Religions have succeeded

[ProfessorDavey]

So you're just going to ignore why you question about a specific gene was vacuous.

Actually I don't think it was vacuous as people often talk of a 'gay' gene or a 'religious' gene etc - meaning a genetic trait which determines or predisposes people towards a particular phenotype. In some cases, of course, this may be just that - a single gene. But in other cases it may be a cluster of genes that work together in that manner.

But my point was that Vlad (and seemingly you perhaps too) seem to be implying that genetics (or actually genomics) rather than society is determinative in behavioural terms. In which case it is perfectly reasonable to ask what genetic (or genomic) fingerprint determines that behavioural trait.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

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

Don't see the point you are making.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually I don't think it was vacuous as people often talk of a 'gay' gene or a 'religious' gene etc - meaning a genetic trait which determines or predisposes people towards a particular phenotype. In some cases, of course, this may be just that - a single gene. But in other cases it may be a cluster of genes that work together in that manner.

But my point was that Vlad (and seemingly you perhaps too) seem to be implying that genetics (or actually genomics) rather than society is determinative in behavioural terms. In which case it is perfectly reasonable to ask what genetic (or genomic) fingerprint determines that behavioural trait.

That other people have made vacuous statements like your's does not stop the statements being vacuous

As to your second point, you are missing the point, possibly because you left it out of here when you quoted, even though I raised it specifically

'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'

[ProfessorDavey]

That other people have made vacuous statements like your's does not stop the statements being vacuous

But at a fundamental level it isn't vacuous as there are behavioural traits that are very closely linked to genomics where environment plays a limited role. If that is what you are arguing then back to you (or Vlad) to provide evidence for those genomic traits that would be determinative in terms of homophobia to the extent that they would over-ride societal cultural environment.

[ProfessorDavey]

As to your second point, you are missing the point, possibly because you left it out of here when you quoted, even though I raised it specifically

Nope - you've lost me entirely here - please can you specific as to what you are talking about.

[ProfessorDavey]

'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'

Why is this in '...'?

But society can make people act in a manner that they wouldn't were they on their own or were they living in a different society. The societal norms are just that, they create boundaries as to what behaviour is deemed acceptable and what is not deemed acceptable and individuals very often fold in to those societal norms in terms of their own behaviour.

Were you any I living in England in the middle ages do you really think we'd have exactly the same attitude towards gay people and women as we do living in the early 21stC. I doubt it.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - you've lost me entirely here - please can you specific as to what you are talking about.

Your editing of posts is making this quote hard to woek out what you are saying. So one of the bots you cut out, was me putting in the bit that you had cut put previously which the bit that you left in referred - so I will again put that in here - which will be the third and you might then respond


'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'

[ProfessorDavey]

Your editing of posts is making this quote hard to woek out what you are saying. So one of the bots you cut out, was me putting in the bit that you had cut put previously which the bit that you left in referred - so I will again put that in here - which will be the third and you might then respond


'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'

Can you just say what you mean, and what you'd like me to respond to please. All this stuff about editing etc isn't helping.

Bottom line - what actually is your point.

[Nearly Sane]

Why is this in '...'?

But society can make people act in a manner that they wouldn't were they on their own or were they living in a different society. The societal norms are just that, they create boundaries as to what behaviour is deemed acceptable and what is not deemed acceptable and individuals very often fold in to those societal norms in terms of their own behaviour.

Were you any I living in England in the middle ages do you really think we'd have exactly the same attitude towards gay people and women as we do living in the early 21stC. I doubt it.

It was in '..' because was me quoting me in one of the bits that you cut put of the post you replied to and was referred to in the comment in the post you then replied to which referres to this. Have you sneaked the extra strong egg nog into the Christmas party because your basic comprehension skills, not helped by your random editing is making coherent discussion impossible.

[Nearly Sane]

Can you just say what you mean, and what you'd like me to respond to please. All this stuff about editing etc isn't helping.

Bottom line - what actually is your point.

It's you doing the editing. So for the fourth time:


'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,

'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?

It means that people have been born, lived and then died entirely embedded in religious dogmas that determined for them various ethical positions – that homosexuality is a “sin” for example. There’s no need to recreate these positions for that to be the case, just some clerical enforcers of the faith to deal with heretics. As I said, no-one disputes that the homophobia (for example) arose from the corporeal authors, but no subsequent repetition of authorship was needed for the same phenomenon to occur down the generations. It took on a life of its own.     

[Sriram]

If for example, Christianity had not developed, what would the 2 billion people across the globe be today?

Coming back...if Christianity (2 billion), Islam (1.5 billion), Hinduism(1 billion) and Buddhism (0.4 billion).....the main religions.... had not developed, what would all these 5 billion people be?  How much more disunity and differences between them would there be?!

