Comments by Bonzai

1951. Fleabytes

Comment #148200 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 10:21 am

SRWB

Admittedly, this is my read of attitudes and letters in the local papers, etc. NOT scientific by any stretch. But one can sense a hardening of support against that great Canadian love of multiculturalism

Actually prayers in the legislation is largely a symbolic issue, I don't think most Canadians are too worked up one way or the other.

This is how we are. We pay lip service to religion in some formal occasions just like we pay lip service to the Queen, but religious piety, as well as the Monarchy,are tightly confined to a very narrow ceremonial role which they cannot overstep.

Politicians who openly profess faith would be viewed with suspicion and would disqualify themselves from national politics. The only exception to this rule is Alberta, aka Texas of the North and some rural ridings that only produce back benchers.

As for "multiculturalism", that is a vague word with different meanings to different people. In Canada it is largely successful and it is not like what is carried out in the same name in the U.K and Europe, Ethnic identity is not binding here, one can slip in and out of multiple identities,

The recent debate on "reasonable accommodation" is not about multi-culturalism perse, but about to what degree institutions should cater for religion. There is no question that it started because many are fed up with special demands from Muslims, but the discussion is framed in such a way that it applies to all religions and ethnicity and immigration are not mentioned, I think this is again a very sensible Canadian approach, When proposal for Sharia was shot down in Ontario, all religious tribunals were simultaneously stripped of their legal status.

1952. Fleabytes

Comment #148182 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 9:01 am

SRWB,

Big kerfuffle recently about whether catholic politicians should receive communion if they support, or vote for, issues which violate RC teachings/beliefs

As a Canadian I want to clarify. Yes, some Catholic Bishops did make the threat, specifically over same sex marriage, but it didn't go down well with the public and the media, they soon had eggs all over their faces and we heard nothing more from them. Catholic politicians such as Paul Martin, Jean Chretein (both former Prime Ministers) were on the record supporting ssm. Martin even made it a big election issue.

Just because the Bishops tried to influence politics it didn't mean that they stood any chance of succeeding. They can always attempt.

In the recent Ontario provincial election, the Conservative party suffered a humiliating defeat and its leader couldn't even keep his own parliament seat, This was all because they promised to fund faith schools.

I think we need to be vigilant against the mixing of religion and politics. But let's not exaggerate either. In terms of the influence of religion the U.S.is unique and we are not anywhere like it.

1953. Fleabytes

Comment #148178 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 8:48 am

Steve,

Do you know how much their theology really affected their interactions with people?

That depends. For counselors and therapists I think they wouldn't initiate a discussion on religion because they deal with people of all faiths and no faith,

But if you do want to talk about religion they would give their opinions.

I was having some problems adjusting to being alone and away from home in my first year and I got mixed up briefly with a bunch of fundamentalists. At the same time I was seeing the Catholic nun counselor for other things. I told her about the fundamentalists I was hanging out with and their views on the bible and God etc, that got her started. She basically told me that these people were very ignorant and she gave me books on Biblical scholarship to read. The prison Chaplin also told me that he would try to set the fundamentalists straight in his work if the issue comes up.

1954. Fleabytes

Comment #148171 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 8:32 am

Steve,

The Murky "Pure" Theologists will claim that they are just academics, and doing good work increasing "understanding". I don't think they have much responsibility because few understand what they do

You are probably right in general, but there are exceptions,

The theologian I mentioned was a prison chaplain. There are also sophisticated theologians in jobs such as counseling, social work and so on, One of the most liberal theologians I encountered was a Catholic nun who was a student counselor in my college when I was an undergrad.

There are ways for them to influence people other than through the pulpit, Unlike the run of the mill preacher, these people often have professional degrees besides their theological credentials so you probably don't find them making a living giving sermons in churches.

1955. Fleabytes

Comment #148164 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 8:23 am

Yeah, and my friends say being gay is the least of my problems..

1956. Fleabytes

Comment #148157 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 7:58 am

Dr.Benway

However, in a friendship with such a believer, when the mood felt right, I'd gently try to raise his consciousness about the problem of narcissism.

I understand what you mean. But since I am pretty nacissistic in other ways I am not in the position to call others out on that. :-)

Steve

That is interesting, but surely illustrates how detached theologians can be from ordinary believers. This is surely far too sophisticated an approach - would a typical believer accept or understand this?

Actually Ronald DeSousa did bring that up during the debate, seeing that the theologian was an overall sensible chap and there was nothing he could get him on.

The reply was that it took time for a more enlightened version of faith to filter down to the pulpit, and this process have been going on throughout history.

My own view is that, while it is probably frustrating to see the slow process at work and there are set backs from time to time like some local Anglican Churches breaking away from the mother Church over same sex marriage, but this process has to be allowed to continue.In many instances it is probably more effective than the shock treatment that atheists sometimes prescribe (But then I am in Canada, which is overall very secular anyway, here we actually have Catholic politicians campaigning on same sex marriage, on the yes side.)

At least we shouldn't view "moderates" such as this theologian as the enemy and "fundamentalism enablers", we can be allies on many issues that actually matters.

EDIT Just cleaned up some typos. Dank, what happened to the preview feature??

1957. Fleabytes

Comment #148153 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 7:44 am

Adam, apparently just means "man" in Hebrew.

1958. Fleabytes

Comment #148146 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 7:28 am

Dr. Benway,

Strategically, the murky position is likely a necessary transition between belief and non-belief.

Actually, I think there are many who do settle comfortably in this position.

I am not sure if it will lead to non-belief. In fact it may strengthen belief in my estimations. I think by avoiding the clash with reality that fundamentalism necessarily engenders, the "murky", post modern position makes believers feel more comfortable about their faith and they don't have to withstand as much cognitive dissonance.

But it's a deception and we shouldn't kid ourselves about that. It only pretends to give authority to scripture. It doesn't acutally give any more authority to scripture than to Shakespeare.

Ah, but a price for adopting this position consistently is that faith has to become entirely private, the scriptures would indeed have no more authority than Shakespeare except to the believer.

I was attending a debate between an atheist (Ronald DeSousa, if you know who he is, he was on this year's beyond belief conference) and a Christian theologian.

It turned out that it wasn't much of a debate because the theologian took a position similar to what I wrote above while the atheist speaker's ammo were specialized to deal with fundies. The theologian was very slippery to pin down (unlike Jesus, bad pun)

Afterwards I had a little conversation with the theologian. He said something that I think made a lot of sense and I can certainly live with. He said if Christians wanted to bring their values to public policy debates such as abortion, same sex marriage and stem cell research, they would have to be able to frame their positions in secular terms and argue on those grounds alone, otherwise they should be ignored and written off as yahoos.

1959. Fleabytes

Comment #148138 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 7:09 am

Steve,

. Does it sound like an actual voice, or the feeling that you might have heard a voice, or what?

I don't know. Don't forget that I am just another heathen. :-) Maybe you want to try some magic mushroom to simulate it. :-)

1960. Fleabytes

Comment #148134 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 7:00 am

Steve,

What I am after is how the individual guidance by God is given. What it feels like.

It is a qualia, not describable, you have to experience it yourself. So are you ready to take that leap of faith? Have you ever bungie jumped? Don't worry, relax, God will be there to catch you.

How persuasive do you think I am?

1961. Fleabytes

Comment #148128 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 6:49 am

Artful,

OK, let me help you out in answering these guys. Here is what I would tell them if I were a missionary:

Guys, the message is not in the text alone, like it is just lying there for you to inspect passively.

The Bible is the living word of God. It is spoken to us even today, individually.

Revelation is private and the meaning of the words can only be drawn out through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The message is not the same for everyone because each person is different, each seeks different things. Accordingly God inspires each of us in different ways.

You certainly don't expect God to treat us so shabbily by giving us a one -size fit all answer, do you? Each of us is special in the eyes of God.

To get the meaning of the words as it is spoken to you, you have to engage the text and struggle with it, it is a spiritual journey. God wants a relationship with each of us, not to present us with a reading comprehension exam, the Bible is only a prop. By nitpicking over the passages you guys are missing the forest for the trees.

In the end it doesn't matter, the important thing is all different routes lead to the same destiny. Christians may disagree over the specific interpretations of a verse and its context, but the true seekers will get the central message. God opens the eyes for those who seek.

Of course I don't believe in any of that and I don't expect the tenacious atheists here would swallow it either. But I think it is a better answer than what you've gotten so far. If you cannot beat them on objective ground, go post modern all the way. :-)

1962. Fleabytes

Comment #148121 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 6:27 am

To me it doesn't matter whether Artful interprets the Bible metaphorically or literally, I take it for granted that it is fiction, A more important question IMO is what kind of moral lessons he draws from it.

It is ugly, no, it is god damn aweful.

I see he has not responded to my post6617.

P.S. Is artful = ADH?

1963. Fleabytes

Comment #147907 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Pathfinder,

Doctors misdiagnosed my parents: specialists, consultants, experts with inflated salaries that would make El Fayed blanch. God help me if I were in the care of SOME of those on RD net. But then I deserve it anyway, don't I?

So doctors, specialists and consultants all make diagnostic mistakes,--which is not uncommon actually,--but you are sure you were not mistaken in evaluating the evidence of what you claim to be a miraculous healing of hp.

I didn't accuse you of lying intentionally, I was only saying that your retelling of the tale is not a reliable source of evidence. Even for an honest witness, memory can be distorted and people often see what they want to see. But you have to admit you did hurt your credibility by trying to play games here right in the begining,

BTW, it seems that you only read the first sentence of my post and went ballistic while ignoring the rest of my points.

1964. Fleabytes

Comment #147890 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Artful

Bonzai, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that there was not a
specific act of rebellion on the part of a single human pair, and that the human race descends from that pair. There was an explicit command from God which was wilfully disobeyed.

As regards origins, human beings (homo sapiens sapiens) clearly coexisted with other humanoids. Exactly what the nature of our genetic compatibility with these species was is still up for grabs.

Come now. You are basically saying since everything is up for grabs you are at liberty to make things up a you go along. What's next? Maybe Noah's ark was just a lab full of DNA samples.

History is littered with examples. Where do you want me to start? Which failed utopia would you like me to refer you to?

To add to Eilli's rejoinder, let me ask you this.

Would you say your child should forever be treated like a minor because he made mistakes growing up? We make mistakes but we also learn from them, it is the natural and sometimes painful process of maturing, It applies both to individuals as well as to civilizations.

It is only justified to treat your adult child forever like a minor if he is mentally handicapped so that he can never grow beyond, say a mental age of 10, If that is the case it would be tragic but you as the parent don't have a choice and surely wouldn't wish for that so that your child would be forever dependent on your love,

Your rhetorical question would only be germane if we are intrinsically unable to manage our affairs like the mentally handicapped child.

But unlike human parents, God had a choice.

If he created us in such a way that we are like mentally deficient children to keep us dependent on him, it proves the depravity of God beyond all pale. It is like a father or mother doing something during pregnancy to ensure that the child would be born with a brain damage so that he would never be able to live independently. When the child does screw up, it would be cited as a validation of the parents' foresight that the child can't live alone without their "love".. I hope even you can see how sick that is.

1965. Fleabytes

Comment #147867 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Artful

The story of the garden of Eden can be poetical and symbolic with regard to its detail (the Garden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the serpent, and so forth) and yet absolutely true with regard to it showing that humankind chose, collectively to rebel against God, and every human being since then succumbs to the temptation to set him/herself up as sole arbiter of their destinies, turning their backs on their Creator.

So if there has been no instruction to obey and God didn't show up until such a late time why was it a "sin" to disobey an absentee God who gave no clear instructions? How could you "rebel" against something that you have no idea exists and have not been given any command? What was the purpose of torturing Jesus to death to atone for non existent sin?

I am afraid the whole Christian doctrine of redemption by Christ falls apart without a reasonably literal interpretation of Genesis.

More fundamentally, what's wrong with setting ourselves as arbiters of our affairs? Do you want your children to be forever moma's boys who can't make any decision about their own lives? I think your interpretation of the "fall",--a standard one,--fails in guilt tripping us, but only succeeds in showing your God to be a very possessive tyrant whose "love" for us is that of a stalker or a spiteful ex-boyfriend, If one treats his love ones and children in this Godly way he would be given a court order to stay away from his "objections of affection" and rightly,

1966. Fleabytes

Comment #147860 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Pathfinder,

The problem is, the disease I'm talking about tends not to be that prevalent in the West.

Thanks for acknowledging that science is more effective than prayers, by a huge margin,

1967. Fleabytes

Comment #147850 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Pathfinder,

What have i got to do to convince you MIRACLES HAPPEN? Whether Christian, Muslim, Jain or whatever? I work on this by a process of elimination and you MUST, by now, have realised how much I despise religious charlatans! 99.9% are fakes. But surely, SURELY, science cannot answer everything? Give me some leeway, please. Doctors make appalling errors: I can evidence my own relatives here. Do they not rule out competing hypotheses, reduce everything to the simplest explanation once all has been reviewed?

Do you expect us to believe in miracles based on the second hand account by you, someone who posts anonymously on an internet forum and has obviously misrepresented himself from the beginning?

Everyday we hear stories about apparent miracles and supernatural occurrences for which we don't have access to all the details.

Under careful investigations 99.9% of these turn out to have perfectly good scientific explanations, it is just that they are not immediate clear.

So what happen for the remaining 0.1%? The apparent absence of naturalistic explanations can be due to a many reasons. It may be that we don't have enough data, or the data are corrupted. I can't rule out that they are indeed some new phenomena that we don't know,--it is a given that we have no perfect knowledge and science is not the Oracle of Delphi. We can indulge in all kind of speculations all of which are as valid or invalid. It might be God, ghosts, spirits, aliens, CIA experiments or some kind of unknown psycho-kinetic effects, radiation fields etc, I just don't see how one can be sure that it is God or demons given that usually it is not very clear what happen in these rare events,

However, if it is indeed God who performs such "miracles", he could have reproduced them when scientists are actually looking just to make the point that there is something worth investigating, if for no other reasons. Why does he always have to work in such a furtive way and reveals himself only to those who are not trained to evaluate evidence competently? Also curing disease for one or a few individuals in some far out places seem to be not very grand for the supposed creator of the universe. He could have done it a lot more efficiently, say by not creating pathogens and viruses in the first place. Why would he need to reveal himself so clumsily through sideshow tricks and only in front of very tiny audience?

1968. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147812 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 10:15 am

These loonies should invite Ted Haggard along to be cured. Funny, though, he being so close to god, I would have expected an instant conversion to being straight.

Ted said he is cured. :)

1969. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #147630 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 3:06 am

Evidently there are a substantial number of people who don't have religious affiliations, but pray anyway. Who or what the hell are they praying to? :

No religious affiliations can be interpreted as not belonging to a formal religion. There are people who don't belong to a recognized religion but still believe in some God, just not the God of the Bible or Quran, or the Gods of conventional religions.

1970. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147626 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 2:58 am

Gordy

You're not exactly doing yourself any favours with that analogy! Some people might see it like that, but personally I don't think homosexuality should be compared to a disease or dysfunction, and I'm sure you don't either. Can I suggest left-handedness as a better analogy? It's relatively infrequent but common enough to be considered normal and it doesn't cause any ill effects..

That was not "my" comparison. The point is for those who have a problem with homosexuals, saying that it is born doesn't make it less problematic. They can still say it is a "condition" like fetal alcohol syndrome which requires treatments. In context that would be the appropriate analogy. because that is what they would think. Left handedness is what you and I might think of.

Secondly, I used fas because you did write in your excellent post that even if gays are born that way it doesn't necessarily imply it is purely genetic, other circumstances associated with birth or pregnancy might be relevant. Left handedness seems too cut and dry genetic.

1971. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147535 by Bonzai on March 20, 2008 at 9:25 pm

I'm very sorry if I offended you - I certainly didn't mean to

No, I wasn't offended, I was just making a general point, I might come across angry because it is the internet and sometimes it is difficult to discern people's mood, especially when the writer doesn't communicate very well. I was not angry or offended, I was just a bit annoyed but not by you personally. The "we don't choose to be gay" plead is commonly made by gays themselves so we have nobody else to blame if we come across as pathetic,

Well even if homosexuality cannot be unmade,--like fetal alcohol syndrome,--there will still be efforts from idiots who would tell you to "manage" your "condition" with prayers and perhaps chemicals. I just don't think "we were born this way and cannot be changed" is a very compelling argument for gay rights. Whether we could change or not is besides the point. Why should we in the first place if we don't think there is anything wrong with it?

1972. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147520 by Bonzai on March 20, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Gordy,

it shouldn't matter whether homosexuality is normal or not (and even if it did matter, given that at least 5-10% of people are gay, it is normal as far as I'm concerned). But I do think there is a dangerous misconception that homosexuality is a choice..

I cheer the first sentence but I am disappointed in what follows.

Why is it a dangerous misconception? A misconception may be, but why dangerous? The implication is that somehow homosexuality becomes more excusable if it is not a choice.

It shouldn't matter one bit whether homosexuality is by choice. It may very well not be, but so what if it is?

If homosexuality is undesirable then it is undesirable whether it is choice or born."Blaming it on the genes",--or mom's hormonal level when she is pregnant with you,-- is hardly very empowering because the haters can still say it is a born disorder which needs interventions. Fetal alcohol syndrome is not a choice either, If you tell them a "cure" is not possible they can still insist that homosexuals need ongoing therapy or something to manage the "disease".

If it is not undesirable why do we feel compelled to insist to others that we don't become gay by choice as if we have fetal alcohol syndrome and ask for sympathy? You don't need sympathy and understanding unless you think you are somehow having problems for reasons out of your control,

Do I hear people insisting that they like garlic because they were born that way so they can't help it? Maybe they were, maybe they were not but no one would care because no one thinks it is a problem to crave garlic.

I am gay but I don't feel there is anything wrong that I have to look for excuses. I have nothing to explain or apologize for.

1973. Fleabytes

Comment #147289 by Bonzai on March 20, 2008 at 5:40 am

Not that I'm trying to add fuel to the fire or anything, but he also said that science will NEVER be able to explain consciousness without God.

Maybe science will never be able to explain consciousness to our satisfaction, that is a possibility.

But "God" is not an explanation of anything at all, it is making up stories as you go along.

It is precisely a strength of science and it doesn't have answers to all the questions because unlike religion, science does have standards. If science accept any made up, hand waving "explanation" like religion does just so that it can pretend to have an answer it would be as worthless as theology.

It takes honesty to admit that you don't know. To invent a name for ignorance and call it "God" and pretend that you know is cheating.

1974. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #147274 by Bonzai on March 20, 2008 at 5:19 am

I disagree. Given that an atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods, it doesn't matter how that was arrived at.

Actually I think Tumara has a point. A non believer is simply someone who doesn't have religious belief. But it is not necessarily the same as someone who doesn't believe. He or she may not have thought about it at all. Many non believers are like that, the question just haven't crossed their minds, or if it does they don't particularly care about it.

Then there is my brother.

He doesn't believe in any God but he has a lot of weird superstitions like Feng Shui, horoscopes and ghosts. He also doesn't buy evolution but he is not a creationist either since he doesn't believe in any God. So what is his explanation for the the human origin? He cheerfully admits that he doesn't have any. He thinks that it is a stupid question and that both the evolutionists and creationists are crazy to think that they know the answer. On further interrogations he admits that he actually doesn't know the first thing about evolution, though he does seem to know about creationism. Strange.

He calls himself a "free thinker",--according to his definition of course,-- though he sounds more like a "non thinker" to me.

1975. Jesus saves

Comment #147145 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 11:47 pm

Jesus saves? Is that a new discount store? Woo hoo!

1976. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147133 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Skull in washing machine

This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.

Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise)

Nietzsche was a great writer. I love his passion and his extravagant, bombastic style. He was the embodiment of the Dyonesian impulse. However,you also have to read him with a big grain of salt, knowing his tendency to exaggerate to grab your attention.

To say that humanism is "Christian morality" presumes Christianity invented its moral code while quite a bit of it is actually universal. We don't need any alleged "revelation" for something basic like the Golden Rule, we discovered them through living with others. We knew them long before Jesus,

Religion often only provides a metaphysical framework to codify and express ideas that have already been around.

1977. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147129 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Eric Blair

BTW, many if not most forms of Christianity support the secular state, not least in the US where separation of church and state helped spawn a wide variety of churches and create the most religious people in the West.

This is an important point to be made. Indeed the vast majority of Christians do support political secularism even though some would like to influence public policies through lobbying and political campaign,--which is their right in a democracy. Even Jerry Falwell's followers distance themselves from ultra extremists like the Dominionists who call for a full blown theocracy.

One does not have to be an atheist to know that theocracy is a bad idea. In fact under a theocracy people who happen to believe in the wrong faith or the wrong interpretations of even the right faith (Sunni v.s Shias for example) are often more persecuted than those who don't believe in any faith at all. I think at least in the West many theists of all religions do realize that,

1978. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147090 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Goldy

Homosexuality is not that openly admitted in China now, is it? At least, that's the impression I get from my wife.

Your wife is correct. But it is a rather recent phenomenon apparently and a lot have to do with guess, missionaries, Some sociologists actually did detail studies of attitude change regarding homosexuality in Chinese societies and found that a century of missionary penetration into China has drastically changed the attitude of many people regarding sexuality (and other things too).

Interestingly the rural people, who have less exposure to Western influences are often less against homosexual behaviour than those who are educated. They often don't even have a name for it.

I heard that actually Hong Kong is a lot more intolerant towards gays than mainland is nowadays, because of the strong influence of Christianity.

P.S. In the traditional Confucian universe, apparently it was a much worse offence to have heterosexual affairs outside marriage than same sex affairs,--at least for men. The reason was that same sex affair didn't result in "illegitimate children",--a horrible term,--which would upset the whole family and clan hierarchy.

1979. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147079 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 6:56 pm

MaxD

yes lets trot out a single sample to disprove what appears to be a statistical rule.

I did not. I asked you about the sample size of the studies you mentioned but you choose to ignore it,

Foraging behaviour in Solenopsis can be affected by the change in a single gene.

I think that is a very simple behaviour in the sense that you can pin it down, Sexuality is much more fluid across societies, time and cultures as anthropological data show,

A relatively simple few HOX genes make the difference between me having a head or not.

Having a head or not is not a behaviour.

'm not saying that human sexuality is so simple a case but it could be and there is no reason to take a stance on it one way or the other yet.

I think there are two issues,

1)Whether it is genetic and

2)Whether it is adaptational.

For 1) I think that it is very likely that there is a genetic factor. But to say that there is a gay gene is pushing it, There is evidence that, for example, the hormonal level of the mother during certain stage of pregnancy may have to do with the sexual preference of the child.

Sexuality, to the extent that it is genetically affected, may be the secondary expression of many different genes acting through specific environments and the individual genes involved may not normally have a lot to do with sex.

We don't know to what extent sexuality is affected by genes, a lot of unwarranted cultural assumptions come in when people stray away from hard data. For example, exclusive homosexuals (probably exclusive heterosexuals as well) were relatively rare historically. How much of that apparent clarity we see today is the result of the pressure to "pick a team and stay with it"? Bisexuals apparently are ostracized by both straights and gays alike (even though more so by straights)

2) I think there is no evidence it is adaptational at all. As you have clarified my point, even if we accept the claims about identical twins it is still just a horizontal match, there is absolutely no evidence that I am aware of that shows homosexuality propagates vertically and gays do have children.

1980. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147067 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 6:24 pm

MaxD

It can't be too much more complicated, or unlikely. Other behavior patterns seem terribly affected by the presence or absence of certain genes, sometimes single genes.

What are other behaviours that you can exactly pin down the genetic origins other than some simple ones?

Homosexual behaviour were a lot more widespread in pagan societies such as ancient Greece and ancient China. It is unlikely that they were drastically different from us genetically.

statistical likilhood goes up with identical twins

Have you look at the actual papers? It seems it is very rare that you can find identical twins raised differently to participate in that kind of studies. The small sample means that their statistical tests probably have very low power. Cartomancer's identical twin brother is straight. They share all physical attributes but not their sexuality, so I am afraid it can be much more complicated than things like eye colour and nose shape.

1981. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147050 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 5:51 pm

If homosexual men rarely father children, homosexual genes should dwindle to the low frequency expected from recurrent random mutation, a frequency below one in a million. Even if Kinsey's estimate of one in ten is high, there can be no doubt that the abundance of homosexual men is too great to have stemmed from recurrent mutation alone.

This is a completely wrong premise. It is only true that "homosexuals",--depending on how you define it,--rarely father children in our society.Whether one fathers children and sexual preferences are separate issues. In many societies marriage and having children are/were a duty rather than a quest for self fulfillment,

Homosexuals are not sterile,--hence the stupidity of the "sterile uncle theory",--nor do they hate children, There isn't much in the way of procreating if they have to do the job and get it over with, just like many heteros who marry the people they don't feel sexually attracted to for whatever reasons.

If for some disaster most the world's population are wiped out and there is a great need to repopulate the world I would think many gays and Lesbians will procreate as well.

Homosexuals do have children but there is no evidence their children are more likely to be homosexuals themselves. Until someone come up with that kind of evidence all talks about the adaptational advantage of the "gay genes" are pure fantasies of the pan adapationists. They look at a human trait X, usually in a way filtered through their own cultural biases,-- and decide that there must be an adaptational explanation and make up ad hoc stories to make it sound plausible, That is more like religion than science,

EDIT
The pan adaptionist myopia reminds me of some Freudians. When they see a baby going for the mother's breast they would make up some complicated sexual innuendos as a way of explanation. It never occurs to them that the baby is just hungry.

1982. Fleabytes

Comment #147030 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 5:35 pm

I mean two socks that don't form a pair.

1983. Fleabytes

Comment #147028 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 5:32 pm

I've seen Brits, Canadians and Americans do it too; tends to be age related!

Not if you wear different socks. I am only in my early thirties. :-)

1984. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147026 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Bottom line is that it's completely illogical that this invisible guy decided to invoke homosexuality all the sudden, right in the middle of something pure political, extremely important for a moment for whatever non-divine reason.

I am thinking about Lot. If the people who invoke Lot as evidence that "God hates fags" are right about the Bible's message the implication would be that raping women is acceptable to the big cheese. That is a lot more disturbing than men having sex with each other, whatever your hang ups are.

1985. Fleabytes

Comment #147019 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 5:20 pm

As everyone knows, you never wear socks with sandals.

Unless you are German...then it's de riguer!

I do, I am not German and I wear different socks too,

1986. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147009 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:54 pm

the hippocampal studies might suggest there is a genetic component

Three possible rejoinders

1) Correlation is not causation, there may be a correlation of the presence of some structure and certain behaviour but it doesn't prove one causes the other.

2) Having a "genetic component" is not the same as saying that there is a gay gene. I think the connection leading from genes to sexual behaviour is complex and convoluted, it is not like your eye colour or nose shape.

3) Because of 2) I think it is premature and wrong headed to speculate if there is any adaptative advantage for homosexuality, it can be the secondary expression (by-product) of a whole bunch of other unrelated things.

Like I said, gays do have children even in our society though less common and there is no evidence that their children are more likely to be gay themselves.

1987. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147005 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Frankus

I am not suggesting that "gay genes" cannot be passed on. I am wondering why they are there.

How do you know they are there?

If there are genes that express themselves only in that they cause the organism to be homosexual then I cannot see how they would be passed on. (I realize gay people can reproduce; they normally do not).

That is a big "if" and "normally" only in our culture.

1988. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147002 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:39 pm

There is no such thing as "homosexual sex", whatever gays and Lesbians can do in bed heteros can and do do too and they don't produce any children even when practiced by heterosexuals.

The most profound question of the day

Should I say "don't produce any children" or "don't produce any child"? "Don't produce any child" seems grammatically more correct but doesn't sound right. :-)

1989. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146989 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Frankus,

There is no indication that children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexuals themselves,--yes, many homosexuals do have children. Until there is any concrete evidence that it does pass on, there is no ground to compare it with hereditary traits such as sickle cell, let alone to find it adaptive advantage.

1990. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146978 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Steve,

Absolutely. All the great ape species show homosexual behaviour. It probably has something to do with support from non-reproducing uncles and aunts for child-rearing couples, and also social cohesion. Well, someone has to write the musicals and design the clothes!

Actually, why must a trait have any adaptive advantage? This seems to be a fallacy of the strong adaptationists. I find "explanations" such as gays are good as uncles sound completely made up and are not supported by any independent evidence.

There has to be, otherwise it would not be there.

I am not an extreme adaptationist (every aspect of an organism has to be selected for), but if we are going to give up on the idea that evolution is going to select for reproductive behaviour, we might just as well give up on evolution altogether.

Homosexuality is not "selected ", it is not even a hereditary trait like baldness,--what is the adaptive advantage of being bald btw?.

Being gay is not the same as being sterile.In many instances they do have children and their children don't turn out to be gay.--there is no evidence that they do. You may say the "gay gene" is recessive, but until there is evidence for that it is just speculation.

While homosexuals prefer having sex with same sex partners, it is not that they are physically incapable of having sex with members of the opposite sex or that they abhor the idea of having children,--some do,just like some heterosexuals too. Historically, in many cultures procreation and sexual preferences are two separate issues. Being homosexual is no big deal if you fulfill your obligation to have kids.

I think we are carrying too many culturally specific assumptions into this kind of discussions,

Edit If we accept the strong adaptionists' premise we can pose the question differently, why are there heterosexuals who want to have sex but don't want children? What is the genetic basis for an absence of the paternal or maternal instinct?

1991. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146779 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 11:58 am

Did anyone check out the South Park episode where Butters was send to a Bible Camp that "cures" homosexuals for being "bi-curious"? It is very funny.

1992. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146769 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 11:40 am

I am not trying to say homosexuality is either normal or abnormal. I am just curious about definitions that are qualitative, such as "normal" and how dependent it is on this paradox of the heap.

Normalcy is a purely statistical notion which in itself doesn't have any connotation of good or bad. I suppose Mozart and Einstein were very abnormal, but I suspect most people wouldn't hold that against them.

Being normal can be just an euphemism for wallowing in mediocrity. So I don't really care for being normal.

1993. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146374 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 2:37 am

dlitt,

Might not be healthy but it sure makes you feel good. There are lots of things that could make you happy, but they might have a negative side effect.

Well that would depends on what you actually do.

You can't say because someone gets really screwed for doing coke therefore pot is just as bad, For the same reason I would think the "side effects" of religion depends on factors such as the intensity of belief and the actual contents of the belief.

1994. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146364 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 2:10 am

Steve,

I don't disagree with your point about the rapture cults and the evangelical movement in general.

But this is quite apart from whether they believe in is real, This is the kind of fantasies that are actually harmful. I am also not sure whether is fair to say that people who believe in an afterlife automatically give up on this one or wish it to come to an end asap. That is not the impression I get from any of my religious friends.

There is always a gulf between what the dogmas say people should believe and what they actually believe. Since we are talking about people rather than religious texts, we must keep in mind that the human condition is always a lot more ambiguous than logic or religious texts. Human beings are neither rational nor consistently irrational.

I said in the beginning of my post that the claim that religion is good for health may be true or false, my point was simply that it is a question separate from whether religion beliefs are true and should be evaluated based on evidence, not the philosophical commitment to atheism. I think that would depend on the actual contents of what one believes, not just that he or she believes in some God. You probably get a nervous break down, instead of any health benefit from believing the slave driver, control freak of a God of the OT. But it would be a mistake to think that all Christians believe in such a God, being a Christian doesn't compel one to be a fundamentalist.

1995. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146348 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 1:38 am

dlitt,

As far as I am aware no study ever claims cocaine is good for your health, I think either you are missing the point or I am missing yours.

Koreman,

I don't know if people derive any benefit from a hell and brimstone kind of God, I think it is a favourite atheist strawman, People who derive comfort from belief usually see their God as a source of redemption and forgiveness rather than a cosmic Stalin as described in a literal reading of the Bible. If you want to criticize beliefs, at least make an attempt to understand where believers are coming from instead of always trying to stereotype them with crude caricatures, Dostoevsky wrote some of the most powerful books with religious themes, his was not the God of the American evangelicals.

1996. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146319 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 12:03 am

Brain English

Is this one of those articles that suggests that because a belief in something appears to be healthful. That something then is real?

The answers can be yes and no. Yes, it may be healthful and no, it is not real. There is no suggestion that yes to the first question implies yes to the second. The second question has nothing to do with the point being made,--which may be true or false.

I am not sure why there is always this knee jerk reaction from some atheists of the Dawkins school,--though probably not Dawkins himself. Whenever someone suggests that religion may have some useful functions to some people the immediate reaction is the rhetorical question "Is it real?" Why is whether something is real so bloody important? We don't really know what is real in some absolute sense if you think about it, We have heuristics and some working assumptions that seem to work well in our limited range of existence and that's all. We may only be God's hallucinations in his acid trip, we will all go "poof" and disappear when he snaps out of it,-- but to believe in that requires a leap of faith that I can't do as I have no faith in anything,

Religious apologists often quote Shakespeare,"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy", I happen to agree, though to me it works against committing to anything on faith,

Socrates is my hero, the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure.(Though I dislike professional philosophers and their pretentious babbles, Socrates was before philosophy became decadent, even though according to Nietzsche he was the source of that decadence by murdering Dyonesis, oh, well..)

We have a lot of little make beliefs in helping us cope, say unrealistic assessments of self or others. I can see many people thinking that happiness is more important than being right. As long as you are not high on fantasies all the time to the extent that they impair your judgments or trying to force your beliefs on others, a little white lie to yourself is fine by me if that makes you feel better,

In some way life is a make belief, we all pretend to be the persons we want to be.

As long as people are reasonable most of the time I have no problem in whatever fantasies they believe in their private world, and it would be rude to do otherwise,

Life is fleeting, it is just a transient dance of energy and waves, there is no need to always take ourselves so bloody seriously.

Nietzsche said it best, we have art so that we don't die of the truth.

I am not trying to rip on you. It is 3am and I just feel like ranting and with a name like English I think you may understand, :-)

1997. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145527 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Is Pathfinder yet another wooter creation? It gives a new meaning to creationist.

1998. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145525 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 5:11 pm

They should teach ID and creationism as case studies in general courses such as "science and pseudoscience" or "intellectual self defense" which aim at a larger audience than biology majors. I think it is am important part of a general education. Students should be exposed to them and be intellectuallly equipped to dissect their fraudulent claims.

1999. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144956 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 5:08 am

There is a genetic factor just as there may be a genetic component to the kind of food we like. But sexuality is not genetically determined, it has a bearing but I don't believe that there is a one to one mapping. Other factors are involved. Were the ancient Greeks and many pre Christian pagans genetically different from us? I doubt it.

2000. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144951 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 4:50 am