In God We Must

[The Minsky Moment]

Ah, so what would you suggest as the silver bullet argument then?

I don't know enough about the "New Atheist" position to say with confidence.

The atheist-religion debate tends to devolve pretty quickly into two ships passing in the night.  Any religious claim is by nature a non-falsifiable hypothesis incapable of scientific proof or verification.  Pointing that out to a theist is kind of pointless because their belief, as belief, is not founded on reason, but faith.  And pointing out the latter to in atheist is pointless because anyone who lacks faith and requires demonstration according to reason can never be convinced because no such proof is possible.

As to the question whether religion is "good" - it is a giant question begging exercise.  Good for what and for whom and how?  to define the nature of the question is to answer it.

So I guess the silver bullet answer to the atheist if there is one is:
1) Your disproof of the truths of religion involved a category error - you are conflating different conceptions of truth.
2) If you are serious about strict reliance on reason and its limitation, then honesty should force you to acknowledge that there is no way to reach an objectively valid answer to the question of whether religion generally is good or bad.

[Razgovory]

I didn't read that one.  I just read that last one he wrote.  His statement is absurd.

He merely assumes something is ridiculous, without bothering to actually look into it, and then criticizes from ignorance.

The man's output is prolific.  I made an honest attempt to understand his ideas.  I did buy his God Delusion and read it.  I haven't had a chance at "The Selfish Gene".

[Razgovory]

Ah, so what would you suggest as the silver bullet argument then?

I don't know enough about the "New Atheist" position to say with confidence.

The atheist-religion debate tends to devolve pretty quickly into two ships passing in the night.  Any religious claim is by nature a non-falsifiable hypothesis incapable of scientific proof or verification.  Pointing that out to a theist is kind of pointless because their belief, as belief, is not founded on reason, but faith.  And pointing out the latter to in atheist is pointless because anyone who lacks faith and requires demonstration according to reason can never be convinced because no such proof is possible.

As to the question whether religion is "good" - it is a giant question begging exercise.  Good for what and for whom and how?  to define the nature of the question is to answer it.

So I guess the silver bullet answer to the atheist if there is one is:
1) Your disproof of the truths of religion involved a category error - you are conflating different conceptions of truth.
2) If you are serious about strict reliance on reason and its limitation, then honesty should force you to acknowledge that there is no way to reach an objectively valid answer to the question of whether religion generally is good or bad.

Okay, pretend I said all that.

[Barrister]

Interesting.

Not sure what that implication of that kind of research is when discussing adoption though, since the big factor mentioned was being with "biological parents".

Fair enough.  I'm not certain how not being biologically related to the kids would affect matters, but there is probably more specific studies out there that address the question - I'm simply too lazy to look.

Well apparently it does, because the conclusion you quoted says that two biological parents are better than one biological parent and a step parent.

Again, as I said to BB (is there an echo?  ), a more specific study would be preferable. I just grabbed the first at hand to show that two parents are preferable to one, which was the point at issue. 

However, other studies show that - for example - adoption by two gay parents is prferable to single parent adoption:

Anti-gay marriage activists have argued vigorously that children need a mother and father. Now a new research study shows that kids do need two parents — but that gender doesn't matter.

The research, which also speaks to the issue of gay adoption, is summarized in the lead article of the new Journal of Marriage and Family. Scholars, at USC and New York University, looked at a range of existing studies, including research on gay and lesbian parents, finding that it's ideal if a child is raised by two parents who are "responsible, committed, stable," but that the gender doesn't cause radical differences.

[Emphasis added]

What say you to that?

http://io9.com/5458304/research-shows-two-gay-parents-are-better-than-a-single-straight-one

Look - I freely admit I'm arguing from instinct and not scientific study.  I'm a lawyer not a sociologist, dammit!

That being said - that result doesn't necessarily surprise me.  I hypothesize that the 'ideal' is a child living with both biological parents (I didn't say as much at first, but Malthus first study makes sense) gives the best chance of 'success' in raising healthy, happy children (recognizing of course that there are many other variables at play).

I would further hypothesize that the further you go from that 'ideal' you are decreasing that best chance of success.  Maybe the next best situation is one biological parent and a different-sex step-parent, then a biological parent and a same-sex step-parent, and so on and so forth.  I don't know - that's only what I would imagine to be true.

And I will keep repeating - this is only one of a number of factors to consider.  Just about any imaginable family could raise a very successful, healthy and happy family.  I know plenty of heterosexual, middle-class, married couples who have raised psycopaths.  I have known kids raised in very turbulent single-parent, substance-abusing families to be very successful.

[Martinus]

Beeb, I think the problem is with this statement, which you are putting forward with no evidence to support:

the next best situation is one biological parent and a different-sex step-parent, then a biological parent and a same-sex step-parent

The question to you is: why do you not consider these two situations to be equal (all other things being equal, of course)?

