U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-04-2014, 08:05 AM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,253,561 times
Reputation: 1317

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
This shouldn't be too surprising. Using a selective breeding rationale . . . women have been selectively bred through the generations to be nurturers. Not so for the men. Thus with Lesbian parents the kids have two nurturers instead of one.

Forget psuedo genetic and natural selection type answers, it seems very simple to me. Same sex couples can't conceive by accident. If they want a child it is a conscious choice that in the case of adoption requires intrusive scrutiny by the government, and in the case of surrogacy or IVF, a significant amount of money.

So for same sex couples there is some inbuilt limitation that ensures that the majority of same sex parents have stable jobs and relationships, are financially stable, and are passionately interested in being parents. How could these criteria not generate a trend toward healthier, happier children? A stable home, sufficient money, and parents who are deeply invested in the family, and in their children specifically, why wouldn't we expect better outcomes?

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-04-2014, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,097,133 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Same sex couples can't conceive by accident. If they want a child it is a conscious choice that in the case of adoption requires intrusive scrutiny by the government, and in the case of surrogacy or IVF, a significant amount of money.

So for same sex couples there is some inbuilt limitation that ensures that the majority of same sex parents have stable jobs and relationships, are financially stable, and are passionately interested in being parents. How could these criteria not generate a trend toward healthier, happier children? A stable home, sufficient money, and parents who are deeply invested in the family, and in their children specifically, why wouldn't we expect better outcomes?
^^This.

My heterosexual daughter, sadly, represents the opposite extreme. The conception of her first child was announced with the statement, "it was bound to happen sooner or later anyway". And this is the basic attitude of many, arguably the vast majority of young heterosexual couples. Having children is seen as a rite of passage, a personal right, a long-held dream -- and above all, a given. Childlessness, delaying conception, or limiting the number of children are all often off the table. Inability to conceive is an unthinkable horror to which extraordinary means must be applied in an effort to overcome it. The level of self awareness brought to the topic is minimal; the level of self-absorption is high. Even when people choose to limit their procreative activities in some way it is seldom with any consideration for the actual child who might result, so much as for their own preferences.

In this atmosphere, homosexuals are pretty much guaranteed to be more thoughtful and self aware and conscientious and intentional parents than heterosexuals. And that will tend to make them more successful parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2014, 06:16 PM
 
13,695 posts, read 13,623,653 times
Reputation: 39924
I've run into atheists who argue that homosexuality is a violation of nature and/or Darwinism because it doesn't result in propagation of the species.

I think the evolutionary purpose of homosexuality is quite obvious.

First of all, a person who was less inclined to engage in a relationship resulting in offspring was more likely to be able to spend their time innovating, inventing, leading, whatever. They were not engaged in raising children and could instead improve the overall quality of life of the group they were involved in. I think the stereotype portraying gay people as "creative" didn't come out of nowhere, ya know?


Note also the statistical tendency for the younger children in a family to be gay. People died young in prehistoric times, and no doubt left orphaned children behind quite often. With the elder offspring in a family engaged in procreation, if anything should happen to them, their younger, gay sibling could take in the orphaned children without having to worry about taking anything away from their own biological offspring. This would ensure the continuation of the group's genes.

Groups with gay members therefore were more likely to 1) benefit firsthand from innovations and 2) see the younger generations cared for in the event of the death of those younger members' parents. Those are two very key contributors to survival of a genetic group.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2014, 08:46 PM
 
12,540 posts, read 12,543,523 times
Reputation: 28901
Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
I know a lot of (or some) religious people are anti-gay and they defend their belief with things from the Bible. Sometimes I suspect that they use the Bible as an excuse for their anti-gay beliefs.

But it does seem that more atheist are open minded about homesexuality than Christians.

That being said, I am pretty sure there have got to be at least some atheist homophobes out there. But, I don't know a LOT of atheists. I can think of two people in my life who I know are atheist. So, I can't exactly have an accurate idea of how much more openminded atheist are on this subject.

Can you tell me if I'm right or wrong on this?
Bigots come in all shapes and sizes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2014, 08:50 PM
 
40,146 posts, read 26,779,715 times
Reputation: 6053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilac110 View Post
Bigots come in all shapes and sizes.
Amen!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 01:43 PM
 
153 posts, read 111,626 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
They exist, however, since 99% of anti-gay sentiment is based on 4-5 misinterpreted Biblical verses, atheists and agnostics seem to be largely more tolerant of gays. Really the icky factor would be the only opposition they might have.

But then in my experience, atheists are more liberal and more educated than most religious folks, and education dispels all the myths that make people hate gays.
Well if you think that in general people who believed in God were less educated than atheists you need to get yourself a real education in history of science,and meet some more 'religious people of education,as the 'fad' of atheism is just that a fad ,among poorly educated people who are rebelling against their limited experiences of religion,and who have not yet understood the difference between belief in God and an ordered create world,and attempts to direct this belief in a group situation (religious practises) .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,097,133 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by WisdomTooth 359 View Post
Well if you think that in general people who believed in God were less educated than atheists you need to get yourself a real education in history of science,and meet some more 'religious people of education,as the 'fad' of atheism is just that a fad ,among poorly educated people who are rebelling against their limited experiences of religion,and who have not yet understood the difference between belief in God and an ordered create world,and attempts to direct this belief in a group situation (religious practises) .
I think you are both engaging in rash generalizations. Although you, more than Flyero. Fundamentalist religion has a pretty well demonstrated worldwide correlation with low levels of public education, and American Fundamentalism is in the process of collapsing, largely in my view because of increasing levels of higher education. Fundamentalism is anti-intellectual for a reason; it cannot survive in the presence of actual facts.

