CBS has lost its mind!

[EvilChihuahua]

I find it disturbing your religion has that specific rule.

Well, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" fits the bill, I'm not really a masochisic sort of person.

So, um, in your religion if you are a masochist you get to people?

Apparently.

[Yeahduff]

If it's addiction, I'm fairly sure it can be broken. There's probably a 12 step program out there... actually, I've SEEN 12 step programs out there for religious things. If alcoholics and drug users can do it I don't see why religious people can't.

If you know addicts, you know that while it's possible to break an addiction, it's also very fucking hard. And even when you think you got it beat, it can potentially come back at anytime.

Re. the god-issue, I'm using hypothetical situations where the situation is proven without a doubt. If Jesus came along and turned my head into a cauliflower, I'd surely hang up my Satanic cap and join the ranks of the born-agains.

And here is where you actually prove rkolter's point. You are abandoning devil-worship not because you have chosen to, but because Jesus has transformed you into produce. You don't have a choice but believe in Jesus, because how could you not? Religion is not a choice, it's a conclusion. If you worry about god and demons and such, you simply cannot be an atheist, whether you'd like to be one or not. But if you begin to doubt, and that doubt grows, you'll one day find you are an atheist. There is no decision, only acknowledgement.

[Chibiartstudios]

There's no known genetic bias but they have done experiments that show you can manipulate the sexual preference of rats by altering the hormone levels of mother rats during pregnancy. Although they didn't actually create gay rats, they made rats with "decreased gender descrimination." (Which I think means bi-rats.) I'd be a little more confident in those results, 'though, if rats were more descriminating to begin with.

Anyway, one thing I thought of.... aren't most contemporary western religions based on the idea that you have free will over your choice of religion? I mean, all that "if you're not _______ God sends you to Hell" stuff. If you have so little choice over your religion how is it fair to condemn people for it?

Although I've heard arguements in the past that the whole purpose of creation is to send as many people to Hell as possible, maybe this just backs that theory up.

I'm a psych major and have actually doen a little research on this subject. The recent findings are actually pretty interesting.

First off, I know of the rat study you mention. It has less to do with homosexuality and more to do with gender identity dissorder. Basically what you do is force the rat to grow up (at least partially) female. Since the brain is part of this process several behaviors are accompanied with it. hence, incorrect mounting/arching of the back behaviors.

However, this doesn't prove that homosexuality is hormonally based. Gender identity dissorder, ont he other hand, may be. Remember, they've tested the hormone theory and found no abnormalities in gay people.

Second. Sexuallity actually CAN be changed.

Just not alot...

They've done studdies of bisexualls who have been forced into situations where they where forced to choose a gender that isn't their prefference (Not saying that it IS a choice, just that people tend to preffer one over the other), lets say, in a wedding. They find that over time people CAN gain a greatter liking for that gender. But at the same time this is pretty limited. People whom preffer only the same gender don't move very far down the spectrum at all.

The end results indicate that there may be a genetic componnent, but also an environmental one as well.

And remember, NONE of this even begins to cover all the scarry stuff that oozes out of Japan... *curls into fetal possition*

But doesn't this argument miss the point though? Even if it IS a choice of lifestyle, who the hell are we to tell someone who to not screw? (Assuming all parties involved are consenting adults, of course!)

[Chibiartstudios]

If you were to prove one God's existance, the faithful of other religions would just say that this means higher powers do exist, and that their own god must therefore exist. True athiests would rationalize the God before them away as significant tricks, mind over matter, aliens trying to trick the technologically inferior humans, etcetera.

Actually,the more scientiffic atheists would ackknowledge god's existence (assumming undeniable proof) but not consider him/her "supernatural" in any way. Instead, they would see God as a part of a larger system still that has logical, if unknown, laws that govern it. They would then go from the question of "is god real?" to "OK... So god is real... WHY should I follow him then?" as well as "I wonder if I can study god in a labrotory setting..."

The people from my major (psychology) would probably try to apply personality tests too. Their silly like that...

Hey! Don't YOU want to know if God has a personality dissorder!?

[Yeahduff]

You mean we haven't come to that conclusion, yet?

[Chibiartstudios]

You mean we haven't come to that conclusion, yet?

Point taken...

[Blackaby]

If it's addiction, I'm fairly sure it can be broken. There's probably a 12 step program out there... actually, I've SEEN 12 step programs out there for religious things. If alcoholics and drug users can do it I don't see why religious people can't.

If you know addicts, you know that while it's possible to break an addiction, it's also very fucking hard. And even when you think you got it beat, it can potentially come back at anytime.

