Atheism and homosexuality

Atheism and homosexuality

There are 3861 comments on the Conservapedia story from Dec 5, 2011, titled Atheism and homosexuality. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]'s original [[Intelligent design ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#661 Jul 21, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
If US Currency said: "In Vishnu we trust", Christians would be burning down cities.
Wow. That would demonstrate that Christians really don't understand Vishnu.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#662 Jul 21, 2013
MrDesoto1 wrote:
Republican Party Playbook:
1. Constantly denigrate a segment of the American population, Gays. Collect donations.
2. Constantly denigrate another segment of the American population, Atheists. Collect donations.
3. Equate the two denigrated groups. Collect donations.
To all the Holy Rollers who and politicians who hate gays, SSM, The SCOTUS decision, the Voting Rights Act, immigrants, etc:

103 Bible Verses about Obeying Authority
http://www.openbible.info/topics/obeying_auth...

To paraphrase the words of Hulk Hogan "whatcha gonna do when Judge -O -mania runs wild on you?”

Matthew 25:31-46
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right,‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him,‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply,‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left,‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer,‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply,‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#663 Jul 21, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
It's freaking hilarious how religion tries to claim its scientific. Theists are a bunch of liars. It's all they've got really...kinda sad
The question of whether or not the Bible is scientifically valid has been debated for hundreds of years by critics and supporters alike. Biblicists have contended the book not only supports science but contains many statements that are ahead of their time. The Bible supposedly has great scientific wisdom and only now are we beginning to realize as much. Critics, such as myself, believe the Bible is its own worst enemy. From our perspective there are more than enough statements contained therein to forestall any claims to scientific precision. Indeed, many statements clearly belong in the realm of mythology and folklore, while others are simply false. Some are so vague it's difficult to know what is meant, so naturally, biblicists choose the more scientifically oriented interpretation. Those believing the Bible to be scientifically precise and wise beyond its years should read, digest, and remember the following assertions contained within its covers:

The bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
Some creeping insects have four legs.(Lev. 11:22-23);
Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#664 Jul 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
The question of whether or not the Bible is scientifically valid has been debated for hundreds of years by critics and supporters alike.
But no longer by scientists. The debate is over; the Bible is not scientifically accurate - to assert this is to not understand science.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#665 Jul 21, 2013
Nice list, by the way :)
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
The question of whether or not the Bible is scientifically valid has been debated for hundreds of years by critics and supporters alike. Biblicists have contended the book not only supports science but contains many statements that are ahead of their time. The Bible supposedly has great scientific wisdom and only now are we beginning to realize as much. Critics, such as myself, believe the Bible is its own worst enemy. From our perspective there are more than enough statements contained therein to forestall any claims to scientific precision. Indeed, many statements clearly belong in the realm of mythology and folklore, while others are simply false. Some are so vague it's difficult to know what is meant, so naturally, biblicists choose the more scientifically oriented interpretation. Those believing the Bible to be scientifically precise and wise beyond its years should read, digest, and remember the following assertions contained within its covers:
The bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
Some creeping insects have four legs.(Lev. 11:22-23);
Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#666 Jul 21, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Nice list, by the way :)
<quoted text>
Hiding!

I'm happy to see you post.:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#667 Jul 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
The question of whether or not the Bible is scientifically valid has been debated for hundreds of years by critics and supporters alike. Biblicists have contended the book not only supports science but contains many statements that are ahead of their time. The Bible supposedly has great scientific wisdom and only now are we beginning to realize as much. Critics, such as myself, believe the Bible is its own worst enemy. From our perspective there are more than enough statements contained therein to forestall any claims to scientific precision. Indeed, many statements clearly belong in the realm of mythology and folklore, while others are simply false. Some are so vague it's difficult to know what is meant, so naturally, biblicists choose the more scientifically oriented interpretation. Those believing the Bible to be scientifically precise and wise beyond its years should read, digest, and remember the following assertions contained within its covers:
The bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
Some creeping insects have four legs.(Lev. 11:22-23);
Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).
Nice.

You even posted verses showing how very flawed the bible is.

I expect superior craftsmanship from..

... a **god***.

The bible is something an ignorant goat herder might have written...

... wait...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#668 Jul 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Hiding!
I'm happy to see you post.:D
Hey Bob! I'm not super happy to see me post, but it sure is fun :)

Since: Jul 13

Almada, Portugal

#669 Jul 22, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You imply that homossexuality does not have a genetic component.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I didn't imply anything.
So, you agree homossexuality does have a genetic component?
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I made a very simple and very clear statement:
Homosexuality is not caused by a gene found in gay people.
You make it hard to understand what you want to say.
So, you do defend that homossexuality does not have a genetic component. I was correct in my interpretation of your words.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore, there is no genetic test for homosexuality.
Oh, but there is! Gregor Mendel started with no knowledge of genetics and some knowledge of statistics and look how well he did. Likewise, we can compare the frequency of twin homossexual individuals with the frequency found in the general population. Or we can compare the frequency of homossexual individuals in family lines with the frequency in the general population. When the only variable is genetics we can test it for homossexuality.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no genetic cure for homosexuality.
I agree. A cure for homossexuality is like a cure for blue eyes. However, if homossexuality does have a genetic component we can tweak it out. Or in, for that matter.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
A homosexual is not going to pass along this gene to a child who will then become homosexual.
Except the available data suggests the opposite. Even if homossexuality is not caused by a single gene, homossexuals and individuals with homossexual relatives tend to produce a higher number of homossexual offspring when compared with the general population.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
All very clear.
I hope now it is.

Since: Jul 13

Almada, Portugal

#670 Jul 22, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality is not caused by a gene found in gay people.
Just because a single gene has not been identified, it does not mean you can claim it does not exist. Xq28, in the X chromossome is a possible candidate.
However, it is more likely that homossexuality, like skin color, is the result of several genes and can be influenced by environmental conditions.
Epigentics, proteins which serve to regulate gene expression, can also be a factor for homossexuality. Such proteins can also be passed between generations and are found in fammily line were homossexual individuals are present.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
A homosexual is not going to pass along this gene to a child who will then become homosexual.
All available data suggests homossexuality is indeed heritable.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#671 Jul 22, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because a single gene has not been identified, it does not mean you can claim it does not exist. Xq28, in the X chromossome is a possible candidate.
However, it is more likely that homossexuality, like skin color, is the result of several genes and can be influenced by environmental conditions.
Epigentics, proteins which serve to regulate gene expression, can also be a factor for homossexuality. Such proteins can also be passed between generations and are found in fammily line were homossexual individuals are present.
<quoted text>
All available data suggests homossexuality is indeed heritable.
You're making a number of mistakes in your discussion of "homosexuality" as having a genetic component:

1. most genes are pleiotropic
2. sexuality is not governed by single genes, but by many genes, most operating independently, and some of them having nothing to do with sex but behaviors related to sex
3. sexuality in humans is the product of genes + environment, with the environment being culture (and permanently and semi-permanently shaping human biology through enculturation)
4. "homosexuality" is a Western cultural interpretation of same sex, sexual behavior. It is, in every way, the product of recent Western cultural history and therefor cannot be a product of evolution. You have to separate same sex sexual behavior from the cultural expression, construction and understanding of it. That is to say, under differing cultural and historical conditions, same sex sexual behavior is not expressed as homosexual

So, yes, it makes sense to say that any human behavior has a genetic component to it, including sexual behavior. That, however, means nothing, since all behavior is the product of genes + environment.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#672 Jul 22, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Richhhhhardfs! How's it going?
I've been up to all kinds of things - and more :-p
You?
I hope you're well :)
I am really good, my youngest is back from deployment, two more grandkids on the way, my eldest girl got married and I've started a new job lecturing at Uni.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#673 Jul 22, 2013
I wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexual or homosexuality but that doesn't mean we have to rewrite marriage laws.
.
There's nothing wrong with atheists or atheism but that doesn't mean we have to create a wall of separation between church and state.
River Tam wrote:
There's nothing wrong with hatred and stupidity. It's natural We have to find a way to teach those who practice it a better way.
You've got to be stupid to find any hate in my posts; I respect everyone and want my arguments to appeal to all. There is something wrong with hatred and stupidity; I offer R.T.'s posts as proof.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#674 Jul 22, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
No, we need a separation between church and state b/c people are too easily influenced and corruptible.
We have the right to elect representatives and advocate policies that share our values. There is no wall of separation between church and state.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#675 Jul 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexual or homosexuality but that doesn't mean we have to rewrite marriage laws....
Homosexuals have the same right to be married as do heterosexuals. The law should reflect that.

And there must be seperation of church and state as politics and religion don't mix.

Religion = superstition. It's divisive and outdated.

Humanity needs to focus on the next 2,000 years, not the last.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#676 Jul 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We have the right to elect representatives and advocate policies that share our values. There is no wall of separation between church and state.
Try telling that to Thomas Jefferson, one of the two main authors of the Constitution:
, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#677 Jul 22, 2013
EdSed wrote:
Homosexuals have the same right to be married as do heterosexuals.
And they've always gotten married as do heterosexuals, I cite Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter for two examples.

Same sex marriage would be double-dipping. An ex post facto law for married gays and lesbians.

.
EdSed wrote:
The law should reflect that.
There is no orientation test for a marriage license.

.
EdSed wrote:
And there must be seperation of church and state as politics and religion don't mix.
You get your values from your religion and I'll get mine from my religion; that's how it works. All our laws come from faith based values; like Thou Shalt Not Murder and our laws springing from that commandment. Why else would there be laws against incest marriage?

