Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

also, what do you think of the police?

The serve a needed role in a civilized society, and are abused in uncivilized societies.

would you/have you willingly cooperated with them?

Yes I would, and yes I have. When I have a disagreement with the law, I work to replace the law, not circumvent the police -- however, I can see situations where I would not. I feel that the country I live in has a reasonable legal situation, and the people I spend time with as upright citizens, so I don't fear the police. I can imagine, and understand, however, living in a state, such as Nazi Germany, where I would actively oppose the police, and work to rectify unjust laws by working against the legal machine.

[ozymandias]

policemen are pathetic individuals who's very job is to restrict the freedom of others.

I would not say they are pathetic. In some cases, restricting the freedom of others is a very needed, and useful thing. I would not want to live in a society where people were free to steal or kill without restriction, nor a barbaric society where one was required to defend their own rights by the force of their own strength.

[tor_khan]

Ozymandias, Salaam. I take it that you are (still) an atheist/agnostic. Perhaps the horse has bolted and I am late with this question, but do you reject Christmas?

Most people that I know who are low on Christianity are still too weak willed to openly reject Christmas. Not that I would deny anyone the 'right' to go along with a distorted fairy-tale 'celebration' that is (historically) rooted in some pagan winter feast. The problem with that view however, is that most people in that camp trying to justify their participation continue to refer to it as Christmas (i.e. the Mass of Christ).

The commercialisation of Christmas and the make-believe stories of a man in a red suit with flying reindeer brings no relief to the millions of hungry/starving children who get nothing out of the festival. If anyone has a sense of humanity, isn't it appropriate to make a stronger stand against the secular Santafied version of an important calendar event?

[faye]

the impression i get from the faithful devotees of science and atheism, such as ozy, dorkins and co, is that they wish to be the neo prophets and impose upon the masses, their narrow beliefs of what is real and what is truth, to them.
this is what the hypocrites complain about religions doing.

[tor_khan]

^Thanks for the opinion on this Faye. Yes, it is true, there are glory seekers out there. Some claim religion, some claim science, some claim other forms of power/notoriety.

On this occasion, let me see if Ozymandias has something to add to the question I posed. I'm interested in where atheists etc. stand on Christmas.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I'd say that overall, they fit quite well, evolutionarily speaking. For the vast majority of people, they are better off with a stable, rational society. It is only the tyrants that benefit from tyranny.

To a degree though right? Its sort of like the concept of governance that is Jeffersonian: that government which governs best governs least. Yet, there is still governance right - and the founding fathers repeatedly allude to this in their writings - the idea that governance is a necessary evil to maintain order and stability - No? Meaning optimally, but not commonly, a group of level headed people come together and devise a series of standards or laws by which society ought to abide, right? So a tyranny of the mean value system of the masses and theoretically two standard deviations occurs.

Yet can we really say that what you and I live under is that sought after tyranny of the mean and the two standard deviations from amongst our masses? Or is it imposed selection bias and therefore a hidden tyranny of sorts?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. As far as I am aware, secular humanism does not advocate against mate guarding behavior. At best, it leaves individuals to determine their own sexual behavior, as long as it harms no one else.

But yet, my King of Kings (I assume the reference to Pharoah Ramses in your screen name?), it does when we look at what goes on its name right?

Lets veer away from the mate gaurding behavior discussion only because there are folks here that are hypsensitive to that and will interrupt our discussions with catcalls of "ikhwan, ikhwan."

Let us instead consider two hot button topics in our own environs that are addressed by both religious fundamentalism and secular humanism: capital punishment and separately homosexuality. This is irrespective of our personal beliefs on these two controversial topics - but simply to tack our discussion to a practical basis.

We can come back to it if you agree our discussion is fruitful and we get no interruptions from others.

