Monday, September 21, 2009

Atheism & Homosexuality - Both Non Starters.

We are survival machines whose only goal is to perpetuate our genes. So say Darwinists. Yet here we have atheists and homosexuals who seem to care almost nothing about doing what they say evolution has determined we must do at almost any cost.

Religious people on the other hand are reproducing at almost twice the rate of atheists.

In his book, “Darwin’s Cathedral” David Sloan Wilson describes how religion provides something that secular society doesn’t: a vision of transcendent purpose.

As a result religious people develop a zest for life that is, in a sense unnatural. They exhibit a hopefulness about the future that may exceed what is warranted. And they forge principles of morality and charity that simply make them more cohesive, adaptive, and successful than groups whose members lack this binding and elevating force.”
“Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003)

Austria is the only country which records the religious belief of parents but their figure, of 0.85 children per atheist woman, is far below replacement rate (2.1) and below even the most barren European country’s average rate, which is about 1.2.

It would seem that it is atheism and its sidekick homosexuality (Romans 1:18-32) that doesn’t fit the Darwinian paradigm. The atheist’s support of those who kill their offspring, in total contradiction of our supposed need / drive to multiply flies in the face of evolutionary theory. Why would nature select people who mate with others of the same sex, and why would nature select people who see no higher purpose to life or the universe than satiating their own amusement desires?

As Dinesh D’Sousa asks, “Maybe the New Atheists can help us understand how atheism, like the human tail-bone and the panda’s thumb somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past.”
Dinesh D’Sousa, “What’s so Great About Christianity,” (Regnery Publishing Inc) 2007, 19


The Atheist Missionary said...

Our genes are survival machines whose only goal is to propagate themselves. That is a far cry from saying that the only goal of humans is propagation. Contraception, adoption, suicide and tipping anonymous chamber maids are just a few of the multitude of human behaviors that defy a pure Darwinian explanation.

Same sex behavior is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom. If homosexuality were genetically determined, one would think that it would become less prevalent through the ages. I would love to kno why that is not the case. What's your explanation?

I don't understand your description of atheism (i.e. the disbelief in gods) with homosexuality (i.e. sexual preference for the same sex) as sidekicks. Are you going to tell us that homosexuality is a choice?

Assuming that you accept reality and understand that homosexuality has a biological origin, why would your God create homosexuals and then condemn homosexual activity? I just don't get it.

Rabhimself said...

I've had enough of this bullshit.


Makarios said...

“Are you going to tell us that homosexuality is a choice?”

In the strictest sense of the term? No. However I believe that some homo sexual behaviour is simply that, sexual behaviour, experimenting, fooling around with people of the same sex. Many, many, many of the people with whom I’ve worked have had same sex experiences. It usually took place when they were young, intoxicated and often pressured by peers. Now, a decade or two later, they would never consider doing that again. Of course, when we’re young we do a number of things in the area of sexuality that we wouldn’t do now that we’ve got a brain.

You suggest that homosexuality has a biological cause. Where has that been stated definitively? Of course homosexuality as we generally understand the term (not the casual experimentation mentioned above) is not a decision or a choice. But neither are most of our pathologies. And even if it were, so what? Obesity, violence, addictions, and more all have a genetic basis. Are we to say, “Bless them all.”?

I mentioned a post or two back that the paedophiles I’ve worked with also say that they can’t remember a time when they weren’t attracted to children. It’s like they were born that way. Should we punish them for something they can’t help, while giving others who are sexually disoriented a free ride? People at LAMBDA would say absolutely not.

You are probably aware of the finding of, I think PEW, that attitudes regarding paedophiles today are at the same level they were regarding adultery 50 years ago. Of course atheists in general and moral relativists specifically have nothing to say on the issue. It’s just, “Ho hum, who am I to say that it’s wrong?”

As I’ve said before, I believe that homosexuality is a relational disorder whereby our emotional needs have become sexualised. This used to be more commonly seen in the teenage girl who got her needs for “love” and closeness and belonging met by screwing numerous guys in highschool.

You questioned why I connect atheism and homosexuality. I find it interesting that atheists will deny Biblical prophecy even as they fulfill it :-) Definitely worth a smile. I understand that correlation does not always equal causation. However as a Christian, it’s natural that I would see the decline in faith in Creator God with the upswing in all things perverted as quite natural. As does Paul in Romans 1: 18 onward. This decline in faith in Creator God also explains the increase of people declaring their allegiance to the philosophy of denying God’s relevance in their lives, i.e., atheists.

