Secularism the political motivation for evolutionism

lesliedellow · Nov 26, 2015

justlookinla said:
Dawkins claims that selfishness is programmed and that we are robots acting selfish. That's Social Darwinism

No it isn't, anymore than the doctrine of the fall is a recommendation that we should act immorally. It is a statement about the way things are.

juvenissun · Nov 26, 2015

Armoured said:
Arguably. So what?

If you like to continue, you need to tell me something new.
Until then, I have better things to do.

justlookinla · Nov 26, 2015

lesliedellow said:
No it isn't, anymore than the doctrine of the fall is a recommendation that we should act immorally. It is a statement about the way things are.

Sure it's Social Darwinism. Remember, according to Dawkins.... “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” We're socially selfish robots according to his view.

ecco · Nov 26, 2015

Armoured said:
The only explanation I can see for these sorts of claims are that the people making them must struggle with their sexuality, and that the socially unacceptable nature of homosexuality was previously all that held this in check. Now that some of the prejudice against homosexuals has been removed, they're finding the struggle harder, which to them, feels like society telling them to "be gay".

Some of society is saying that it is OK to be gay since that is the way a person is born. Just as it's OK to be born with blue eyes. Despite the evidence, you seem to want to stick to the "choice" argument so that you can continue to express your religious based bias.

Armoured said:
Also, I suspect that they think that everyone else is pretty much the same as they are, so they assume that everyone else is experiencing similar doubts. I think they really do think that with homosexuality being legal and all, that otherwise heterosexual people WILL become gay, because they are struggling with it themselves.

There are people struggling with it. Especially young people in religious families and environments where attitudes like yours are prevalent.

http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/facts-about-suicide

• Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 24.
• LGB youth are 4 times more likely, and questioning youth are 3 times more likely, to attempt suicide as their straight peers.
• LGB youth who come from highly rejecting families are 8.4 times as likely to have attempted suicide as LGB peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection.

Armoured said:
Only explanation I can think of. As supporting evidence, I'll cite the dozens (hundreds?) of prominent "anti-gay" types who have been caught out with gay lovers. I know it's a cliche, but it's only a cliche because it seems to happen every other week.

It's interesting that you would bring that up. This should show you that a lot of people have been pretending to be straight, when in fact they were born homosexual and had suppressed their nature for years. Some of these people hide their nature. Some of these people commit suicide. Some preach loudly against homosexuality in the mistaken belief it will change them.

And yet, some people like you still believe it's all "choice".

ecco · Nov 26, 2015

justlookinla said:
Thus yet another example of 'science' at odds with itself.

Thus yet another example of science always questioning itself in order to create better understandings of nature. Unlike religious dogma which claims that what some people believed 6000 years ago is the correct understanding of nature. For those religious people who do not believe that the knowledge of 6000 years ago is correct, their only option is to discard parts of scripture: "it's allegory".

justlookinla said:
Probably? Now you're giving your subjective conclusion.

You do know how to read. I'm sure of it. So when you try to take one word, "probably", out of context, you demonstrate that you are grasping at straws. Regarding the cause of homosexuality, you posted from an article that indicated it was inherited genes. I posted an excerpt from an article where the author believed that gestational hormones were the cause. I then stated my opinion, based on various scientific evidence:

It's probably a combination of genes and what happens during nine months of gestation.

RE: Choice...

justlookinla said:
You've certainly not given any reason to believe otherwise. Except for your subjective 'probably'.

You mean except for the article from which you posted excerpts and the article from which I posted excerpts. Neither of which make "choice" an option.

You've made it very clear that your views are based on your religious beliefs. You dismiss any evidence that contradicts your religious beliefs. You really should just say "God said, I believe it, end of story". That would be honest.

ecco · Nov 26, 2015

justlookinla said:
Excuses for the immoral behavior of homosexuality.

Why do you believe it is immoral?

ecco · Nov 26, 2015

juvenissun said:
Let me tell you what the principle is: Do whatever you can to survive.
Is it not a principle of evolution?

You have, once again, made it very clear that you have no understanding whatsoever of evolution.

Thank you. We appreciate your honesty.

Armoured · Nov 26, 2015

ecco said:
Some of society is saying that it is OK to be gay since that is the way a person is born. Just as it's OK to be born with blue eyes. Despite the evidence, you seem to want to stick to the "choice" argument so that you can continue to express your religious based bias.