If you are going to claim that a situation A is better than a situation B, you should present some justification for this statement, especially if this is supposed to affect people's rights.

Incidentally, this entire discussion started from Yi implying that these arguments justify outright ban on adoptions by people who are gay, whether single, or living in same sex or opposite sex relationships (not "simply" a preference for opposite sex couples over same sex couples in adoption). To refresh your memory, I put forward such bans (that actually were passed in some states) as an example of religious prejudice affecting people's lives. Yi responded that such bans are not an expression of religious prejudice but are based in concerns for the wellbeing of the child. Are you really arguing that point?

Edit: And also, saying (in an adoption debate) that being raised by two biological parents is the best is kind of a red herring, no?

[Razgovory]

I didn't read that one.  I just read that last one he wrote.  His statement is absurd.

He merely assumes something is ridiculous, without bothering to actually look into it, and then criticizes from ignorance.

The man's output is prolific.  I made an honest attempt to understand his ideas.  I did buy his God Delusion and read it.  I haven't had a chance at "The Selfish Gene".

Scratch that.  I don't care anymore.  Fahdiz is right (whatever his point was.)

[rufweed]

Well, you just said (or at least implied that it can legitimately be said) that a category of people to which I belong is unfit to raise children by the very quality of our birth, which if you think about it, is kinda offensive.

No, I implied that it can legitimately be said that children should be raised by a man and a woman.

How did you come to that conclusion?

[Admiral Yi]

How did you come to that conclusion?

I don't know.  How does one generally come to the conclusion that a point of view is not conclusively bullshit?  Sniff test?  Lack of strong evidence to the contrary?

[Malthus]

Assuming the study I cited has any validity, two gay parents would be - on average - better candidates for adoption than a straight single parent.

[Eddie Teach]

Fahdiz is right (whatever his point was.)

He must have been agreeing with me. 

[garbon]

Beeb, I think the problem is with this statement, which you are putting forward with no evidence to support:

the next best situation is one biological parent and a different-sex step-parent, then a biological parent and a same-sex step-parent

The question to you is: why do you not consider these two situations to be equal (all other things being equal, of course)?

If you are going to claim that a situation A is better than a situation B, you should present some justification for this statement, especially if this is supposed to affect people's rights.

Incidentally, this entire discussion started from Yi implying that these arguments justify outright ban on adoptions by people who are gay, whether single, or living in same sex or opposite sex relationships (not "simply" a preference for opposite sex couples over same sex couples in adoption). To refresh your memory, I put forward such bans (that actually were passed in some states) as an example of religious prejudice affecting people's lives. Yi responded that such bans are not an expression of religious prejudice but are based in concerns for the wellbeing of the child. Are you really arguing that point?

Edit: And also, saying (in an adoption debate) that being raised by two biological parents is the best is kind of a red herring, no?

I hate it when I have to agree with Marti.

[The Brain]

I'm with the Schola Progenium crowd. We need stormtroopers and commissars, we don't need gay adoption.

[Barrister]

Beeb, I think the problem is with this statement, which you are putting forward with no evidence to support:

the next best situation is one biological parent and a different-sex step-parent, then a biological parent and a same-sex step-parent

The question to you is: why do you not consider these two situations to be equal (all other things being equal, of course)?

If you are going to claim that a situation A is better than a situation B, you should present some justification for this statement, especially if this is supposed to affect people's rights.

Incidentally, this entire discussion started from Yi implying that these arguments justify outright ban on adoptions by people who are gay, whether single, or living in same sex or opposite sex relationships (not "simply" a preference for opposite sex couples over same sex couples in adoption). To refresh your memory, I put forward such bans (that actually were passed in some states) as an example of religious prejudice affecting people's lives. Yi responded that such bans are not an expression of religious prejudice but are based in concerns for the wellbeing of the child. Are you really arguing that point?

Edit: And also, saying (in an adoption debate) that being raised by two biological parents is the best is kind of a red herring, no?

My very first post in this was to say Yi was wrong (or mis-spoke) when he said gay couples should be banned from adopting.  I only spoke up to say "but wait a minute, I think it is something that could be considered".

[Admiral Yi]

Eh, when did I say gay couples should be banned from adopting?

I said the opinion that couples composed of a man and a woman raise better adjusted children can't be dismissed as illegitimate.

When I made that comment I was unaware that Arizona and whoever had passed laws banning gays (couples or otherwise) from adopting but allowing single straights to adopt.  I agree that is a case of anti-gay bias unrelated to the welfare of the adoptive child.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It seems the best would be to have a whole mess of mothers and fathers then, maybe kids raised by 10-20 people.

iirc there are, or were, certain tribes where this happened after a fashion.