Religions have succeeded

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, and there we have it Vlad - the reality is that the current downward trajectory of the UK is largely politically driven and nothing to do with decreasing religiosity. Except for the (inconvenient for you Vlad) fact that there is a clear correlation between being religious, and in particular christian, and likelihood to vote Tory (and indeed to support brexit). So were it not for the religious in the UK then we'd likely have neither 12 years of Tory government nor brexit.

No, Christians are a minority, read your census. You yourself have said that eliminating nominal Christians only a few percent take it seriously. You cannot have it both ways.

[ProfessorDavey]

Being a middle class academic, working class, secular homophobia is probably unknown to you.

How terribly patronising. Nope Vlad, homophobia exists in all areas of our society, although perhaps more in some than others. Why - because we have long range embedded societal homophobia ... and why might that be Vlad?

[Nearly Sane]

How terribly patronising. Nope Vlad, homophobia exists in all areas of our society, although perhaps more in some than others. Why - because we have long range embedded societal homophobia ... and why might that be Vlad?

That will be because society was made up of people who were homophobic.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, Christians are a minority, read your census. You yourself have said that eliminating nominal Christians only a few percent take it seriously. You cannot have it both ways.

You do the maths Vlad.

Does it require a majority of voters to shift a 52:48 vote for brexit on a 72% turnout? Nope all that would have been required would have been for less than 1% of the population to have voted the other way.

[ProfessorDavey]

That will be because society was made up of people who were homophobic.

Err and what would have made them homophobic - I doubt they'd have been born that way - is there a homophobia gene NS? They would have learnt to be homophobic by being brought up within a societal culture that was, itself, homophobic.

[Nearly Sane]

Err and what would have made them homophobic - I doubt they'd have been born that way - is there a homophobia gene NS? They would have learnt to be homophobic by being brought up within a societal culture that was, itself, homophobic.

They may well have learned their homophobia but that would be from other people. Society isn't a thing outside of people. It is created by people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How terribly patronising. Nope Vlad, homophobia exists in all areas of our society, although perhaps more in some than others. Why - because we have long range embedded societal homophobia ... and why might that be Vlad?

I know of people who would cheerfully shoe a ‘Bible Basher’ and Round it off with a homosexual.

[Nearly Sane]

I know of people who would cheerfully shoe a ‘Bible Basher’ and Round it off with a homosexual.

I could never eat a whole one.

[ProfessorDavey]

I know of people who would cheerfully shoe a ‘Bible Basher’ and Round it off with a homosexual.

And where might they have got that attitude from Vlad? Do they have a particular 'bash a bible-basher and a homosexual' gene Vlad. Or is it perhaps because the society in which they were brought up implicitly condones this type of prejudice because it has been embedded for centuries.

[Nearly Sane]

And where might they have got that attitude from Vlad? Do they have a particular 'bash a bible-basher and a homosexual' gene Vlad. Or is it perhaps because the society in which they were brought up implicitly condones this type of prejudice because it has been embedded for centuries.

All behaviour is in the end genetic, not all behaviour is a gene.

[Sriram]

Religions like Hinduism and Buddhism have no specific scriptural issues regarding homosexuals. So...it is wrong to talk of religions in general as regards homophobia.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

All behaviour is in the end genetic, not all behaviour is a gene.

Really - that would be news to those who are experts in such matters.

It is beyond doubt that environment plays a hugely important role, alongside genetics in determining behaviour.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do the maths Vlad.

Does it require a majority of voters to shift a 52:48 vote for brexit on a 72% turnout? Nope all that would have been required would have been for less than 1% of the population to have voted the other way.

As far as I can make out the GBP have returned 2 conservative governments since Brexit.

[Nearly Sane]

Really - that would be news to those who are experts in such matters.

It is beyond doubt that environment plays a hugely important role, alongside genetics in determining behaviour.

That's why I used the term 'in the end'. And I note you ignored the point that asking was there a gene for a specific behaviour was vacuously stupid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Absolutely - religion has been a major, perhaps the major, source of conflict over the centuries. And it continues to be a key factor in many conflicts across the globe.

But if we become a little more local - I fail to see much 'uniting' rather than 'dividing' amongst adherents of the most widely followed religion in the UK, namely christianity. So in my local area, presuming it is fairly typical, perhaps 5% of local people might be active christians who attend worship. Are these people all united - not a bit of it. Within easy walking distance of my house I can think of at least eight separate christian denominations, each of which will consider their interpretation of dogma and practice to be correct and the other seven to be faulty in some respect. So much for unity.

