tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1120301461102848791..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: A Quiz for Atheists from a CreationistLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79556440503569022402010-11-02T10:22:45.606-04:002010-11-02T10:22:45.606-04:00JCC whined some more:
Gee, you still haven’t give...<i>JCC whined some more:<br /><br />Gee, you still haven’t given me a reason why dogs will altruistically defend their owner when they sense they're in danger.</i><br /><br />I'd say for exactly the same reasons <a href="http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48222-altruistic-robots-produced-through-evolution" rel="nofollow">these robots behave altruistically</a>. Altruistic behavior in groups will be selected for by many environments, and we see it all over nature. <br /><br />But I guess you think God put the moral law in the robots as well as the bees? And where's your Moral Law when hyena infants are murdering their siblings in the womb? Or when certain species of bedbug procreate via homosexual stabbing rape? That's one heckuva law you've got there.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45105996405290599552010-11-02T08:03:39.943-04:002010-11-02T08:03:39.943-04:00"and those religious groups made up all those..."and those religious groups made up all those stories about all those bath houses and just how depraved a segment of society will act when it perceives—and believes—that their immoral behaviors carry no consequences."<br /><br />Yes. Google 'AIDS bathhouse hysteria'. They were demanding the closing of the bathhouses before AIDS, when gay men started suffering from a mystery disease they kept demanding the closing of the bathhouses (even though there was no proven link) and lobbied against funding research to see what was actually causing it. They were not 'proved right', they cynically manipulated a public health problem that affected a minority for political advantage.<br /><br />I guess if you believe that there's some absolute Moral Law, there are no depths to which you can't sink if you feel you're defending it. <br /><br />As for you ... thirty years on, you still buy the lie. Because it fits in with your prejudices. You still think that a committed lesbian couple and your fevered, detailed dreams of gay orgies amount to the same 'behavior' and are equally wrong.<br /> <br />You think animals are subject to the moral law and know that murder is wrong. So, I guess the malaria parasites feel really bad.<br /><br />OK. I'm done. There's only so much entertainment to be had from mauling a corpse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56362810408584993882010-11-01T20:36:42.238-04:002010-11-01T20:36:42.238-04:00Anonymous:
you think the universe itself thinks h...Anonymous:<br /><br /><i>you think the universe itself thinks homosexuality is 'aberrant'</i><br /><br />I do? Would you please point out where I admitted to being a pantheist here?<br /><br /><i>I have no interest whatsoever in you as a person.</i><br /><br />Really? Is that why you continue to respond to every one of my posts?<br /><br /><i>You clearly have some stereotype notion of all gay people as drug-crazed, self-loathing hedonists.</i><br /><br />No. I merely made the <b>analogy</b> of drug use behavior to homosexual behavior.<br /><br /><i>It wouldn't be a stereotype if a lot of people didn't think that.</i><br /><br />Uh no, it wouldn’t be a stereotype if a lot of people didn’t indulge in that behavior.<br /><br /><i>The problem is that you also have this idea that Morality is some physical force, like Gravity, acting on everyone - including animals - equally.</i><br /><br />It’s not just an idea. It’s a fact. Everyone, including animals, <b>is</b> subject to an objective moral reality (i.e. law). Again, murder is morally wrong everywhere, all the time, and for everyone.<br /><br /><i>Your theory doesn't work. We can see how, in the space of the generation we're living in, attitudes to homosexuality have reversed.</i><br /><br />Again, it’s not a “theory” it’s a repeatable fact. And just because a culture has become tolerant of a detrimental behavior doesn’t mean that it has magically become morally right. To assert such a thing is nonsense.<br /><br /><i>There's no universal moral law, simply pragmatism</i><br /><br />Yep, that’s what all moral relativists say… that is, until <i>they</i> become the victim of a harmful behavior that they previously condoned.<br /><br /><i>There's only one 'behavior' that's exclusive to gays, and that's that their relationships are same sex.</i><br /><br />Shhhh! Don't tell that to the “bi-sexuals.”<br /><br /><i>You seem to think that every single gay person is living it up all the time in some sort of drug-fueled gay orgy.</i><br /><br />Hey, nice assumption! Too bad I never said that. Funny how pointing out an irrefutable historic fact about a particular group of people can cause you to jump to such a conclusion.<br /><br /><i>You probably heard this from a preacher.</i><br /><br />Uh, no—I used to watch it on the nightly news.<br /><br /><i>You've already said that a loving, lifelong, faithful couple who are both the same sex are defying the Moral Law.</i><br /><br />That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.<br /><br /><i>it's that you can't accept gays being gay</i><br /><br />And next I suppose you’ll state as fact that I can’t accept blacks for being black, or Canucks for being Canuck (oh wait, …).<br /><br /><i>you frame it as them just doing 'gay behavior'.</i><br /><br />Yep, I <i>just</i> have this thing about people <b>not</b> being defined by what they <i>do</i>. Tell me, is a Postman <b>only</b> capable of being a Postman?—after all, delivering the mail <i>is</i> how he behaves…<br /><br /><i>"the mainstream homosexual community"<br /><br />... who you said before didn't exist ...</i><br /><br />Huh????<br /><br /><i>Yeah, and those blacks sure got rhythm.</i><br /><br />I must be psychic.<br /><br /><i>Another fact: when it emerged that there was a mystery illness affecting gay men in the early eighties, religious pressure groups did everything… Yadda, yadda, yadda</i><br /><br />Yep, and those religious groups made up all those stories about all those bath houses and just how depraved a segment of society will act when it perceives—and believes—that their <b>immoral</b> behaviors carry no consequences.jccnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46674765878874123562010-11-01T19:06:25.009-04:002010-11-01T19:06:25.009-04:00jcc wrote:
Sorry for not directly citing that part...jcc wrote:<br /><i>Sorry for not directly citing that particular survey in that quote</i><br /><br />Really. That's what you think was wrong with what you wrote. That you weren't specific enough. The problem wasn't that you <i>obviously hadn't bothered to check your "facts" before you copied them</i> because the statistic DIDN'T EXIST IN THE SURVEY. <br /><br />Sure, now that you've been called on it, you've done a little legwork and found a source that does support the idea that gay suicide rates are higher, but I wasn't actually contesting that. I was demonstrating your lazy, cart-before-the-horse approach to the "facts," which undermines your claim to rationality. And, sorry, but it's too late to undo your actions now.<br /><br /><i>Hmmm. You find it “overly simplistic” but conveniently fail to substantiate it.</i><br /><br />You’re familiar with the concept of the "onus of proof," yes? You presented a quote from who-knows-where citing a 30+ year old study that I can find neither the text nor any serious analysis of, making the simple claim that homosexuals kill themselves mostly over breakups. I think I'm perfectly justified saying that's <i>not a lot to go on,</i> especially as the linchpin of your claim that gay suicide is primarily due to inherent flaws in homosexuality.<br /><br />Compare that to <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3x35t2r" rel="nofollow">this study</a> suggesting that "when controlling for other psychological predictors of present distress, significant differences between [LGB and hetero youth suicidality] disappeared." And, intriguingly, "For past suicidality scores, the effects of sexual orientation were reduced, but still significant, when accounting for the other predictor variables." Which supports the notion that something has been changing over time - presumably societal attitudes - that makes older statistics less relevant.<br /><br />Not that I expect you to buy into that study, especially when all that's available for either of us to read is an abstract. I present it only to show that we can both play the quoted-statistics game, and since the onus of proof is on the one who would condemn other people's behavior, a stalemate is actually a loss for your side.<br /><br />But you know what? That's all sideshow, because this is the only thing you've said that I can believe is truly driving your argument:<br /><br /><i>Ok then, please discredit these <b>facts</b> that I have firsthand knowledge of: three personal acquaintances who succumbed to AIDS as a direct result of their profligate behaviors, and another who was brutally stabbed to death in a jealous rage during a homosexual encounter.</i><br /><br />It's a damn shame your acquaintances died in those ways, and I sympathize with your loss. But it's nonsense to say I need to "discredit" those events. They happened, I believe you! <i>Judging</i> the events and deciding issues of morality and social policy on them is another matter. For example, where you see their deaths as evidence that condemns an entire form of sexuality as unnatural and immoral, I see results of behaviors that are neither confined to one form of sexuality nor universal within any. No group has a monopoly on STDs and crimes of passion, though the monogamous and non-penetrative of any persuasion are safer (especially lesbians). Yes, the gay male population has a greater incidence of promiscuity and associated risks, but that’s a matter of degree, not an essential black-and-white principle. If every act of gay sex somehow <i>created</i> HIV, and straight sex couldn't pass it on, the peculiar scope of your judgment would make a bit more sense. But as it is, it's tragically off-target.<br /><br /><i>Our society would be soooo much better off if we could get back to the “good” old days when the San Francisco Bath Houses were just harmless little places for quiet social gatherings…</i><br /><br />The '70s were a time of huge extremes on both sides. I want moderation across the board - which, happily, I do see actually happening.Some Matt or othernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48405298790510416932010-11-01T11:46:40.489-04:002010-11-01T11:46:40.489-04:00"not if my behavior could be shown to be detr..."not if my behavior could be shown to be detrimental to me or someone else"<br /><br />Well, first of all, with that 'detrimental to me', let's just give those goalposts a moment or two to settle into their new spot.<br /><br />Second - you're the one pushing the idea that this is about 'behavior'. There's only one 'behavior' that's exclusive to gays, and that's that their relationships are same sex. You seem to think that every single gay person is living it up all the time in some sort of drug-fueled gay orgy. You probably heard this from a preacher. Statistically, there's more chance that preacher has, at some point, committed adultery or smoked pot than he hasn't. <br /><br />You've already said that a loving, lifelong, faithful couple who are both the same sex are defying the Moral Law. <br /><br />This isn't about gays leading some hedonistic immoral life, it's that you can't accept gays being gay. You can't even get that far, you frame it as them just doing 'gay behavior'. <br /><br />Oh wait, those goalposts shifted, too:<br /><br />"the mainstream homosexual community"<br /><br />... who you said before didn't exist ... <br /><br />"was nearly annihilated during the early eighties as a direct result of the vast majority of its constituents engaging in unrestrained licentiousness."<br /><br />Yeah, and those blacks sure got rhythm. <br /><br />OK ... a fact. The group in society that's sexually active with the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted disease? Lesbians. Lower, in fact, than 'teens who say they are abstinent'.<br /><br />Another fact: when it emerged that there was a mystery illness affecting gay men in the early eighties, religious pressure groups did everything they could to deny research funding, everything they could to spread hysteria about bath houses, to denounce condom use, to stigmatize victims and prevent them from coming forward. The opposite, basically, of what could have contained the situation. <br /><br />To this day, the Catholic Church insist that condom use 'spreads AIDS'. Millions have died who needn't have because of that lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20481368810929606392010-11-01T10:47:48.029-04:002010-11-01T10:47:48.029-04:00jcc writes:
Not to mention the irrefutable fact t...jcc writes:<br /><br /><i>Not to mention the irrefutable fact that the homosexual community is shouting from the roof tops that the suicide rate for “gay” teens is 30% higher than for non-gay peers.</i><br /><br />And what do you think ought to be done about this? I think it's a good reason to push for people (including both elders and peers) to act kindly and lovingly toward these kids, in contrast to the current all-too-frequent bullying and ostracism, and see whether that helps gay teens to feel better about life and themselves and reduces the suicide rate.<br /><br />I don't happen to know gay teen suicide rates for more secular societies. It would be interesting to look at reliable statistics and see whether there are correlations between more secularity, better treatment of gays, and lower gay suicide rates.<br /><br /><i>...and another who was brutally stabbed to death in a jealous rage during a homosexual encounter.</i><br /><br />Last time I looked at FBI statistics, 25% of murders in the USA were committed by family members of the victims, with spouses prominently represented. Good argument for not having heterosexual relationships, within marriage or otherwise, eh? Or at least a lot better argument than your n=1 re homosexuality and murder.<br /><br />C'mon - if you really think murder "in a jealous rage during a []sexual encounter" is exclusively or preferentially a problem for gays, you're quite wrong, and the fact you even thought it worthy of mention says IMHO that you didn't think this through.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23237196208334429482010-11-01T07:37:06.250-04:002010-11-01T07:37:06.250-04:00"Wow, you’re just like Anonymous—can’t refute..."Wow, you’re just like Anonymous—can’t refute my assertions so you attack me personally."<br /><br />Your argument is to equate homosexuality with drug addiction, you want parents to warn their kids to stay away from gay relatives, you think the universe itself thinks homosexuality is 'aberrant', that gays know this deep down and that's why they inevitably self destruct.<br /><br />I have no interest whatsoever in you as a person. It's the nonsense you're spewing I'm attacking. <br /><br />You clearly have some stereotype notion of all gay people as drug-crazed, self-loathing hedonists. It wouldn't be a stereotype if a lot of people didn't think that. The problem is that you also have this idea that Morality is some physical force, like Gravity, acting on everyone - including animals - equally. That's just nonsense. It's impossible to talk sense about nonsense, all we can do is point out how ridiculous the idea is. <br /><br />Your theory doesn't work. We can see how, in the space of the generation we're living in, attitudes to homosexuality have reversed. No doubt, at some point in the future, they'll change again. There's no universal moral law, simply pragmatism as lots of different people seek to live together. <br /><br />That's interesting. You're not. I apologize if any of my attacks on your stupid, half-baked, disingenuous, counterfactual, irrational ideas have come across as attacks on you personally. That was not my intention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79282629203515775602010-10-31T23:05:50.639-04:002010-10-31T23:05:50.639-04:00Some Matt or other:
Your "why" is what ...Some Matt or other:<br /><br /><i>Your "why" is what you've been taught about your religion.</i><br /><br />Hey, nice unsubstantiated <b>assumption</b> about me—too bad it couldn’t be more wrong.<br /><br /><i>you cite some studies as though they're a rational argument unto themselves, but they're clearly ad hoc </i><br /><br />Tell Google that the multiple hits corroborating my claim in a search for “homosexual suicide rate” are just “ad hoc.” Sorry for not directly citing that particular survey in that quote, but <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2rmsgq" rel="nofollow">this one</a> cites it as well, and <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2c9zb3e" rel="nofollow">here</a> is a direct reference to a subsequent study by the same outfit. Not to mention the irrefutable <b>fact</b> that the homosexual community is shouting from the roof tops that the suicide rate for “gay” teens is 30% higher than for non-gay peers.<br /><br /><i>I find the meatiest bits, like the claim that homosexuals try to kill themselves more over breakups than ostracization, overly simplistic.</i><br /><br />Hmmm. You find it “overly simplistic” but conveniently fail to substantiate it.<br /><br /><i>Even taking it at its word, the notion that a suicide attempt was triggered by a single trauma tells us nothing about what other factors may have been creating a mental state where that one trauma could do the damage it did.</i><br /><br />Perhaps not a single event, but multiple occurrences tend to have a cumulative effect—and are you challenging the assertion that homosexuals, on average, have a considerably higher number of partners over their lifetimes compared to their heterosexual peers?<br /><br /><i>So don't go around pretending that you have "the facts."</i><br /><br />Ok then, please discredit these <b>facts</b> that I have firsthand knowledge of: three personal acquaintances who succumbed to AIDS as a direct result of their profligate behaviors, and another who was brutally stabbed to death in a jealous rage during a homosexual encounter.<br /><br />Please also discredit the silly notion that the mainstream homosexual community was nearly annihilated during the early eighties as a direct result of the vast majority of its constituents engaging in unrestrained licentiousness. But I digress. The truth is, my version of this perfectly harmless, completely healthy, “lifestyle” is a lie that my “religion taught me.”<br /><br /><i>This is what we in the business call "irrational,"</i><br /><br />Uh huh. Yep, three friends dead of AIDS and one murdered are just figments of my “irrational” imagination.<br /><br /><i>you're clearly afraid of the effects you think open homosexuality would have on children, marriage, and society at large</i><br /><br />Wow, congratulations! You actually got <i>that</i> part right. But, unfortunately, you quickly regressed with:<br /><br /><i>obviously "homophobia" is hyperbolic - but still the kind of unreasonable prejudice that deserves to be called out and fought against.</i><br /><br />Yep. Our society would be soooo much better off if we could get back to the “good” old days when the San Francisco Bath Houses were just harmless little places for quiet social gatherings…<br /><br /><i>Most insidiously, you dare call it "love" when at best it's a pitying condescension.</i><br /><br />Oh right. Those three I knew who died of AIDS—they <i>really</i> had it coming. And that poor SOB who was stabbed 20 times?—Yep, he really got what he deserved… Uh huh, that’s me—you nailed it—that’s how I <i>really</i> think…jccnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20672788173761542322010-10-31T21:58:00.957-04:002010-10-31T21:58:00.957-04:00Anonymous:
“Classifying those who engage in homos...Anonymous:<br /><br />“<i><b>Classifying</b></i> those who engage in homosexual behavior” is disparaging?<br /><br /><i>If I had pity on you because you engage with religious behavior, likening you to a strung-out meth head for doing so, would you consider that disparaging?</i><br /><br />First, no, not if my behavior could be shown to be detrimental to me or someone else. Second, I’m having a real hard time imagining you having pity on me under <b>any</b> circumstances.jccnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64008920168222645822010-10-31T18:58:53.411-04:002010-10-31T18:58:53.411-04:00“Science”Avenger:
You got sufficient reasoned cri...“Science”Avenger:<br /><br /><i>You got sufficient reasoned critiques early on</i><br /><br />Oh yes, “reasoned” critiques like: “Would you know how to read or analyze anything presented?” or, “Many of the more bizarre and extreme opinions come from self-identifying Christians” or, “jcc - a legend in his own mind!” or, “Make shit up often? You speak solely from ideology and desire, not reality” or, “I see your reading comprehension is on the same level as your writing abilities” or, “Just another Aristotelian mind-wanker playing word games” or, “I find your opinions utterly abhorrent” or, “What a load of pious shit” and my personal favorite, “you are, unfortunately, suffering from what we scientists refer to as 'the God Delusion'.”<br /><br />Yep, I can always count on you atheists to deliver nothing but dispassionate, impersonal, and above all <i>reasoned</i> critiques of anything I assert here.<br /><br /><i>your assertions reveal a gross ignorance of reality</i><br /><br />Oh dear, <i>another</i> elitist <b>opinion.</b><br /><br /><i>your definitions and standards constantly change</i><br /><br />Oh right. <b>PROVE</b> it.<br /><br /><i>your arguments, if we may elevate them with such a term, are grossly illogical.</i><br /><br />Yep, that’s me, <i>grossly</i> illogical. Wow, you’re <i>just</i> like Anonymous—can’t refute my assertions so you attack me personally.<br /><br /><i>Statements like "animals follow the Moral Law"</i><br /><br />Gee, you <i>still</i> haven’t given me a reason <i>why</i> dogs will <b>altruistically</b> defend their owner when they sense they're in danger.<br /><br /><i>"since homosexuals have higher rates of suicide than others, homosexuality is violating the Moral Law" are simply too preposterous to take seriously</i><br /><br />Um, <i>any</i> self-destructive behavior is immoral.<br /><br /><i>you are just the only one here too ignorant to know</i><br /><br />And yet another, “reasoned” critique.jccnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13533545052861455992010-10-31T12:38:06.860-04:002010-10-31T12:38:06.860-04:00'What you have is some beliefs about God, whic...'What you have is some beliefs about God, which cause you to buy into any copy-pasted statistic with a pair of last names and a date next to it that sounds like it supports those beliefs. This is what we in the business call "irrational," '<br /><br />Indeed. Or, to put it another way, our rallying cry might be:<br /><br />http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/12644/slide_12644_169337_large.jpg?1288542963477<br /><br />And anyone who sees that as weakness, not strength ... well, we won, you just haven't noticed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76752751015545502922010-10-31T10:37:59.179-04:002010-10-31T10:37:59.179-04:00"Couldn't find it online, but the claim d..."Couldn't find it online, but the claim doesn't inherently support one side or the other anyway."<br /><br />... and it cuts against his basic argument 'there are no gays, just people who do gay things'. <br /><br />There are - I feel very silly for having to type these words in the twenty-first century - gay couples who meet in school, never do drugs, never have another partner and are never unfaithful to each other, and live out their whole lives together. There are, of course, plenty of heterosexuals who don't. <br /><br />But jcc would have parents keep their kids away from such a 'bad influence' and 'self evidently self-destructive behavior'. <br /><br />He is, in other words, massively disingenuous. Lying for Jesus is, clearly allowed by the Moral Law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72398812210036085692010-10-30T17:32:33.967-04:002010-10-30T17:32:33.967-04:00I remember exactly what it feels like to be a frus...<i>I remember exactly what it feels like to be a frustrated, immature kid who wants more than anything to keep on indulging in a destructive behavior (like smoking cigarettes) that brings immediate gratification but will ultimately either harm me or someone else—and have a parent step up and say, “NO. WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS WRONG—AND HERE’S WHY…”</i><br /><br />It's the "here's why" that's the big problem. Your "why" is what you've been taught about your religion. Sure, you cite some studies as though they're a rational argument unto themselves, but they're clearly ad hoc, and in at least one case you obviously didn't read what you cited:<br /><br /><i>• Young people engaging in this behavior are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than those who don’t (Massachusetts Youth Risk Survey 2007)</i><br /><br />I assume this refers to <a href="http://www.doe.mass.edu/cnp/hprograms/yrbs/" rel="nofollow">Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey</a>, the closest thing to your title Google could find. I checked out the 2007 one (<a href="http://www.doe.mass.edu/cnp/hprograms/yrbs/2007YRBS.pdf" rel="nofollow">PDF</a>), and it says absolutely NOTHING about homosexuality.<br /><br /><i>• More than a third of those youth report having made a suicide attempt (D’Augelli AR - Clinical Child Psychiatry and Psychology 2002)</i><br /><br />Found the abstract <a href="http://ccp.sagepub.com/content/7/3/433.abstract" rel="nofollow">here</a>, but the full PDF is only available to subscribers. Interestingly, the 1/3 claim is immediately followed by correlations between negative social pressure and poorer mental health.<br /><br /><i>• Adolescents who engage in this behavior are 190 percent more likely to use drugs and alcohol than heterosexual teens (Marshal MP, Friedman MS, et al – Addiction 2008).