quote:Consider the following statement and then answer this question, “Who is more likely to make such a statement Atheists or Organized Religion? Here is the statement:
“People who do not reproduce are genetic dead ends and serve no useful purpose in terms of continuation of the species.”
I have heard this exact argument before from multiple people of organized religion. For the specific people I'm talking about, they are both religious and highly educated. They have no problem with the coexistence of faith and evolution and seem to combine the two ideas whenever possible. This includes statements like the one you quoted.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homosexuals could do that very well, I believe, yes. I'm not sure why that question was posed in response to a remark of mine, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm struggling to understand how anything I said got wrangled up in homosexuality and the evolutionary purpose of homosexuals. I said to someone (not me) who believed that propogating the species was the primary or sole purpose to human life (and I challenge anyone to find me someone who, in rhetoric and in how they actually live exemplifies this ideology), there was in fact a purpose to living that matched that belief once one's own children were successfully raised and independant.
You know, why bother? I give up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was the guy that was kicked in the crotch by Chuck Norris in the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny. Of course I've heard of him.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Were/are homosexuals any better off under the atheist Nazis
I'm pretty sure "athiest" is an inaccurate word when it comes to Nazis. Atheists were among those persecuted by the Nazis.
Karl is right, although many Nazis were athiest, many were also neo pagan.
While what you say is technically true, it is rather misleading. Most Nazis were ordinary garden-variety Christians.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm struggling to understand how anything I said got wrangled up in homosexuality and the evolutionary purpose of homosexuals. I said to someone (not me) who believed that propogating the species was the primary or sole purpose to human life (and I challenge anyone to find me someone who, in rhetoric and in how they actually live exemplifies this ideology), there was in fact a purpose to living that matched that belief once one's own children were successfully raised and independant.
You know, why bother? I give up.
You asked why I thought it was silly. I answered with examples of how silly it is. I don't know why you asked, since you don't seem to think the axiom has any merit either.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always seem to double back when I say I give up, but...
Your examples weren't very compelling towards demonstrating your point. I responded to them, and you have not answered my responses. As to why I asked, I asked because I don't as a rule like dismissing things as 'silly' without lots of proof or at least evidence, scientific or simply ideas and rhetoric. Evidence which has not been given here. One can still pursue the primary (or only) meaning to human life-assuming one believes such a thing-as a non-adopting homosexual. By improving the quality of life for other human beings, you make it more likely to safely increase the quantity.
posted
My life has a purpose. It may be exclusively a purpose that I have given it, but that's all the purpose it needs, IMO.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Dicty, in order to propogate, the unicellular critters merge together into a multicellular creature and the critter on the top gets to multiply. So, most dicty's only purpose is to help that one little dicty procreate. They never get to propogate their own genes. And there is some system that keeps "greedy" dicty from propogating (like if you genetically engineer some to move to the top, the other cells keep them down- it has been 4 years since I attended that seminar so my memory of how they do that is fuzzy).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teleosts are known for filial cannibalism, ie., males sometimes eat their offspring. Studies suggest that contrary to predictions, this actually reduces male reproductive success.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got to admit that I find the whole "what is the purpose of life" question a bit silly and irrelevant; we're talking about it over at Ornery, too.
To my way of thinking, the whole concept of "purpose" is precisely that -- a concept. It doesn't necessarily have to reflect physical reality any more than the word "nice" has to reflect reality. We all, as a result, define and discover "purpose" for ourselves -- and while some people might be comforted to believe that their purpose is reflected or mandated by some concrete reality, I don't think that's at all necessary.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I made myself clear that I wasn't looking for concrete, provable evidence when I said, "As to why I asked, I asked because I don't as a rule like dismissing things as 'silly' without lots of proof or at least evidence, scientific or simply ideas and rhetoric."