.
EdSed wrote:
Religion = superstition. It's divisive and outdated.
Secularism = superstition; that was easy. The left believes in equality but the right believes in liberty.

.
EdSed wrote:
Humanity needs to focus on the next 2,000 years, not the last.
Marriage as one man and one woman is more than 4,000 years old; same sex marriage hasn't existed even one generation in written law. The left has already assaulted the family with economic welfare incentives for single parent households; let's leave bad enough alone.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#678 Jul 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And they've always gotten married as do heterosexuals, I cite Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter for two examples.
Same sex marriage would be double-dipping. An ex post facto law for married gays and lesbians.
.
<quoted text>There is no orientation test for a marriage license.
.
<quoted text>You get your values from your religion and I'll get mine from my religion; that's how it works. All our laws come from faith based values; like Thou Shalt Not Murder and our laws springing from that commandment. Why else would there be laws against incest marriage?
.
<quoted text>Secularism = superstition; that was easy. The left believes in equality but the right believes in liberty.
.
<quoted text>Marriage as one man and one woman is more than 4,000 years old; same sex marriage hasn't existed even one generation in written law. The left has already assaulted the family with economic welfare incentives for single parent households; let's leave bad enough alone.
your replies are nonsense.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#679 Jul 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And they've always gotten married as do heterosexuals, I cite Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter for two examples.
Just because a wrong was done in the past does not make it correct to continue to do so. Slavery used to be legal too. Should that law have changed?
Same sex marriage would be double-dipping. An ex post facto law for married gays and lesbians.
How so? Gays and lesbians could be only married to one person at a time, the same as straight people.

Perhaps if you understood what you were debating against you could do a better job of it.
<quoted t>There is no orientation test for a marriage license.
.
<quoted t>You get your values from your religion and I'll get mine from my religion; that's how it works. All our laws come from faith based values; like Thou Shalt Not Murder and our laws springing from that commandment. Why else would there be laws against incest marriage?
No, our laws do not come from faith based values. It takes no faith to realize that killing is wrong, that stealing from someone hurts them, or that incest can increase the chances of birth defects. In fact your faith advocates incest. Not just Adam and Even and Noah's kids. Even further on in the Bible there are cases of fathers canoodling their daughters, and sometimes the other way around.. Where in the Bible does it say that incest is bad?
.
<quoted text>Secularism = superstition; that was easy. The left believes in equality but the right believes in liberty.
.
Yes Brian, it is easy for you to lie. We can show our beliefs are based upon reason. You cannot do the same.
<quoted t>Marriage as one man and one woman is more than 4,000 years old; same sex marriage hasn't existed even one generation in written law. The left has already assaulted the family with economic welfare incentives for single parent households; let's leave bad enough alone.
Surely you jest. Perhaps 2,000 years and even that is dependent upon where you live. There are still many places where a man can have multiple wives today. To say that it has always been one man and one woman you have to actively practice ignorance.

I expect better from you than this Brian.

Since: Jul 13

Almada, Portugal

#680 Jul 22, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You're making a number of mistakes in your discussion of "homosexuality" as having a genetic component:
OK. Lets analise your argument.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. most genes are pleiotropic
I fail to understand how that makes me incorrect. Please elaborate.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
2. sexuality is not governed by single genes, but by many genes, most operating independently, and some of them having nothing to do with sex but behaviors related to sex.
I fail to understand how that makes me incorrect. Please elaborate.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
3. sexuality in humans is the product of genes + environment, with the environment being culture (and permanently and semi-permanently shaping human biology through enculturation)
I fail to understand how that makes me incorrect. Please elaborate.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
4. "homosexuality" is a Western cultural interpretation of same sex, sexual behavior.
I suspect this reflects your opinion and is not backed by any study made by professionals. Until you can provide such a study I will not accept your unsupported opinion.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It is, in every way, the product of recent Western cultural history and therefor cannot be a product of evolution.
Homosexuality is definately not a product of "recent western cultural history".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Hi...
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to separate same sex sexual behavior from the cultural expression, construction and understanding of it.
I agree.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That is to say, under differing cultural and historical conditions, same sex sexual behavior is not expressed as homosexual
You seem to have your own private definition of homosexuality, unknown to everybody else.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
So, yes, it makes sense to say that any human behavior has a genetic component to it, including sexual behavior. That, however, means nothing, since all behavior is the product of genes + environment.
So, like I said, homosexuality does have genetic and environmental components but somehow I am wrong? You lost me with this one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr replaytime 58,100
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr replaytime 27,278
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 hr Dogen 1,904
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 10 hr Eagle 12 5,962
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 11 hr Eagle 12 4,947
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 12 hr Eagle 12 1,940
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 15 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 153
More from around the web