesn't exist. It is right there at 6:11. Actually he is saying that one explanation for the inability of the purely hypothetical gay gene to be passed on is that homosexuality could (hypothetically) be a manifestation of some other gene. Hypothetically.

To make any of these hypotheses into the fact you imagine they are in your YouTube world, you would have to identify either a gay gene (which they haven't, despite mapping them all) or identify which other gene is manifesting as gay, with they haven't despite mapping them all.


Quote:
Also, "only physical traits can be inherited" is bullshit. You should read George Price, Bill Hamilton, and Richard Dawkins' (particularly his book 'The Selfish Gene'). Behaviour is very, very much encoded in DNA.
Behaviour is not encoded in DNA at all and, since none of those names you are dropping ever said it was, I know you haven't read them. You have just heard them mentioned on some kiddies YouTube video.

W.D. Hamilton proposed a genetic factor in *social* behaviour, not *individual* behaviour (which is how I know you haven't read any of his work...) and that genetic factor is not genes forcing behaviour, but genes forcing a need to protect family or social groups. No, they are not the same thing.

Price expanded on this notion, and Dawkins jumped on the bandwagon to make some money selling a book about it.

This all happened in the 1960s to early 70s, and it is 2011 now. They have all been overtaken by events, notably the work of Gould and Eldredge who proved that genes are invisible to natural selection, and Sterelny who basically demolished the whole notion of 'selfish' genes. This is another problem with thinking YouTube is an encyclopaedia - you voluntarily feed yourself with out-of-date populist crap.

In simple terms you might grasp, it is proven beyond any sensible doubt that there in no mechanism for genes (or DNA) to directly affect individual behaviour. The nearest they can get is limiting behaviour by imposing physical constraints: humans cannot behave like fishes, birds, or cheetahs because we are physically incapable of it. Anything beyond that is for junk-science fanatics such as yourself.


Quote:
I don't know what books youve been reading, VoR.
I have a Masters degree in Linguistics. That includes the origins and evolution of language, which is a behaviour just like homosexuality, so I am kind of familiar with the field. One of the big discussions is why anybody needs language, encapsulated in the question of why any animal should make an alarm call that reduces the individuals chances of survival by drawing attention to itself. Now, if you had ever read W.D. Hamilton's 1964 paper " “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour” you would find that - ta-daa! - it deals with exactly that question. Which is why, in contrast to you, I have read it.

I have also read the later research that shows that Hamilton's answer that they do it because they are genetically programmed to protect there kin is not supported by observation, and I have read Sterenly/Bickerton/etc discussing the current niche theory that explains it as learned co-operative behaviour in a constructed evolutionary niche.


Quote:
It's a double-egded sword. It's like saying, because I am born with criminal tendancies then I should be given the right to express them.
Nobody is born with criminal tendencies. it is not a physical trait.


Quote:
I think that scenario 3 which Dawkins explained still means that there are a large number of genetic factors which contribute to homosexuality. Hormone balance might be one of them.
Only because that is what you *want* to believe. So much so that you are willing to ignore all the research that proves that only physical traits can be inherited, and instead pile ifs on top of maybes on top of could bes in a ridiculous house of cards in which nothing is actually proven.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?


Quote:
As for youtube, it's handy.
It is also, in nearly every case, wrong.


Quote:
People would usually NOT like to read papers for the sake of a passing internet discussion.
Some of us like to get credible information, and as getting that is only marginally more onerous than watching a a YouTube video we do it. YouTube is for losers who are scared of real information.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#102  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6809/7006
(28-Oct-2011 at 07:59)


Quote:
In Canada minority groups do have rights.
For example?


Quote:
Why should they not have the right to be gay openly and not be bullied, or abused, or targeted by job loss, economic hardship and even prison or death under some laws?
They already have them. Ever heard of the UNCHR? Ever read it? Have I ever said they shouldn't have those rights?

This has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.


Quote:
Nicea established the basis of the Christian religion
What part of "The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops..." are you having trouble with? If it was a gathering of Christian Bishops then it is bloody obvious that Christianity and it's Bishops was established before Nicea.


Quote:
and produced the tenets of canonical law.
Whose canonical law would that be - Catholic? Orthodox? C of E?


Quote:
the modern day concept of the catholic church was also established.
That was the Council of Trent, but you are welcome to continue pretending it never took place.

Depending how you define 'catholic church', it was either founded by Christ at the Confession of Peter, or by Constantine the First in 380 when he made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, or in the 11th century when the church split in two over arguments about papal authority.

None of those involve Nicea, and the modern Catholic Church was defined at Trent.


Quote:
A gay couple has to use lawyers to gain benefits that are granted automatically to a straight couple.
Repetition doesn't make anything true, and you keep repeating this line with a notable absence of anything at all supporting it.


Quote:
Obviously it is only a right for a certain segment of the populace
Wrong. Anybody can get married. Nobody is excluded.


Quote:
If the definition cannot be changed, then make the legal definition of a social contract a civil union, same as the gays, and avoid this fuss.
'This fuss' is just a noisy minority. Why should the majority adapt to accomodate a little bunch of extremists?

Your arguments amounts to "if you don't play by my rules I am taking my ball home", only you have forgotten that it isn't your ball.


Quote:
You are arguing what they argue, so it is mutual.
You know filcher, I am getting sick of you lying about what I say. If that is all you have got, you really should STFU and say nothing.

If I have ever "argue[d] against same sex union of any kind" POST IT - prove your point.

If I haven't, then if you had any balls you would retract your lie and apologise, but I doubt you will.


Quote:
I have repeatedly shown where they are not equal and you say it is a petty difference.
Where have you repeatedly shown it?

You posted it once or twice in another thread somewhere, and it was a load of petty differences. Even your link stated that there was no material difference!

Leaving your fantasies behind and getting a grip on reality, in the US there are 3 differences:

The lack of federal recognition, which is a petty difference because states that recognise civil unions or same-sex marriages grant the same rights at state level.

The lack of portability, which is petty in a crying for the moon sort of way. When the majority doesn't accept your minority view you just have to live with it, and as long as they live in a state with civil unions it is not a material issue.

The poor little things can't call their civil union a marriage.

Not exactly a major inequality...


Quote:
No, to those involved it is not petty,
The amount of huffing and puffing and blowing of hot air is not a measure of importance

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#103  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1437/1637
(28-Oct-2011 at 21:04)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
The ones that are useful or of value to society.
We also look inward, as the unlocking of the human genome will bring about the birth of perfect babies. Think of a world without disease, or midgets, where fully formed, adult "babies" are born, and their first words are "Sieg Heil".
#104  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3962/3983
(29-Oct-2011 at 18:50)


Quote:
For example?
They have legal rights that make it a crime to provide services to the general public without making the services available to the handicapped. I never said that gays nor handicapped should have special rights, but they should have protection to enjoy the rights that others already have.

Quote:
They already have them. Ever heard of the UNCHR? Ever read it? Have I ever said they shouldn't have those rights?
Yes. Allowing gays the right to marry opposite sex partners makes as much sense as laws prohibiting the rich from stealing bread. Gay people do not want to be married to opposite sex partners. Why would the UNCHR protect marriage rights of heterosexuals? Why would a right specifically make marriage between a man and a woman necessary unless it was discriminatory in outlook itself.

Quote:
What part of "The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops..." are you having trouble with? If it was a gathering of Christian Bishops then it is bloody obvious that Christianity and it's Bishops was established before Nicea.
Quote:
Whose canonical law would that be - Catholic? Orthodox? C of E?
What part of the divinity of Jesus, and the relationship to God was addressed at Nicea' did you miss? In case you don't know, the Trinity is a large part of the belief in God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. There was a christian church at the time of Nicea, in fact there were many factions of churches all using their own books and with their own beliefs. Nicea bought them together to solidify the beliefs that they had so the religion was more united in outlook.

I refer to the catholic of course. As a linguist you should know that the term catholic referred to the early Christian religion and not the Catholic sect that appearred later. The Nicea Council can be considered the first meeting of catholic bishops, who agreed upon the direction of the early Christian religion, which had many different sects and used different biblical books at this time.

Quote:
That was the Council of Trent, but you are welcome to continue pretending it never took place.
Uh huh, and I take your claim you are a linguist and you do not know the difference between catholic (small c) and Catholic?

Quote:
Depending how you define 'catholic church', it was either founded by Christ at the Confession of Peter, or by Constantine the First in 380 when he made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, or in the 11th century when the church split in two over arguments about papal authority.
The foundation of the church itself was with the preaching of Jesus, the founding was the Pentecost, when Jesus rose from the dead and filled his followers with the Holy Spirit, the early church was formed by Jews who used synagogues to discuss Christ's teachings, and here is where the first Cghristian judeo church was formed. The physical formation and organization of the catholic church, as we know it today,(where catholic refers to the believers in Christ and not the Catholic religion) into a more or less unified set of beliefs (as opposed to heretical beliefs by some christian sects), was instituted at Nicea, and as you said, formed through a series of other council meetings.

Constantine allowed the early church to make strong inroads and establish itself, and the Council of Nicea was the first of many councils that would be used to address questions that were troubling the religion. While he did make Christianity the state religion, it was only until he died, at which Rome refuted back to pagan worship, but with elements of Christian belief inherited into it. Christians were once again persecuted.

Quote:
Repetition doesn't make anything true, and you keep repeating this line with a notable absence of anything at all supporting it.
I linked the relevant part in the appropriate thread, and it was one of the points addressed by the Cali SC.


Quote:
'This fuss' is just a noisy minority. Why should the majority adapt to accomodate a little bunch of extremists?
Why should we ignore the minority to only accommodate the majority. That you still argue against the creation of a word that would legally mean either same sex marriage or traditional marriage, but still leave marriage as the word within society for traditional couples, suggests to me that the definition is not truly your argument, but that bigotry towards gays is. If it smells like poo, and tastes like poo, it likely is poo, VoR.

Now, on the hunch that you failed to understand what I suggested.

Would you support the term 'civil union. as the legal term for all types of wedlock?

Quote:
You know filcher, I am getting sick of you lying about what I say. If that is all you have got, you really should STFU and say nothing.
I am getting sick of your "just because they are different does not mean they are not equal" and "these are all petty differences" bullshit also.

You have not said that gays should not have same rights, but you have never supported the inclusion of rights they do not have, (which I liked to in the CSC judgement) either locally, nationally or internationally. You say that they should have the same rights, but fail to understand that by using these rights as they want to use them, they are contravening laws.

You have said there is no justification for including gay rights in law because they do not have a genetic cause, while ignoring that the causes of homosexuality, if there are ones, may be linked to genetic conditions of one of the parents as far as chemical imbalances or hormonal changes caused by genetics. You imply that there are cures for homosexuality, as if it is a disease, and that homosexuals should simply marry opposite sex partners and ignore their sexual urges.

You ignore that the UNCHR gives all the right to marry, but if taken in context, only if it is an opposite sex partner. This is a right based on a non genetic function, for if homosexuality is not genetic, how can we claim heterosexuality is?


These are all indicators of a bigot, and while I hesitate to call you one, you are using their arguments to deny gay rights, whether the rights are petty or major.

Quote:
Even your link stated that there was no material difference!
My link did not quite say that. Under the law, that was passed in California there is no difference, after the gay couple goes to court to gain rights that are automatically given the straight couple, which is a difference, as it takes time and money to get these rights. The CSC also notes there is a social difference between a marriage and a civil union, that creates a social stigma to the gay couple.

There is still the Federal government and most states of the US, and almost all countries in the World, which do not recognize these rights, so your California civil union is only legal in a few select areas.

Yes. Obviously when discussing homosexuality, and religion, the rights of gays in California can be taken as a benchmark for international equality.

Quote:
The amount of huffing and puffing and blowing of hot air is not a measure of importance
No it is not, and languages can evolve, perhaps not the definition of words, but the common usage. It could be that we are seeing the next major evolution of the english language in the computer speak of computers and abbreviations of texting.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#105  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6810/7006
(30-Oct-2011 at 05:43)


Quote:
They have legal rights that make it a crime to provide services to the general public without making the services available to the handicapped.
That is not creating a special right for a minority. It is ensuring that an existing right is available to all.


Quote:
Gay people do not want to be married to opposite sex partners.
Then that is their choice, isn't it? They have the same right to marriage as anyone else but, as you say, they don't want to exercise it. In other words they exclude themselves.


Quote:
Why would the UNCHR protect marriage rights of heterosexuals?
Because marriage *is* heterosexual.


Quote:
What part of the divinity of Jesus, and the relationship to God was addressed at Nicea' did you miss?
The bit where it "established the basis of the Christian religion", instead of Christ establishing the Christian religion three centuries or so earlier.


Quote:
There was a christian church at the time of Nicea
Then, as I said, Nicea didn't establish Christianity as you said.


Quote:
As a linguist you should know that the term catholic referred to the early Christian religion and not the Catholic sect that appearred later.
As a linguist I know you are talking out of your ass. Small c catholic is an adjective that was 'established' by Greeks as καθολικός, and certainly *not* by the Council of Nicea.

As a linguist, I know that the noun Catholic with a capital C is first recorded in 1554, a few years after the Council of Trent, and *not* established by the Council of Nicea.

As a linguist, I know that catholic in modern use (meaning not Classic Greek or maybe 5th century Late Latin) is not recorded until 13th century French, and any use to describe the early church is retroactive. The early Christians where not going around describing themselves as 'the catholic church'.


Quote:
The physical formation and organization of the catholic church
I recommend you grab a basic grammar book and learn the difference between adjectives and nouns.


Quote:
I linked the relevant part in the appropriate thread, and it was one of the points addressed by the Cali SC.
It is very notable that you don't link to it now, but I understand why you want to hide how petty those differences are. I can do it though, as you are deliberately being evasive.

Three I have covered, here are the other four.

Partners in a civil union must be adult, while children of sixteen can get married with parental permission. Looks sensible to me - what do you think?

Partners in a civil union must live at the same address, but married partners can live apart. As the idea of both is to live together, this is a petty difference.

Civil union has no equivalent of confidential marriage, as in no witnesses or public record. How man people have secret marriages? Another petty difference

Civil union in California (actually domestic partnerships) doesn't give partner CalPERS coverage. As this affects only public employees in civil unions, in California, and the terms are set by the insurers and not the law, this too is a petty difference.

Now filcher, stop pissing about and tell us all what these huge differences are that you repeatedly say exist but never actually specify or support.


Quote:
Why should we ignore the minority to only accommodate the majority.
Because that is how democracy works. Gays have the same rights that everybody else has. In what way is that being ignored?


Quote:
That you still argue against the creation of a word that would legally mean either same sex marriage or traditional marriage, but still leave marriage as the word within society for traditional couples, suggests to me that the definition is not truly your argument, but that bigotry towards gays is.
What it suggests to you is irrelevant. If you would read what I say, instead of inventing your own crap that is 'suggested', I already said "Marriage is a human right. Not a Christian right."

As that seems to have gone over your head (or maybe you just ignore it because you prefer name-calling), your notion of "Waah! If we can't call our civil union marriage, nobody can!" would remove an existing universal right to marriage enjoyed by all humans, and restricts it to Christians.

You might get a buzz out of removing human rights, but most people don't.


Quote:
You have not said that gays should not have same rights, but you have never supported the inclusion of rights they do not have
You are lying about what I say again.

For the fourth time "...if they are not equal, then there is a genuine grievance and they should be made equal."


Quote:
You have said there is no justification for including gay rights in law because they do not have a genetic cause...
It is actually innate. While genetic is innate, innate does not necessarily have to be genetic.


Quote:
...while ignoring that the causes of homosexuality, if there are ones, may be linked to genetic conditions of one of the parents as far as chemical imbalances or hormonal changes caused by genetics.
I ignore it because it is bullshit, a faith-based argument with no scientific basis whatsoever. It is a fundamental principle of genetics that behaviour cannot be passed by genes, and no gay gene has ever been identified.


Quote:
You imply that there are cures for homosexuality, as if it is a disease...
You are lying about me again, for a second time. Quote where I said or implied that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured.


Quote:
...and that homosexuals should simply marry opposite sex partners and ignore their sexual urges.
Here you are lying for the third time - well done. Quote where I say homosexuals should marry opposite sex partners.

I was correct in my prediction that you wouldn't have the balls to apologise for lying about what I say, but adding three new lies... I don't think I need to elaborate what that says about you.


Quote:
This is a right based on a non genetic function, for if homosexuality is not genetic, how can we claim heterosexuality is?
Rubbish. The right to marry applies to *all humans*, and being human is 100% genetic. Some humans choose not to marry because they prefer partners of there own sex. That is their choice, but their choice not to marry does not mean they are being denied that right.


Quote:
My link did not quite say that.
Yes it does.

On page nine "...the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry"

On page 44 "...the Domestic Partner Act generally affords registered domestic partners the same substantive benefits and privileges and imposes upon them the same responsibilities and duties that California law affords to and imposes upon married spouses"

On page 47 "...the California Legislature already has enacted a comprehensive domestic partnership law which broadly grants to same-sex couples virtually all of the substantive legal rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex married couples"

We can all see why you are unwilling to present this link...


Quote:
There is still the Federal government and most states of the US, and almost all countries in the World, which do not recognize these rights
There is no right to gay marriage, but I know you will continue to pretend there is because you have no other argument.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#106  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1438/1637
(31-Oct-2011 at 03:44)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Actually he says the gay gene doesn't exist. It is right there at 6:11. Actually he is saying that one explanation for the inability of the purely hypothetical gay gene to be passed on is that homosexuality could (hypothetically) be a manifestation of some other gene. Hypothetically.

To make any of these hypotheses into the fact you imagine they are in your YouTube world, you would have to identify either a gay gene (which they haven't, despite mapping them all) or identify which other gene is manifesting as gay, with they haven't despite mapping them all.
O.K. note taken. No more hypotheticals. No more youtube.

All I am suggesting is that some genes may influence sexual preferences. An example I mentioned was level of testosterone.

Quote:
Behaviour is not encoded in DNA at all and, since none of those names you are dropping ever said it was, I know you haven't read them.
Hamilton et all. looked at 'nature' (in the ecological sense) from the genes' perspective, i.e. the most important thing being self-replication.

Breeding, and surviving long enough to breed. That's the goal of the genes. That's related to behaviour. No?

Quote:
genetic factor is not genes forcing behaviour, but genes forcing a need to protect family or social groups. No, they are not the same thing.
Quote:
In simple terms you might grasp, it is proven beyond any sensible doubt that there in no mechanism for genes (or DNA) to directly affect individual behaviour. The nearest they can get is limiting behaviour by imposing physical constraints: humans cannot behave like fishes, birds, or cheetahs because we are physically incapable of it.
I don't follow. How is such an absolute imperative (in genes) not the foundation of all behaviour?

If not genes, then what?

On topic, the gene-theory is very Christian in idea, since it says all is determined by genes, i.e. God.

Quote:
Price expanded on this notion, and Dawkins jumped on the bandwagon to make some money selling a book about it.
You know why Price went crazy? He felt powerless to resist his genes. He tried, and died.

That's behavioural.

Quote:
This all happened in the 1960s to early 70s, and it is 2011 now. They have all been overtaken by events, notably the work of Gould and Eldredge who proved that genes are invisible to natural selection, and Sterelny who basically demolished the whole notion of 'selfish' genes.
I'll get back to you on this one.

Quote:
I have a Masters degree in Linguistics. That includes the origins and evolution of language, which is a behaviour just like homosexuality, so I am kind of familiar with the field. One of the big discussions is why anybody needs language, encapsulated in the question of why any animal should make an alarm call that reduces the individuals chances of survival by drawing attention to itself. Now, if you had ever read W.D. Hamilton's 1964 paper " “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour” you would find that - ta-daa! - it deals with exactly that question. Which is why, in contrast to you, I have read it.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to reference Hamilton after you just said his work was obsolete?

Quote:
I have also read the later research that shows that Hamilton's answer that they do it because they are genetically programmed to protect there kin is not supported by observation, and I have read Sterenly/Bickerton/etc discussing the current niche theory that explains it as learned co-operative behaviour in a constructed evolutionary niche.
Actually, this is very interesting.

Altruism is a crock of shit, afterall.
#107  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6811/7006
(31-Oct-2011 at 05:03)


Quote:
Hamilton et all. looked at 'nature' (in the ecological sense) from the genes' perspective, i.e. the most important thing being self-replication.

Breeding, and surviving long enough to breed. That's the goal of the genes. That's related to behaviour. No?
Hamilton etc. suggested that evolution makes more sense if viewed as a way of passing on genes. They did not suggest that genes have their own little minds, their own little agendas, and are pulling all the strings in the organism they inhabit. That notion came from the pop-science nutters.


Quote:
I don't follow. How is such an absolute imperative (in genes) not the foundation of all behaviour?
Genes have no minds, no agendas, and no absolute imperative.


Quote:
You know why Price went crazy? He felt powerless to resist his genes. He tried, and died.
He didn't go crazy, he suffered from depression. According to his friends, what tipped him into snipping his carotid artery was his inability to help the homeless. There is no 'gotta help the homeless' gene.


Quote:
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to reference Hamilton after you just said his work was obsolete?
Not at all. I said his work is obsolete, not that he is stupid or that his ideas are worthless. From a purely academic point of view, simply taking it on faith that he was wrong would be illogical. I want to know why he is wrong, and I can't do that if I don't know what he said.

Chomsky too turned out to be wrong about generational grammar. Should we all ignore everything he ever said?


Quote:
Actually, this is very interesting.
It is. In my field, it is an interesting explanation of why humans have language and no other animal has, even though other animals can be taught language. It makes no sense in Darwin terms - do a thought experiment of imaging what the first ten word were that gave such an evolutionary benefit that they had to be expanded into the thousands we have now. They would have to be ten truly awesome words to produce such evolutionary pressure.

In a broader sense, niche theory also explains all the behaviours that 30 years ago some people were trying to say was somehow genetic, while being unable to identify a gene or explain the mechanism. Behaviour, remember, includes homosexuality.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#108  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1439/1637
(31-Oct-2011 at 05:26)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Hamilton etc. suggested that evolution makes more sense if viewed as a way of passing on genes.
Yes, thanks.

Quote:
They did not suggest that genes have their own little minds, their own little agendas, and are pulling all the strings in the organism they inhabit. That notion came from the pop-science nutters.
Truly, but the physical body and the thoughts/feelings and subsequent actions are not totally detached from one another.

I understand that genes don't have any agenda per se, but if the programming is telling the body to operate a certain way, then that is sigificant in terms of behaviour. The physical body has inclinations, shall we say.

Quote:
In a broader sense, niche theory also explains all the behaviours that 30 years ago some people were trying to say was somehow genetic, while being unable to identify a gene or explain the mechanism. Behaviour, remember, includes homosexuality.
Maybe. The human body is sexual. Arousal and even things like dry humping are as knee-jerk as scratching an itch. If the body is aroused all on its own, what is that? There's a physical, genetic basis there.

So is there link between arousal and homosexuality? Probably pretty thin. Homosexuality is not a mechanism of the body, but I am saying that the steps leading up to a homosexual act may be autonomic.
#109  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6812/7006
(31-Oct-2011 at 07:22)


Quote:
Truly, but the physical body and the thoughts/feelings and subsequent actions are not totally detached from one another.
The physical body is not being controlled by genes. Genes are chemicals, and the idea that we are controlled by genes is as credible as saying we are controlled by citric acid.


Quote:
but if the programming is telling the body to operate a certain way
What programming? There is nothing 'programming' behaviour. Behaviour is a choice, or at a minimum a learned response.


Quote:
The human body is sexual. Arousal and even things like dry humping are as knee-jerk as scratching an itch.
They maybe, but not because your genes are held a meeting and decided it would be so.

Your genes specify your physical specifications. Your physical specifications influence behaviour by limiting what you are capable of to a greater or lesser extent. Within that performance envelope you, the organism, decide how to behave and your genes have no say in it at all.

A sexual response is triggered by hormones, not by genes. The only role genes play is to provide the gland that produces the hormones. Precisely what it is that stimulates the gland to produce the hormones is environmental; a learned response.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#110  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1440/1637
(31-Oct-2011 at 14:41)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
The physical body is not being controlled by genes. Genes are chemicals, and the idea that we are controlled by genes is as credible as saying we are controlled by citric acid.
Or controlled by sugar. Sugar has an affect on the body. It doesn't specify an idea or action, but substances have an expected responce, like elevated heart rate and restlessness. These things do act like agents in themselves. Look at alcohol, it's just a chemical. But it does imply certain behaviour under.

Quote:
What programming? There is nothing 'programming' behaviour. Behaviour is a choice, or at a minimum a learned response.
"Hi, I am your typical meth addict. I have a strong will, but I find that my strength is only manifest in the desire to find more meth. Please help."

Quote:
They maybe, but not because your genes are held a meeting and decided it would be so.
Hey, I thought we were making progress. You have a habit of riding certain unbecoming phrases for several posts. Let's move on.

Quote:
Your genes specify your physical specifications. Your physical specifications influence behaviour by limiting what you are capable of to a greater or lesser extent. Within that performance envelope you, the organism, decide how to behave and your genes have no say in it at all.
A 'performance envelope'. Kudos.

Yes, well, it depends on how tight that envelope is seeled.

New metaphor, please.

Quote:
A sexual response is triggered by hormones, not by genes.
That's fine. But what, in turn, triggers, hormones?

Can you see the chain of logic I am forming here? Either the human body itself is a vastly decisive factor in behaviour or none at all. Either, the body is connected to choice-making, or we make choice in some non-bodily dimension (mysticism).

Quote:
Precisely what it is that stimulates the gland to produce the hormones
Puberty.
#111  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6814/7006
(31-Oct-2011 at 15:35)


Quote:
Or controlled by sugar [...] Look at alcohol, it's just a chemical. But it does imply certain behaviour under.
Quote:
"Hi, I am your typical meth addict. I have a strong will, but I find that my strength is only manifest in the desire to find more meth. Please help."
Nobody is born addicted to alcohol or meth. They *choose* to start taking them. Nobody is controlled by sugar. They *choose* to eat it or not. None of them is genetic.


Quote:
New metaphor, please.
Why? Performance envelope is quite accurate.

I could choose to pursue a career as a sprinter. I probably wouldn't do very well because my genes didn't equip me with a sprinters physique - my performance envelope just isn't adequate for a sprinter. As I said previously, in that respect my genes limit my behaviour.

On the other hand, if my genes had given me a sprinters physique, that would not force me to be a sprinter - I still have a choice. I can choose to drive a bus instead. There is no "absolute imperative (in genes)".


Quote:
That's fine. But what, in turn, triggers, hormones?
A learned response. For some it is the opposite sex. For some it is the same sex. For some it is sheep. In no case is it genetic.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#112  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1441/1637
(01-Nov-2011 at 08:46)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
I could choose to pursue a career as a sprinter. I probably wouldn't do very well because my genes didn't equip me with a sprinters physique - my performance envelope just isn't adequate for a sprinter. As I said previously, in that respect my genes limit my behaviour.

On the other hand, if my genes had given me a sprinters physique, that would not force me to be a sprinter - I still have a choice. I can choose to drive a bus instead. There is no "absolute imperative (in genes)".
Then I am curious what you think of 'instinct'.

Most mammals will attempt to stand and walk as soon as they leave the womb. Is there a genetic basis of this instinct? How can a small calf learn to stand as soon as its born? How does it breath? How does it's heart beat...?

You get the picture. How much is instrinct and when does learning kick in?
#113  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6818/7006
(01-Nov-2011 at 10:48)


Quote:
Then I am curious what you think of 'instinct'.
It is an obsolete concept. Very obsolete.

It was already falling apart as far back as the 1920s, when it was justifiably asked what this 'instinct' meant when thousands of soldiers had over-ridden the 'instinct to live' and walked to certain death in WW1.

Personally, I would but the end of instinct in 1954 when Abraham Maslow (better known for his hierarchy of needs) published 'Motivation and Personality' with a chapter on instinct. Others say it is 1972 with the work of Herrnstein.

Whatever, is is now 2011 and what you describe as instinct is actually just a matter of neuromuscular physiology. Your calf standing is no more genetic behaviour than a heart beat is.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#114  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1443/1637
(01-Nov-2011 at 13:28)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
[...] physiology [...]
Thanks for clearing that up. Very interesting.

It seems that we are in agreement on how homosexuality is a choice.

So then, choice. Is there really such a thing? I mean, given the pre-determined universe which you live in? How does this all fit together with physiology, if you could indulge quickly?
#115  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6820/7006
(01-Nov-2011 at 14:19)


Quote:
[...] physiology [...]
... is not behaviour.


Quote:
So then, choice. Is there really such a thing?
Yes. Whether it is entirely free is a different matter. Within out physical restraints we can choose our behaviour, including sexual behaviour, but will inevitably be influenced by environment in terms of culture, religion, knowledge, and so on.

Pinpointing any specific influence for any individual is very difficult as even the subject may not be aware of them. This is why homosexuals invariably say "It wasn't a choice". What they mean is that it wasn't a *conscious* choice.


Quote:
I mean, given the pre-determined universe which you live in?
I never said anything about pre-determined. That was you with your genetics...

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#116  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 189/189
(10-Feb-2012 at 06:47)


teeth Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon: View Post
http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/...-by-storm.aspx

Why would god let the weather interrupt this speech by the Pope?
1)If this is your only point I'll accept that you just agreed that God judged Sodom & Gomorrah and destroyed them, but he didn't particularly agree with the pope's speech's wording so he got a rain-out

2)booyah!
#117  
View Public Profile Find more posts by chal Add chal to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3823/3863
(05-Mar-2012 at 21:33)


Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by chal: View Post
1)If this is your only point I'll accept that you just agreed that God judged Sodom & Gomorrah and destroyed them, but he didn't particularly agree with the pope's speech's wording so he got a rain-out

2)booyah!

According to the Old Testament god did indeed destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

Then again, god created the world 5000 years ago in 7 days according to the Old Testament. And there isn't a shred of evidence to prove that's a fictional account as well, is there?

Surely if god exists, and is interventionist as Catholics claim, then surely he'd be in direct contact with the head of the Catholic church to relay his wishes?

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!

Last edited by Azure Dragon, 05-Mar-2012 at 21:35.
#118  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 700/765
(22-Mar-2012 at 02:04)


Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon: View Post
According to the Old Testament god did indeed destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

Then again, god created the world 5000 years ago in 7 days according to the Old Testament. And there isn't a shred of evidence to prove that's a fictional account as well, is there?

Surely if god exists, and is interventionist as Catholics claim, then surely he'd be in direct contact with the head of the Catholic church to relay his wishes?
According to Man, god inspired the bible, according to the bible, man is imperfect. So how can we believe a book created by imperfect mankind? To answer your question, how does god relay his wishes to any imperfect person?

----------------------------------------
})i({~flutterby~ })i({

Alliance Rankings Administration
irc.Utonet.org #alliancerankings
#119  
View Public Profile Visit mdmflutterby's homepage Find more posts by mdmflutterby Add mdmflutterby to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why did God kill my unborn children ? Grashnak Religious Discussions 91 05-Aug-2006 21:28
Everyone needs JESUS! JESUS loves you! JESUS died for you! Rose21swf Religious Discussions 10 24-Feb-2005 00:07
A Buddhists view on christianity Skraz Religious Discussions 42 08-Sep-2004 12:13
The logic of God Gus Mackay Religious Discussions 31 23-Aug-2004 08:11
Do you believe in God? Hurleyy Religious Discussions 849 23-Jul-2003 19:11


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 05:27.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.