Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[columbus]

Surely you have heard how mechanistic evolution underpins social Darwinism, which is guilty of many ills, including the ones I mentioned.

"Social Darwinism" existed long before Darwin. It's just a peculiarly ugly form of racism. Christians were notorious for that long before the mid 19th century.

Social Darwinism is simply racism in a scientific disguise. And even though modern science has clearly demonstrated that the differences between the races is extremely superficial genetically, it's almost entirely cultural and environmental, there are still Social Darwinists. Around here where I live, they are almost exclusively Christians. From the KKK to the Christian Identity Movement to a guy down the block from my house, all the serious racists I know are very very Christian.
And that's how it's always been in this ever-so-Christian nation I live in. Racism from Hell, and it's usually supported by Scripture, although they'll dress it up as Science when that justifies their evil ways.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that false accusations have now been made about G. K. Chesterton. I can't find any evidence at all that he was a creationist. His beliefs about evolution are not clear, like the thoughts of many they may have changed over time. He was clearly against eugenics, but that is not mean that he was against the concept of evolution. The only statements of his about evolution that I can find show a totally wrong understanding of the science.

:Also he was a philosopher. He was not a scientist. He did no work in the sciences. He definitely was not a "creation scientist" whatever that is. Though he was apparently quite the anti-semite. He believe that Europe has a "Jewish problem" though he did not go as far as Hitler, he thought there should be a Jewish homeland. At one point even Jewish Zionist invited him to Palestine to get him to advocate for their cause.

Last merely using the word "falsifiable" does not mean that he invented the concept. Popper is credited with it because he made a consistent and usable definition of the term. All in all a very interesting man, but an appeal to him is an appeal to authority fallacy since he is clearly not an expert in any of the subjects that he is being used as an authority:


G. K. Chesterton - Wikipedia

 

[BilliardsBall]

Worth is something we humans assign to things. I'm pretty certain that nothing I do will have any value 10,000 years from now, let alone a few million.

If you are a skeptic, you would be forced to admit you have only subjective worth NOW. One of the great arguments against atheism, besides its irrationality and special (omniscient) knowledge, is that the atheist's glass is ALWAYS half full:

Atheist: Why is there so much suffering in this world?

Christian: Why did the Christ suffer to take me from this world to a better one?

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Social Darwinism" existed long before Darwin. It's just a peculiarly ugly form of racism. Christians were notorious for that long before the mid 19th century.

Social Darwinism is simply racism in a scientific disguise. And even though modern science has clearly demonstrated that the differences between the races is extremely superficial genetically, it's almost entirely cultural and environmental, there are still Social Darwinists. Around here where I live, they are almost exclusively Christians. From the KKK to the Christian Identity Movement to a guy down the block from my house, all the serious racists I know are very very Christian.
And that's how it's always been in this ever-so-Christian nation I live in. Racism from Hell, and it's usually supported by Scripture, although they'll dress it up as Science when that justifies their evil ways.
Tom

But I didn't bring racism to this discussion. I've been consistent in explaining how mindless mechanistic evolution says homosexuals are "wrong" and abortion and eugenics are "right".

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Social Darwinism" existed long before Darwin. It's just a peculiarly ugly form of racism. Christians were notorious for that long before the mid 19th century.

Social Darwinism is simply racism in a scientific disguise. And even though modern science has clearly demonstrated that the differences between the races is extremely superficial genetically, it's almost entirely cultural and environmental, there are still Social Darwinists. Around here where I live, they are almost exclusively Christians. From the KKK to the Christian Identity Movement to a guy down the block from my house, all the serious racists I know are very very Christian.
And that's how it's always been in this ever-so-Christian nation I live in. Racism from Hell, and it's usually supported by Scripture, although they'll dress it up as Science when that justifies their evil ways.
Tom

Yep, racists are always willing to adopt those parts of science that seem to support their views. So they adopt the parts of evolution that seem to go along with their hatred of others and ignore that parts that tell them they are full of nonsense. For example I have seen countless times that the claim that we evolved from apes is somehow racist. Why, I have no clue, except for perhaps the totally illogical conclusion that somehow those that live in Africa are more closely related to other apes than non-Africans. It makes no sense since on that level there is no "closer". All men have an equal degree to relation to chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.. As a species no individual is no closer in relation to the other existing great apes than any other individual. That merely shows a total inability to understand what the theory of evolution says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are a skeptic, you would be forced to admit you have only subjective worth NOW. One of the great arguments against atheism, besides its irrationality and special (omniscient) knowledge, is that the atheist's glass is ALWAYS half full:

Atheist: Why is there so much suffering in this world?