There are people struggling with it. Especially young people in religious families and environments where attitudes like yours are prevalent.

http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/facts-about-suicide

• Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 24.
• LGB youth are 4 times more likely, and questioning youth are 3 times more likely, to attempt suicide as their straight peers.
• LGB youth who come from highly rejecting families are 8.4 times as likely to have attempted suicide as LGB peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection.

It's interesting that you would bring that up. This should show you that a lot of people have been pretending to be straight, when in fact they were born homosexual and had suppressed their nature for years. Some of these people hide their nature. Some of these people commit suicide. Some preach loudly against homosexuality in the mistaken belief it will change them.

And yet, some people like you still believe it's all "choice".

"attitudes like mine"?? I think you completely missed my point. I'm firmly on the "it's not a choice" side.

justlookinla · Nov 26, 2015

ecco said:
Thus yet another example of science always questioning itself in order to create better understandings of nature.

If science changes, how can one fully trust science?

You do know how to read. I'm sure of it. So when you try to take one word, "probably", out of context, you demonstrate that you are grasping at straws.

"Probably" isn't taken out of context. "Probably" means this is my opinion. Not much to hang your hat on there...except trust your subjective view.

Regarding the cause of homosexuality, you posted from an article that indicated it was inherited genes. I posted an excerpt from an article where the author believed that gestational hormones were the cause. I then stated my opinion, based on various scientific evidence:

It's probably a combination of genes and what happens during nine months of gestation.

You asked for a reference concerning the genetic view of homosexuality and I gave you one. Do you believe the article is in error or do you agree with it? Your guess of 'probably' isn't anything but your personal view.

RE: Choice...

You mean except for the article from which you posted excerpts and the article from which I posted excerpts. Neither of which make "choice" an option.

Right...just two views based on 'scientific' guesses.

You've made it very clear that your views are based on your religious beliefs. You dismiss any evidence that contradicts your religious beliefs. You really should just say "God said, I believe it, end of story". That would be honest.

What evidence? "Probably" isn't evidence.

justlookinla · Nov 26, 2015

ecco said:
Why do you believe it is immoral?

The bible. Why do you believe it's not immoral?

Astrophile · Nov 26, 2015

justlookinla said:
Richard Dawkins DOES believe it's a basis for morality per the quote from his book "The Selfish Gene".....

“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”

So far as I understand it, 'the selfish gene' is a metaphor for the behaviour of genes. A 'selfish gene' is not a gene that makes people selfish.

Nigel Calder wrote a book entitled The Violent Universe. Do you think that it means that the violence of the Universe makes us behave violently, or that violent human behaviour is a good thing?

justlookinla · Nov 26, 2015

Astrophile said:
So far as I understand it, 'the selfish gene' is a metaphor for the behaviour of genes. A 'selfish gene' is not a gene that makes people selfish.

Nigel Calder wrote a book entitled The Violent Universe. Do you think that it means that the violence of the Universe makes us behave violently, or that violent human behaviour is a good thing?

From Dawkins' book, 'The Selfish Gene'......

"My purpose is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism."

Now, you can claim what he really meant or did not mean, but his words are there for all to read.

Astrophile · Nov 26, 2015

justlookinla said:
If science changes, how can one fully trust science?

One can't. That's why we have to keep on doing science, so as to be able to correct our theories.

However, changes in science don't mean that everything that went before the change was wrong. The fact that science changed when Newton's gravitational theory was superseded by Einstein's didn't mean that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton were wrong in thinking that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Science changed when physicists discovered atomic nuclei, but that didn't mean that everything in the chemistry of Lavoisier and Dalton was wrong.

Armoured · Nov 26, 2015

Astrophile said:
One can't. That's why we have to keep on doing science, so as to be able to correct our theories.

However, changes in science don't mean that everything that went before the change was wrong. The fact that science changed when Newton's gravitational theory was superseded by Einstein's didn't mean that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton were wrong in thinking that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Science changed when physicists discovered atomic nuclei, but that didn't mean that everything in the chemistry of Lavoisier and Dalton was wrong.

Good luck, but you're arguing with someone wedded to the false dichotomy of Biblical literalism, "either it's all absolutely true, or it'all false". He's amply demonstrated he either can't or won't appreciate the concept of "iterative advancement". At least as far as biology is concerned.

Astrophile · Nov 26, 2015

justlookinla said:
From Dawkins' book, 'The Selfish Gene'......

"My purpose is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism."

What is wrong with examining the biology of selfishness and altruism? Dawkins doesn't say here that genes make people selfish, still less that we ought to be selfish, only that he is examining selfishness and altruism as biological phenomena.

justlookinla said:
Now, you can claim what he really meant or did not mean, but his words are there for all to read.

On the next page, Dawkins says, 'there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals'.
In the next paragraph he says, 'I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. ... This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning.'

Armoured · Nov 26, 2015

Astrophile said:
What is wrong with examining the biology of selfishness and altruism? Dawkins doesn't say here that genes make people selfish, still less that we ought to be selfish, only that he is examining selfishness and altruism as biological phenomena.

On the next page, Dawkins says, 'there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals'.
In the next paragraph he says, 'I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. ... This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning.'

You're also arguing with someone who loves quote mines.

justlookinla · Nov 27, 2015

Astrophile said:
One can't. That's why we have to keep on doing science, so as to be able to correct our theories.

That means that we can't really view the teachings of science today as true? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, we just don't know for sure?

However, changes in science don't mean that everything that went before the change was wrong.

It means that we can't fully trust science, doesn't it?

The fact that science changed when Newton's gravitational theory was superseded by Einstein's didn't mean that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton were wrong in thinking that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Science changed when physicists discovered atomic nuclei, but that didn't mean that everything in the chemistry of Lavoisier and Dalton was wrong.

But it does mean that certain scientific teachings are not based on the scientific method but rather on other criteria.

ecco · Nov 27, 2015

Armoured said:
"attitudes like mine"?? I think you completely missed my point. I'm firmly on the "it's not a choice" side.

Armoured, previously...

The only explanation I can see for these sorts of claims are that the people making them must struggle with their sexuality, and that the socially unacceptable nature of homosexuality was previously all that held this in check. Now that some of the prejudice against homosexuals has been removed, they're finding the struggle harder, which to them, feels like society telling them to "be gay".

Also, I suspect that they think that everyone else is pretty much the same as they are, so they assume that everyone else is experiencing similar doubts. I think they really do think that with homosexuality being legal and all, that otherwise heterosexual people WILL become gay, because they are struggling with it themselves.

Only explanation I can think of. As supporting evidence, I'll cite the dozens (hundreds?) of prominent "anti-gay" types who have been caught out with gay lovers. I know it's a cliche, but it's only a cliche because it seems to happen every other week.

Yep. I obviously did misread your comments. I see now that you were referring to the opinions of people on the other side of the argument. My apologies.

ecco · Nov 27, 2015

ecco:
Thus yet another example of science always questioning itself in order to create better understandings of nature.

justlookinla said:
If science changes, how can one fully trust science?

Perhaps one should adhere to unchanging religious dogma like:

Slavery is OK
Raping captive virgins is OK
The earth is immovable
The whole world was flooded at the same time
Man and dinosaurs lived together at the same time.

Oh, wait, that last one is wrong, the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs.
Oh, wait https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dinosaurs-and-the-bible/ says they did - and when.

As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.

By the way, are you still driving an ass drawn cart like they did in biblical times or did you go along with the advances in ever-changing science and get a car?

justlookinla said:
Right...just two views based on 'scientific' guesses.

Two views based on scientific research. You have shown in this thread and in others, that your belief in GodDidIt prevents you from accepting science whenever there is a conflict.

As I said earlier:

You've made it very clear that your views are based on your religious beliefs. You dismiss any evidence that contradicts your religious beliefs. You really should just say "God said, I believe it, end of story". That would be honest.

ecco · Nov 27, 2015

When asked the source of his belief that homosexuality was immoral.

justlookinla said:
The bible.

The same bible that justifies owning slaves? The same bible that justifies raping young captive females? That bible?

That bible is not a very good source of morality.

justlookinla said:
Why do you believe it's not immoral?

Because it is just as natural as heterosexuality.

Secularism the political motivation for evolutionism

Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Regular Member

Poster

Poster

Poster

Poster

So is America great again yet?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

So is America great again yet?

Newbie

So is America great again yet?

Regular Member

Poster

Poster

Poster

Similar threads