ERICOPOLY

Before going any further, I gotta ask: Why is any of this important? Pretty much everything we do goes against what would happen in nature. We build houses, we find cures for diseases, we cook food, drive cars, use contraceptives, watch TV and listen to recorded music, read books, wear clothes, have weapons to kill predators and each other, fly in planes, wear glasses, get surgery with anesthetics, take antibiotics and do large scale agriculture of species that have been selectively bred over generations to be molded to our needs, etc. So why is it suddenly so bad if something isn't how it would be in nature? Do you live in a cave? Not that homosexuality isn't natural, as it's found in lots of other species, as well as humans (those who think it's a choice are funny; did they choose to be heterosexual? And if it was a choice, who would make that choice when it's so much harder to live like that? Maybe those that had to force themselves to make the choice and constantly claim it's a choice (such as preacher Ted Haggard) are actually just repressed homosexuals who don't realize that real heterosexuals don't have to choose, that they are just naturally attracted to the other sex). The fact is, homosexual have kids; lots of gay men are in the closet and have kids with women, and lots of gay women live with men and have kids. They also share genes with their sibblings and help increase the chances of survival for nephews and nieces. They're part of the gene pool. But it's also very possible that straight parents have gay kids. It's only recently that more have come out of the closest to live strictly with the other sex, but they've always been there, as documented in ancient roman times and greeks and such. People who love each other and aren't hurting anyone. A total non-issue to me. Personally I think everything we do, even modern cities, is natural. A beaver, with the right tools, would build a better dam.

I had a manager (manager's manager) at Microsoft that underwent a sex change. He is now a she. Here is his story: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4394493&page=1 He isn't gay though. He is now a woman married to a woman. I suppose that's loophole that hasn't been closed yet -- a man married a woman, but then the man became a woman and now it's just two women together.

I have a book for you to read. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. The author is Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D.

I will agree to use the phrase "one who is intolerant" instead of "bigot". The phrase is effectively the definition of the other, but if not a politically correct term then I'll not use it.

I am not singling you out, I think all of those millions and billions are bigots too. Interesting. Infertile women are allowed to marry. Okay, so marriage should be discarded altogether if all people are allowed to marry? I'm not following you here. You need only discard the tradition of excluding same-sex marriage.

Then is it okay to have bigotry that would pass committee?

Let there be a law in America that states all persons, men or women, may only be Muslim. This law treats all men and women the same way. Where is the bigotry?

I see. Your position is that bigotry is okay as long as it's a long accepted tradition?

How about this for your answer: Redefine marriage as between men->men or women->women. How does this discriminate against heterosexuals? The definition applies to all men and all women, it discriminates equally. The definition does not include love.

The other side of that, and equally important to me, is what if that deity is a merciless deity. One who plays with our lives at will, allows children to be murdered or sexually abused, women to be raped and throws down earthquakes on the poorest of people simply to garner their devotion so that they may not be the next victim. Would you want to go to a heaven ruled by a God like that? I can't help laughing hysterically every time I hear a winning athlete or award winner thanking God in their interview. According to this logic, their God actually spends time deciding football or basketball games, and who is going to win an Emmy or Academy Award! Maybe God is a bookie in Vegas! ;D Cheers! Yes the merciless deity isn't one that I'd fancy spending any amount of eternity with. Which leads to a question: Why, I suppose, have the religious texts chosen a deity with a personality that effectively demands church membership and 100% devotion? Eh? I wonder what the membership would be like for the version where the deity let you believe what you want and he'd accept you unconditionally anyhow because he values diversity? What are you saying Eric? That writers of religious texts purposefully chose a merciless and ambivalent God, simply to scare the crap out of people to gain long-term, devoted parishioners. You can rebel against a tyrant, but how do you revolt against an omniscient, invisible and immortal tyrant? ;D Cheers! I wouldn't mind betting that when he gets to Heaven, Moore won't enjoy eternity with him not being able to tell us that we were wrong and he was right.

The other side of that, and equally important to me, is what if that deity is a merciless deity. One who plays with our lives at will, allows children to be murdered or sexually abused, women to be raped and throws down earthquakes on the poorest of people simply to garner their devotion so that they may not be the next victim. Would you want to go to a heaven ruled by a God like that? I can't help laughing hysterically every time I hear a winning athlete or award winner thanking God in their interview. According to this logic, their God actually spends time deciding football or basketball games, and who is going to win an Emmy or Academy Award! Maybe God is a bookie in Vegas! ;D Cheers! Yes the merciless deity isn't one that I'd fancy spending any amount of eternity with. Which leads to a question: Why, I suppose, have the religious texts chosen a deity with a personality that effectively demands church membership and 100% devotion? Eh? I wonder what the membership would be like for the version where the deity let you believe what you want and he'd accept you unconditionally anyhow because he values diversity?

