Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
The Out Campaign
by Richard Dawkins
In the dark days of 1940, the pre-Vichy French government was warned by its generals "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." After the Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill growled his response: "Some chicken; some neck!" Today, the bestselling books of 'The New Atheism' are disparaged, by those who desperately wish to downplay their impact, as "Only preaching to the choir."
Some choir! Only?!
As far as subjective impressions allow and in the admitted absence of rigorous data, I am persuaded that the religiosity of America is greatly exaggerated. Our choir is a lot larger than many people realise. Religious people still outnumber atheists, but not by the margin they hoped and we feared. I base this not only on conversations during my book tour and the book tours of my colleagues Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but on widespread informal surveys of the World Wide Web. Not our own site, whose contributors are obviously biased, but, for example, Amazon, and YouTube whose denizens are reassuringly young. Moreover, even if the religious have the numbers, we have the arguments, we have history on our side, and we are walking with a new spring in our step — you can hear the gentle patter of our feet on every side.
Our choir is large, but much of it remains in the closet. Our repertoire may include the best tunes, but too many of us are mouthing the words sotto voce with head bowed and eyes lowered. It follows that a major part of our consciousness-raising effort should be aimed, not at converting the religious but at encouraging the non-religious to admit it — to themselves, to their families, and to the world. This is the purpose of the OUT campaign.
Before I go any further, I must forestall one major risk of misunderstanding. The obvious comparison with the gay community is vulnerable to going too far: to 'outing' as a transitive verb whose object might be an unfortunate individual not yet — or not ever — ready to confide in the world. Our OUT campaign will have nothing, repeat nothing to do with outing in that active sense. If a closet atheist wants to come out, that is her decision to make, and nobody else's. What we can do is provide support and encouragement to those who willingly decide to out themselves. This may seem trivial to people in parts of Europe, or in regions of the United States dominated by urban intellectuals where support and encouragement is unnecessary. It is anything but trivial to people in other areas of the United States, and even more so in parts of the Islamic world where apostasy is, by Koranic authority, punishable by death.
The OUT campaign has potentially as many sides to it as you can think of words to precede "out". "Come OUT" has pride of place and is the one I have so far dealt with. Related to it is "Reach OUT" in friendship and solidarity towards those who have come out, or who are contemplating that step which, depending on their family or home town prejudices, may require courage. Join, or found local support groups and on-line forums. Speak OUT, to show waverers they are not alone. Organize conferences or campus events. Attend rallies and marches. Write letters to the local newspaper. Lobby politicians, at local and national level. The more people come out and are known to have done so, the easier will it be for others to follow.
Stand OUT and organize activities and events in your local area. Join an existing local neighbourhood atheist organization, or start one. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a T-shirt. Wear Josh's red A if you like it as much as I do, otherwise design your own or find one on a website such as http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist; or wear no shirt at all, but please don't carp at the very idea of standing up to be counted with other atheists. I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem. If in doubt, read PZ Myers's exuberant hortation at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/come_out.php.
"Keep" OUT worried me at first, because it sounds unfriendly and exclusive, like the Barcelona Travel Agent whose travel poster, in well-meant English, read "Go Away!" "Keep OUT" here means, of course, keep religion out of science classes, and similar expressions of the US constitutional separation between church and state (Britain has no such separation, unfortunately). As yet another delightful T-shirt put it, "Don't pray in our school, and I won't think in your church." Lobby your local school board. Quote Christopher Hitchens: "Mr Jefferson, build up that wall."
Chill OUT (exhort others to do so). Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people. Demonstrate this by example. The nice woman next door may be an atheist. So may the doctor, librarian, computer operator, taxi driver, hairdresser, talk show host, singer, conductor, comedian. Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins, nothing to be alarmed about.
What other OUTs might we imagine? Well, suggest your own. Vote OUT representatives who discriminate against the non-religious, the way George Bush Senior is alleged to have done when he described atheists as non-citizens of a nation "under God". Politicians follow where the votes are. They can only count atheists who are OUT. Some atheists are defeatist in thinking we'll never be effective simply because we're not a majority. But it doesn't matter that we're not a majority. To be effective, all we have to be is recognizable to legislators as a big enough minority. Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous 'herding cats' problem again. And the argument applies not just to politicians but to advertisers, the media, merchants across the board. Anyone who wants to sell us anything caters to demographics. We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists. Fill OUT 'Atheist' on any form that asks for your personal details, especially the next census form.
Break OUT! Some might like to throw 'coming OUT' parties where they joyously celebrate the courage of those who have decided to put behind them the habits of a lifetime, or the habits of their ancestors, embrace a realistic and superstition-free life and Break OUT into the real world. Break OUT of religious conformity and, in celebration of your new found freedom, Break OUT the champagne.
http://OutCampaign.org
Some choir! Only?!
As far as subjective impressions allow and in the admitted absence of rigorous data, I am persuaded that the religiosity of America is greatly exaggerated. Our choir is a lot larger than many people realise. Religious people still outnumber atheists, but not by the margin they hoped and we feared. I base this not only on conversations during my book tour and the book tours of my colleagues Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but on widespread informal surveys of the World Wide Web. Not our own site, whose contributors are obviously biased, but, for example, Amazon, and YouTube whose denizens are reassuringly young. Moreover, even if the religious have the numbers, we have the arguments, we have history on our side, and we are walking with a new spring in our step — you can hear the gentle patter of our feet on every side.
Our choir is large, but much of it remains in the closet. Our repertoire may include the best tunes, but too many of us are mouthing the words sotto voce with head bowed and eyes lowered. It follows that a major part of our consciousness-raising effort should be aimed, not at converting the religious but at encouraging the non-religious to admit it — to themselves, to their families, and to the world. This is the purpose of the OUT campaign.