Christian: Why did the Christ suffer to take me from this world to a better one?

How is atheism irrational? Are you sure you are not projecting your irrational beliefs upon others? And your two questions are not comparable. The atheist does not ask that question. But if he did that would be a rational question. The Christian question is not. It has a false assumption built within it. It could be phrased better and then you might have an interesting question. The question is do you see the flaw in your second question?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You can have sex with as many men as you like, get Aids and suffer

Most people with HIV/AIDS are straights who got it from straight sex. Stop using an illness that doesn't discriminate as a weapon in your rhetorical bigotry. It's disgusting and false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But I didn't bring racism to this discussion. I've been consistent in explaining how mindless mechanistic evolution says homosexuals are "wrong" and abortion and eugenics are "right".

Sorry, but when you bring eugenics into the discussion you bring racism into the discussion. Eugenics is not based upon the theory of evolution, it is based upon racism and it tries to abuse the theory of evolution to support their racism. Second abortion has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. And the neither the theory of evolution nor the fact of evolution says that homosexuals are "wrong". Where did you get that idea from?

By the way, I would hope that you know the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. Evolution has been proven far beyond a reasonable doubt to be a fact. That you are the product of evolution is undeniable for a rational person. Just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. The rather lose use of terminology indicates that you may not understand this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most people with HIV/AIDS are straights who got it from straight sex. Stop using an illness that doesn't discriminate as a weapon in your rhetorical bigotry. It's disgusting and false.

Ah yes, The AIDS argument against homosexuality. Strangely enough these same people tend to be against marriage equality. You would think that someone that is against homosexual promiscuity would be for the concept of gays having the same right to marry the one that they love as other people have. Marriage does lower promiscuity among straight people, why shouldn't it have the same effect among others?

 

[columbus]

But I didn't bring racism to this discussion. I've been consistent in explaining how mindless mechanistic evolution says homosexuals are "wrong" and abortion and eugenics are "right".

Here's what you posted:

Surely you have heard how mechanistic evolution underpins social Darwinism, which is guilty of many ills, including the ones I mentioned.

Social Darwinism is a racist interpretation of the primitive biology of Darwin. Darwin was undeniably a huge racist, just like most 19th century EuroChristian people were.
Tom

 

[Polymath257]

If you are a skeptic, you would be forced to admit you have only subjective worth NOW.

Worth is something that people assign. If there were no people, it would be a meaningless word.

One of the great arguments against atheism, besides its irrationality and special (omniscient) knowledge,

I'm not sure what knowledge you think is so special. I look at the available evidence and determine what I am convinced by. It is a completely rational activity.

is that the atheist's glass is ALWAYS half full:

Atheist: Why is there so much suffering in this world?

Christian: Why did the Christ suffer to take me from this world to a better one?

Well, this begs the question of *whether* Christ did so and whether he was effective in this.

I see atheism and the acknowledgement that the universe doesn't give two pence for human suffering as being realistic. It means we have to take care of human suffering ourselves because *we* think it is important. We don't get to imagine some utopian future. We have to work to do what is required.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's what you posted:

Social Darwinism is a racist interpretation of the primitive biology of Darwin. Darwin was undeniably huge racist, just like most 19th century EuroChristian people were.
Tok

I would not say that he was a huge racist. Yes, he had racist views of others, but he seemed to be less of a racist than most. But he was a product of the society that he grew up in. You may have seen to many quote mines of Darwin about other races.

 

[columbus]

I would not say that he was a huge racist. Yes, he had racist views of others, but he seemed to be less of a racist than most. But he was a product of the society that he grew up in. You may have seen to many quote mines of Darwin about other races.

I understand what you're saying. I am not a mindreader, so I don't claim to know what Darwin believed about racial issues. All I have to go by is what he wrote.
Frankly, I don't even care. Darwin was a product of his time. His biology work was groundbreaking, his moral opinions aren't important to me. He wasn't an ethicist, he was a biologist.
Just because Darwin said or believed something doesn't mean he was correct. Unlike religionists like @BilliardsBall , I don't put much stock in human authorities unless they can back up their assertions with empirical evidence.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Atheist: Why is there so much suffering in this world?

Christian: Why did the Christ suffer to take me from this world to a better one?

Here's the biggest difference between the atheist and the Christian.
The suffering clearly exists. Lots of empirical evidence. People who care about that try to alleviate it, using scientific methods to figure out how to do so. As a result, we have modern medicine and such. And modern ethics, generally known as "secular humanism".