I didn't realize the crisis would effectively come to a non-crisis end if only Germany were to leave the common currency. I suppose that's a no brainer. They don't have to help the periphery nations by getting their voters to agree to bailouts. All they need to do is just leave the common currency so that the Euro can depreciate.

What if a deity exists but "he" is very humble. He doesn't in the final judgement punish those who haven't been worshipping him at every turn. A deity that respects a diversity of views and opinions, even when at odds of his own. Thus, what if he isn't proud? Perhaps even he resents the assumption that he is? Thus there is no need to go to church or pray for forgiveness. One needs only to enjoy the world whether created by a deity or not.

No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit. Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man. But overall, in the grand scheme of things, there is no difference, right? If we remove our own biases, they are both equally good and/or/nor bad? They are relative and there is nothing absolute about them? Eric, I'm still waiting for your response here. Honestly, I really value your opinion and I'd like to know if what I'm assuming is true for you. I may not be able to answer. It's reductio ad absurdem, yet you may not be incorrect. It's a bit like that common question about whether the sound of a tree falling exists without somebody around to experience it. Perhaps my social nature is preventing me from seeing anything without a measure of social value ascribed to it.

There was a conversation a while back that Moore tried to settle with Santayana by proclaiming that he "swung a bigger line in the markets". Look, if my soul is on the line here as an atheist then I'm swinging a bigger line in this market.

I will be near 40 next April so I can relate to what Moore is saying. Here is the deal. 1) Early in life I wanted to be close to my parents, ask them all the questions I could and absorb all of his answers. I wanted to take their knowledge and just download it. 2) Then some hormones kicked in as I approached my teens and I started to want to be apart from him, and seek out a life of my own. My feathers were growing in and I wanted to fly the nest and find a mate. I stopped asking them questions and went out to find my own answers. 3) These hormones that took me from the nest sustained me for a good long while. 4) As I approach 40 I believe that these hormones are starting to lose their power because I find myself wanting to reconnect with my parents and we get along more harmoniously now -- more so than at any time since before I was a teenager. Yet I am growing more convinced as I approach 40 that religion is a social gathering media and nothing more than that. Here's the connection: My parents are atheists (since birth) and their parents are atheists (since birth)... it might go back farther than that even but I haven't bothered to ask. I am willing to bet that if I had differnet parents who instead had taught me religion, then I might have questioned and possibly rejected those views as a young man and later come back to those views when the nest-leaving hormones wore off. So my prediction is that Moore was raised with religion, and misattributes his return to theism for acquired wisdom. Given that this country is loaded with Christians, it doesn't surprise me that most atheists he's known have also come back to religion as they too have approached 40 (the hormones wore off). Dual citizen Aussie (by descent) /US (born and raised)... check. Actually soon it will be tri-citizen (UK). My father was born in London and I can get citizenship by descent if I just apply (I'm in the process of doing that but it will take a few months). Being an Aussie does alter my views on things -- like you can take off your clothes at the beach without getting arrested.

Peter Schiff might (or might not ;)) find it amusing that The Pledge Of Allegiance was written by a Christian socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism Christian socialists identify the cause of inequality to be associated with the greed that they associate with capitalism.

Just drive around some towns and look at the "Jesus Saves!" signs. Never have I seen "Jesus May or May Not Save!" on such a sign, nor do they seem to have any modesty in expressing this opinion of theirs publicly. To all the religious persons who are tired of the arrogance of the atheists: Keep your views to yourselves. Take them off of the public radio waves, take them off of cable TV, take down your billboards espousing your views, remove your bibles from hotel rooms and carry your own, don't come to my front door and ask me to listen to your viewpoints (I don't walk up to your front door and ask you to hear my atheist views), agree out of respect for the atheists to remove your "one nation under God" verbage, etc... etc... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/man-faces-five-years-for-god-does-not-exist-facebook-post/7796 He shall be punished for his arrogance.