Before I go any further, I must forestall one major risk of misunderstanding. The obvious comparison with the gay community is vulnerable to going too far: to 'outing' as a transitive verb whose object might be an unfortunate individual not yet — or not ever — ready to confide in the world. Our OUT campaign will have nothing, repeat nothing to do with outing in that active sense. If a closet atheist wants to come out, that is her decision to make, and nobody else's. What we can do is provide support and encouragement to those who willingly decide to out themselves. This may seem trivial to people in parts of Europe, or in regions of the United States dominated by urban intellectuals where support and encouragement is unnecessary. It is anything but trivial to people in other areas of the United States, and even more so in parts of the Islamic world where apostasy is, by Koranic authority, punishable by death.
The OUT campaign has potentially as many sides to it as you can think of words to precede "out". "Come OUT" has pride of place and is the one I have so far dealt with. Related to it is "Reach OUT" in friendship and solidarity towards those who have come out, or who are contemplating that step which, depending on their family or home town prejudices, may require courage. Join, or found local support groups and on-line forums. Speak OUT, to show waverers they are not alone. Organize conferences or campus events. Attend rallies and marches. Write letters to the local newspaper. Lobby politicians, at local and national level. The more people come out and are known to have done so, the easier will it be for others to follow.
Stand OUT and organize activities and events in your local area. Join an existing local neighbourhood atheist organization, or start one. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a T-shirt. Wear Josh's red A if you like it as much as I do, otherwise design your own or find one on a website such as http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist; or wear no shirt at all, but please don't carp at the very idea of standing up to be counted with other atheists. I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem. If in doubt, read PZ Myers's exuberant hortation at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/come_out.php.
"Keep" OUT worried me at first, because it sounds unfriendly and exclusive, like the Barcelona Travel Agent whose travel poster, in well-meant English, read "Go Away!" "Keep OUT" here means, of course, keep religion out of science classes, and similar expressions of the US constitutional separation between church and state (Britain has no such separation, unfortunately). As yet another delightful T-shirt put it, "Don't pray in our school, and I won't think in your church." Lobby your local school board. Quote Christopher Hitchens: "Mr Jefferson, build up that wall."
Chill OUT (exhort others to do so). Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people. Demonstrate this by example. The nice woman next door may be an atheist. So may the doctor, librarian, computer operator, taxi driver, hairdresser, talk show host, singer, conductor, comedian. Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins, nothing to be alarmed about.
What other OUTs might we imagine? Well, suggest your own. Vote OUT representatives who discriminate against the non-religious, the way George Bush Senior is alleged to have done when he described atheists as non-citizens of a nation "under God". Politicians follow where the votes are. They can only count atheists who are OUT. Some atheists are defeatist in thinking we'll never be effective simply because we're not a majority. But it doesn't matter that we're not a majority. To be effective, all we have to be is recognizable to legislators as a big enough minority. Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous 'herding cats' problem again. And the argument applies not just to politicians but to advertisers, the media, merchants across the board. Anyone who wants to sell us anything caters to demographics. We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists. Fill OUT 'Atheist' on any form that asks for your personal details, especially the next census form.
Break OUT! Some might like to throw 'coming OUT' parties where they joyously celebrate the courage of those who have decided to put behind them the habits of a lifetime, or the habits of their ancestors, embrace a realistic and superstition-free life and Break OUT into the real world. Break OUT of religious conformity and, in celebration of your new found freedom, Break OUT the champagne.
http://OutCampaign.org
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 | PermalinkComments 301 - 350 of 728 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers302. Comment #60303 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Again, my bad. Apologies to the entirety of Scotland here (just in case).
we already have our own version of the christian taliban. Its called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Christian_Party SCP.
Their policies include:
Reinstate the death penalty for severe crimes apparently you only need two reliable witneses
legislation to ban abortion
increased taxation on alcohol and tobacco
initiatives to bring personal responsibility to bear upon self-inflicted disease (such as alcoholism)
Zero tolerance on drug possession
curfews for under 11 year olds, with mandatory intervention of child protection agencies in relation to any child 10 years or younger that is found unaccompanied on the street after 9:00pm
To bring in the right of teachers to use corporal punishment in extreme circumstances.
greater observance of a weekly day of rest (Sunday)
seek limits around coastlines to preserve stocks of fish and sand eels
promotion in school of chastity before marriage
re-instatement of Section 2A (also known as Section 28), thus calling for the end of "the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."
re-introduce corporate readings from the Bible in all Scottish state schools
science curriculum should reflect evidence of creation/design in the universe.
will publicise the catastrophic effect of ungodly behaviour on the life expectancy and health of people, whom God loves and we should love; particularly homosexuality, excessive drinking and the use of addictive substances
restore the right for parents to smack their children
Mind Pollution Levy on 18 Certificate Films, DVDs, CDs, Video Games and Top Shelf magazines haven't they read the violent intolerant filth in the bible?
seek to re-establish the principle of the innocent party in a divorce being acknowledged in any divorce settlement
oppose the practice of altering birth certificates to reflect gender re-orientation surgery
provision of Christian religious education should be mandatory
promote biblical alternatives to the current criminal justice system - presumably stoning gays ant disobedient children
that Mechanical Copyright Protection enjoyed by songwriters should be extended to featured recording artists and record producers
that a minimum royalty percentage (the level of which should be decided through consultation with the music industry) should be paid to featured recording artists and producers on exactly the same basis as is currently paid to songwriters.
Pretty bad huh? Answer the question about compulsory Islam before you comment Dave. Did you vote for them?
Other Comments by BillySands
303. Comment #60307 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Happy to oblije QuetzHow about John 14:6? I [jesus] am the way, the truth and the life.No man comes to the father except through me"
David, are you a people pleaser or a god pleaser? Galatians 1:10
I'm a Quetz pleaser and will have a cup of tea now
Other Comments by BillySands
304. Comment #60310 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Billy-it will be a good, refreshing cup of tea.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
305. Comment #60312 by Corylus on August 1, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Never mind Yorker! Life is like that.Happy birthday for the other day BTW :)
Other Comments by Corylus
306. Comment #60313 by bitbutter on August 1, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I'm not sure if google pays much attention to the comment threads here but in case it does here's a link to my post restating the OUT campaign information and links. http://www.bitbutter.com/the-out-campaign-be-counted/21Anyone here who runs a website or blog, please consider pasting PZ Myers 'A' logo code in your sidebar somewhere.. or post a blog item about the campaign, or both! google will love you for it.