I would like to direct our discussion to a few quotes from the council on secular humanism:

"It should be noted that Secular Humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles....We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation...Fundamentalists correctly perceive that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society. But they erroneously believe that God is the only possible source of such standards"

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...aration#morals


Who says just because it is derived it is wrong, or false? All of mathematics is derived from first principles. All of physics can be rebuilt from first principles.

No I dont disagree but would say consider it as such: A religionist or fundamentalist says: An omnipotent being has revealed a set of guidelines by which we ought to govern our individual lives and behavior both to please that omnipotent being and also to build a better world with just foundations. Rational discourse and scientific evidence can be an adjunct but cannot veto divine governance - though it may modify its applications.

A secular humanist says: No - rational discourse and scientific evidence influences the guidelines we develop and ethical standards we set forth. Universal human standards can and have been discovered independent of a theological standard. I should say here that I find their logic for the latter statement a bit premature because they refer to a series of folks like Plato and make the drastic assumption he operated in a black box and had no influences or contacts with theological concepts in his life.

Yet here is the rub! The Islamic theological doctrines that comment on man's aptitude of ethical behavior dont conflict completely with the secular humanist stance. Rather, the Quran chides man from ignoring his own innate nature that predisposes him toward righteousness. Time and time again the formula the Quran discusses is faith AND good works because it recognizes that the two can be mutually exclusive. So doctrinally, the Muslim has no qualms with the secular humanist saying that man has his own ability to devise ethical standards. Specifics of law are where the two peoples diverge - when the Divine has commented on a particular governance pattern whether its economics or governance the Muslim's dictum is "we hear and we obey." Even then though the qualifier for him is that he has to ENSURE he heard CORRECTLY and that he OBEYS correctly. For example - If Ozy tells me "I want you to start a program that allows for used computers to make their way to Kabul" I could go about this one of two ways: I can either go door to door and to major businesses and rely on the goodwill of people to gather these devices as you most likely meant or I can break into people's businesses and homes and steal computers and ship them to Kabul.

Now the secular humanist though - he is a curious creature for the following reason. Generally, the thought process on democratic capitalism and why many secular humanists endorse it is that communism and other isms seek to perfect man whereas this system seeks no such goal and theoretically balances a series of self and communal interests between and amongst human beings to balance society. Yet the core basis of his own mission seeks to devise and evangelize the concept of universal human rights and laws not necessarily because it results in optimal governance (they theorize that it will) but because of the aforementioned ideology that they have about ethical standards being able to be rationalized and discovered by human beings independent of the divine.

Now a practical example to illustrate where this becomes a religion of sorts in and of itself. Take capital punishment. In Islamic theology the proven murderer walks down a pathway of execution except in the case of familial pardon and the latter is advocated for but not mandatory in the Quranic text itself. So if person x commits intentional murder and kills person y person x is subject to execution except if person y's family fogives person x and remits the punishment. Further punishment is left at the discretion of the state - meaning of the Caliph and his shura councils devised a system of life imprisonment instead after pardon due to the person still being a danger to society thats not really addressed and that instance I mentioned above of some governance being entrusted to man comes into play.

Secular humanism on the other hands says: Hold your horses now! We have no firm scientific data that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to building a better society or better governance. Yet how can this be a rational statement when independent of these folks making such claims most irreligious ethicists have determined that certain types of trials are ethical and unethical? What I mean is that for instance a trial where a person gets a possibly beneficial treatment versus a group that gets that treatment withheld is usually terminated early if evidence builds for the treatment being beneficial - that is the ethical standard by which scientific medicine operates. So a prospective trial comparing groups and randomizing them to test out the death penalty is unethical at the outset! The only response would be that retrospective data exists that may answer our questions. I would say OK, if so even then the mistake being made by these folks is that they are operating on parameters that they prefer versus what society may prefer. This means that they assume a fundamentalist Christian family will opt for the death penalty because they believe a divine creater is telling them to opt for it. In reality though - those same ethical standards they alluded to that can be "self realized" might be the sole reason that family wants justice... and so they have DEFINED the outcomes of their "retropspective" discussions solely to: better governance as the outcome in question and their ethical outcome that they define is that set of "universal human ethical standards." Whats to say that in a particular society, say a Christian society that set of ethical standards that proposes personal justice for a grieving family is any less noble? And then does this not delineate that secular humanism is in and of itself a religion of sorts?

Or lets take a more tangible subject that is actively being discussed by lawyers and will be addressed by our supreme court this summer: the concept of gay marriage.

So the scientific communities stance on this as it is presented in the media is commonly: There are species out there where same sex copulation occurs - therefore this is a natural phenomena we need not fear. They supplement this with the idea that genetics may in and of itself predispose people to exhibit said behavior. The extension of this is then to treat it as we now do race - most eugenic studies have been discarded and deemed inadequate for very good reasons that I dont disagree with. The idea is if you take a black man and educate him there is no genetic basis to suggest he is mentally or physically an inferior subsegment of our species. So laws are then instituted to gaurantee our behaviors accord with this new standard. Most religions would not disagree.

Yet I find the response (not to race matters but homosexuality) inadequate and actually lacking a scientific basis.

Here is why: So how we define pathology in medicine for the most part appears to center around demonstrations of physiology and chemistry that are beyond 2 standard deviations beyond the mean and inflict deletrious results on function and survival.

This means that a majority of the time we have people walking around with normal heart chambers but now and then we have people who for whatever reason either develop or are born with abnormality and they are deemed as presenting with PATHOphysiological problems that affect function.

This becomes even more fascinating when it comes to psychiatric disease diagnosis (e.g the DSMV criteria for Obsessive compulsive disease etc).

So the advocates say: Well hey certain penguin species and sheep have a subsegment (key word being subsegment) of their population that demonstrate sustained homosexual behavior - therefore it is a biological phenomena and we ough to accept and recognize it in human beings.

So now the responses of the various groups are generally as follows:

Religionists: The response varies widely: All generally agree its a sin but the societal response finds a divergent set of opinions. Some advocate harsh responses and others classify it as a matter between God and man to resolve.

Secular humanists: The response is a combination of - now we know its something possibly and probably biologically based and we have to start treating these folks as human beings. Societal standards need to shift to equitable justice patterns of behavior (i.e. its become an equivalent of a civil rights type of issue).

You might need to complete it, since I am not seeing where you are trying to go.

Adding to that last example:
How scientific is it for secular humanists to advocate for civil rights for this subgroup when the issue may not even have to enter that sphere of discussion??? If we return to the medical discussion of pathophysiology, and if we abide by the data regarding a percentage of sheep and a percentage of penguins etc that still does not drive us away from considering this as pathophysiology.
For example, we know 100% for sure that the male fallus serves a set of functions and we know for sure that the rectum also serves a set of functions. We also know that transmission rates of anal HPV are high enough now between homosexual men to warrant the new standard of anal pap smears to screen for cancer disposing strains of HPV. Structural insults to the integrity of the lower GI system etc are other things that also are issues to consider. So in many ways science actually allows one to classify this presentation as pathophysiology in action genetically, structurally, and psychosocially. Does this mean that society has a right to go and start killing these people? No, absolutely not.

But what we do have the right to say is that secular humanists in Europe especially and perhaps to a degree in the US have adopted a stance toward this matter that is semi religious. It went beyond simply securing basic rights - meaning even if we consider this issue a pathology that doesnt mean we as a society have the right to deny such folks access to life and property and jobs. But its gone beyond that and entered the realm of purposefully affecting societal standards and general reproductive fitness for a species (humans) that by the majority advances by male female copulation. On average, I think a stable developing society requires about 2.1 births per household. We can assume, for the sake of reason that its sort of foolish to assume gay marriage is going to plummet the US rate to 1.0 and cause a decline in our societal reproductive fitness. I have to be scrupulous here and not make the foolish claim that this is the central argument for banning gay marriage.

But, what I can say for sure and not feel overzealous for saying this: the secular humanist approach actually defies biology when it advocates against the potentially beneficial religious vestigial approach middle America takes to the subject matter. Whats to say that the development of the religious stance on the issue was not in and of itself a biological response to this pathophysiology? And for that matter, why would one not declare that secular humanists have taken a faith based approach to this by not standing by the dictum that societal standards ought to revolve around scientific rationality in this hot button issue?? And I think its fair to say it progressed to a faith based stance for secular humanists when the advocacy went beyond securing civil rights for such individuals as it is rational and fair to say that folks with structure and function deviating pathologically two standard devs beyond the mean should not be harmed physically or financially (e.g. a heart failure patient should not be killed just because he is now a heart failure patient and may incur societal costs).

And even beyond this; if we consider the human development of systems as an adjustment to our environment and a response to natural phenomena (e.g. we saw lightening and tried to explain it before we knew what it was and we also needed ways to encourage societal stability so we advocated religious injunctions as a sort of temporary governance as we evolved better systems) then why would we not advocate examining the why and the whats behind these developed responses to such matters? That is, we examined circumcision in the light of science and its potential benefits via the large study in HIV/AIDS transmission in Africa - so why would a similar approach not be taken to find out about the survival advantages behind these societal injunctions our ancestors put in place?

The answer, I believe lies in the fact that most secular humanists like most religionists are not bad people - but they are as ill informed of the actual (and probably contradictory) standards held by secular humanists. That then inadvertantly makes it a religion of sorts. The general application of this philosophy involves its own equivalent of a shahada (statement of faith):
"There is no God - and if there is its irrelevent to our purposes"

in contradistinction fo the Islamic statement of faith:
There is only One God and Muhammad is his (final) Prophet)

And an equivalent set of pillars the most important of which are:
1. Scientific rationality guides governance and personal decisions
2. Ethical standards are devisable in a secular fashion
3. The latter influences the former

The essential problem with 3 and 2 is where I think that Islam supersedes such an approach to life. But I await to hear from you until we delve into that discussion.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias, Salaam. I take it that you are (still) an atheist/agnostic. Perhaps the horse has bolted and I am late with this question, but do you reject Christmas?

I don't celebrate it for the same reasons as those around me, but I also do not reject some of the traditions. Since much of my extended family still are believers, they make an effort to get together to celebrate a combined Christmas, and Thanksgiving. Since I have a fairly large extended family, this is is about the only time we all get together to see each other. We get an opportunity to see each other, and those that are religious add on the religious trappings that they want, and the rest of us are not forced to participate. My extended family tends to celebrate in late November, at Thanksgiving time.

My immediate family and I tend to exchange small gifts, as a token of our affection for each other, but again, that's because of the religious in my family, and my being respectful of their traditions. There is no confusion about this issue -- they are well aware that my gifts are not religiously motivated.

Most people that I know who are low on Christianity are still too weak willed to openly reject Christmas. Not that I would deny anyone the 'right' to go along with a distorted fairy-tale 'celebration' that is (historically) rooted in some pagan winter feast. The problem with that view however, is that most people in that camp trying to justify their participation continue to refer to it as Christmas (i.e. the Mass of Christ).

The commercialisation of Christmas and the make-believe stories of a man in a red suit with flying reindeer brings no relief to the millions of hungry/starving children who get nothing out of the festival. If anyone has a sense of humanity, isn't it appropriate to make a stronger stand against the secular Santafied version of an important calendar event?

I'm not sure I agree. If you look at donations (both secular and religious) over the course of the year, the Christmas season is a high point in annual contributions -- many charities get a large chunk of their donations during this season. Some of that is tax reasons (end of the tax year donations) and some of it is the sense of charity the holidays give.

That said, I have no problem with Santa -- I know of no adults that are confused by Santa, or fail to reject belief in him. They grow out of him on their own, and I know of no atrocities done in the name of Santa..

[ozymandias]

the impression i get from the faithful devotees of science and atheism, such as ozy, dorkins and co, is that they wish to be the neo prophets and impose upon the masses, their narrow beliefs of what is real and what is truth, to them.
this is what the hypocrites complain about religions doing.

You only get that impression because you either are not paying attention, or deliberately ignore anything that disagrees with your prejudice.

[ozymandias]

^Thanks for the opinion on this Faye. Yes, it is true, there are glory seekers out there. Some claim religion, some claim science, some claim other forms of power/notoriety.

On this occasion, let me see if Ozymandias has something to add to the question I posed. I'm interested in where atheists etc. stand on Christmas.

In general, most of the atheists I know use it as an opportunity to get together with friends, and family, and possibly exchange tokens of affection. If there is any religious undertone, it tends to be because of family that wishes to remain religious, and the atheists tolerating it. Most atheists are very tolerant, and tend to not force their beliefs on others, and just choose not to participate themselves.

[faye]

You only get that impression because you either are not paying attention, or deliberately ignore anything that disagrees with your prejudice.

ditto, to deliberately ignoring what disagrees with your prejudice.

so tell me what you believe is 'real' and 'truth.

[faye]

That's not how it works. Having an open mind means you are willing to look at evidence and re-asses your beliefs and opinions in the light of new evidence -- not that you believe anything without evidence.

i don't have evidence that all the other human beings and creatures on the planet, that need air for their survival, inhale air, one way or another, but i believe they do.
i don't have evidence that fairies, unicorns, purple people eaters in your garage, exist but i believe that others believe they exist and i have no evidence to say they don't.
i can't give you direct evidence of my dreams, inspirations, thoughts and feelings but i believe i have them. i even believe that others have them too, without evidence.

so, how are you going to prove or disprove others personal experiences?
do you consider the personal experiences of everyone and everything, as reality?

[ozymandias]

To a degree though right? Its sort of like the concept of governance that is Jeffersonian: that government which governs best governs least. Yet, there is still governance right - and the founding fathers repeatedly allude to this in their writings - the idea that governance is a necessary evil to maintain order and stability - No? Meaning optimally, but not commonly, a group of level headed people come together and devise a series of standards or laws by which society ought to abide, right? So a tyranny of the mean value system of the masses and theoretically two standard deviations occurs.

Yet can we really say that what you and I live under is that sought after tyranny of the mean and the two standard deviations from amongst our masses? Or is it imposed selection bias and therefore a hidden tyranny of sorts?

But, by definition, it cannot be tyranny to allow the masses to decide the laws -- it's only when you deviant from democracy that government can become cruel and oppressive. Either you have a flawed voting system, or a flawed educational or informational system. If it was a true, educated, and informed democracy any cruel and oppressive government could be corrected.

But yet, my King of Kings (I assume the reference to Pharoah Ramses in your screen name?), it does when we look at what goes on its name right?

By way of the poem, yes.

No I dont disagree but would say consider it as such: A religionist or fundamentalist says: An omnipotent being has revealed a set of guidelines by which we ought to govern our individual lives and behavior both to please that omnipotent being and also to build a better world with just foundations. Rational discourse and scientific evidence can be an adjunct but cannot veto divine governance - though it may modify its applications.

And, in their own way, they are right. I would agree that if an omnipotent god existed, science could not override their decrees. That's the definition of omnipotent -- but in order to use that excuse, you need to provide reason, justification, and evidence that such a being exists.

A secular humanist says: No - rational discourse and scientific evidence influences the guidelines we develop and ethical standards we set forth. Universal human standards can and have been discovered independent of a theological standard. I should say here that I find their logic for the latter statement a bit premature because they refer to a series of folks like Plato and make the drastic assumption he operated in a black box and had no influences or contacts with theological concepts in his life.

But that's not what they are doing. They are pointing out the fact that you don't need a god to tell you murder is wrong, you can look at the impact and consequences of a society that allows murder and *see* that it is sub-optimal.

Yet here is the rub! The Islamic theological doctrines that comment on man's aptitude of ethical behavior dont conflict completely with the secular humanist stance. Rather, the Quran chides man from ignoring his own innate nature that predisposes him toward righteousness. Time and time again the formula the Quran discusses is faith AND good works because it recognizes that the two can be mutually exclusive. So doctrinally, the Muslim has no qualms with the secular humanist saying that man has his own ability to devise ethical standards. Specifics of law are where the two peoples diverge - when the Divine has commented on a particular governance pattern whether its economics or governance the Muslim's dictum is "we hear and we obey." Even then though the qualifier for him is that he has to ENSURE he heard CORRECTLY and that he OBEYS correctly. For example - If Ozy tells me "I want you to start a program that allows for used computers to make their way to Kabul" I could go about this one of two ways: I can either go door to door and to major businesses and rely on the goodwill of people to gather these devices as you most likely meant or I can break into people's businesses and homes and steal computers and ship them to Kabul.

Now the secular humanist though - he is a curious creature for the following reason. Generally, the thought process on democratic capitalism and why many secular humanists endorse it is that communism and other isms seek to perfect man whereas this system seeks no such goal and theoretically balances a series of self and communal interests between and amongst human beings to balance society. Yet the core basis of his own mission seeks to devise and evangelize the concept of universal human rights and laws not necessarily because it results in optimal governance (they theorize that it will) but because of the aforementioned ideology that they have about ethical standards being able to be rationalized and discovered by human beings independent of the divine.

I'm not sure I understand the problem you are trying to describe here.

Now a practical example to illustrate where this becomes a religion of sorts in and of itself. Take capital punishment. In Islamic theology the proven murderer walks down a pathway of execution except in the case of familial pardon and the latter is advocated for but not mandatory in the Quranic text itself. So if person x commits intentional murder and kills person y person x is subject to execution except if person y's family fogives person x and remits the punishment. Further punishment is left at the discretion of the state - meaning of the Caliph and his shura councils devised a system of life imprisonment instead after pardon due to the person still being a danger to society thats not really addressed and that instance I mentioned above of some governance being entrusted to man comes into play.

Secular humanism on the other hands says: Hold your horses now! We have no firm scientific data that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to building a better society or better governance. Yet how can this be a rational statement when independent of these folks making such claims most irreligious ethicists have determined that certain types of trials are ethical and unethical? What I mean is that for instance a trial where a person gets a possibly beneficial treatment versus a group that gets that treatment withheld is usually terminated early if evidence builds for the treatment being beneficial - that is the ethical standard by which scientific medicine operates. So a prospective trial comparing groups and randomizing them to test out the death penalty is unethical at the outset! The only response would be that retrospective data exists that may answer our questions. I would say OK, if so even then the mistake being made by these folks is that they are operating on parameters that they prefer versus what society may prefer. This means that they assume a fundamentalist Christian family will opt for the death penalty because they believe a divine creater is telling them to opt for it. In reality though - those same ethical standards they alluded to that can be "self realized" might be the sole reason that family wants justice... and so they have DEFINED the outcomes of their "retropspective" discussions solely to: better governance as the outcome in question and their ethical outcome that they define is that set of "universal human ethical standards." Whats to say that in a particular society, say a Christian society that set of ethical standards that proposes personal justice for a grieving family is any less noble? And then does this not delineate that secular humanism is in and of itself a religion of sorts?

Again, I am not sure why using science and statistics to validate the efficacy of various punishments constitutes a 'religion'.

Or lets take a more tangible subject that is actively being discussed by lawyers and will be addressed by our supreme court this summer: the concept of gay marriage.

So the scientific communities stance on this as it is presented in the media is commonly: There are species out there where same sex copulation occurs - therefore this is a natural phenomena we need not fear. They supplement this with the idea that genetics may in and of itself predispose people to exhibit said behavior. The extension of this is then to treat it as we now do race - most eugenic studies have been discarded and deemed inadequate for very good reasons that I dont disagree with. The idea is if you take a black man and educate him there is no genetic basis to suggest he is mentally or physically an inferior subsegment of our species. So laws are then instituted to gaurantee our behaviors accord with this new standard. Most religions would not disagree.

Yet I find the response (not to race matters but homosexuality) inadequate and actually lacking a scientific basis.

Here is why: So how we define pathology in medicine for the most part appears to center around demonstrations of physiology and chemistry that are beyond 2 standard deviations beyond the mean and inflict deletrious results on function and survival.
~~snip~~

So, who is to say that homosexuality is more than two standard deviations beyond the mean -- *OR* that it inflicts deleterious effects of any sort?

Ask any homosexual out there what the worst part of being gay is? They will almost universally state that it is the abuse and irrational fear and hate they face from bigots. Most of them express that they are far happier with themselves, and far more comfortable with their lives once they are open -- it's only the bigots that cause problems.

Adding to that last example:
How scientific is it for secular humanists to advocate for civil rights for this subgroup when the issue may not even have to enter that sphere of discussion??? If we return to the medical discussion of pathophysiology, and if we abide by the data regarding a percentage of sheep and a percentage of penguins etc that still does not drive us away from considering this as pathophysiology.
For example, we know 100% for sure that the male fallus serves a set of functions and we know for sure that the rectum also serves a set of functions. We also know that transmission rates of anal HPV are high enough now between homosexual men to warrant the new standard of anal pap smears to screen for cancer disposing strains of HPV. Structural insults to the integrity of the lower GI system etc are other things that also are issues to consider. So in many ways science actually allows one to classify this presentation as pathophysiology in action genetically, structurally, and psychosocially. Does this mean that society has a right to go and start killing these people? No, absolutely not.

Of the three openly homosexual men I have had this conversation with, not one of them engages in anal sex. It's a obsession of the straight folks that assumes that all homosexuals engage in it.

Let's also not ignore the fact that the rates for anal transmission in homosexual monogamous couples is exactly the same as vaginal transmission in monogamous couples. Your statistics only come into play when you look at people sleeping around -- something homosexuals used to do far more frequently, since historically speaking, it was harder for them to pair-bond and build a life with a single partner.

But what we do have the right to say is that secular humanists in Europe especially and perhaps to a degree in the US have adopted a stance toward this matter that is semi religious. It went beyond simply securing basic rights - meaning even if we consider this issue a pathology that doesnt mean we as a society have the right to deny such folks access to life and property and jobs. But its gone beyond that and entered the realm of purposefully affecting societal standards and general reproductive fitness for a species (humans) that by the majority advances by male female copulation. On average, I think a stable developing society requires about 2.1 births per household. We can assume, for the sake of reason that its sort of foolish to assume gay marriage is going to plummet the US rate to 1.0 and cause a decline in our societal reproductive fitness. I have to be scrupulous here and not make the foolish claim that this is the central argument for banning gay marriage.

You are also ignoring the fact that children are better off in a family style household, than they are in the foster system -- and the foster system is nowhere near able to place all the children they take in. For your argument to have *any* merit, you would need to have absolutely no surplus of children.

But, what I can say for sure and not feel overzealous for saying this: the secular humanist approach actually defies biology when it advocates against the potentially beneficial religious vestigial approach middle America takes to the subject matter.

Quite the opposite -- the presence of homosexual couples actually insures that their are more adult caregivers -- 'spares', if you will, to fill in if the biological parents are unable to do so.

Whats to say that the development of the religious stance on the issue was not in and of itself a biological response to this pathophysiology? And for that matter, why would one not declare that secular humanists have taken a faith based approach to this by not standing by the dictum that societal standards ought to revolve around scientific rationality in this hot button issue??