Finally, “why would your God create homosexuals and then condemn homosexual activity? I just don't get it.”

I pretty much answered this already. While our sexual destiny may be set in place prior to the ability of our memory to recall, that doesn’t mean that it was determined in the womb. Or perhaps it’s a case of nature and nurture. Regardless, there are many things that come about because of our genetic predisposition. That doesn’t make them good.

Sin comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. I had an uncle who practically made a career of screwing around on his wife. Guess who he blamed? Yep, God. “If God didn’t want me to be with all these women, He shouldn’t have made me so good looking.” True story.

We are all born sinful and God fully expects us to take responsibility for what we do with that propensity. He’s not asking you to like it. It’s just the way it is.

Rabhimself said...

Ted Haggard.

JD Curtis said...

Thought you might find this amusing Mak. from my favorite blogger...
As is so often the case, this supposed devotee of science and reason ironically turns to rootless logic and personal anecdote in order to combat the settled scientific consensus on the matter. Religious people live longer, are happier, are healthier, are more likely to marry, less likely to divorce, have more children, are less likely to commit suicide, are less likely to be addicted to drugs etc etc. This isn't news. And before some half-informed idiot attempts to quibble with the divorce aspect, remember, one has to get married before one can get divorced. The divorce rates of the minority of the irreligious who ever get married is higher than the divorce rates of the majority of religious people who do. Simply comparing divorce rates of the overall populations as percentages of the total populations will lead to error due to the much lower marriage rate of the irreligious population. Link

Makarios said...

Rab, judging by the way you'd love to see paedophiles beaten, and the way you long for cenorship on anything you don't agree with, I think you have reason to be concerned for your health, both mental and physical.

God 777 said...

After reading this and
I've decided to turn my face away from you for a while.

His Lordship said...

The simplest definition of atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity. All babies are born atheist, that is to say, without beliefs, or without any knowledge for that matter. Religion is something that is taught by parents and the prevailing local cultural environment. Babies born in Saudi Arabia most likely will never become Amish, and babies born in a Mormon family in Utah most likely will never become Hindu. So to me, atheism or religion is something cultural, not innate.

A lot of atheists are atheists because they either a) had life experiences that made them question and subsequently abandon their religious beliefs, or b) have never been exposed to religious culture and never developed a need for spirituality.

Atheists are not atheists out of malice or hatred. They are atheists out of skepticism. Often strong-willed, freedom-loving, independent individuals who like to think for themselves and distrustful of authority - secular or not.

So of course, an independent, freedom-loving individual is less likely to settle down and get married, and that may explain why atheists are less inclined to have a lot of children; they simply enjoy a higher level of independence. But also the fact that simply statistically speaking, atheists tend to be more educated and pursue higher-paying careers that leave less time for family.

However I don't buy the argument of atheism itself being detrimental to survival of the species. Atheist children grow up in more financially secure environments, have access to better medical care and better education, higher paying jobs, all of which is good for survival.

Homosexuality on the other hand is completely different. In the womb, some fetuses become female and some become male. About 3% of the time, during the biochemical transformation that takes place, something does not go as planned and the brain is wired for same-sex preference. So if you want to call it a 'birth defect', call it that (although gay activists may find that term offensive), but it is not a choice and it is not cultural. That would be like saying that a child with down syndrome chose to have down syndrome. So if someone is born with same-sex preference, they may or may not act upon it, but not engaging in same-sex behavior does not change the hard-wired preference in their brains.

feeno said...

"Religous people on the other hand are reproducing almost twice the rate of Atheists."

No wonder Atheists are so disgrunteld, they just need to get laid more?

late, feeno

Paul P. Mealing said...

His Lordship restores faith that there are intelligent people in this universe.

I agree with God 777, this and the post on 'atheist crusade' demonstrate how perverse you are, Makarios.

We should all boycott you - we are just giving you oxygen - we should just ignore you.


Makarios said...

"Atheist children grow up in more financially secure environments, have access to better medical care and better education, higher paying jobs, all of which is good for survival."

Only if they grow up in what was traditionally a Christian country. Atheists in countries that have never known Christianity and are run by Hindi, Jainism, Islam etc. as just as poor as their fellow citizens.

You aren't answering the question presented by TAM "If homosexuality were genetically determined, one would think that it would become less prevalent through the ages."

On Darwinism, Why are there still homosexuals?

Rabhimself said...

