Evolution Deniers more Bigoted

[mikkel_the_dane]

And, likewise, I don't need any study to realize that there will be a correlation between evolution support ard religiophobic behavior.

The questions would be how much of a difference would it be and what percentage is "homophobic" vs simply "I don't accept their chosen lifestyle as a valid lifestyle" AND EQUALLY "I don't accept just living together as a chosen lifestyle as a valid lifestyle". Have said that, I would support their right to do whatever lifestyle people choose to live. (As we can see in all the threads, people tend to gravitate towards homosexuality as if that was the only lifestyle that people don't accept as if it was somehow worse than another).

Interestingly enough, I see more often that not, it is those who support homosexuality that bring up the subject and not the ones who don't support it. I always wonder why that is.

You are not educated in what LGTB+ is. It is not a chosen lifestyle anymore than heterosexuality is.

 

[Kenny]

You are not educated in what LGTB+ is. It is not a chosen lifestyle anymore than heterosexuality is.

I feel I am... just not trained and taught as others may have been. There is more than one school of thought. We both may believe we are right and yet differ.

 

[metis]

Let me put it this way... if my son is lying and I do not agree with his lying and I don't believe in evolution... am I bigoted because I don't believe in evolution and don't like his lying? Obviously, the answer here is "of course not".

But where did I say or imply "bigoted"? Where did I say or imply "lying"?

Evolution belief doesn't affect what I believe is right or wrong. I could believe in evolution and still think that the above three examples are still wrong.

Of course, so do you think I was saying you couldn't?

That is why I think it is subject to question.

Only more the details. The general process is quite obvious, namely that matter tends to change over time and life forms and genes are matter. Also, the fossil record is immense, which cannot be explained by a literal six-day creation. Plus genetic testing has well established that the evolutionary process exists and is even ongoing today. See: Speciation - Wikipedia

I hope I was clear.

Actually not as I got the impression that maybe you were responding to someone else's posts. I cannot for the life of me understand why you seemingly saying that you or those who have your viewpoint are "bigoted" and/or "lying"? Where did that come from?

 

[metis]

LGBT evolutionists

Why did you link these two together as they're very different.

 

[Kenny]

But where did I say or imply "bigoted"? Where did I say or imply "lying"?

Of course, so do you think I was saying you couldn't?

Only more the details. The general process is quite obvious, namely that matter tends to change over time and life forms and genes are matter. Also, the fossil record is immense, which cannot be explained by a literal six-day creation. Plus genetic testing has well established that the evolutionary process exists and is even ongoing today. See: Speciation - Wikipedia

Actually not as I got the impression that maybe you were responding to someone else's posts. I cannot for the life of me understand why you seemingly saying that you or those who have your viewpoint are "bigoted" and/or "lying"? Where did that come from?

You are absolutely correct...

It wasn't exactly a response to your post but rather in light of someone else's post.

Even what I was saying didn't really express any of my beliefs but rather in light of what was posted in the OP.

Forgive me if I came across as if it was directed to you. Crossed wires on my part.

 

[Kenny]

Why did you link these two together as they're very different.

Only in context of the statement of non-evolutionary belief and bigoted. Was trying to make it relevant to the poster.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I feel I am... just not trained and taught as others may have been. There is more than one school of thought. We both may believe we are right and yet differ.

Yeah, we can feel differently, but thinking as schools of thought has a limit.
So let me explain. There is biological sex, but that is not even XX and XY. Then there is sexual orientation or lack of one, self-understand of ones own gender or lack of a gender and cultural norms about sex, sexual orientation and gender.

Now here is the trick using methodological naturalism and science. If you look at genes, they can be expressed different in different parts of the body. The body can look like as one sex and the brain can be of another gender.
I.e. has been studied by science and the result in layman's is that you could have an external male body and a female brain. You don't as a lifestyle choice choose to have a male body and a female brain or whatever you have. That is given to you by your genes.
Just as you haven't chosen, what you are, nobody else has chosen that.

 

[metis]

Forgive me if I came across as if it was directed to you. Crossed wires on my part.

OK, but this time only!

BTW, do you prefer being burnt at the stake or having your head chopped off? Choose one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think we have it a little mixed up... like trying to put everything in one bag.

Perhaps a better way is to say it is "All churches that spew hate towards those who choose the LGBT lifestyle also do not believe in evolution but only a few who do not believe in evolution spew hate towards those who choose the LGBT lifestyle".

Could I equally say that "All people who choose the LGBT lifestyle and spew hate religion are also evolutionists but not all LGBT evolutionists spew hate towards those who choose religion?

What is an "LGBT lifestyle" and how is it chosen?

 

[Yazata]

People who reject the theory of human evolution tend to have more bigoted attitudes

"Individuals who accept human evolution tend to exhibit reduced levels of prejudice compared to those who reject the scientific theory, according to new research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The study indicates that disbelief in evolution predicts racism and prejudice around the world and in various cultural contexts."

Who knew that denying evolution made one more susceptible to being a bigot.

