-
Posts
1851 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by MonDie
-
My suggestion is that much religious language is meaningless, and its meaninglessness is why it is not verifiable. Thus the use of religious language is comparable to the babblings of a schizophrenic. If I'm a physicist or chemist, putting "God" into my hypothesis will have no effect on the predictions of the hypothesis whatsoever. To say we cannot test for God's existence is superficial. We cannot test for his existence because "God" is not part of the language we use to describe the objective world, not because God may exist in some world that is inaccessible to us.
-
Maybe Thor is actually element #90. What if the Sarboonicationadoolista really exists, but it isn't actually what you think it is? I say, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of the Sarboonicationadoolista! The Sarboonicationadoolista wants more norenteerica for Borensteinia! Go reinzistigate the pepaltooth! TRANSLATION: The God wants more angels for heaven! Go return the unicorns [oxen] to Noah's ark!
-
Richard Dawkin's God Delusion, I could not read it
MonDie replied to CosmosCranium's topic in Religion
It took me some time to distinguish between acceptable mockery and unacceptable mockery. I can't speak on Dawkins' writing because I haven't read any. Yet I was curious, so I posted here to get the thread into My Content. I only know about Dawkins' controversial "Dear Muslima" comment. Yet the offended woman claimed to be an ex-Dawkins fan, even giving his books as gifts. So, poisoned wells and personal attacks aside, maybe they are worth reading. -
homophobia and evolutionary psychology
MonDie replied to Gian's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
In the study "Is Homophobia Associated with Heterosexual Arousal," they selected a sample of exclusive heterosexuals who scored 6 on a scale of 1-6. Then, they separated these heterosexuals into a homophobic group and non-homophobic group for comparison. My criticism was: "I have a concern with the way they selected the sample. They selected them based on a homo/hetero questionairre. In all fields of psychology, a problem with such surveys is the possibility of biased responding. Suppose a man is not entirely heterosexual, but he's not homophobic. Since he's okay with it, he admits it, and he doesn't get selected for the study. On the other hand, the homophobic group could be full of lesser heterosexuals simply because of a homophobic responding bias." "Inverted homophobia" is a term applied to Catholic preists. The idea is that they hate gays so much because they are struggling with their own homosexuality. It's been posited that people with atypical sexuality (for example, gay men) may have become preists to avoid persecution and/or marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests#Estimating_numbers_of_gay_priests Okay, yes. The genetics aren't necessarily genetics for homophobia, as these data give no insight into the function these genetics had in our evolution. They're merely genetics that allow for homophobia. For all we know, these same genetics would manifest as heterophobia in an heterophobic culture, hypothetically. -
Richard Dawkin's God Delusion, I could not read it
MonDie replied to CosmosCranium's topic in Religion
Why do you need evidence for absence? Isn't the lack of evidence enough? -
homophobia and evolutionary psychology
MonDie replied to Gian's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
Indeed. The last paragraph of "Measures" describes how they measured sexualty. They basically just asked them, "Hetero, homo, or bi?" On one hand, the data casts a lot of doubt on the idea that gays frequently have "inverted homophobia" that they project onto other gays. On the other hand, what I read had nothing to say on the arousal tendencies or internal conflicts of homophobic people. Also, in the second last paragraph of the introduction, they mention the twin studies showing just how much genetics contribute to personality. They reason from there that homophobia may have genetic contributions as well. In other words, it's nothing special when a personality trait has genetic contributions. However, I would not know if 30-50% genetics is more than what should be anticipated. By the way, do you know of other studies linking homophobia with same-sex arousal? I only know of the one that I already linked. -
Are we enemies? Have I underestimated you? I cannot tell. Were you arguing that the other components depend on superstition?
-
This is a general statement that I generally agree with, but we can't make a judgement on how or why religion becomes oppressive until it has been defined. If we don't define it a priori, debaters will define it post hoc to align it with their preconcieved opinions about this "religion" thingy.
-
Replace "belief" with "superstition" and you've got it IMO. Superstition may seem like a small component, but it's the key feature. Once you remove the superstition, it's not religion. Even Zen Buddhism contains superstitions regarding the path to enlightment, beliefs that will remain superstitious until science proves their merit.
-
iNow never said there was nothing more to religion than superstition, (s)he merely said that the terms would 'overlap quite a bit'.
-
homophobia and evolutionary psychology
MonDie replied to Gian's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
I will read the study. However, showing that it's genetic it has genetic contributions still does not reveal the specific means by which these genetics were selected for. For all we know, each contributing factor served a unique purpose. The emerging homophobia may be a more extreme form of expression that is totally unnecessary from a natural selection standpoint. -
I think there is a tendency for the religious to incorporate religiously-neutral things into the religion. For example, many values and feelings regarded as religious aren't necessarily dependent upon religion, yet one may associate a particular religion with certain feelings or values. This article discusses the problem of defining religion: http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/a/definition.htm Here's a diagram I just put together. Photon propeller still might have a point. Even if religion generally involves indoctrination (i.e. forcing acceptance of beliefs), it may be a bit ignorant to conflate the two.
-
homophobia and evolutionary psychology
MonDie replied to Gian's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
According to the graphs, they were (roughly) equally aroused by the other videos. The only significant difference was for the homosexual video. I have a concern with the way they selected the sample. They selected them based on a homo/hetero questionairre. In all fields of psychology, a problem with such surveys is the possibility of biased responding. Suppose a man is not entirely heterosexual, but he's not homophobic. Since he's okay with it, he admits it, and he doesn't get selected for the study. On the other hand, the homophobic group could be full of lesser heterosexuals simply because of a homophobic responding bias. They get there in the "Discussion" section. It's an interesting study, but it's still a bit outdated (1996). There may be newer research on the subject. That would be more fitting with a psychological mechanism. My alternative interpretation, though it is totally baseless, is that these 'degaying' genes appeared in response to the gay genes. It would proceed like this. First, the gay genes appear. Suppose they persist because they are sexually antagonistic. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm After these gay genes appear, a 'degaying' gene may finally have some function if it makes the borderline-case men more likely to reproduce. According to this model, we would expect the presence of 'degaying' genes to roughly coincide with the presence gay genes. NOTE: The term "gay gene" probably isn't correct. A gene is a DNA sequence that codes for a polypeptide (polypeptides compose proteins). Genes can be contrasted with non-coding DNA. Most human variation actually lies in the non-coding DNA, not the genes. I use the term "gay gene" because I don't know a better term. -
homophobia and evolutionary psychology
MonDie replied to Gian's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
It seems like a reasonable claim, but you still haven't properly defined Gay. Until Gay has been properly defined, anything could be Gay. -
homophobia and evolutionary psychology
MonDie replied to Gian's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
Gian and Pwagen, I removed the suggestion that you were "brainwashed by the media" because I wasn't trying to convey a stigma. I was merely suggesting that the media has given you superficial ideas about male homosexuality. Even if they're simply men exhibiting feminine sexuality, men that don't specifically desire to put "the pee pee in the pooper," the ways in which they can interact sexually are limited by their anatomy. Suffice it to say, a repulsion specific to anal sex probably wouldn't prevent them from engaging in homosexual activity with one another. As was said: -
I think this is a great song about belief and disbelief, even if religion isn't precisely what he had in mind—some of his songs imply that he is religious in some way. The lyrics (it's the only relatively trustworthy lyrics site I know of): http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858574001/?specific_com=73015195145
-
superstitions ⊂ religious beliefs religion = {superstitions, rituals, social connections, values, ... } This is the first quote I've liked. However, as was said, many religious people blatantly endorse indoctrination. Of course, even atheists should be careful not to use unacceptable forms of persuasion, but it can't be nearly as bad as intentional indoctrination.
-
homophobia and evolutionary psychology
MonDie replied to Gian's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
I may have mixed them a little. When I was talking about the homophobia & arousal experiment, I mentioned that a person's opinions about homosexuals are malleable (environmental). However, once I read the summary, I realized that they were measuring homophobia as a form of anxiety or discomfort (phobia), not as an attitude toward a group of people. -
lol, now everyone has to look at it. I decided to put it in a spoiler box so they wouldn't have to. No offense to anyone in particular that used that argument. I was just elaborating on that style of argument because it's used often.
-
homophobia and evolutionary psychology
MonDie replied to Gian's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
It doesn't have to, but I imagine the gentler types of contact eventually lead to that. I wouldn't assume that gay men necessarily have anal sex in their head long before they actually get to that point of intimacy. I'm not attracted to males, but I don't think male-male interactions are generally 'icky'. I think of such interactions as bonding because, well, they were IME. Is hard-core heterosexual pornography any less icky? I read the summary of the Adams, Wright, and Lohr experiment last night. http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf Interestingly, they had a difficult time finding men who scored as exclusively heterosexual and scored into the "high-grade nonhomophobic range." In addition, the homophobic men appeared to be more likely to underestimate their arousal when viewing the gay videos. More interesting yet, the arousal of homophobic men by the gay videos may have been due to anxiety. Apparently, anxiety increases sexual arousal. Here's an example. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/92/1/49/ -
I just threw a cartoon together. Beware, it's got a little poopy.
-
homophobia and evolutionary psychology
MonDie replied to Gian's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
You mean the one and only true Gay? The Gay Men that we hold above all other gay men? The Gay Marriage that is superior to all other forms of gay marriage? -
What did the copper say to the rhodium? "This may be a 45 zone, but I feel like a Roman god when I'm going 80!"
-
homophobia and evolutionary psychology
MonDie replied to Gian's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
With natural selection, it always boils down to what selection pressures they're under in that particular environment. A strategy that works in one palce may not work in another. Sexologists have frequently made use of a technique called penile plethysmography. Here's a famous example, an experiment conducted by Adams, Wright, & Lohr, "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" I haven't read the full summary, but I've heard of the experiment. I never considered that those results might be explained by population genetics. Such 'degaying' genes, if they exist, might appear in populations with more gay genes. However, I doubt such an hypothesis would prevail. Homophobia, in the typical sense of the word, seems to be a malleable trait that will change depending on environmental influences. response to erotic imagery - - - - unchangeable, perhaps genetic response to sexual interaction - - unchangeable, perhaps genetic opinions about homosexuals - - malleable, probably environmental, probably not genetic Of course, the fact that it's malleable doesn't mean it cannot be influenced by genetics. We are all influenced by the environment AND genetics. However, it may be a higher order phenomenon with many contributing factors, thus it may elude such simple descriptions. Yeah, HIV / AIDS gives them enough to worry about without murderers pleading the homophobia defense. There's also the possibility of an interplay between genetics and culture, but we could rule that out by showing that homophobia is new. -
Fair enough.