You don't even know me lol

"Rab, judging by the way you'd love to see paedophiles beaten, and the way you long for cenorship on anything you don't agree with, I think you have reason to be concerned for your health, both mental and physical."

Oh really.

Please, where did i say i'd love to see them beaten?

I long for censorship on things i don't agree with? Like what?

My mental health? How can you be in any position to judge this based on anything i have written?

My physical health? Hilarious. How can you possibly comment on that?


His Lordship said...

You aren't answering the question presented by TAM "If homosexuality were genetically determined, one would think that it would become less prevalent through the ages."

On Darwinism, Why are there still homosexuals?

I have to say this is a very good question. I never said homosexuality was genetically determined. It is not caused by a gene, and is not a trait that can be passed down from generation to generation. Heterosexual parents can give birth to homosexual children, and the reverse is also true. The child of a homosexual person is no more likely to become homosexual than the child of a heterosexual person, which means that in all likelihood, that child will probably be heterosexual.

Since I'm not a doctor, I had to look it up. I found a few websites that were explaining the origins of homosexuality:

What makes people gay? Biologists may never get a complete answer to that question, but researchers in Sweden have found one more sign that the answer lies in the structure of the brain.

Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men. [...]
Going deeper into the study, we see that the differences in brain symmetry is an effect, not a cause. The most likely cause is “hormonal influences.” It turns out, “homosexuality may be caused by ‘under-exposure to prenatal androgens’ in males and ‘over-exposure’ in females.” This strikes me as quite plausible. Recall that there was a study several years back showing that women who took diet pills during pregnancy were much more likely to have gay children.


His Lordship said...


And this other website says:

To start with, I found an excellent summary of background information presented in the book "Sex, Time and Power" by Leonard Shlain, (2003) Chapters 16 and 17. I will draw from it that will allow me to be as brief as possible.

Schlain states: "From an evolutionary point of view, homosexuality is a supreme paradox." If it had a genetic cause the trait would quickly go extinct. However, throughout history the rate of homosexuality has remained essentially constant, about 3% for males and 1% for females. It appears in all human societies. Thus even though there are those who are attempting to find a genetic cause, it is obvious that it doesn't exist. This historical data is too solid and profound. It will override any genetic investigations, which are based on loose correlations.

Anyone observing the development of a baby into a child cannot avoid the conclusion that his or her sexual attraction choice is present far before puberty. The program determining it had to be present at birth. [...]
It is clear to me that our sexual attraction preferences are genetically carried. They are not learned after birth. However, our genes contain two distinctly different sexual attraction programs. One is for females insuring they are attracted to males, and the other is for males insuring they are attracted to females. Both options are available at conception. A selection is made during the development of the fetus. As Schlain states: "The female is the default mode for all mammalian fetuses". We all start out as females. At approximately six weeks after conception a male's budding testes will begin secreting large amounts of testosterone. This shifts the developmental sequence towards a male. When the testosterone secretion does not take place, all the fetuses even those with the male Y chromosome, will develop into females. This is the stage where the different developmental sequences between male and female are set in motion. Subsequent male and female features arise from common anatomic precursors that have the potential to develop into either sex. For example, the tissue destined to become the clitoris in the female will become a penis in a male. Since both options are genetically available, a selection process is taking place. This process selects which part of the genetic code will be expressed and which will be suppressed. Included in this are the genetically carried codes for sexual attraction. At the appropriate stage of development, the sexual attraction program is selected irreversibly. It is as irreversible as the selection between a clitoris and penis. It is not clear exactly what stage this particular selection happens. It is only clear that it does happen. This is the point where an error is made for homosexuals. The inappropriate program is selected.

His Lordship said...


At this point I revert to being a chemist. All developmental processes are chemical processes/reactions. The selection mechanism is a chemical process composed of a set of chemical reactions. Basically there is a chemical switch that is thrown and the program is selected.

As a chemist, I know that there is no such thing as a chemical reaction that has 100% yield of the preferred product. This is a fundamental prediction of thermodynamics. The yield is always less than 100%. Thus, when it is time for the chemical reactions to select the sexual attraction program, one would expect, from a simple chemical argument, that some fraction would not go the appropriate way. From the observations on the ongoing fraction of gay births, one would conclude that the reaction has about a 97% yield for males and a 99% yield for females. The remaining 3% males and 1% females are destined to be homosexual. Thus, homosexuality has a statistical, chemical yield cause. They are homosexual at birth but there is nothing unusual about their genetic makeup because it does not have a genetic cause. They can have the same fraction of normal children as non-gay people. As far as I know, I believe they do.