Other Comments by bitbutter
307. Comment #60316 by BicycleRepairMan on August 1, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Please explain why. I realise that most of the book is taken up with evolution but there are still at least five pages which come make the usual Dawkins quantum leap and somehow manage to turn this into an attack on God.
Look, if I said: "The reason our brains grew so large in comparison to other animals, was a particular week 6 million years ago with some heavy rain and lightning storms"
How should an evolutionary biologist respond to such a "theory", the answer is of course: not at all. The idea is simply too ridiculous, and it goes against EVERYTHING we know about evolution and natural selection, it creates a whole bunch more questions than it provides answers, and its based on absolutely no evidence at all.. Starting to sound familiar??
However, when such a loony idea is not just commonplace, but outright the most popular of them all, and passed blindly from one generation to the next, it becomes impossible to ignore. God is genuinly INCOMPATIBLE with terms like "natural selection" and "evolution"
What you percieve as "Attacks on God" is simply a realistic , unafraid statement of the scientifically sane.
Dawkins even refers, at one point to group selection* as "a delusion", This isnt an "Unscientific Attack on Group selectionists" because he EXPLAINS WHY, thats the scientific method, you see. Nor does it mean that he thinks people who insist on group-selection as mentally unfit and delusional. Its a debunking of ideas.
TAT is 99,99% of the book ignoring gods completely, because they have nothing to do with the real world that book describes.
*IIRC, it may have been some other specific disagreement, my statement still stands.
Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
308. Comment #60319 by pewkatchoo on August 1, 2007 at 3:12 pm
WeeFleaGetitrightupyez ye big girls blouse. I am not going to waste my time on you anymore because you do not answer questions fully, only the bits that you think allow you to look good. As a human being you are a waste of good oxygen.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
309. Comment #60331 by 10 on August 1, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Hello,I'm one of the aforementioned "reads but doesn't post" types. Thanks for all the entertainment! Figured I'd try my hand at adding a few things.
T-shirt: Interesting strategy. In the area of Idaho where I live this will be seen as promoting adultry.
Mormons are oddly better read than I would expect from their book. (I'm from Florida, Mormons & mountains are still kinda new to me)
Bah! I was very happy to have read all posts prior to mine, 2nd time posting and I would rather not reiterate what others have clearly stated (good call Yorker) but it didn't take my post and it seems there have been more since.
Can't wait to see what i've missed
Peace -10-
Other Comments by 10
310. Comment #60333 by Martha on August 1, 2007 at 3:53 pm
The very first comment on here by KSSIDUDE wrote:"The more knowledge I consumed about astronomy, biology, physics, geology, etc..the less and less the probability of the existence of god became."
One doesn't have to be well-informed, educated or know all about astronomy, biology, physics, geology etc etc etc... to know that the Mister God of the ancient Christian/Abrahamic religions doesn't exist. All one needs to be is a relatively NORMAL human being!
Other Comments by Martha
311. Comment #60337 by Yorker on August 1, 2007 at 4:05 pm
313. Comment #60331 by 10I salute your wise decision and I'm not just saying that because I'm an RBP (Read Before Post) type. That way I know what I say hasn't been said before; if what I plan to post has already been said by another, I say nothing, thereby saving web space and avoiding superfluity.
Where in Florida are you? I used to live in Boca Raton.
Corylus, thanks for the good wishes!
Other Comments by Yorker
312. Comment #60341 by Martha on August 1, 2007 at 4:18 pm
RICHARD DAWKINS wrote:" Moreover, even if the religious have the numbers, we have the arguments..."
Richard, the Religious (Christian) Right/Righteous have more than mere numbers on their side. They have "Might" (Weapons of Mass Destruction, i.e., real guns) on their side - as they've always had. That's how the English Monarchy was built - or should I say "created" - after all!
RICHARD DAWKINS wrote:
"Anyone who wants to sell us anything caters to demographics."
Yes, and Society (like any group of people) is made up on INDIVIDUALS. We are not all the same, Richard, even if we look similar on the outside. We don't all eat Fast Food, nor do we all work 9-to-5, nor do we all want to wear the same T-shirt etc etc etc (!)
RICHARD DAWKINS wrote:
"Break OUT! .. Break OUT into the real world. Break OUT of religious conformity and, in celebration of your new found freedom, Break OUT the champagne."
Richard, some of us live in the REAL world all the time, 24x7,sans Religion and sans Champagne!
Yours sincerely,
Martha
Other Comments by Martha
313. Comment #60343 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Just musing away here. It strikes me that WeeFlea and other apologists get all uppity when a scientist makes a statement outside of what they view as his intellectual domain. They seem to forget that the word science is shorthand for "The science of Natural Philosophy". It's very much in RD's purview to comment on anything touching the philosophy of the natural world. Science is not just a technique that gives us plasma screens and cup warmers. It is a methodology that seek to explain the natural world via refutable hypotheses that are supported by repeatable measurements. If a person, such as WeeFlea, maintains that there is a god and that this god influences this world, then that is very much in the realm on Natural Philosophy, as it's affecting the natural world. So, RD can ask for empirical data, measurments, evidence. And until a theist produces this, they can't honestly maintain they know there is a god, or even that it's reasonable to believe in god. Just because you feel there's a god, doesn't make god exists, it's ontological wankery......And I maintain dishonest. Anyway.....
Other Comments by BAEOZ
314. Comment #60349 by steve99 on August 1, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Sorry Steve – it cannot be right that in every thread you bring up the question of homosexuality.