Christians tend to get stuck in the primitive science and ethics of 2000+ years ago. Because they base their beliefs on what humans tell them to believe, rather than what Reality shows them right now in the real world.
So you base your beliefs on what people tell you to believe about the Bible and Muslim UK bases his on the equally human authorities telling him about the Quran, etc. etc. While secular scientists go on actually finding ways to alleviate the suffering.
Tom

 

[james bond]

Nope. Not testable.

Wrong again.

Anyway, this will be it from me as we're getting off topic again.

I think this was from the deceased atheist scientist Victor Stenger files:

The Scientific God Model
1. God is the creator and preserver of the universe.

1. God is the architect of the structure of universe and the author of the laws of nature.

3. God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.

4. God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity, where human beings are special in relation to other life forms.

5. God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.

6. God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.

7. God has revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.

8. God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.


Note that the "3O" attributes�omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence�are not in general assumed.

5. One of the tests is to die, but the person who dies has to be able to report back from wherever they are. Maybe we have a light and switch inside a Faraday cage in a locked and secret place and the person has to turn on the light to signal yes or no.

7. This has been done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong again.

Anyway, this will be it from me as we're getting off topic again.

I think this was from the deceased atheist scientist Victor Stenger files:

The Scientific God Model
1. God is the creator and preserver of the universe.

1. God is the architect of the structure of universe and the author of the laws of nature.

3. God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.

4. God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity, where human beings are special in relation to other life forms.

5. God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.

6. God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.

7. God has revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.

8. God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.


Note that the "3O" attributes�omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence�are not in general assumed.

5. One of the tests is to die, but the person who dies has to be able to report back from wherever they are. Maybe we have a light and switch inside a Faraday cage in a locked and secret place and the person has to turn on the light to signal yes or no.

7. This has been done.

How is your model testable? Dying is not a valid way to test it since the results cannot be reported back. Do you understand what a testable model is?

To be testable there must be a reasonable test that would show it to be wrong if it was wrong. The theory of evolution is testable in many different ways. Your mere beliefs? Not so much.

 

[columbus]

Ah yes, The AIDS argument against homosexuality. Strangely enough these same people tend to be against marriage equality. You would think that someone that is against homosexual promiscuity would be for the concept of gays having the same right to marry the one that they love as other people have. Marriage does lower promiscuity among straight people, why shouldn't it have the same effect among others?

It's like the people who oppose elective abortion, and also oppose statistics based efforts to reduce abortion.
People claim to oppose abortion, but then they also oppose sex ed and access to contraceptives and every other way to stop abortions.

Except punishing people after the fact. They are always big on punishment. Let stuff happen, then punish people.
Yuck!
Tom

 

[Darkstorn]

Anyway, this will be it from me as we're getting off topic again.

I'm sure THAT's the reason.

And not your inability to make a rational argument for your position.

 

[james bond]

How is your model testable? Dying is not a valid way to test it since the results cannot be reported back. Do you understand what a testable model is?

To be testable there must be a reasonable test that would show it to be wrong if it was wrong. The theory of evolution is testable in many different ways. Your mere beliefs? Not so much.

I understood, but apparently you did not. Testable does not mean an actual experiment is required, but a method describing how a test or experiment can be done which I provided with a light switch and light in a Faraday cage. We have cases where people, both believers and non-believers, were clinically dead and then came back to life and reported back.

I can easily laugh at Lucy, The Piltdown Man, tiktaalik, birds from dinosaurs tests done from fossils.

Again, this is my final answer to you, SZ, since it's off topic.

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong again.

Anyway, this will be it from me as we're getting off topic again.

I think this was from the deceased atheist scientist Victor Stenger files:

The Scientific God Model
1. God is the creator and preserver of the universe.

1. God is the architect of the structure of universe and the author of the laws of nature.

Untestable.

3. God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.

Never observed in spite of repeated attempts.

4. God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity, where human beings are special in relation to other life forms.

First phrase untestable. Second phrase too vague to test.

5. God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.

Untestable.

6. God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.

Untestable.

7. God has revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.

Contradicted by the evidence.

8. God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.

Tested and shown to be false (assuming a deity exists).

Note that the "3O" attributes�omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence�are not in general assumed.

5. One of the tests is to die, but the person who dies has to be able to report back from wherever they are.

Untestable.

Maybe we have a light and switch inside a Faraday cage in a locked and secret place and the person has to turn on the light to signal yes or no.

Not a valid test.

7. This has been done.

Not under controlled circumstances.