</i><br /><br />Couldn't find it online, but the claim doesn't inherently support one side or the other anyway. For example, <a href="http://www.basisonline.org/2009/06/index.html" rel="nofollow">this study</a> cites it while concluding that "one risk factor for substance use and abuse among LGB youths is having more friends, family members, and other people react to disclosure in a rejecting manner. Accepting reactions to disclosure are protective and blunt the impact of rejection on substance use and abuse."<br /><br />The rest of your citations appear in two paragraphs you didn't write, judging by the unattributed quotation marks you put around them. I Googled the first two studies but had no luck finding anything except brief citations much like yours. After that point, I ran out of time and motivation to put any more effort into investigating what you clearly have put so little of the same into. Suffice it to say that I find the meatiest bits, like the claim that homosexuals try to kill themselves more over breakups than ostracization, overly simplistic. Even taking it at its word, the notion that a suicide attempt was triggered by a single trauma tells us nothing about what other factors may have been creating a mental state where that one trauma could do the damage it did.<br /><br />So don't go around pretending that you have "the facts." What you have is some beliefs about God, which cause you to buy into any copy-pasted statistic with a pair of last names and a date next to it that sounds like it supports those beliefs. This is what we in the business call "irrational," which, when paired with fear (and you're clearly afraid of the effects you think open homosexuality would have on children, marriage, and society at large), becomes - there it is - "phobia"! Not phobia in the clinical sense - obviously "homophobia" is hyperbolic - but still the kind of unreasonable prejudice that deserves to be called out and fought against. Most insidiously, you dare call it "love" when at best it's a pitying condescension. I assume I don't need to tell you who said, "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."Some Matt or othernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37297977681568143262010-10-30T15:25:18.278-04:002010-10-30T15:25:18.278-04:00"Again, I ask: please point out where I’ve ma..."Again, I ask: please point out where I’ve made any disparaging remarks about those who engage in homosexual behavior"<br /><br />Well, first of all, you classify them as 'those who engage in homosexual behavior'. <br /><br />Second, you equate their situation with:<br /><br />"Would you not take pity on, and wish to help a strung-out meth-head"<br /><br />If I had pity on you because you engage with religious behavior, likening you to a strung-out meth head for doing so, would you consider that disparaging?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54451834959076608862010-10-30T11:01:24.666-04:002010-10-30T11:01:24.666-04:00JCC whined: So far, you’ve consistently failed to ...<i>JCC whined: So far, you’ve consistently failed to counter my points with anything resembling a reasoned critique. All you seem capable of are unsubstantiated accusations and knee-jerk, emotional, ad hominem attacks.</i><br /><br />You got sufficient reasoned critiques early on: your assertions reveal a gross ignorance of reality, your definitions and standards constantly change, and your arguments, if we may elevate them with such a term, are grossly illogical. That pattern hasn't changed.<br /><br />There is a limit to how absurd you can be before people stop taking you seriously. Statements like "animals follow the Moral Law" and "since homosexuals have higher rates of suicide than others, homosexuality is violating the Moral Law" are simply too preposterous to take seriously.<br /><br />The argument is over already, has been for days, you are just the only one here too ignorant to know it.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88367998607101187882010-10-29T14:53:28.405-04:002010-10-29T14:53:28.405-04:00Anonymous:
That you can put those two sentiments ...Anonymous:<br /><br /><i>That you can put those two sentiments in consecutive sentences says far more about your position and logic and tolerance than anything I ever could.</i><br /><br />What, that I can uphold and abide by a standard while at the same time have compassion for those don’t? Are you <i>serious</i>? Would <i>you</i> not take pity on, and wish to help a strung-out meth-head, while simultaneously choosing not to indulge in such a behavior—precisely because you’re aware of its deleteriously consequences?<br /><br /><i>If you call today 'Friday', it doesn't mean you're honoring Freya's Day.</i><br /><br />Oh dear, regardless of it being a blatant misnomer, the fact is, <b>you</b> have yet to demonstrate that it applies to me.<br /><br /><i>there may be moderate Christians reading this.</i><br /><br />Would you mind describing for me what constitutes a “moderate” Christian? Is it someone who <i>sorta</i> believes in God?<br /><br /><i>that there are only gay behaviors, that they are 'aberrant' and a 'subclass'</i><br /><br />Uh oh, this confirms my suspicion that your reading comprehension <i>is</i> inadequate to engage in this kind of discussion. My exact quote was, “There is <b>no</b> more of an intrinsically ‘gay’ <i>subclass</i> of people than there is an intrinsically ‘illiterate’ one.”<br /><br /><i>Scratch jcc's surface, and a couple of posts down the line he's a nasty little homophobe…</i><br /><br /><b>Again, I ask:</b> please point out where I’ve made <b>any</b> disparaging remarks about those who engage in homosexual behavior—and please point out where I’ve made <b>any</b> comment that could possibly indicate that I hate them or am <i>afraid</i> of them.<br /><br />So far, you’ve consistently <b>failed</b> to counter my points with anything resembling a reasoned critique. <b>All</b> you seem capable of are unsubstantiated accusations and knee-jerk, emotional, ad hominem attacks.<br /><br />Just like the elitist, Obama-Kool-aid swilling, ruling-class who perceive any criticism leveled on his policies (regardless of their merits) as <i>racially</i> motivated, <i>you</i> <b>automatically</b> respond by labeling your opponent as “homophobic.” It’s impossible to have <b>any</b> kind of meaningful, mature and unemotional discussion with you and those who “think” like you precisely because of your inability to argue on an intellectual level rather than an emotional one.