And even amongst one denomination - CofE, there isn't much evidence of unity. There are nine CofE churches within about a 30 minute walk from me - I know plenty of people who are CofE worshippers. Do they go to the most conveniently located church? Not a bit of it, nope they attend the church that most closely aligns with their narrower interpretation still. So the evangelicals ignore perhaps three nearer churches to attend the most evangelical. The high-church cathedral types won't worship in more lowly churches, only the Abbey and so on.

And, of course each denominations wants its own schools to divide even further.

I still think the old Emo Philips joke put this best:

“Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
 
He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too!

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.”

[Nearly Sane]

Religions like Hinduism and Buddhism have no specific scriptural issues regarding homosexuals. So...it is wrong to talk of religions in general as regards homophobia.

For once we are going to agree, religions come in many forms. Many don't have central god given positions, some forms of Buddhism are effectively atheist. Many non religious ideologies come with effective central authorities - ser Mao and Stalin.

[Nearly Sane]

Prof,

I still think the old Emo Philips joke put this best:

“Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
 
He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too!

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.”

  It's one of my favourite jokes BUT could be rephrased as political ideology splits.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof,

I still think the old Emo Philips joke put this best:

“Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
 
He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too!

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.”

Apparently Emo Phillips couldn’t Perform once because he felt a little bit funny. His manager told him to get on stage quickly before it wore off.

[Nearly Sane]

As far as I can make out the GBP have returned 2 conservative governments since Brexit.

First past the post makes this a specious argument in terms of majorities of people.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's why I used the term 'in the end'.

What do you mean by 'in the end'.

I think this is about individuals and the impact that the societal culture they were brought up in has. Unless you can convince me that were you to take an individual with a particular genetic (actually genomic) make up and place them into a different society for their upbringing that they would develop the exactly the same behavioural patterns then you cannot claim that this is entirely genetic, whatever 'in the end' means.

[Outrider]

I would suggest that the modern attitude is live and let live.

Thank you, genuinely. Unfortunately, a not insignificant number of your fellow believers are not so accommodating.

As we have learned from Covid and the forgiveness of the Tories, the flip side of that is Live and let die.

Whilst we might arrive there from differing starting points, I suspect our mutual distaste for Tory policy and historical achievements is common ground.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Given you are an atheist though, then just as I do, you have to assume that religions are man made. So whatever homophobia etc arises from us and is only manifested in religion. So I don't see that any wager there makes sense.

You’ve argued for this before, but I’m not sure it’s right. Yes of course religions are man-made (though often a proponent of any one such will claim that only all the others are man-made, whereas his is the word of the one true god) so at some point(s) people codified them. Ethical codes though became embedded as dogma, typically reified as facts and often taught that way to children in particular. Would the product of a hard line fundie school for example have turned out to be a homophobe in any case, or does the dogma stand in its own right as a cause notwithstanding its authorship maybe millennia before?

I think it’s the latter – the bad stuff manifested in religions may well have arisen originally from the authors, but religions are also take on a life in their own right so I’m not so sure the homophobia “arises from us” as such.           

[Nearly Sane]

What do you mean by 'in the end'.

I think this is about individuals and the impact that the societal culture they were brought up in has. Unless you can convince me that were you to take an individual with a particular genetic (actually genomic) make up and place them into a different society for their upbringing that they would develop the exactly the same behavioural patterns then you cannot claim that this is entirely genetic, whatever 'in the end' means.

So you're just going to ignore why you question about a specific gene was vacuous. Ok, I can understand that. If I had said something that stupid, I might well try and ignore it being pointed out.


The reason why I used the term 'in the end' is that while behaviour is about the interection of the individual and the environment, if you remove the individual there is no behaviour.


Oh and I see you still haven't dealt with the issue that homophobia must come from people as society, like Soylent Green, is people.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It's one of my favourite jokes BUT could be rephrased as political ideology splits.

Yes of course, but that "BUT" implies a tu quoque, whereas an "AND" instead would not.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You’ve argued for this before, but I’m not sure it’s right. Yes of course religions are man-made (though often a proponent of any one such will claim that only all the others are man-made, whereas his is the word of the one true god) so at some point(s) people codified them. Ethical codes though became embedded as dogma, typically reified as facts and often taught that way to children in particular. Would the product of a hard line fundie school for example have turned out to be a homophobe in any case, or does the dogma stand in its own right as a cause notwithstanding its authorship maybe millennia before?

I think it’s the latter – the bad stuff manifested in religions may well have arisen originally from the authors, but religions are also take on a life in their own right so I’m not so sure the homophobia “arises from us” as such.         

'Religions take on a life of their own' eh? What do you think that means? What sort of 'life'? And presumably as so often covered about the vacuous Weinberg quote, yoo mean ideologies?

Leaving aside that if the homophobia does not arise from people, how could it arise?