The fact that 5 billion people on the planet are united under just four groups, across geography, race, language, economic status.... is a great situation. I don't think you people are able to appreciate this simple fact.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's you doing the editing. So for the fourth time:


'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'

I've already addressed your comment - see reply 55.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Don't see the point you are making.

The point is that “BUT” implies a critique of the point he joke was making (a tu quoque) whereas an “AND” would not.

[ProfessorDavey]

Coming back...if Christianity (2 billion), Islam (1.5 billion), Hinduism(1 billion) and Buddhism (0.4 billion).....the main religions.... had not developed, what would all these 5 billion people be?

Potentially grouped in other large blocks. 

How much more disunity and differences between them would there be?!

Are you nuts - on what planet has err our planet been a paragon of peace and unity for the past 1400 years when these religions have dominated.

The fact that 5 billion people on the planet are united under just four groups, across geography, race, language, economic status.... is a great situation. I don't think you people are able to appreciate this simple fact.

Isn't that exactly the same attitude that imperialists have adopted throughout history. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we imposed our view across the world - I think the Brits tried to do this in the Indian sub-continent, didn't they.

Why is it desirable for people to all think the same - I think diversity of thought is not only desirable, but essential as it is diversity of thought which provides new lines of thinking and progress.

[Sriram]

I think the point NS is making is that religions are human creations. Homophobia has to therefore be a human creation that is born out of social issues.  Blaming it on religions doesn't make sense.  Many religions like Hinduism don't have any scriptural issues with homosexuality. There are many non religious institutions that also are homophobic.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

The point is that “BUT” implies a critique of the point he joke was making (a tu quoque) whereas an “AND” would not.

No, as said I like the joke. The But is critiquing your use of it here to make a point that I think is invalid.

[Nearly Sane]

I've already addressed your comment - see reply 55.

That's just you repeating your mistake in reifying society as something that does stuff somehow outside of people. How would 'it' do that?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the point NS is making is that religions are human creations.

Homophobia has to therefore be a human creation that is born out of social issues.  Blaming it on religions doesn't make sense.  Many religions like Hinduism don't have any scriptural issues with homosexuality. There are many non religious institutions that also are homophobic.

But they aren't new human creations generation after generation. Rather they are promulgated to the next generation through developed societal and cultural norms. You are quite right that not all societies and not all religions adopt and promulgate homophobia across generations, but many do. And in many societies over centuries religion has been a highly dominant force in creating, perpetuating and promulgating those societal norms.

And there is my further point that (many) religions claim that their homophobia isn't human derived but god derived, which is a hugely powerful tool for control of society - effectively it isn't us saying this, but god saying this and if you disobey god you will be damned forever.

It is a toxic combination that is arguably unrivalled within other societal institutions that don't claim their view is god-driven.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's just you repeating your mistake in reifying society as something that does stuff somehow outside of people. How would 'it' do that?

Oh you've become Thatcher now NS - no such thing as society, just individuals. Not that she actually said that, but you get my drift.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh you've become Thatcher now NS - no such thing as society, just individuals. Not that she actually said that, but you get my drift.

And she was right. Trying to say Thatcher said something, ergo it's wrong is a fallacy. Care to try with an argument about why society is not just what people do?

[Nearly Sane]

But they aren't new human creations generation after generation. Rather they are promulgated to the next generation through developed societal and cultural norms. You are quite right that not all societies and not all religions adopt and promulgate homophobia across generations, but many do. And in many societies over centuries religion has been a highly dominant force in creating, perpetuating and promulgating those societal norms.

And there is my further point that (many) religions claim that their homophobia isn't human derived but god derived, which is a hugely powerful tool for control of society - effectively it isn't us saying this, but god saying this and if you disobey god you will be damned forever.

It is a toxic combination that is arguably unrivalled within other societal institutions that don't claim their view is god-driven.

All of it done by people.

If religions happen to be an effective 'meme', they are still just a meme.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

All of it done by people.

If religions happen to be an effective 'meme', they are still just a meme.

(Accepting for now the use of "meme"), why "just"? Memes can be powerful, persistent things whose real world effects continue long after their creators have gone. That's rather the "life of its own" point - no fresh inputs or authorships are needed for the same moral rules (for example) originally drafted by people to keep going, sometimes for millennia.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

(Accepting for now the use of "meme"), why "just"? Memes can be powerful, persistent things whose real world effects continue long after their creators have gone. That's rather the "life of its own" point - no fresh inputs or authorships are needed for the same moral rules (for example) originally drafted by people to keep going, sometimes for millennia.   

I think you are abusing the term life there using it an entirely metaphorical sense to somehow imply that it exists outside of people. It doesn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think you are abusing the term life there using it an entirely metaphorical sense to somehow imply that it exists outside of people. It doesn't.

No, I’m using the term “life” to mean something like “existence that has real effects on real people without the need of human intervention beyond its original authorship”. Whether the "entity" involved is a meme or something else isn’t relevant – which I why I asked you “why “just?””.