<br /><br />I remember exactly what it feels like to be a frustrated, immature kid who wants more than anything to keep on indulging in a destructive behavior (like smoking cigarettes) that brings immediate gratification but will ultimately either harm me or someone else—and have a parent step up and say, “NO. WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS WRONG—AND HERE’S WHY…” Yes, I remember throwing infantile fits because I couldn’t get my way, and that’s <b>exactly</b> how <b>you’re</b> behaving here.<br /><br />Why don’t you do those “moderate” Christians out there who read this a favor and respond to my points with dispassionate logic and reason instead of resorting to your ilk’s juvenile and hackneyed, standard playbook?jccnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21299339647152730902010-10-29T10:21:57.622-04:002010-10-29T10:21:57.622-04:00"There you go with that nonsensical word agai..."There you go with that nonsensical word again…"<br /><br />'unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality' <br /><br />That's the meaning. The etymology merely means 'fear of the same', sure. If you call today 'Friday', it doesn't mean you're honoring Freya's Day. <br /><br />"do you really think you’re capable of stopping me from thinking differently from you?"<br /><br />No. That's the problem with unreason.<br /><br />What I hope I can do, and the only reason I'm replying to this ... there may be moderate Christians reading this. <br /><br />Moderate Christians - you may be tempted to side with someone like jcc who claims to worship the same god as you. Do you believe that gay people don't exist ... that there are only gay behaviors, that they are 'aberrant' and a 'subclass', that all gay people eventually self destruct? No, of course you don't. You have more in common with Richard Dawkins than Fred Phelps. You know these things already.<br /><br />Please - we're going to differ on the god thing, but when people talk about 'teaching the controversy' or 'allowing school prayer', this is what they're really talking about. When people talk about 'strident New Atheists', what they mean is 'people who try to stop us spewing our poison'. <br /><br />Scratch jcc's surface, and a couple of posts down the line he's a nasty little homophobe who's so disingenuous he feigns incomprehension at the mere word homophobia, as though it's some logically, linguistically and scientifically impossible position to hold.<br /><br />Moderate Christians - there are sides, and what you believe is closer to, and will be far better protected by, atheists like me than Christians like jcc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68257182300588453212010-10-29T07:38:34.336-04:002010-10-29T07:38:34.336-04:00Anyone who truly understands the "Christian w...Anyone who truly understands the "Christian walk does not, nay, cannot hate or fear those addicted to such a vice. We have nothing but compassion for them and above all else, we want to help free them from it.<br /><br />If anyone’s doing any “hating” here, it’s you. You’re the one who can’t tolerate the concept of someone actually daring to think differently from you."<br /><br />That you can put those two sentiments in consecutive sentences says far more about your position and logic and tolerance than anything I ever could.<br /><br />Thank you for finally using the G-word. <br /><br />Accommodationists reading this - *that's* the sort of thing we're being asked to accommodate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81754413734574900202010-10-28T21:59:15.787-04:002010-10-28T21:59:15.787-04:00Anonymous:
It's all about the genes.
No, it’...Anonymous:<br /><br /><i>It's all about the genes.</i><br /><br />No, it’s <b>not</b>. There is no genetic link to homosexual behavior. Even Lar had to concede as much: <i>There is no allele for heterosexuality (or homosexuality) so evolutionary theory has nothing to say in the matter.</i> <b>All</b> behaviors are ultimately acts of the will.<br /><br /><i>if you're against gay marriage, presumably you'd also want legislation to keep gay men away from their nephews and nieces?</i><br /><br />Another bad presumption. No legislation is needed. Like any other destructive behavior, it’s the parent’s responsibility to educate their children about it.<br /><br /><i>your model is this: 'God thinks gays are unnatural</i><br /><br />Uh, no. Still refuse to accept that humans <i>cannot</i> be defined by their behavior, huh?<br /><br />If anything, God thinks homosexual behavior is contrary to the mechanics of reproduction, and when practiced excessively, becomes self-destructive—as evidenced by the data.<br /><br /><i>God created all the gays'</i><br /><br />No. God only creates human beings. There is no more of an intrinsically “gay” <i>subclass</i> of people than there is an intrinsically “illiterate” one.<br /><br /><i>What you have is a prejudice.</i><br /><br />No, but what <i>you</i> have is a paralysis of the will that blinds you from even <i>trying</i> to comprehend a differing worldview from your own.<br /><br /><i>A prejudice you are attempting to justify with a bit of old school religion and some deeply misunderstood science.</i><br /><br />Oh dear, same song, second verse…<br /><br /><i>Evidence and logic point to you being wrong about both.</i><br /><br />Really? So how is that I can <i>still</i> manage to correctly use both to defend my position?<br /><br /><i>I'm not going to stop you being homophobic.</i><br /><br />There you go with that nonsensical word again… Even if that word <i>did</i> make any sense, do you really think you’re capable of stopping me from <i>thinking</i> differently from you?<br /><br />How sad that you’ve convinced yourself that I somehow harbor animus, hatred or even <i>fear</i> for people who have chosen to engage in an aberrant, self-destructive behavior. Anyone who truly understands the Christian walk does not, nay, <b>cannot</b> hate or fear those addicted to such a vice. We have nothing but compassion for them and above all else, we want to help free them from it.<br /><br />If anyone’s doing any “hating” here, it’s <b>you</b>. You’re the one who can’t <i>tolerate</i> the concept of someone actually daring to think differently from you.<br /><br />You know what they say about people who live in "glass houses."jccnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26339236726286677652010-10-28T20:34:16.971-04:002010-10-28T20:34:16.971-04:00Anonymous:
I find your opinions utterly abhorrent...Anonymous:<br /><br /><i>I find your opinions utterly abhorrent</i><br /><br />Recitation of facts are <b>not</b> opinions.<br /><br /><i>your cherrypicking of scientific evidence nasty</i><br /><br />Nothing was “cherry picked.” All citations were made in context and fully referenced. Only those who regard an objective reality as “nasty” clearly must wish it didn’t exist.<br /><br /><i>and your appeal to some universal force of nature (God, of course, although for some reason you have trouble saying it) ... unsurprising</i><br /><br />And virtually <b>nothing</b> you’ve said so far even registers on the Originality Meter… you’re a walking, talking, cliché of a cliché.<br /><br /><i>That, in itself, kills your argument that there's some sort of 'Moral Law'.</i><br /><br />Hmmm. But you <i>just</i> said those were my (abhorrent) “opinions.” Here’s another objective reality: arguments <b>cannot</b> be won using opinions.<br /><br /><i>What you have is a prejudice enabled by faith.</i><br /><br />Uh, looked in the mirror, lately?<br /><br /><i>That's an argument against faith, not for homophobia.</i><br /><br /><i>Who</i> here was “arguing <i>for</i> ‘homophobia?’” And please enlighten me…what exactly is a <i>fear of the <b>same</b></i>?<br /><br /><i>Animals, children and the dead can't enter legal contracts</i><br /><br />Changing the legal definition of marriage sets a legislative precedent—every ambulance-chaser’s dream.<br /><br /><i>gay marriage could not possibly 'open' the door to marriages based on bestiality, pedophilia or necrophilia.</i><br /><br />You obviously didn’t read my link to “<a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/14261" rel="nofollow">animal standing</a>.”<br /><br /><i>That's the irrefutable answer to that particular ridiculous 'where will it all end' wail.</i><br /><br />Sorry that “irrefutable answer” had to blow up in your face like that…<br /><br /><i>What a load of pious shit.</i><br /><br />And what an articulate, clever, and <i>original</i> reply.<br /><br /><i>Because "the state" doesn't screen heterosexual couples before they're married to see if there are alcoholics or…</i><br /><br />Nor would it for homosexual couples, but your froth wasn’t even remotely related to my point. State sanctioning of homosexual marriage <i>deliberately</i> deprives children under it the <b>opportunity</b> of having an essential gender role model. It <b>promotes</b> an aberrant and socially deficient environment for them.<br /><br /><i>It's not a coincidence that so many 'family values' public figures are found with their trousers down, or have been married three times.</i><br /><br />Yes, and as per the stats I cited earlier on homosexual behavior, we all know <i>they’re</i> not prone to those kinds of lapses.<br /><br /><i>It should have encompassed my galaxy.</i><br /><br />It <i>does</i>. So… you <i>are</i> from another galaxy…<br /><br /><i>It's almost as though your argument is bullshit, isn't it?</i><br /><br />No. It’s as though <i>you</i> refuse to acknowledge the objective reality of the matter.<br /><br /><i>Dress up your nasty prejudices all you want</i><br /><br />The record clearly shows that <i>I’m</i> <b>not</b> the prejudiced one here. Please point out where I’ve made <b>any</b> disparaging remarks about those who engage in homosexual behavior—and please point out where I’ve made any comment that could possibly indicate that I hate them or am <i>afraid</i> of them.jccnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49933542853102986992010-10-28T16:46:37.287-04:002010-10-28T16:46:37.287-04:00The universe is indeed regular in a sense. Conside...The universe is indeed regular in a sense. Consider the principle of relativity: the form of physical equations describing natural phenomena is the same in all intertial frames of refrence. If we move to Mars, we won't have to reinvent physics, because the laws we discovered will work there the same way.<br /><br />Hamilton's principle and other extremum principles, along with Noether's theorem also give me a very strong sense of regularity, simplicity and 'unifiedness'. Miracles are not allowed in this universe :) And, of course, I don't know why is that.<br /><br />About moral law: I don't think it exsits 'in itself', but a universal moral law, that concerns our environment, includes present day knowledge, ensures sustainability, etc, could be established. It is time to replace biblical bullshit with something relevant.Bocckonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33949752856779399242010-10-28T16:14:12.306-04:002010-10-28T16:14:12.306-04:00anonymous says,
Off the top of my head, there are...anonymous says,<br /><br /><i>Off the top of my head, there are two very simple ways homosexual behavior is compatible with evolutionary theory:</i><br /><br />3. There is no allele for heterosexuality (or homosexuality) so evolutionary theory has nothing to say in the matter.<br /><br />4. The sexual preference of individuals, even if there's an allele for heterosexuality, doesn't have much effect on fitness.<br /><br />5. The gene for exclusive heterosexuality was detrimental in the past because it reduced same-sex bonding.<br /><br />There's no end to the just-so stories you can make up, especially since Hamilton provided us with a perfect story-telling template.<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26894097880615518272010-10-28T09:52:08.822-04:002010-10-28T09:52:08.822-04:00"Therefore, strictly speaking, homosexuality ..."Therefore, strictly speaking, homosexuality is a biological aberration—a counterproductive activity for the propagation of the species, ergo, one that Darwinism/neo-Darwinism/evolution/et. al. cannot account for."<br /><br />OK. It's all about the genes. We behave in ways that pass on our genes. These ways are often convoluted, but once laid out, they're often rather elegant.<br /><br />Off the top of my head, there are two very simple ways homosexual behavior is compatible with evolutionary theory:<br /><br />1. The same combination of genes that doesn't give one individual an advantage might give another individual an advantage. Many people in America have genes that are very efficient at turning food into fat - really useful when food is scarce, as it often was historically, but leading to obesity when food is common.<br /><br />Studies suggest that women with homosexual brothers have more children than women without, for example. If that's true, it might suggest there's a set of genes that tend to make women more fertile which also tend to make men homosexual. <br /><br />2. We behave in ways that pass on our genes. Our genes aren't just in us. <br /><br />In an ant nest, only the Queen lays eggs. The ten million other ants, all her children, are sterile. They work to pass on *her* genes, but her genes are also *their* genes. <br /><br />We are as closely related to our nephews as our grandsons. A gay man who is a - what was your phrase? - positive male role model to a nephew is doing as much, genetically, as a doting grandparent.