Of course it is right. Your church is homophobic. And when you speak of being 'oppressed' by atheists, I can't believe your blatant hypocrisy.
If everyone was to do that with their pet subjects then the whole purpose of discussion would be meaningless.
But it is a pet subject of yours, my dear David, as it is a fundamental part of the doctrine of your church that you are bigoted against people like me.
Why don't you get Richard to write something on homosexuality – how in terms of evolutionary biology it makes perfect sense and is a good way of preserving our genes – and then I will be more than happy to enter into a discussion.
There is no need. Homosexuality has already been shown to be a good way of preserving genes, as it is so widespread in healthy reproducing animal populations. The presence of non-reproducing adults is commonplace in many animal species, and highly beneficial to reproduction, in terms of encouraging bonding and mutual support. In many ape species, same-sex relationships and sexual activity is a way of defusing tension and encouraging friendships. Non-reproducing sibilings, for example, assist with the gathering of food, and with protection of young with which they are closely related, so helping many of their genes to survive.
OK, so I have given a good reason for homosexuality improving reproduction. So now I assume you are prepared to enter into debate?
Or you could post something on our website.
So you will respond there, but not here? So why are you bothering to post here?
But I am not going to answer questions about homosexuality or the Pope etc every time I post on a thread here.
Are you serious? Are you trying to say you aren't prepared to answer questions about things you swore to as part of oaths, or about what is part of the core doctrine of your Church? I am afraid that does not reflect well on your position in that Church. You lied when you made the oath, so I wonder what else you feel about your Church's beliefs are dogdy?
Other Comments by steve99
315. Comment #60350 by Spartan88 on August 1, 2007 at 4:34 pm
BillySands RE : Scottish Christian PartyTheir policies actually look quite appealing, well at least if you are either a recording artist or a sand eel.
Other Comments by Spartan88
316. Comment #60351 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Flea vicar,Thank you. I've received that vitriol already in previous posts, though I envy that which you've received.
Now give me some solid theology that I will destroy. Something debatable, not just flippant footnotes (too easy).
For example, do you think Dawkins (& Hitchens) fairly judged the classic ontological arguments (Anselm & Descartes)? Do you think Kant did? Do you follow?
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
317. Comment #60356 by Goldy on August 1, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Well, that made for interesting reading! I am a bit confused about this religion being needed for a happy environment - we had a poster once saying he saw his marriage as a contract between God and him, not between his wife. the implication I had was that he'd leave his wife should there be proof of the nonexistance of God. Luckily he's rather religious, so his wife is OK. That, however, does not sound healthy to me - sounds like a relationship made under duress (which I fully accept might be badly phrased).How does religion make things better? How does following the Scriptures ensure morality, yadda, yadda, when they are shown to be rather contradictory and in some cases rather evil? Zeitgeist? I have to read them in the context in which they were written? Even though they are supposedly the word of the Everlasting God (everlasting, to me, is eternity. That's a very very long time, so a few thousand years here and there is, well, inconsequential. You either mean what you say or you don't)?
Someone wrote somewere in this site that the Dalai Lama (is it 2 l's?) said that their scriptures said the moon shone forth it's own light, but on looking through a telescope, he could see only a rock. Had the writer of this scripture had a telescope, he would not have written what he did. The meaning, as I could see, was that one changes with new information, not hang on to fallacies. Why can't teh Abrahamite religions do the same? If you need to have a security blanket, at least make it relevant and up to date. I can't call the Bible a moral guide because it isn't - I'd be arrested!
I can understand the frustrations expressed by some posters. WeeF, you can't half annoy and twist and change and show ignorance. Reminds me of a Spike Milligan poem
How teeny teeny wee
Is the little tiny Flea,
One would think that one so small
could do no harm at all,
But all last night
In my hotel
He made me scratch
Like merry hell.
Other Comments by Goldy
318. Comment #60358 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Steve99,The flea has a point; one which I once remarked upon: you play the 'gay card' constantly. In the words of Jack Nicholson, "think straight and get serious"!
Your 'evolutionary' explanation of homosexuality is laughable because it is so far-fetched and speculatory. I have two things to say about this.
- Michel Foucault may be right in that 'homosexuality' is a Victorian invention - before there were just homosexual acts, not homosexual people. I think, however, that recent science has proved him wrong.
- Secondly, the obvious evolutionary reason for homosexuality is that it is nature's way of stopping the reproduction of feeble genes. I can't prove that, but it seems more likely than your PC version (which can neither be proved). Both are hypotheses at this stage.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
319. Comment #60361 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Henri:the obvious evolutionary reason for homosexuality is that it is nature's way of stopping the reproduction of feeble genes.
It's funny, when you see some of Hollywood's alpha males and all their manliness (Rock Hudson), or those gay guys who can bench press a small car and suggest that the gayness is because of feeble genes (I've met some gay guys who could tear you a new a-hole in a nanosecond and not break a sweat), it doesn't quite work for me. But then common sense has never been a good scientific guide.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
320. Comment #60364 by steve99 on August 1, 2007 at 5:12 pm
The flea has a point; one which I once remarked upon: you play the 'gay card' constantly.
Don't be silly. As I have pointed out, you seem to have an obsession in seeing 'a gay card' where there is none. You confuse comparing campaigns and strategies with someone stating equivalence.
And, with David Robertson, you can bet I am going to damn well play the 'gay card'. This is someone who claims victimhood and that atheists who disagree with him are being oppressive. I will respond to that because his church is institutionally homophobic.
Your 'evolutionary' explanation of homosexuality is laughable because it is so far-fetched and speculatory.
I am impressed by your scientific and rational response to my explanations.
I have two things to say about this.
Based on the above statement, I can barely wait..
Michel Foucault may be right in that 'homosexuality' is a Victorian invention - before there were just homosexual acts, not homosexual people. I think, however, that recent science has proved him wrong.
You bet it has, which supports my view.