I think that claims like this depend crucially on how words like "bigot", "prejudice" "racism" and "discriminatory behavior" are being defined. Whatever method they are using to detect and quantify other people's "prejudice", "discrimination" and "racism" almost assuredly is custom-tailored to 'out' those people's reprehensible qualities, but to ignore the "researchers" own.

I mean, it would be trivial to make the similar case that being a university "social science" professor is "associated with" higher levels of prejudice and discriminatory behavior, extending not only to hard antipathy against social conservatives, but to flat-out unabashed anti-white racism. It would be no problem at all to word a different survey to capture those biases.

Google Scholar

This is one reason why I don't consider the "social sciences" to be legitimate sciences at all, at least in the same sense that that the natural sciences are. Too much of subjects like sociology is just political/moral rhetoric in pseudo-scientific drag.

 

[The Hammer]

I think that claims like this depend crucially on how words like "bigot", "prejudice" "racism" and "discriminatory behavior" are being defined. Whatever method they are using to detect and quantify other people's "prejudice", "discrimination" and "racism" almost assuredly is custom-tailered to 'out' those people's reprehensible qualities, but to ignore the "researchers" own.

I mean, it would be trivial to make the similar case that being a university "social science" professor is "associated with" higher levels of prejudice and discriminatory behavior, extending not only to hard antipathy against social conservatives, but to flat-out unabashed anti-white racism. It would be no problem at all to word a different survey to capture those biases.

Google Scholar

This is one reason why I don't consider the "social sciences" to be legitimate sciences at all, at least in the same sense that that the natural sciences are. Too much of subjects like sociology is just political/moral rhetoric in pseudo-scientific drag.

You know, I know I'm only taking one point here, but in all of the colleges I've attended, I've never encountered pushback against conservative or socially conservative views. And I've been on, going on..... Eight, campuses now.

I really don't get this trope.

 

[InChrist]

So you think that your one anecdote of your one example is enough to discard statistical correlation in a large scale study?

I didn’t say it does. Just saying my experience does, as well as the lives of many others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn’t say it does. Just saying my experience does, as well as the lives of many others.

Evidence.

 

[Kenny]

Yeah, we can feel differently, but thinking as schools of thought has a limit.
So let me explain. There is biological sex, but that is not even XX and XY. Then there is sexual orientation or lack of one, self-understand of ones own gender or lack of a gender and cultural norms about sex, sexual orientation and gender.

Now here is the trick using methodological naturalism and science. If you look at genes, they can be expressed different in different parts of the body. The body can look like as one sex and the brain can be of another gender.
I.e. has been studied by science and the result in layman's is that you could have an external male body and a female brain. You don't as a lifestyle choice choose to have a male body and a female brain or whatever you have. That is given to you by your genes.
Just as you haven't chosen, what you are, nobody else has chosen that.

And this is where I would disagree and agree.

Yes, indeed, there is a biological sex. For humans it basically IS XX and XY - deviations from the norm are usually medically treated .

The problem we have is the play on wording, something that is common today. Not too long ago, gender and sex meant the same thing. Scientifically, there are no genes that make our lifestyle choices since we are not robots controlled by our genes. One does not become a sexual lifestyle because of DNA no more than one becomes a thief because of DNA.

We can form physical habits and mental habits just as we can change our habits. I know because I changed mental habits that dictated a change in my vocabulary usage.

That is my school of thought that hasn't been disproved. Scientifically you can prove that your brain was trained to think one way just like it can be trained to think another way.

 

[Kenny]

OK, but this time only!

BTW, do you prefer being burnt at the stake or having your head chopped off? Choose one.

To be serious, I prefer making sure our friendship isn't hindered by my miscommunication.

 

[Kenny]

What is an "LGBT lifestyle" and how is it chosen?

I think that is self evident. What is a thief's lifestyle? What is a heterosexual married lifestyle? What is two people living together lifestyle? Self-evident.

How do you choose where you want to work? How do you choose whether to use profanity or not use it? How do you choose to run or walk? You simply choose.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And this is where I would disagree and agree.

Yes, indeed, there is a biological sex. For humans it basically IS XX and XY - deviations from the norm are usually medically treated .

The problem we have is the play on wording, something that is common today. Not too long ago, gender and sex meant the same thing. Scientifically, there are no genes that make our lifestyle choices since we are not robots controlled by our genes. One does not become a sexual lifestyle because of DNA no more than one becomes a thief because of DNA.

We can form physical habits and mental habits just as we can change our habits. I know because I changed mental habits that dictated a change in my vocabulary usage.

That is my school of thought that hasn't been disproved. Scientifically you can prove that your brain was trained to think one way just like it can be trained to think another way.

How your basic brain turns out, is based on your genes and not something you choose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that is self evident.

If it was you could have responded in a much more appropriate fashion. Your post indicates that you likely used the phrase as a slur.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think that is self evident.

No, it is not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not educated in what LGTB+ is. It is not a chosen lifestyle anymore than heterosexuality is.

Yes.

Alternatively you could have asked him when he decided to be heterosexual.