I just had an interesting thought (to me). According to legend, Bruce Berkowitz hires experts to come in and try to tear up his investment ideas. I wonder if there is a religion that meets every Sunday (or whenever) that invites outside scholars to come in and try to tear up their ideas. I know a lot of people who belong to a given church simply because either that's who got to them first, or because they were born into that church. They normally don't understand the outside views of atheists or of members of other religions. They meet every Sunday and just study their own religion. Could there be more personal growth and understanding for them if there were a weekly guest who could try to tear up their ideas? They may find more enlightenment.

Actually much acrimony and violence throughout history could have been avoided if only there were an Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not convert thy neighbor.

Just drive around some towns and look at the "Jesus Saves!" signs. Never have I seen "Jesus May or May Not Save!" on such a sign, nor do they seem to have any modesty in expressing this opinion of theirs publicly. To all the religious persons who are tired of the arrogance of the atheists: Keep your views to yourselves. Take them off of the public radio waves, take them off of cable TV, take down your billboards espousing your views, remove your bibles from hotel rooms and carry your own, don't come to my front door and ask me to listen to your viewpoints (I don't walk up to your front door and ask you to hear my atheist views), agree out of respect for the atheists to remove your "one nation under God" verbage, etc... etc...

No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit. Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man.

Where does morality fit in with religion? I see morality as merely the manifestation of social instincts. A moral person cares for how his actions affect the good of the social unit. To me that is 100% social evolutionary advantage. The more the social unit works together... "united we stand divided we fall", that kind of stuff. We have instinctual pressures to work together within our social units, which can be church groups, sports teams, nations, etc... Most of the "top of the list" immoral acts throughout history have been crimes done by one social unit unto another. Think of the Mountain Meadows massacre, the bombing of Tokyo, etc... Social instincts drive us to work together to meet the goals of our social unit (we call this morality), but when our social unit needs to be defended from another that we are at war with we respond by protecting our social unit from percieved harm from other social units -- that's when we get to the immorality of war (Mountain Meadows, the bombing of Tokyo, etc...) Both morality and immorality in this case are just the manifestations of social instincts. The role I see that religion plays in promoting morality is merely as a venue. A concert needs a venue. Religion is a gathering of people into a social unit (the venue), and that social unit can then exercise social instincts (morality). Do you believe in good and evil? If morality is only based on evolution/natural selection there is nothing inherently good or evil. Madoff is only an extension of his childhood/genes/environment as his Hilter as is a child molester. Am I right or do you view it differently? What would make you believe in a deity? If you are seriously interested in this, I'd recommend Mere Christianity. Not to be a cop out, but he explains it much better than I do. Good and evil are nuanced. I believe in suffering, empathy and guilt. An empathetic person that eases the suffering of others is deemed as "good". One lacking in empathy for others is "evil". The "evil" person may just be working for the good of his social unit -- see "immorality" in the context of war. Good and evil to me belong in the context of those three things (there may be more than three things at work here, but those are my "big three" from 10 seconds of thinking).

Where does morality fit in with religion? I see morality as merely the manifestation of social instincts. A moral person cares for how his actions affect the good of the social unit. To me that is 100% social evolutionary advantage. The more the social unit works together... "united we stand divided we fall", that kind of stuff. We have instinctual pressures to work together within our social units, which can be church groups, sports teams, nations, etc... Most of the "top of the list" immoral acts throughout history have been crimes done by one social unit unto another. Think of the Mountain Meadows massacre, the bombing of Tokyo, etc... Social instincts drive us to work together to meet the goals of our social unit (we call this morality), but when our social unit needs to be defended from another that we are at war with we respond by protecting our social unit from percieved harm from other social units -- that's when we get to the immorality of war (Mountain Meadows, the bombing of Tokyo, etc...) Both morality and immorality in this case are just the manifestations of social instincts. The role I see that religion plays in promoting morality is merely as a venue. A concert needs a venue. Religion is a gathering of people into a social unit (the venue), and that social unit can then exercise social instincts (morality).

So for you if the eye can't "just happen" by accident, it's much easier for you to believe that it's creator "just happened"? The Deity seems more complex than the eye. Me, I favor the less complex of the two as more likely to happen by accident. Or if forced to accept that the Deity created the eye, I would have to restructure the religion a bit to explain that the Deity must have had a creator, who in turn had a creator, etc... etc... Deities are more complicated than eyes, that's my line and I'm sticking to it. I just don't know if religions take into account that the Deity must by definition be at least as complicated than what it is able to create. So to use the argument that our world is so perfect that it could only have been created by a deity who in turn could not have been created... Is it offensive to religions to suggest that their God may have been created. Why would it be? Why do they believe that this God was not created by a long chain of Gods? Where is their proof that it wasn't?