Secondly, the obvious evolutionary reason for homosexuality is that it is nature's way of stopping the reproduction of feeble genes. I can't prove that, but it seems more likely than your PC version (which can neither be proved).
How charming. I am some kind of feeble gene repository that has to be prevented from having offspring.
Your views are proved wrong by the most trivial observation of nature. In bobono chimps, same-sex relationships aren't just a significant percentage of the population, they are the dominant and widespread. This is nothing to do with PC - this is is observation of what actually happens in nature.
I mention homosexuality rarely in my posts, and only when relevant - just check other threads. To claim I 'play the gay card constantly' is clearly nonsense, as any browse through this site will show. I think you might like to pause and consider why you feel the need to post so urgently when I do.
Other Comments by steve99
321. Comment #60366 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 5:16 pm
BAEOZ,Bad grammar is always an indication of a bad argument. I suppose you think Hollywood gay alpha males, as it were, are a good representation of reality.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
322. Comment #60368 by Goldy on August 1, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Henri, I too am a bit suspicious of your 2nd hypothesis. I'm not sure that it could be a weeding out of weak genes. Sickness would do a much better job :-) If sexuality is determined by genes, would homosexuality not be a variant (assuming straight is wild type)? Variant being what was once called a mutation, but which my boss tells me has the wrong connotations. MAkes sense to me, as one doesn't really pick ones sexuality (at least, I didn't) and there are enough subjects (ooh, the research scientist speaks..) showing both hetero- and homosexual tendencies. Could be sexuality is determined in no more different fashion than eyes - may daughter has the Chinese eye colour and a hint of the architecture (especially when she smiles) but does not have an epicanthic fold - a trait she inherited from me :-)). Given your first hypothesis, I dare say your second sounds more Victorian. It is all in the genes, but there are no feeble ones influencing the whole shebang :-)And I do hope I have not offended anyone by my hypothesis!
Other Comments by Goldy
323. Comment #60369 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Henri:Bad grammar is always an indication of a bad argument. I suppose you think Hollywood gay alpha males, as it were, are a good representation of reality.
I didn't realise my grammar was that bad. It was just a stream of consciousness ramble. Feel free to point out where I failed.
I didn't really have an argument, except to say that in my limited experience, I've seen nothing to suggest that being gay indicates feeble genes. I wasn't saying your explanation, it's only a theory if it can be refuted, didn't quite convince me. As for Hollywood being reality; I don't think it is, but it sure fooled more than a few hetro women when presenting gay guys as hetro men. Weird....
Other Comments by BAEOZ
324. Comment #60371 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Steve,You're in denial.
It was unfortunate of you to try to back up your feeble argument with the behaviour of Bonobo chimps. It is commonly known that Bonobo chimps have a completely unique sexual behaviour, so are in no way a representation of nature in general. For example, they are the only known apes (humans aside!) to engage in oral sex. In this species, the female is generally dominant - again an oddity.
My un-PC theory still stands as more reasonable.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
325. Comment #60372 by 10 on August 1, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Yorker:I was in Tampa, Now in Idaho Falls
Other Comments by 10
326. Comment #60373 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Henri:For example, they are the only known apes to engage in oral sex. In this species, the female is generally dominant - again an oddity.
Shh! Don't tell that to all those girls who I convinced that oral sex was a normal act! And please tell my wife that it's not normal to be dominant! Henri, why do you not think humans are apes?
Other Comments by BAEOZ
327. Comment #60374 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 5:32 pm
BAEOZ,Accepted, human are apes.
I admit my slip-ups.
But it doesn't change my point.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
328. Comment #60375 by Goldy on August 1, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Fast typists out there!Also think if homosexuality was linked to "feeble" genes (whatever they are) then why the prevalence and, more importantly, why the duration? If homosexuality is linked to a certain set of genes and sexuality is genetic, then once the "feeble" ones have done their job eliminating the organism by altering the sexuality genes, homosexuality would also die out. Seems bloody far fetched to think that a set of genes can, by their "enfeeblement", somehow alter sex genes. I'd say there's much more to it than that.
It's just too Victorian and, dare I say, almost Abrahamic...
Other Comments by Goldy
329. Comment #60376 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:34 pm
That's cool Henri. I was only having a bit of fun. It would seem that both you and Steve have a bit of emotional involvement in this discussion. Thus, I'll keep my crap attempts at humor to myself.Cheers.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
330. Comment #60378 by steve99 on August 1, 2007 at 5:40 pm
It would seem that both you and Steve have a bit of emotional involvement in this discussion.
Well, being called an evolutionary reject has that affect :)
Other Comments by steve99
331. Comment #60379 by notsobad on August 1, 2007 at 5:41 pm
So...how much does postage to the EU cost? Other Comments by notsobad
332. Comment #60380 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Goldy,This is a good point: Why hasn't homosexuality died out if it is genetic? Well, you could begin by considering that handicappedness (if that's a word!) has neither died out but is obviously often a genetic predisposition and indicator of 'feeble' (faulty) genes.
It's just a hypothesis, but one which has been surpressed due to political correctness. Offer me a better hypothesis and I will change my mind.
Be fair: be against a position for good reasons, not for current political ideology.
Of course religion's judgement of homosexuality is even more absurd than Steve's.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
333. Comment #60382 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Hi, Henri,No hard feelings, nothing personal – but:
The flea has a point; one which I once remarked upon: you play the 'gay card' constantly. In the words of Jack Nicholson, "think straight and get serious"!
Visit The Never Ending Story (Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath) and you'll find steve99 posting at extraordinary length and never (or rarely enough for me to be unable to remember an instance of it) mentioning his sexuality at all.
David does have a bit of a habit following the path of least resistance, letting a lot of valid arguments slip away unacknowledged. Steve's hit on one with homosexuality, and it's a sensible argumentative strategy to dig his teeth in and not let go. Every time David fails to give an answer, credibility bleeds away from his position. Thrashing about and accusing Steve of being hung up on one point is bit of a cheap chaff-and-flare tactic and I'm surprised that someone as keen on a good fight as you are would go for it.
