"The middle ground between socialism and capitalism is becoming popular again. Hasn't been popular since the Rise of Adolf Hitler. I guess History will eventually kick in and people will gain some sense."
Part socialist/capitalist systems have been popular all over Europe for ages now, and extremely successful. Anyone would think that you're obsessed with Hitler, you way you go on about him.
By the way, Godwin's law:
"Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an informal adage created by Mike Godwin in 1990. The adage states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3]
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases in direct proportion to the length of the discussion. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages."
Also, just noticed this on the Wiki entry:
"On October 20, 2008, Rachel Maddow, on The Rachel Maddow Show, proposed a corollary to Godwin's law that as the time a liberal candidate is believed to be winning an election or argument increases, the probability that they will be labeled communist or socialist approaches one.[19]"
That's not really accurate, no. Your body doesn't fight against the production of a male featus. Around the 7 to 12 weeks period, the male featus is exposed to testosterone, which aids in the development of male features and typical male brain development. If this testosterone exposure is in any way hindered, it will cause the male baby to be more feminine.
I can't claim to know any reasons why younger siblings are more likely to be gay, unfortunately.
I can't talk in depth as I'm at work, but suffice to say that is an extremely simple interpretation of evolution.
Check out genetic drift.
My argument is slightly different. I was actually trying to say that there isn't a "gay gene." My intepretation of it is that there is a gene that controls hormone balance during pregnancy, which can sometimes become faulty and cause homosexuality. It is the fault of an evolved gene, but not a gene exclusively causing homosexuality. Hope that clears it up.
"If there's a gene that randomly causes homosexuality in 10% of it's carriers, and it turns out that homosexuality is a benefit to the population as a whole, then evolution applies."
I believe the "what's good for the group" model of evolution has been firmly discredited, and is a common misunderstanding of evolutionary behaviour.
Firstly, let me address the concept of a gene. What constitues a gene is very subjective, so it is better for us to talk of "units of evolution" so we don't confuse ourselves with thinking about genes as a single entity that controls a single operation. Now, in order for homosexuality to be genetic rather than a simple hormone disbalance, we would have to show that there is a significant grouping of genes into a single homosexual unit of evolution, and that this unit of evolution strives to save itself through purely altruistic methods.
Now, the general idea of "what is good for the group" seems at first to be a possible intepretation of evolution in a larger scale. However, the correct interpretation is what is good for the unit of evolution. Altruistic behaviour appears to be of no benefit to an individual, but obviously the trait to do something altruistic would find it very hard to saturate a gene pool; therefore there is absolutely no benefit in saving another over you. If, however, we think purely at the level of the unit of evolution, then we see that apparently unhelpful behaviours (such as an animal informing other animals of an approaching predetor, whilst also making itself more visible to said predator) can saturate a gene pool if the gene is geared up for saving itself.
This means realistically that there are two ways for a unit to saturate the gene pool for a certain unit space; it benefits the individual carrying it, or it causes the individual to benefit other individuals who are most likely carrying the same unit of evolution. As homosexuality lends to a lack of saving "itself" (as it wont be passed on), it can only realistically become an evolved trait if it causes altruistic behavior that causes other carriers to be more likely to survive.
I know about evolution and I understand all these concepts. The point I'm making is that homosexuality doesn't appear to lend itself to any altruistic behaviour that would benefit people carrying the homosexual unit of evolution. Infact, recognition of other homosexual people in order to better select those to benefit would mean that the other person is also homosexual and therefore less likely to pass on their gene.
The main point being made is thus: Altruistic behaviour by a unit of evolution that hunders itself towards units of evolution that also actually hinder their own reproductive potential would be extremely unlikely to saturate the gene pool.
"Homosexuality is genetic, and therefore evolved."
Without looking into this in more detail, my knowledge of evolution is telling me that this isn't right. Homosexuality in humans is generally exclusive. How does exclusive homosexuality become an inherited trait subject to evolution if it is not passed on to a new generation? It may have evolved to a point (as non-exclusive homosexuality is visible in nature), but would have been instantly wiped out as soon as human intellect and emotion took over leading to exclusive homosexuality. I believe homosexuality is a hormonal inbalance, but certainly can't see it as an evolved trait.
"How can something be going against nature if it can be found so prevalently in nature?"
Homosexuality in nature is not exclusive, so would provide no detremental effect to a species if homosexuality was practised only when no "straight" sex is possible. In this instance an evolved homosexual trait may exist, though I'm far more comfortable with the idea of hormonal inbalances as with humans.
I may be wrong though. As I say, this just seemed wrong on my current knowledge of evolution. I'll have to seek out some evidence either way before commiting to the "hormonal inbalance" view of homosexuality over an evolved trait.
"And yet you do nothing except reinforce my point that atheists as a whole believe themselves to be superior to religious people."