But let's instead focus on the other thing I said, and treat it as though it was the only statement I made. That way, I can appear unreasonable.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I agree with your statement, "I don't as a rule like dismissing things as 'silly' without lots of proof or at least evidence, scientific or simply ideas and rhetoric," but I think the point that many are trying to make is that it is not necessary (and may even been inaccurate) to rationalize every purpose as being somehow related to the goal of successful reproduction as an individual or as a species.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, instead of appearing unreasonable, wouldn't you rather appear silly?
That way we cold dismiss you without lots of proof or at least evidence, scientific or simply ideas and rhetoric.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No no, banning things encourages people to do it! I swear this is at least half of what it interesting about porn.
The other half is the part where porn is naked people having sex. Before anyone attempts to explain why porn is appealing.
But really, in Europe nudity isn't as intriguing, because it's not forbidden. I think banning religion would have the same effect.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...but I think the point that many are trying to make is that it is not necessary (and may even been inaccurate) to rationalize every purpose as being somehow related to the goal of successful reproduction as an individual or as a species.
I'm not trying to argue whether or not it's necessary or accurate to define life's purpose as reproduction. I'm trying to point out that some of the objections given to such a belief as silly and sad are themselves flimsy at best.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat--so then what are your thoughts on the apostle Paul and the Dalai Lama, as well as hundreds of other saints, holy men, meditators, early Christian mystics, etc.? Plenty of them did not leave descendants. I just want to hear your thoughts now.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I think many things make life meaningful, and that this life is not the only place to fulfill the purposes of our existance.
However, I hesitate to blithely dismiss anyone's deeply-held beliefs as "silly and sad" simply because I disagree.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not trying to argue whether or not it's necessary or accurate to define life's purpose as reproduction.
Understood. Here is the main point that I was responding to:
quote:One can still pursue the primary (or only) meaning to human life-assuming one believes such a thing-as a non-adopting homosexual. By improving the quality of life for other human beings, you make it more likely to safely increase the quantity.
I believe it's unnecessary to show how you can still contribute to the reproductive chances of the species in general without having to reproduce yourself (which scholar's example does a good job of supporting), because I don't think the initial premise is correct to begin with.
Is that premise or belief a silly and sad one? Well, I would be a bit sad if any purpose that I had in life were limited to only things that in some way increased the chances of the species' survival. I'm not sure that I would find it all that silly though.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Alright. I'll be careful not to, you know, change my name to Johivin or something.
Huh? You may be defending it (or attacking my attack of it) but I'm not attributing the idea to you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: He was the guy that was kicked in the crotch by Chuck Norris in the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny. Of course I've heard of him.
Drink!
(It's a new drinking game. Every time someone mentions the Ultimate Showdown, you have to drink.)
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love how lots of Christians flip out when a gay man suggests they organized religion should not legally be allowed to exist, while at the same time so many of them are dead set on making sure that a gay couple can't legally marry.
I guess it's only cool to have the government oppress OTHER people's freedoms Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe a better comparison to having gay marriages not be legal is revoking the tax exempt status from any religious organization, other than the parts that are actually doing community services such as running hospitals, orphanages, feedint the poor, etc.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's indeed a better comparison, but it doesn't invalidate MC's point. Since such a thing is actually within the realm of possibility, anyone suggesting it would cause absolute paroxysms of Persecution Paranoia (tm) in the Christian right.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please. You don't have to nearly that far to cause P of PP in the Christian Right. The Christian right has perfected the art of P of PP over the puniest and paltriest of pretexts.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, that's why I specified that they would be not merely paroxysms, but absolute paroxysms. :nods:
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Christian right has perfected the art of P of PP over the puniest and paltriest of pretexts.
And the Christian Right's opposition has perfected the art of calling serious infringements on constitutional rights puny and paltry.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider last year's flap over people who prefer "Happy Holidays" to "Merry Christmas" to be puny and palty. I thought it was petty, too, on both sides. Is that what we are considering a serious infringment of constitutional rights these days?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is that what we are considering a serious infringment of constitutional rights these days?