Others are already forming a neat circle to kick this next one to death, but to add another observation:
- Secondly, the obvious evolutionary reason for homosexuality is that it is nature's way of stopping the reproduction of feeble genes. I can't prove that, but it seems more likely than your PC version (which can neither be proved). Both are hypotheses at this stage.
This seems to betray a profound misunderstanding of what evolution is. It reads as though you imagine some kind of genetic intent: 'This individual's got shitty genes – make it gay and have done with them'. As an explanation it may be obvious to you, but as viewed from what I understand to be the basic principles of evolutionary theory, it's more heretical than Lamarckism. 'Nature' isn't watching. Stuff that works survives; stuff that doesn't, doesn't. The unit to keep one's eye on is the gene and Steve's account – speculative though it is – makes sense of how homosexuality could prosper at a certain level of frequency of occurrence within a community of organisms. Obviously, it's a reproductive dead end for the homosexual individuals, but that's not the only thing to bear in mind when thinking about genetic success. You probably know this, and people whose minds retain more details than mine does can probably flesh this out a bit.
Michel Foucault may be right…
…certainly not something to be taken as read with Foucault! ;) (Don't debate me on it – you'll win. I only have my dim memories of the impression I got from a little study some years ago.)
Bad grammar is always an indication of a bad argument.
Jesus wept, Henri, does this pass for an argument in philosophy? Epeeist, can you remind him of elementary logic?
Cheers.
EDIT - Damn it, you are fast typists!
Other Comments by _J_
334. Comment #60383 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Steve99:Well, being called an evolutionary reject has that affect :)
Indeed. I was being flippant with my comments. I've not been persecuted for some trait that I didn't choose.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
335. Comment #60385 by Goldy on August 1, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Hemri, first of all, you can't really say feeble genes. Not done, a no-no :-) See J's point. I think my hypothesis is better but that's to me. Makes more sense than the "feeble" gene idea - that sounds a bit like head bumps to me. I'm working on mutations myself (CYP2C19 and CYP2B6) and their effect on cyclophosphamide using patients of lupus nephritis (you'll need to look all of them up, I think - I'm not good at explaining). I myself have a mutation in my CYP2C19 genes but it doesn't really affect my life. In some Pacific Islands, this mutation can be as high as ~90% - again, with no ill effect (expect for cyclo metabolism).I can't see the feeble gene as being viable. Variant, yes, not feeble. You'll have to describe the environment to define feebleness.
Other Comments by Goldy
336. Comment #60388 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Bring on the weeping liberals! (is that an 'ad hom' as everyone keeps writing ad nauseam?)–J–,
"Nature's way" is obviously a metaphor. Just as one could say that "beauty is nature's way of indicating healthy physiology." I don't know the details, nor does anyone – but that is no reason not to pursue an investigation.
If human ugliness represents bad physiology and thus leads to general non-reproduction, is it not feasible that homosexuality represents bad physiology and thus entails general non-reproduction?
Please don't give me PC responses. I am genuinely interested in this as I think no-one has ever answered the 'gay question'.
P.S. I used the word 'feeble' to mean inducing weak muscularity, weak immune system, weak motor-responses and co-ordination, etc.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
337. Comment #60389 by J. J. Ramsey on August 1, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Henri Bergson: "do you think Dawkins (& Hitchens) fairly judged the classic ontological arguments (Anselm & Descartes)? Do you think Kant did?"I know this is aimed at Wee Flea, but the answer are no, Dawkins didn't, and yes, Kant did. Dawkins alluded to Kant's argument but never actually explained it, but instead quoted a much weaker argument from Norman Malcolm.
Now onto Wee Flea:
"1) Firstly it shows, as RD admits the quasi religious nature of this site and the movement he is trying to start."
The OUT campaign certainly resemble a religious movement in a couple ways: a common set of symbols and a message to promote. Those things, however, are common to campaigns both religious and secular.
"2) For something that is supposed to be based on empirical evidence and science it is somewhat amusing and ironic that RD bases his opinion that there are more atheists on 'widespread informal surveys of the Web!'"
RD at least acknowledged the weakness of his evidence and didn't put much weight on it.
"3) Again the fundamentalism of RD and followers is clear. We know we are right. We know we have all the arguements on our side."
Believing that you are right is not a sign of fundamentalism, just a sign of having a strong opinion. And Dawkins does happen to have the arguments on his side, even if he isn't always that good at marshalling them. Demonizing the opposition and sloppy logic are the sins of fundamentalists. Encouraging people not to be in the closet about their beliefs is not.
"4) Good to see that RD has not lost his sense of humour! I like the joke about the 'gentle' patter of atheists feet - as Hitchins sticks the boot in and RD himself walks in all the subtilty of hob nail jack boots."
Content-free ridicule. Come on, leave that to the fundies and ideologues.
"5) This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate."
What?! Inviting people to be upfront about their lack of religion is not discrimination.
"Not for one minute do I beleive that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil."
I can't speak for RD or his fans. Maybe the ones who are fond of the irksome term "faith-head" would be so foolish as to do what you describe. There are plenty of us who realize that using coercion to stop religious expression would be playing with fire.
"In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant."
Atheism isn't an ideology. It is merely nonbelief in God. Integrate that nonbelief into a totalitarian ideology like Stalinism and you get intolerance. Integrate that nonbelief into a democratic humanism and you get something radically different.
"6) Its kind of sweet that you want to hold 'A' Fellowship groups where people who believe nothing (an atheist after all is just someone who does not believe in God) reaffirm one another in their lack of faith. What else will you do, united around your lack of belief? Hold tea parties? knit? listen to George Carlin?"
What's wrong with tea parties and knitting?
"7) If a religious group were to produce this kind of material (as many do) you would all be shouting about commercialism and making money etc."