Because there is nothing faith based about their results?

And I think its fair to say it progressed to a faith based stance for secular humanists when the advocacy went beyond securing civil rights for such individuals as it is rational and fair to say that folks with structure and function deviating pathologically two standard devs beyond the mean should not be harmed physically or financially (e.g. a heart failure patient should not be killed just because he is now a heart failure patient and may incur societal costs).

And I think you are comparing apples to oranges here.

And even beyond this; if we consider the human development of systems as an adjustment to our environment and a response to natural phenomena (e.g. we saw lightening and tried to explain it before we knew what it was and we also needed ways to encourage societal stability so we advocated religious injunctions as a sort of temporary governance as we evolved better systems) then why would we not advocate examining the why and the whats behind these developed responses to such matters? That is, we examined circumcision in the light of science and its potential benefits via the large study in HIV/AIDS transmission in Africa - so why would a similar approach not be taken to find out about the survival advantages behind these societal injunctions our ancestors put in place?

You may wish to re-read the subject material. That study has long been debunked as flawed. There is little to no evidence that circumcision is anything other than a barbaric ritual, and all modern medical associations recomend against it as an everyday occurrance, and suggest only doing it when medical need arises.

The difference being, any adult male, of sound mind can still choose to (or not to) get circumcised if they desire. Why not allow adults to decide to be gay, or not? Neither of them is an actual medical condition by any definition I have ever seen.

[faye]

[QUOTE=ozymandias;657872]That's not how it works. Having an open mind means you are willing to look at evidence and re-asses your beliefs and opinions in the light of new evidence -- not that you believe anything without evidence.[/QUOT

having an open mind, to you might mean that you need evidence for everything.
what i believe in, is the POSSIBILITIES of the, as yet, unknown.
since not all claims can be 'evidence' based nor have been disproved, then my mind stays open to them being possible.

[ozymandias]

i don't have evidence that all the other human beings and creatures on the planet, that need air for their survival, inhale air, one way or another, but i believe they do.

But such evidence could be found, or your belief could be disproven. Since anarobic bacteria exist, your belief has been disproven.

i don't have evidence that fairies, unicorns, purple people eaters in your garage, exist but i believe that others believe they exist and i have no evidence to say they don't.

Again, such evidence can be found -- all such claims of fairies/unicorns/etc in the past have been disproven, thus it is rational to expect claims of their existence to come with some sort of proof.

i can't give you direct evidence of my dreams, inspirations, thoughts and feelings but i believe i have them. i even believe that others have them too, without evidence.

Again, such evidence can, and does exist -- you are just ignorant of it.

so, how are you going to prove or disprove others personal experiences?

Depends on the experience. Looking at the physical evidence is a starting point. Looking at how their claims fit into our understanding of how the mind works is another.

do you consider the personal experiences of everyone and everything, as reality?

Of course not. As already stated, your experiences are filtered by your mind, and thus you may believe you have experienced something that was nothing more than a hallucination.

[ozymandias]

[QUOTE=faye;659628]

That's not how it works. Having an open mind means you are willing to look at evidence and re-asses your beliefs and opinions in the light of new evidence -- not that you believe anything without evidence.[/QUOT

having an open mind, to you might mean that you need evidence for everything.
what i believe in, is the POSSIBILITIES of the, as yet, unknown.

Have fun making up your own definitions of words. Makes the conversation a little difficult, though. Since you cannot even agree on using the English language as a middle ground for our conversation, I am not going to be putting much, if any effort into replying to you.

Please come back when you agree to use standard English for our communications. I have little enough spare time to want to waste any of it guessing what made up definition you wish to use today.

since not all claims can be 'evidence' based nor have been disproved, then my mind stays open to them being possible.

You are welcome to do that, but it is irrational to expect others to do the same. Don't forget your ear-muffs -- don't want your open mind falling out!