Absolutely. It can also come back in many forms. I can accept people have addictive personalities but not that people are so addicted to religion or non-religion that they can't break out of it.

Re. the god-issue, I'm using hypothetical situations where the situation is proven without a doubt. If Jesus came along and turned my head into a cauliflower, I'd surely hang up my Satanic cap and join the ranks of the born-agains.

And here is where you actually prove rkolter's point. You are abandoning devil-worship not because you have chosen to, but because Jesus has transformed you into produce. You don't have a choice but believe in Jesus, because how could you not? Religion is not a choice, it's a conclusion. If you worry about god and demons and such, you simply cannot be an atheist, whether you'd like to be one or not. But if you begin to doubt, and that doubt grows, you'll one day find you are an atheist. There is no decision, only acknowledgement.

I can't agree with that at all - my only response is like, WELL NO WTF. Really, I can see your point, I just don't agree in the slightest. What I was trying to er address is the way that many atheists suddenly become religious, and many religious (including priests, etc) suddenly become non-religious through a particular incident, to explain that you can break free or break into religion. And often they break back out again too. I think it is a learned behaviour and can therefore be beaten out of someone. It's not along the lines of race or sexuality. I definitely don't see it as fixed in anyone.

[Rkolter]

This has gotten all the way back to, "I'm just trying to prove you can change your religion" again?

GAH! We're in an endless loop!

[Dburkhead]

Cannot. Can too. Cannot. Can too. Cannot. Can too.

IBTL?

[TRI]

This has gotten all the way back to, "I'm just trying to prove you can change your religion" again?

GAH! We're in an endless loop!

You'd think the two of us had beaten that question to death, but aparently it was only stunned.

I'm a psych major and have actually doen a little research on this subject. The recent findings are actually pretty interesting.

First off, I know of the rat study you mention. It has less to do with homosexuality and more to do with gender identity dissorder. Basically what you do is force the rat to grow up (at least partially) female. Since the brain is part of this process several behaviors are accompanied with it. hence, incorrect mounting/arching of the back behaviors.

However, this doesn't prove that homosexuality is hormonally based. Gender identity dissorder, ont he other hand, may be. Remember, they've tested the hormone theory and found no abnormalities in gay people.

True, nothing's been proved yet, but as yet... there hasn't been a whole lot of testing. The did test gay people's hormone levels and found they were normal (which isn't really too surprising since gay people don't show any physical sexual characteristics of the opposite sex) but I don't think anyone had tried testing the same hypothesis that they tested in the rat experiment: that it's hormones in the womb that make the difference.

And they probably won't. In addition to the previously mentioned reasons that scientist are reluctant to try and pin down a cause for homosexuality, they're also pretty reluctant to start decades-long multi-generational studies. Which is understandable; I wouldn't want to have to organize it.

Also it seems to me the difference between a bisexual rat and a transgendered rat is largely in the eye of the beholder. I mean, they're rats. Their sexual behavior is a lot simpler than humans and they're mode of expression is a lot more limited. You're not going to find them picking up other rats in gay-rat-bars or wearing the other sex's rat-underwear.

Second. Sexuallity actually CAN be changed.

Just not alot...

They've done studdies of bisexualls who have been forced into situations where they where forced to choose a gender that isn't their prefference (Not saying that it IS a choice, just that people tend to preffer one over the other), lets say, in a wedding. They find that over time people CAN gain a greatter liking for that gender. But at the same time this is pretty limited. People whom preffer only the same gender don't move very far down the spectrum at all.

The end results indicate that there may be a genetic componnent, but also an environmental one as well.

Mmm... you can see that as a change, but it could also just be that people's sexuality isn't as precise and people tend to think: that instead of each person having an exact point on the spectrum sexuality, each person has their own personal range.

Doesn't change the overall outcome, but it's another way of looking at the situation.

[Tellurider]

atheism is a kind of religion. since you can't prove that god exists, saying that he doesn't has as much faith involved as saying that he does. only agnostics are truly non-religious: "there may be a god, there may not be, but until someone proves it either way I withhold judgement."

That said, if jesus turned my head into a cauliflower, I wouldn't so much as "believe" in him as "KNOW he exists, and that's he's a jerk with a vegetable fetish"

[TRI]

I dunno if atheism necessarily requires faith. You could just be the sort that doesn't believe in anything that hasn't been proven to them. But yeah, the sort of determined atheism you're probably talking about kinda does.

But even then I wouldn't say it qualifies as a religion. There's no worship. There's no central figures. There's no doctrine. No texts. No myths: no cosmology or cosmogony or whatever the cosmo-word is for the end of the word.

Sure there are notable atheist philosophers, and most atheists probably believe in the big bang, and most have a similar set of morals, but there's nothing ot say they couldn't be different.

There may be an atheist church, but most atheist don't belong it. (And I bet you can't say that about most religions.)

Religions on the other hand have more in common that simply a shared belief in the nature of God... otherwise wouldn't Judaism Christianity and Islam all be the same religion?

But then I have a pretty narrow personal definition of "religion". Maybe yours is just broader.

[Rkolter]

That said, if jesus turned my head into a cauliflower, I wouldn't so much as "believe" in him as "KNOW he exists, and that's he's a jerk with a vegetable fetish"

[Escushion]

I dunno if atheism necessarily requires faith. You could just be the sort that doesn't believe in anything that hasn't been proven to them. But yeah, the sort of determined atheism you're probably talking about kinda does.

I think that's more agnosticism (aka apathy.) Atheism's faith is the faith that there is nothing--for example, not that a god could exist but simply hasn't been proven and thus the atheist doesn't believe, but the belief that there definitely is NO god.

Unless there are sects in atheism, in which case they're still clinging to things from their past of disgruntled ex-Catholicism .

[Yeahduff]

I can't agree with that at all - my only response is like, WELL NO WTF. Really, I can see your point, I just don't agree in the slightest. What I was trying to er address is the way that many atheists suddenly become religious, and many religious (including priests, etc) suddenly become non-religious through a particular incident, to explain that you can break free or break into religion. And often they break back out again too. I think it is a learned behaviour and can therefore be beaten out of someone. It's not along the lines of race or sexuality. I definitely don't see it as fixed in anyone.

We agree that religion can be changed in a person. I don't feel like it's a choice. I didn't choose atheism, it was something I accepted because that's where I was pointing. The sudden conversions your talking about certainly aren't choices either. No one wakes up and says "I think I'll be a buddhist."

And no, atheism is not a religion, though it can be if you want it to be.

[Sortelli]

I used to think athiesm was a religion, but then I realized that it was just an evolutionary dead end, a less productive abberation that exists today only because the more fruitful religious demographics have gone mostly soft and tolerate it.

I kid, I kid.

[Yeahduff]

Describes me pretty well, actually.

[Tellurider]

No one wakes up and says "I think I'll be a buddhist."

I did. I have days like that sometimes.

And I'd like to point out that I didn't say atheism WAS a religion, but A KIND OF religion, and I should really rephrase that to "Atheism is a system of belief that, essentially, believes in nothing, often very strongly, to the point of bringing up horrible disasters at otherwise perfectly nice social events and putting people off their drinks because they want to spread the belief in nothingness around and/or get in the face of someone who is actually religious/spiritual."

That's kind of a long definition, but it's sort of a work in progress.

Also I just looked up "atheism" on wikipedia and there's like 20 atheist organizations. But I still want to post this link because it amuses me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

[Yeahduff]

No one wakes up and says "I think I'll be a buddhist."

I did. I have days like that sometimes.

Just out of the blue one day? Were you a devout Muslim the day before?

And I'd like to point out that I didn't say atheism WAS a religion, but A KIND OF religion, and I should really rephrase that to "Atheism is a system of belief that, essentially, believes in nothing, often very strongly, to the point of bringing up horrible disasters at otherwise perfectly nice social events and putting people off their drinks because they want to spread the belief in nothingness around and/or get in the face of someone who is actually religious/spiritual."

I should probably be offended by that, but whatever, not like anything matters.

Also I just looked up "atheism" on wikipedia and there's like 20 atheist organizations. But I still want to post this link because it amuses me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Oh, there certainly are atheists who treat it like a religion. But that's not typically the case. I don't belong to any of those organizations, nor can I name any of them, and I certainly don't believe in god. My best guess is that some people need some organized belief system, even if they don't believe in that kinda thing.

[Tellurider]

Naw, I've never been a muslim. They actually have to put effort into that and stuff. I was kind of a general christian growing up, since that's how my parents raised me, but I had more belief in Santa than Jesus, I think. Then I kind of went though this "there's a god, but I'm not gonna try to slot it into a specific religion" phase. Then, pretty much, one day I woke up, saw an article on buddhism, and went, "dude, enlightenment, that sounds cool. I should be a buddhist." And that's kind of how it went down.

I said it was a working definition of atheism, didn't I? I could insert a "some, who get drunk, will occasionally" in there.