I'm not entirely sure why you are asking this. First, the flap centered mostly around private businesses, not government, so I'm not sure why you brought up constitutionality.
Second, even if some of the their issues are puny and paltry, it doesn't mean that ones that aren't puny and paltry aren't called that.
posted
I think that non-breeders of all sorts actually contribute to the future of the human race by not reproducing. If everyone in ever generation reproduced at or above population replacement rates (common, I think, in many countries) the impact on resources might prove problematic within a few generations. This is also one reson why the human race needs wars, disease and sociopathic predators. Bears, lions, et al, just aren't keeping the population in check like they used to. Of those choices, I'm waaaay in favor of the widespread gay.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, now there's an argument to use on religious folk. Their religion demands that they don't use contraceptives, so they have seven kids (just using my Catholic grandparents as an example), but if everyone had seven kids, and all those kids had seven kids, it won't take long to fill the planet. So really, gays are allowing them to live their religious lifestyle without choking humanity on itself. Really, they should be appreciative of the service.
I wonder how that'd go over.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a minute, kmbboots, are you serious? Did you really think that's the kind of thing Dagonee was referring to about infringements on constitutional rights? Give me a break.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Dag really think I was referring to serious infringments of our constitutional rights when I wrote about puny and palty reasons for the Christian Right to freak out?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That scenario is problematic. Ask Russia how excited they are about having an aging population of people who haven't produced future workers. We have gone from 31 workers for every person on social security to 3, and it is only getting worse. We are not pressed by a preponderance of children, but by a preponderance of older people who are not replacing themselves.
quote:Their religion demands that they don't use contraceptives, so they have seven kids (just using my Catholic grandparents as an example), but if everyone had seven kids, and all those kids had seven kids, it won't take long to fill the planet. So really, gays are allowing them to live their religious lifestyle without choking humanity on itself. Really, they should be appreciative of the service.
There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. The entire idea that we are using up resources came from a book in the 1960s that claimed that by the 80s we'd all be starving to death because 5 billion was just WAY, WAY too many for the planet to support. Oh, I don't have time to dig up the links to refute this.
Anyway, I think coming up with justifications is a fine activity, but you can do better than this. That argument is very weak.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What a minute, kmbboots, are you serious? Did you really think that's the kind of thing Dagonee was referring to about infringements on constitutional rights? Give me a break.
Actually, I think they were talking past each other. Here's my take:
Kate: The religious right is good at PP over really insignificant things. Dag: And their opposition is good at calling some really important things insignificant. Kate: I was referring to the really insignificant stuff, like the "happy holidays" flap. Dag: You don't seriously think that's a major constitutional issue, right? But regardless, my point stands. Just because some of the issues are paltry and puny, doesn't mean some of their genuinely important issues don't also get lumped in with the puny and paltry unjustly.
(Feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented anything).
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does Dag really think I was referring to serious infringments of our constitutional rights when I wrote about puny and palty reasons for the Christian Right to freak out?
I don't know. I do know that the exact same criticism you levied against the Christian Right has been levied against them for protesting against serious infringements of constitutional rights. I have no idea whether you were doing that or not, and I didn't accuse you of doing so.
I made the initial response I did merely to offer another piece of information on the phenomenon you were describing. I have not once said that the Christian Right does not overreact to little things. I used the word "And" to start my post for a reason.
Again, even if some of the their issues are puny and paltry, it doesn't mean that ones that aren't puny and paltry aren't called that. It's a distressingly common tactic, and, even when the puny and paltry attack is brought up in a way that's not using that tactic, it bears reminding that the tactic is commonly misused. And that there is a highly funded set of advocacy groups using the attorney-fee reimbursement aspect of civil rights suits to intimidate local officials into violating the constitutional rights of religious people.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Of those choices, I'm waaaay in favor of the widespread gay.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