Some of us might, unfortunately. As for myself, I wouldn't be complaining about *commercialism*. If the religious T-shirts were tacky, I might complain, or perhaps just laugh. (Then, so would a lot of members of Ship-of-Fools.)
Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey
338. Comment #60390 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Henri:I am genuinely interested in this as I think no-one has ever answered the 'gay question'.
Ok, you've got me thinking, so I'll put on my thinking hat. When I was growing up in a rural area, I was told that rams were into buggery as much as into doing the ewes. Now, these rams would be successfully procreating, as the farmer would cull rams that didn't sire lambs. So, we have the homosexual act and the heterosexual act occurring in the same "healthy" organism. I can't see the genetic liability or asset of rams being homosexual, as it were. Perhaps it's because they have been unnaturally selected by humans that this can occur. Perhaps sheep are bisexual. Perhaps homosexuality really isn't about gene selection. Can I reasonably infer anything from the behaviour of sheep to humans? Thoughts?
Other Comments by BAEOZ
339. Comment #60391 by Goldy on August 1, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Never knew it was a question, being gay. Thought it was a fact ;-)If you are 100% gay, yes, it is bad in a reproductive sense. Not too bad in any other sense - gays can still bring up the next generation, contribute to the well being of society and, gasp, reproduce (should they need to). They can actually produce "normal" offspring. Interestingly, all gays I know are from heterosexual parents (as far as I can tell)
Why homosexuality occurs is like asking why blond hair occurs, or 6 fingers or Down's Syndrome, etc, etc. Just a quirk of the shuffling on genes. There's no right or wrong, it's just probability. If it is a "bad" variant of the sexuality genes, it is not important enough to affect the general evolution of an organism and hence not really something you or anyone else really needs to worry about given mankind's reproduction rate on this planet.
Having lived near the Hexham estate in Reading (UK) and been a meter reader in Whitley, also in Reading, I can also pretty safely refute
If human ugliness represents bad physiology and thus leads to general non-reproduction
I still have nightmares! ;-)
Other Comments by Goldy
340. Comment #60392 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Goldy,If homosexuality is just a shift of genes, a probability; then so is beauty.
However, there's another level to this: beauty indicates good physiology, thus our valuing it in humans. Does homosexuality indicate bad physiology? I.e. traits are often symptoms. In which case, my hypothesis is not refuted.
Regarding your council estate excursions: your nightmares prove that you would rather mate with better-looking people (no shit Sherlock!)
I recommend you never go to Woolwich.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
341. Comment #60393 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 6:39 pm
If human ugliness represents bad physiology and thus leads to general non-reproduction, is it not feasible that homosexuality represents bad physiology and thus entails general non-reproduction?
I get your point. But that comparison don't make no sense. Let's say you're right about the ugliness thing (which may be making too big a point out of a grain of truth, but...etc, etc). The reason uglies don't reproduce so well in this example is that people have evolved an ability to perceive symptoms of some genetic badnesses as uglitude. There's a kind of genetic competition going on, between the genes that create the 'beaten with the ugly stick' look and the genes that are thriving on their ability to avoid pairing up with the ugly ones.
In the case of homosexuality, there's none of this. No one is avoiding having reproductive sex with gay people. The gay genes themselves are programming for counter-reproductive behaviour (counter reproductive for that particular individual).
Anyway, I don't want to go on. It's interesting to think about these details, certainly. But I have a suspicion that your suggestion won't pan out - not for PC reasons, but because it looks to me like it runs against the grain of our understanding of evolution. I may be wrong. (It happens, every once in a while.)
Please don't give me PC responses.
Okey dokey. Here's a totally bollocks, off-the-cuff, late at night, probably nonsensical one that I'll later wish I hadn't written:
Gay people are better than straight people. That's why they're frequently so goddamn buff and why so many creative people and innovative thinkers have been gay. Gay is good. Perhaps it's got something to do with the organism's resources not being spent on the costly pursuit of reproductive sex and rearing young and all that bullshit. Steve's theory is right up to a point: a certain frequency of occurrence of homosexuality tends to be positively useful for propagating genes, for reasons that people who do the maths on genetic evolution may be able to work out. But it's evolutionarily unstable for too great a proportion of the population to be homosexual, for fairly obvious reasons. However, in our days of advancing reproductive science, this barrier may soon be lifted. We'll be able to knock up babies by artificially introducing a lesbian's egg to a gay man's sperm. The superior race of happy homosexuals will gradually form a larger and larger proportion of the global population. People will stop fighting over mates, the misogyny that fuels some of the worst gobshite of religion will evaporate and a lot of Elton John records will be sold. The future's bright - the future's pink.
I'm not going to win a Nobel Prize for this (and I hope I haven't been offensive, steve99). But it's an un-PC theory. Gay people aren't equal to straight ones. They're better. Bow before your homosexual masters.
Other Comments by _J_
342. Comment #60396 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 6:51 pm
–J–So now I realise your defensiveness. I thought Steve's theory sucked (as it were), mine was bold, but yours is something else.
Complete nonsense of course, and somewhat funny if you're being sarcastic. But at least it's not PC - well done.
–J– wrote:
"Gay people are better than straight people. That's why they're frequently so goddamn buff and why so many creative people and innovative thinkers have been gay. Gay is good. Perhaps it's got something to do with the organism's resources not being spent on the costly pursuit of reproductive sex and rearing young and all that bullshit. Steve's theory is right up to a point: a certain frequency of occurrence of homosexuality tends to be positively useful for propagating genes, for reasons that people who do the maths on genetic evolution may be able to work out. But it's evolutionarily unstable for too great a proportion of the population to be homosexual, for fairly obvious reasons. However, in our days of advancing reproductive science, this barrier may soon be lifted. We'll be able to knock up babies by artificially introducing a lesbian's egg to a gay man's sperm. The superior race of happy homosexuals will gradually form a larger and larger proportion of the global population. People will stop fighting over mates, the misogyny that fuels some of the worst gobshite of religion will evaporate and a lot of Elton John records will be sold. The future's bright - the future's pink."
