CBS has lost its mind!

[Rkolter]

I always figured if it wasn't to do with biology, then you had a choice.

I dunno. If it's proven to even the most fundamentalist religious person that god/s don't exist - YOU KNOW IN THAT SORT OF HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION WHERE THAT CAN HAPPEN - then you'd expect them to stop believing, otherwise they'd be crazy. Same for an atheist who'd been given absolute proof of god. IN THAT HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION WHERE THAT COULD HAPPEN.

I don't think that you could apply the same thing to sexual orientation.

Ah...

You see, there is in fact a biological component to religion. The brain has a feedback mechanism to either reward us for doing things we have learned are good, or punish us for doing things we have learned are bad. It's been shown through MRI and Cat scans of the human brain that the religious euphoria which sometimes happens to the faithful (of any religion) is in fact a chemical process in the brain - the reward center rewarding the brain.

It's also been shown how faith could in fact be an evolutionary advantage early on in humanity's history.

Finally, it's been shown that ardent belief in religion and addiction, are very similar, and that the most fervent adherents to any religion are those who are shown to have a family history of addiction.

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.

If you were to prove God did not exist (scientifically impossible, mind you - you cannot prove a negative like that), you could never prove it to the satisfaction of a very faithful member of any religion. "You're trying to kill our God" they would say, and they would turn their backs to you. Belief in God preassumes there is no proof of God. And thus, no proof of the LACK of a God. After all, "If he's God, he could just decide not to let you have any proof."

Finally, as for insanity... we're ones to talk. Half this forum believes that Ninjas are better than Pirates.

[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.

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.

[EvilChihuahua]

Religion is a choice only legaly. Even if you look at it purely theoretically, a person does not start to believe in something by his own will. Have you ever said to yourself "From now on, I'm going to believe in this"? If you're presented with enough arguements that work for you, you're might change your believing, if not, then you won't. That doesn't depent on conscious part of yourself.
And in reality, religious belief depends largely on your surrounding while you're growing up. Which is why majority of people in Japan are Budhists, majority of people in Saudi Arabia Islams, majority of people all around the world choose the religious choice that is the same as the one of their family.
There are examples of people making U-turn in their believs despite what they've been taught to, but they are so rare that it can be considered statistic deviation.

Aren't like, a quarter of the people on this forum disgruntled ex-catholics?

[RPin]

I always figured if it wasn't to do with biology, then you had a choice.

Nnnno... I don't know where exactly the modern psychology is about genetical traits and tabula rasa, but I'm pretty sure that agreement is that big part of character is created by enviroment in which you grow up, and not genetical. So even if they're not biological, most of us cannot change most of our major character traits.

I don't reckon. I figure you can change just about anything unless it's hardwired into your cells. Sure, your character is developed via the environment you grow up in, but that doesn't mean you can't change it by, I dunno, switching environments? Getting counselling? Anger management therapy? What's learned can be unlearned.

People are defined by the environment, they define the environment and define themselves in a neverending process of feedback/reaction. There is no clear limit to the effects nor a way to control it. It's a cyclic process, because people learn to think according to the culture they belong, and that cultural background will then be the glass they see the world through.

The term personality comes from the latin persona. Personas were masks used by actors according to the emotion they wanted to display. The analogy is useful, because personalities are not stagnate objects. They are dinamically defined by our surroundings. I'm not the same person around my family and my co-workers. I'm not the same RPin when I'm posting at another site.

The point is not wether people can change or not, rather the question should be how much of their personality traits are consequences of the environment instead of idiosyncrasies.

[RemusShepherd]

And in reality, religious belief depends largely on your surrounding while you're growing up.

Aren't like, a quarter of the people on this forum disgruntled ex-catholics?

The Catholic religion is a special case. When you grow up Catholic, your surroundings tend to drive you into atheism. It's the ruler-wielding nuns' fault.

But most religions tend to encourage people to stay within the faith. And many behaviors are learned from our parents or early role models, and are not inheirited genetically. Learned behaviors are often unchangable. The easiest example is homosexuality -- there is no known genetic basis for it, so it is learned somehow, but it is unalterable.

I say they should break the Survivor cast into sexual preferences. Straight males and females on one island, gay men on another, lesbians on a third. Then we'd get some real partying.

[Rkolter]

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.

Again, I've said repeatedly that people can and do change their faith.

My arguement is, and remains, that for people who are deeply religious, changing their faith is not a valid choice - it's a Hobson's choice - a choice that really isn't a choice at all.