It's not what atheists believe. It's a little something called fact. Every study into education, intelligence and religions shows that there is a indirectly proportional link between intelligence and education, and religious beliefs. I'm sorry if facts annoy you.
"Why it is that you feel the need to try and belittle someone else's beliefs I'll never understand."
It's nothing to do with that. It's everything to do with religion's invasion in our lives. The widespread AIDs epidemic in Africa due to the church condemning contraception, the slow take-up in life saving research into stem cells, terrorism, etc, etc. It's not about your right to have your little fantasy; it's about how and when it starts to effect my life.
"I think that atheists are arrogant because they don't bother to acknowledge they may in fact be wrong and as a whole demand that everyone believe exactly as they do."
Absolutely not. I feel that you should have every right to believe what you want to believe, and we're both lucky enough to live in countries where that is so (well, less so in the US). The problem I have is when people forget to leave their religious beliefs at home in matters such as politics, education, healthcare, etc. If you're going to be meddling in things such as this, please bring facts to the table, not beliefs with no evidence. THAT's my problem.
Also, in regards to acknowledging being wrong, you're incorrect to assume that. I work on the evidence at hand, and certain logical principles. There's no evidence and no logic to show me the existance of a god. When/if that evidence or logic ever pops up, I'd be perfectly willing to accept it.
"It's one thing to voice your beliefs and try to convince someone, it's an entirely different thing to tell someone that they are wrong when one cannot provide any proof to support the claim."
Well, that's debatable. If you're, say, a christian, you believe that I am going to go to hell. You truly and absolutely believe that because I haven't accepted Jesus, or any of the other silly things we have to do to get into heaven. You might not voice that opinion, but you truly believe it. And you have less proof to go on then me saying that there is no god.
Everything we've learnt about the universe and science in the past few centuries has been in complete contradiction to the abrahamic religions. You may be able to change and modify your beliefs to make them compatible with science, but you're only stripping away the divinity. Why not call a spade a spade? This is a debating website. I think the religious are wrong and I'll say so; deal with it.
"Personally I think that the universe has far to many coincidences to have been created by accident, I also think that God put in place a system of rules for the universe to follow and that investigating those rules is one of the most enduring and worthwhile uses of one's life."
Well, those are your beliefs and you have every right to hold them. Just remember that what you personally believe and fact are two different things. There are no "coincidences" that happened by "accident". This is where my point about education and IQ comes into it. Evolution, for example, isn't an accident or a coincidence. It's factual, logical, backed by tons of evidence, and contradicts the bible.
"Science and religion study too different things, science is the study of the universe, religion is the attempt to understand God and God's will."
Not really. Science overlaps religion on so many levels, and every single time it does so it seems to be a contradiction to or against the view of religion. I'll put my faith in science, thank you very much.
"Both could coexist, many of the earliest scientists had the same world view as I have described, and the Church supported them."
I really hope you don't truly believe what you just said there? The church hounded, imprisoned and killed people who had differing views.
"However people choose to ignore what to me seems to be fairly simple and straightforward."
It's not simple and straightfoward. Science shows time and time again that religion is wrong. They can't coexist.
Anyway, I think you got a bit worked up over nothing. You stated that atheists are arrogant because they believe they are better, and I just added some fact to show that believing that isn't arrogance; it's simply the truth.
"Rather I believe because I find that it makes sense with me."
To be honest, you could really have stopped at that rather telling statement. It's rather funny that you then go on to argue that you find atheists arrogant because they state that religion is something people use to explain things they don't understand. Isn't that really exactly what you just admitted to doing?
"I find it comforting and many arrogant atheists have stated that religion is something that "common," "ignorant" people used to explain things they did not understand."
I assume you're aware that in nearly every study made on the subject, the religious have a lower average IQ than atheists?
I disagree. Atheism is the disbelief in god; actually coming out and saying "god does not exist."
He seemed to be quite clearly saying that he has not given up the possibility that something supernatural is involved, but just hopes it's not the abrahamic god.
Saying "there is no god" and "I'm not really sure" are not the same thing. I'm an atheist because I know there is no god.
The fatal flaw here is that he is attempting to disprove eternity using properties of the universe; time, matter, etc. He's assuming that a pre-universe would have the same properties as the universe itself. Even time is a property of the universe. Outside the bounds of the universe, we simply don't know.
The main argument here though, is that the guy simply misunderstands what matter, time and space are. Matter is simply a manifestation of energy. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can not be created, only transfered. So, did God create energy? If he did, then we are violating the laws of physics, and therefore we can not use the laws of physics (as asserted in this video) to prove the existance of God. Or, can we say that God is energy? In that case, energy is infinite (as God is inifnite) and once again this argument falls down.
Hurray for science and logic.