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
343. Comment #60397 by Goldy on August 1, 2007 at 6:52 pm
"no shit Sherlock!" Aaaah, brilliant! Made my day! Office colleagues look at me funny as a laugh aloud! :-DJ has pretty much answered you. Suffice to say, more people want to mate with beautiful partners, but ugly ones appear to have no problems - and bigger families to boot! Suggests ugliness is more adaptive and better for propagation (again, I only speak for those less salubrious parts of Reading. And Woolwich ;-))
Homosexuality is not 100% - you are not either gay or not, you can be various shades (of pink?) between, so reproduction of the "gay gene" is not in doubt. Homosexuals are not drag on society and hence not really bad for evolution (see J above). In fact, they are up there with grand parents in the ability to help the next generations upbringing (Weef'll argue against that point). For the individual 100% gay, yes, it's a cul-de-sac existance. For, in our case, mankind, it appears to be a blessing (reasons above, etc, etc)
Anyway, this is a red herring worthy of another independent post - shall we rejoin the others in the topic we're meant to be discussing? :-)
Other Comments by Goldy
344. Comment #60398 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Even straight sex has its quirks. It's not all cuddling to missionary position to sleep. Lift off the lid on anyone's head during sex, and you might be surprised at the freak that will jump out at you.My guess is homosexuality is a side effect of human adaptability and horniness. The adaptability and general sexiness serve those selfish genes so well, that the small percentage who seek pleasure via non-reproductive sex actually don't slow the spread of those genes too much.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
345. Comment #60401 by kkant on August 1, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Henri Bergson writes:The flea has a point; one which I once remarked upon: you play the 'gay card' constantly. In the words of Jack Nicholson, "think straight and get serious"!
No, the flea doesn't "have a point" here. This isn't a point, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion. In fact it is a good example of how theists make irrelevant tangential comments about anything they can't answer.
Even if Steve99 really "played the gay card constantly" (he doesn't), what does it matter? The barbaric homophobic bigotry of the church is an important reality that Wee Flea has been unable to answer or defend. It is among many such points that neither Wee Flea nor any other theist here can answer. That's the point here.
Henri Bergson writes:
Secondly, the obvious evolutionary reason for homosexuality is that it is nature's way of stopping the reproduction of feeble genes. I can't prove that, but it seems more likely than your PC version (which can neither be proved). Both are hypotheses at this stage.
"Seems more likely". Great. Look, it doesn't matter. Irrelevant to the argument.
Other Comments by kkant
346. Comment #60402 by 10 on August 1, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I'm guessing I won't have to worry about an off topic thread derailing at this point, and hope noone minds if I ask a few questions about the topic we are on.I have my own "pet theory" that homosexuality is a natural means of population control.
I'm ashamed to say I have no evidence to offer. While at the same time curious to know if any studies have taken that train of thought, or countered it.
Other Comments by 10
347. Comment #60404 by Goldy on August 1, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Sorry, couldn't resist! http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2826212.eceNot really about homosexuality, but related adn maybe answers some of these off topic questions. OK, no more from me. Promise.
Other Comments by Goldy
348. Comment #60405 by Harlon57 on August 1, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I purchased my OUT shirt this evening. I can't wait to wear it to the mall.Other Comments by Harlon57
349. Comment #60437 by steve99 on August 2, 2007 at 12:34 am
Even if Steve99 really "played the gay card constantly" (he doesn't), what does it matter? The barbaric homophobic bigotry of the church is an important reality that Wee Flea has been unable to answer or defend. It is among many such points that neither Wee Flea nor any other theist here can answer. That's the point here.
Absolutely, but it is not just that. It also highlights the constant whining of The Flea about persecution and attacks from atheists, while all the time he is working to persecute and oppress others.
Other Comments by steve99
350. Comment #60441 by steve99 on August 2, 2007 at 12:57 am
It is commonly known that Bonobo chimps have a completely unique sexual behaviour, so are in no way a representation of nature in general. For example, they are the only known apes (humans aside!) to engage in oral sex. In this species, the female is generally dominant - again an oddity.
This is not the case. Oral sex has been reported in many animal species. But even if what you say were true, it misses the point entirely. The fact that gay sex is so widespread and species-dependent is a pretty good clue that it is both genetic and in some way advantageous. It is even more compelling because it is so dominant in species very closely related to humans. It is also found in orang-utans, for example.
Also, the idea of homosexuality is being beneficial is not "my" supposedly PC theory.
There are many cases of non-reproductive members of species assisting with the reproductive process - food gathering, looking after young and so on. There is no reason why homosexuality should not be part of this.
This has been the subject of research, and there have been reports that female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004 Proceedings: Biological Sciences 271: 2217-2221).
Research on this does appear to be sparse, but this does indicate that this is not a silly 'PC' theory - the idea at least is biologically sound.
Other Comments by steve99
301. Comment #60302 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 2:22 pm
By me! My benevolence may be endless but my patience is not :)
To be clear- ALL DRINKS AND BEVERAGES OF ANY KIND ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE GREAT GOD QUETZALCOATL. Is it too much to ask for a little simple worship? Sigh.....
Elli-
Don't be. If you're frustrated, say as much. We've all been there. Ain't nothing to be ashamed of. Your contributions are appreciated.
Wee Flea-
Strange. It was my understanding, from my readings of the Bible, and my Christian friends, that to be saved you HAVE to have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. I had been told that, if you don't, then regardless of how good you were in life, you would go to hell.
What you are saying certainly sounds like a more modern and, dare I say it, politically correct opinion, but is it Scripturally supported? Unfortunately the hour is late and I am too tired to play the "grand Biblical Quote-Hunt game".
If any of my fellow posters can think of any Biblical verses that support my opinion, I would be most grateful to hear them.
Billy-
much obliged for the translation, and the video!
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl