Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[Starlight]

Some good examples Rogue. It's been my experience that the scientists I've met and worked with had gotten involved in science in the first place because they were passionately interested in truth and the discovery of it through evidence and experiment. As much as any given scientist might have their own pet theory about something and so be resistant to the alternative explanations until the point where the evidence was very strong indeed, nonetheless I have never met any practicing scientist who in my judgment would reject overwhelming evidence. Because, while individuals might have their pet theories and views, they have developed those in the first place because they are interested in discovering and understanding the truth. As the examples you give show, people eventually say basically "oh well, my theory was wrong, but now we know more than we did, and those new discoveries open up a variety of new things for me to research and explore!"

But for this reason what frustrates me is when strongly religious people masquerade as scientists, and their interests don't lie as much in discovering truth as they do in trying to amass evidence for the faith-based positions they have, and where they are never going to change their faith-based positions based on any amount of evidence. At that point what they are doing is not really so much 'science' (discovering truth, improving on old models) as it is 'apologetics' (finding evidence for pre-existing faith-based beliefs). Fortunately I have not had the experience of having to ever work myself with anyone like that, but there seem to be a few of them in America particularly.

[Jedidiah]

Most doctors, not being , don't go into psych; so they just parrot DSM/whatever like they learnt during medicine training.

When I was a psych major I discovered that most psych majors were definitely a bit odd. That was part of the reason I got out of the field, even though I was interested in the workings of the human mind.

[rogue06]

Some good examples Rogue. It's been my experience that the scientists I've met and worked with had gotten involved in science in the first place because they were passionately interested in truth and the discovery of it through evidence and experiment. As much as any given scientist might have their own pet theory about something and so be resistant to the alternative explanations until the point where the evidence was very strong indeed, nonetheless I have never met any practicing scientist who in my judgment would reject overwhelming evidence. Because, while individuals might have their pet theories and views, they have developed those in the first place because they are interested in discovering and understanding the truth. As the examples you give show, people eventually say basically "oh well, my theory was wrong, but now we know more than we did, and those new discoveries open up a variety of new things for me to research and explore!"

It was the great theoretical physicist Max Plank who declared "

But for this reason what frustrates me is when strongly religious people masquerade as scientists, and their interests don't lie as much in discovering truth as they do in trying to amass evidence for the faith-based positions they have, and where they are never going to change their faith-based positions based on any amount of evidence. At that point what they are doing is not really so much 'science' (discovering truth, improving on old models) as it is 'apologetics' (finding evidence for pre-existing faith-based beliefs). Fortunately I have not had the experience of having to ever work myself with anyone like that, but there seem to be a few of them in America particularly.

This is another case of something being exaggerated. True enough there are some scientists who aren't actually interested in science but rather in using it as window dressing to support their religious beliefs. Some of those working for such groups as AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) immediately spring to mind.

EveryBut, having said this, they constitute a tiny fraction of devoutly religious scientists. There are scores of folks like Francis Collins, Owen J. Gingerich, Ard Louis, Denis Lamoureux, Kenneth Miller, Simon Conway Morris, John Polkinghorne, Michael Zimmerman, Joel W. Martin, William D. Phillips, Charles Hard Townes etc. who while devoutly Christian are still first rate scientists.

Moreover, it is hardly just among religious scientists that you'll find issues with being objective. For instance, you can find a significant number of scientists who use science as a tool to promote their political agenda. The politicization of science is a widely recognized problem and has been for many decades with culprits on every part of the political spectrum. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are just two examples. In the latter case science became subordinated to the state and communist ideology with the best illustration being the destruction of Russia's outstanding genetics programs thanks to Stalin and T.D. Lysenko.

Finally, I should point out that some scientists can be fairly accused of using science to promote atheism with Richard Dawkins coming to mind.

[Crackerjack]

Is celibacy 'abnormal' too in a bad sense?

It depends on the reasons behind it. It's not abnormal if it serves the interest of the group e.g. Catholic priests sacrifics their individual fitness for the fitness of the nonclergy members.

That would seem a strange position for a christian to take.

Why? Christianity promotes fecundity. Celibacy is for the clergy, which as I explained isn't abnormal.

Since plenty of LGBT people have children

Please provide evidence that homosexuals have the same average amount of children as straights.

genetic technology is on the verge of allowing two people of the same biological sex to have children together

This doesn't make same sex attraction normal in any way.

[Starlight]

It's not abnormal if it serves the interest of the group e.g. Catholic priests sacrifics their individual fitness for the fitness of the nonclergy members.

That has been a common hypothesis among evolutionary biologists regarding homosexuality. They have pointed to cultures like Samoa, where homosexual men have a cultural role of participating actively in family and community life to assist others.

Christianity promotes fecundity.

Um, haven't you read Paul's praise for celibacy as the ideal? And aren't you aware of the idealization of celibacy among Christians in the first millennium AD?

Celibacy is for the clergy, which as I explained isn't abnormal.

I think clergical celibacy is a bit of a joke really, both in its dubious origins to try and limit dynastic power in the church hierarchy, and due to the modern prevalence of pedophilia among the clergy.

This doesn't make same sex attraction normal in any way.

Your face isn't normal in any way. How about we leave off the insults?

[Darth Executor]

They got the doctors as well, and worldwide. It's apparently a massive illuminati brainwashing conspiracy.

No, it's probably not even an actual conspiracy, just typical progressive behavior.

Probably done by the transdimensional lizard people your hero Alex Jones warned us about.

I've never listened to a single minute of Alex Jones.

It's not just the institutions themselves saying these things, it's also the peer reviewed studies. If the institutions were saying one thing and the studies and the scientists another, that would be interesting. But I've read the studies myself and that is not what is happening here. All that's happening here is conservative morons like yourself are in absolute denial of the facts on all fronts, as per usual.

The studies don't confirm the mainstream position on homosexuality at all. quite the opposite, they confirm that homosexuality is dangerous to both the practitioner and the general population. The respose of psychology to these results is to find creative ways to reinterpret the data to blame the enemies of Progress (IE: Christians) or outright lie about what the studies say and rely on the general public's ignorance of statistics to avoid having to answer for those lies.

[Darth Executor]

and due to the modern prevalence of gay child molesters among the clergy.

fixed.

srsly, go look at a list of the actual "pedophiles" in the Catholic Church, it's mostly gay priests having sex with teenage boys, not pedophiles.

[Darth Executor]

Some good examples Rogue. It's been my experience that the scientists I've met and worked with had gotten involved in science in the first place because they were passionately interested in truth and the discovery of it through evidence and experiment.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...-review-fraud/

[Tassman]

The studies don't confirm the mainstream position on homosexuality at all.

quite the opposite, they confirm that homosexuality is dangerous to both the practitioner and the general population. The respose of psychology to these results is to find creative ways to reinterpret the data to blame the enemies of Progress (IE: Christians) or outright lie about what the studies say and rely on the general public's ignorance of statistics to avoid having to answer for those lies.

Looked in the mirror lately?

[HMS_Beagle]

By normal I mean anything what doesn't interfere with the function. The various eye colors are normal because they don't undermine the function of the eye, which is to provide visual data. Homosexual orientation isn't normal because it undermines the function of sexuality, which is reproduction. Put differently, homosexuality negatively affects the reproductive fitness of an organism; thus it's abnormal.

Humans are a social species and sexuality is a large part of our socialization / pair bonding. It isn't just about making babies. There's nothing in non-hetero orientation which precludes human socialization. Also there is nothing which precludes non-hetero people from reproducing should they so choose. Your claim non-hetero folks are not normal is wrong.

[HMS_Beagle]

The studies don't confirm the mainstream position on homosexuality at all. quite the opposite, they confirm that homosexuality is dangerous to both the practitioner and the general population.

The only such "studies" showing dangers from non-hetero relationships come from heavily biased religious organizations like NARTH. There are no reputable scientific studies showing homosexuality per se is dangerous to either the practitioner or the general population.

[HMS_Beagle]

It has already been addressed, idiot. The reason why you have to keep appealing to your church is because you know what happens when you try to actually address specific issues (like gay promiscuity).

I don't suppose you know the rates of gay promiscuity and hetero male promiscuity are virtually identical, right? Otherwise you wouldn't be pushing the same outdated and frankly stupid claim.

[seer]

I don't suppose you know the rates of gay promiscuity and hetero male promiscuity are virtually identical, right?

Really? How many straight bath houses do you know of?

[HMS_Beagle]

Really? How many straight bath houses do you know of?

What percentage of gays use bath houses? Please show your statistics.

How many hetero "pick up" bars do you know of?

[seer]

What percentage of gays use bath houses? Please show your statistics.

How many hetero "pick up" bars do you know of?

So you can't think of any straight bath houses can you, and there are gay pick up bars too.