You made the point that Religion wasn't at all like a biological change, like changing your race. I just pointed out that there are in fact, likely biological components to faith (although not necessarily to any one given religion).

[EvilChihuahua]

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 users can do it I don't see why religious people can't.

What's with making religion sound like a horrible disease? My religion tells me not to horribly dismember you and then beat you with your limbs.

But hey, if that's the way you feel...*SPLUTCH, WHACK WHACK WHACK*

[Rkolter]

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 users can do it I don't see why religious people can't.

What's with making religion sound like a horrible disease? My religion tells me not to horribly dismember you and then beat you with your limbs.

I find it disturbing your religion has that specific rule.

[RPin]

Oh, incidentally, didn't scientific research prove that black people are more physically enduring and faster?

Black people statistically possess a higher percent of white fiber on their muscles, which allows them to endure physical activities for longer.

[TRI]

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.

But isn't one of the twelve steps appealing to a higher power? Seems like a conflict of interest to me.

Learned behaviors are often unchangable. The easiest example is homosexuality -- there is no known genetic basis for it, so it is learned somehow, but it is unalterable.

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.

[Rkolter]

Part of the reason there's no known genetic basis for homosexuality is that every time a scientist points out that there is a probable genetic basis for homosexuality, they get tar and feathered by the media and their funds get cut by politicians who would rather see homosexuals as deviants who choose their lifestyle instead of humans playing the cards they're dealt.

[RPin]

Part of the reason there's no known genetic basis for homosexuality is that every time a scientist points out that there is a probable genetic basis for homosexuality, they get tar and feathered by the media and their funds get cut by politicians who would rather see homosexuals as deviants who choose their lifestyle instead of humans playing the cards they're dealt.

Do you realize the opposite would too pose as a problem? If somehow they discovered the "gay gene", then homossexuality would be considered a congenital disease rather than a choice of perfectly healthy individuals, and certain groups would push their agenda for the cure of this "disease".

[TRI]

Part of the reason there's no known genetic basis for homosexuality is that every time a scientist points out that there is a probable genetic basis for homosexuality, they get tar and feathered by the media and their funds get cut by politicians who would rather see homosexuals as deviants who choose their lifestyle instead of humans playing the cards they're dealt.

Do you realize the opposite would too pose as a problem? If somehow they discovered the "gay gene", then homossexuality would be considered a congenital disease rather than a choice of perfectly healthy individuals, and certain groups would push their agenda for the cure of this "disease".

Actually that basically happened to the guy with the rats and the hormones. Not only did he get his funding cut, he got hate mail from gay people who thought he was trying to make homosexuality out to be a disease. I believe he ended up changing his name and moving to another state.

[RPin]

I think that a person determined to prove that there is a DNA factor leading to homossexuality would be successful in that enterprise, as any other research trying to prove similarities between humans based on a quantitative method. This is why junk science like the MBTI and the Roscharch appear to be scientifically relevant.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

Just bring back Phrenology.

[The Neko]

From what I remember, there is a rough genetic basis for personality, but it can be changed by environment. The twin studies have been used as evidence that even though two people with the same genetic background are raised in completely different environments, there are still idiosyncrasies shared between the two. However, they also found many differences between them, up to and including completely different religions.

As for this "gay gene" debate... Homosexuality isn't a black and white thing. There are many theorists who find that there is a sort of gradiation, and people who have homosexuality and heterosexuality in different areas. Sexual, emotional, etc. So someone might be emotionally attracted one way, but have sexual arousal from another. It's been known to happen. Even then, many believe that whether or not something is homosexual is a result of a variety of factors, both genetic and environmental. The only one I can think of this moment is "the exotic becomes the erotic", which hinges on what people identify "self" with.

[Mr.Bob]

Oh, incidentally, didn't scientific research prove that black people are more physically enduring and faster?

Black people statistically possess a higher percent of white fiber on their muscles, which allows them to endure physical activities for longer.

Maan! A brotha can't never win out!

[RPin]

Heheh... To be fair, I used the brazilian term for that. I think in english it's just plain called type II fiber.

[EvilChihuahua]

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 users can do it I don't see why religious people can't.

What's with making religion sound like a horrible disease? My religion tells me not to horribly dismember you and then beat you with your limbs.

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.

[Dburkhead]

What's with making religion sound like a horrible disease? My religion tells me not to horribly dismember you and then beat you with your limbs.

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 torture people?