Religion generally, not so much, because whether or not one is educated says nothing about whether or not they choose to be educated fools. Compartmentalization works well enough for more liberal believers to cause their beliefs to be at odds with their knowledge. Sometimes people choose to believe things they know, at some level, to be untrue. For a variety of reasons -- social / family pressure, inertia, fear of the unknown, fear of death, and preference for a narrative that elevates one's own significance in the great scheme of things, being chief amongst them.

On the other side of this question, in my experience many, perhaps even most, atheists in the US have extensive experience of religion, and left it precisely because of that experience. I am such a one. Thirty years an evangelical Christian, and an involved and respected one. So your charge that most atheists just haven't tried hard enough is baffling to me. And poorly educated? I would love to see you substantiate that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2014, 06:09 PM
 
153 posts, read 111,626 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I think you are both engaging in rash generalizations. Although you, more than Flyero. Fundamentalist religion has a pretty well demonstrated worldwide correlation with low levels of public education, and American Fundamentalism is in the process of collapsing, largely in my view because of increasing levels of higher education. Fundamentalism is anti-intellectual for a reason; it cannot survive in the presence of actual facts.

Religion generally, not so much, because whether or not one is educated says nothing about whether or not they choose to be educated fools. Compartmentalization works well enough for more liberal believers to cause their beliefs to be at odds with their knowledge. Sometimes people choose to believe things they know, at some level, to be untrue. For a variety of reasons -- social / family pressure, inertia, fear of the unknown, fear of death, and preference for a narrative that elevates one's own significance in the great scheme of things, being chief amongst them.

On the other side of this question, in my experience many, perhaps even most, atheists in the US have extensive experience of religion, and left it precisely because of that experience. I am such a one. Thirty years an evangelical Christian, and an involved and respected one. So your charge that most atheists just haven't tried hard enough is baffling to me. And poorly educated? I would love to see you substantiate that one.
What can I say about Fundamentalism and the low level of education of Americans in history ,literature,philosophy etc ;since that is in terms of any history, it is a very short term phenomenan ?
The greatest minds the world has known, believed in a Creator even if they were not 'religious ie. in
the practise of group beliefs and traditions .

It is my opinion that America is at the stage where Europe was some time ago in letting go of controlled
religious practise to find their own individual paths ,but Europe as in Russia,and to some extent in France, belief, if not practise is on the way back, because of the obvious failure of long term atheism
to produce anything but 'death'.
I went off the path of 'belief myself for many years ,but was too intelligent to say I was an atheist,instead I was agnostic .Anyone who categorically says there is no God ,no Designer,well
what can one say ?
Read about the beliefs of Newton ,Einstein,even Gallileo was not an atheist, if he had disputes with
the RCC ;the list is endless,and includes many modern scientists especially physists .

I don't blame you for going off religious practise,but then Jesus was'nt too keen Himself, on some of it .
Part of finding God is in studying His creation outside of the bible ,which fundamentalists refused to do ;
Me, I went outside not knowing hardly anything about the OT ,and found prove there ,and now I read the NT .and know God in personal sense as well ,as the great scientific designer that He is .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2014, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,097,133 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by WisdomTooth 359 View Post
I went off the path of 'belief myself for many years ,but was too intelligent to say I was an atheist,instead I was agnostic .Anyone who categorically says there is no God ,no Designer,well what can one say?
This is a common fallacy. Virtually all atheists ARE agnostics. (A)theism is a belief position, not a knowledge position like (a)gnosticism. They influence each other but are separate questions. By definition, atheism does not make knowledge claims, only belief-claims. There is a difference between saying that one withholds belief in things they see no evidence for, and claiming to know there is no god.

For some reason it is attractive to some people to regard agnosticism as an way-station between belief and unbelief. That is only true for a particular kind of agnostic, one who feels there is some evidence for at least a generic god, enough that they feel it evinces a roughly 50% probability of god. It is my personal view that probably most people who hold such a view of the evidence have very low evidentiary standards, a strong bias in favor of god, or both -- but lacking the true theist's certitude they cannot outright embrace god belief either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WisdomTooth 359 View Post
Read about the beliefs of Newton ,Einstein,even Gallileo was not an atheist, if he had disputes with
the RCC ;the list is endless,and includes many modern scientists especially physists.
I don't understand how an appeal to authority holds any weight in such matters. For most of human history it has been expedient to outwardly profess some form of theism in order to avoid annoyances such as being shunned by other scientists or the general public (and funding sources). The human race is also crawling out of a very deep hole of ignorance and superstition so one would expect scientists of past eras to have held at least vestigial and tentative theistic beliefs. Even Darwin held on to some tattered threads of theism and was conflicted about the implications of his work. So??

And by the way, Einstein did not believe in god unless you want to work really hard to twist his public statements on the topic, including at least one outright denial of belief that he issued because even during his lifetime people were trying to make him into a theist. He in essence said he worshipped nature as understood via science, and even that was a metaphor not to be taken too literally. Einstein is a perfect example of a modern scientist rhapsodizing about the elegance and beauty of the natural world and the natural and mathematical laws underlying it, and theists being unable to separate that from their own rhapsodizing about god -- because after all, you can't have any sense of wonder without god animating it, now, can you?? It is also a side effect of people talking about things such as transcendence, the Divine, , etc., and projecting their specific religious ideations upon those subjective general notions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2014, 07:52 AM
 
Location: "Arlen" Texas
2,384 posts, read 1,560,398 times
Reputation: 9255
I am an atheist and I don't consider anything consenting adults do to be anyone's business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top