<br /><br />[On a related note - if you're against gay marriage, presumably you'd also want legislation to keep gay men away from their nephews and nieces?]<br /><br />See? <br /><br />Now, your model is this: 'God thinks gays are unnatural, God created all the gays'. Or, the softer version: 'it is a universal Moral Law that gays are unnatural; boy, there sure are a lot of gays in defiance of that universal law'. <br /><br />What you have is a prejudice. A prejudice you are attempting to justify with a bit of old school religion and some deeply misunderstood science. Evidence and logic point to you being wrong about both. <br /><br />I'm not going to stop you being homophobic. If only it was that easy, but you are, unfortunately, suffering from what we scientists refer to as 'the God Delusion'. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be genetic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73019943833529108992010-10-28T06:56:49.587-04:002010-10-28T06:56:49.587-04:00For the record: I find your opinions utterly abhor...For the record: I find your opinions utterly abhorrent, your cherrypicking of scientific evidence nasty and your appeal to some universal force of nature (God, of course, although for some reason you have trouble saying it) ... unsurprising. <br /><br />That, in itself, kills your argument that there's some sort of 'Moral Law'. What you have is a prejudice enabled by faith. That's an argument against faith, not for homophobia. Gods are like newspapers - people pick the one that conforms to their prejudices, and then enter a vicious circle of seeing those prejudices harden as they are pandered to.<br /><br />First ...<br /><br />"The redefining of traditional marriage to permit same-sex couples opens the door to the legal recognition of every kind of unnatural coupling (read bestiality)"<br /><br />OK ... and I'll sink your battleship in 5,4,3,2,1:<br /><br />Marriage is a legal contract. Animals, children and the dead can't enter legal contracts, so gay marriage could not possibly 'open' the door to marriages based on bestiality, pedophilia or necrophilia.<br /><br />That's the irrefutable answer to that particular ridiculous 'where will it all end' wail. <br /><br />Second ...<br /><br />"puts the state in the position of intentionally depriving children legally brought into such a union the essential presence of parental role models of both genders."<br /><br />What a load of pious shit. Because "the state" doesn't screen heterosexual couples before they're married to see if there are alcoholics or abusers or adulterers and so on. Being married doesn't prevent someone going to jail or taking a job in another town or joining the army and being posted to a war zone. The state, quite rightly, doesn't even ask if the couple are planning to have children.<br /><br />It's not a coincidence that so many 'family values' public figures are found with their trousers down, or have been married three times.<br /><br />"Not even in the same galaxy."<br /><br />And yet your 'Moral Law' was universal. It should have encompassed my galaxy. It's almost as though your argument is bullshit, isn't it?<br /><br />Dress up your nasty prejudices all you want, just don't you dare tell me I think the same way as you, or that if I don't I'm out of tune with the universe. <br /><br />Why do atheists care? Because, from time to time, we're reminded of the poison religions are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90979258697480602002010-10-28T06:19:24.445-04:002010-10-28T06:19:24.445-04:00jcc wrote,
That’s because slavery in the Old Testa...jcc wrote,<br /><i>That’s because slavery in the Old Testament was more-often-than-not, nothing like the brutal slavery of the Antebellum South. Slavery in the ancient world was usually a servitude that resulted from unpaid debt.</i><br /><br />Exodus 21:20-21: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."<br /><br />After a day or two. <b>A day or two.</b> By any standard, that is some severe physical harm that God explicitly tells us is A-OK and not to be condemned. No limits are given on the master's reason (or lack thereof) for beating the slave; the fact that "the slave is his property" is enough to justify it.<br /><br />THIS is what the Bible presents as a supposedly universal Moral Law. Jesus endorsed it, saying that "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law." (Matthew 5:18) Christians disregard most of the Mosaic law in practice under the umbrella of "Christ's fulfillment," (Matthew 5:17) but it's still the means by which we are taught what sin is, (Romans 7:7) and by which the whole world is found guilty and deserving of hell. (Romans 3:19) This law, that condemns cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5) while encouraging forced marriage of "captured" non-Israelite women (Deuteronomy 21:11), that prohibits disabled people from approaching an altar because that would "desecrate" it (Leviticus 21:16-23), but permits selling one's children into servitude (Exodus 21:7), that makes it a capital offense if a newlywed woman can't provide evidence of her virginity (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), but instructs a suspicious husband who has no evidence of wrongdoing to subject his wife to trial by ordeal (Numbers 5:24-28), is an outrageously far cry from anything I would call a "universal moral code."<br /><br />It's my understanding that it was quite progressive by the standards of its time, but it's nevertheless too flawed for me to accept a divine origin. Nor do I feel the sense of convictedness that the Apostle Paul would have me gnashing my teeth over. So I'm going to be over here not beating any slaves to within an inch of their lives, not selling my children, not treating the crippled and deformed like they're cursed, and not worrying about whether my morals are "universal" enough. I have yet to see a rulebook that lives up to that notion, and until then, I think I'll do just fine with simple empathy as my guide. In fact, I think rulebooks often have a way of interfering with the closest thing we actually <i>have</i> to a "universal" moral truth, which is the collection of sufferings and desires we share with all who live in similar bodies.Some Matt or othernoreply@blogger.com