|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:49:09 GMT
Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted. Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet! Your claim certainly does have an absence of evidence, heres some more to back my observation that your claim is incorrect www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/13/religion.scienceandnature
Dont tell me to provide evidence for your ignorance, I have provided ample evidence that your statement 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not widely held in academia. Time for you to support your stance. I bet you wont.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:50:23 GMT
Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted. Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet! oh look more: www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/beliefs
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:51:48 GMT
Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted. Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet! www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 21:53:24 GMT
Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet! oh look more: www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/beliefs, Show me evidence of which traits and which genes by genetic scientists in the field peer reviewed or GTFO. Notions are not science.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:53:59 GMT
Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted. Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet! oo more
thequestforagoodlife.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/the-genetics-of-religion-and-spirituality/
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:55:22 GMT
Show me evidence of which traits and which genes by genetic scientists in the field peer reviewed or GTFO. Notions are not science. Read the fucking evidence, it has been presented to you multiple times now, including anumber of scientific articles, I am sorry but I can't help you comprehend this, you are going to have to struggle on your own.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 22:00:23 GMT
I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken. 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' You can't prove a negative. The sole burden of proof is on you. Therefore, you must supply every piece of evidence you have, present it to Goz, so she can evaluate the proof and try to reproduce it. Also, never argue from a point of bias. The only question here is "Does God Exist." Always keep in mind the answer with the least complicated path is generally the most likely to be correct. That is correct, Goz cannot prove a negative, at best she was ill informed making that statement. I responded suggesting that it was not as cut and dried as Goz was implying, I have since provided at least two peer-reviewed articles and numerous secondary sources that show that academics and researchers in the field believe that there may be a genetic component to how religious a person is. I am not here to prove that religion is inherited, merely to point out that the relevant scholars do not feel the same way as Goz does. I am not arguing from a point of Bias, my stance is agnostic in terms of gods existence, my point is that Goz made a spurious claim, a point I have backed up with overwhelming evidence.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 22:00:24 GMT
Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet! oo more
thequestforagoodlife.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/the-genetics-of-religion-and-spirituality/ Have you actually read those articles? They are full of 'notions' 'Genes may.....the jury is out on the genetic component etc ..... in essence they are theories, and unless and until the traits can be isolated and assigned to genetics scientifically....notions and theories and news articles AS CLICKBAIT for the religious audience and for you to google... is all that they are.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 22:01:29 GMT
Show me evidence of which traits and which genes by genetic scientists in the field peer reviewed or GTFO. Notions are not science. Read the fucking evidence, it has been presented to you multiple times now, including anumber of scientific articles, I am sorry but I can't help you comprehend this, you are going to have to struggle on your own. There is no scientific evidence.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 22:03:17 GMT
'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' You can't prove a negative. The sole burden of proof is on you. Therefore, you must supply every piece of evidence you have, present it to Goz, so she can evaluate the proof and try to reproduce it. Also, never argue from a point of bias. The only question here is "Does God Exist." Always keep in mind the answer with the least complicated path is generally the most likely to be correct. That is correct, Goz cannot prove a negative, at best she was ill informed making that statement. I responded suggesting that it was not as cut and dried as Goz was implying, I have since provided at least two peer-reviewed articles and numerous secondary sources that show that academics and researchers in the field believe that there may be a genetic component to how religious a person is. I am not here to prove that religion is inherited, merely to point out that the relevant scholars do not feel the same way as Goz does. I am not arguing from a point of Bias, my stance is agnostic in terms of gods existence, my point is that Goz made a spurious claim, a point I have backed up with overwhelming evidence. There is NO scientific evidence.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 22:04:07 GMT
Have you actually read those articles? They are full of 'notions' 'Genes may.....the jury is out on the genetic component etc ..... in essence they are theories, and unless and until the traits can be isolated and assigned to genetics scientifically....notions and theories and news articles AS CLICKBAIT for the religious audience and for you to google... is all that they are. Yes I have read those articles, and 'they may' from an academic source is well good enough to refute the absolute claim made from an Australian housewife.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 22:28:12 GMT
Have you actually read those articles? They are full of 'notions' 'Genes may.....the jury is out on the genetic component etc ..... in essence they are theories, and unless and until the traits can be isolated and assigned to genetics scientifically....notions and theories and news articles AS CLICKBAIT for the religious audience and for you to google... is all that they are. Yes I have read those articles, and 'they may' from an academic source is well good enough to refute the absolute claim made from an Australian housewife. Look, apart from the fact that you have resorted to ad hominem, this is a really stupid argument. Can we agree that due to 'religion' not being able to be quantified, it is unable to be scientifically studied especially in the field of human genetics which is totally the opposite and is unable to be 'interpreted' to fit an agenda? Hence allegedly 'scientific' studied are inherently flawed. You are NOW claiming an 'academic 'source, which is totally different to a scientific source. Unfortunately for you, the need for authentication in this conundrum is scientific and NOT just academic covering the theories of evolutionists, anthropologists and their unproven 'theories' no matter how interesting and akin to your own bias they may be.. You may or may not believe this butt my sis is an acknowledge DNA expert in her field, so I speak from more authority than the average Australian housewife as I have run our conversations past her.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 22:39:37 GMT
Yes I have read those articles, and 'they may' from an academic source is well good enough to refute the absolute claim made from an Australian housewife. Look, apart from the fact that you have resorted to ad hominem, this is a really stupid argument. Can we agree that due to 'religion' not being able to be quantified, it is unable to be scientifically studied especially in the field of human genetics which is totally the opposite and is unable to be 'interpreted' to fit an agenda? Hence allegedly 'scientific' studied are inherently flawed. You are NOW claiming an 'academic 'source, which is totally different to a scientific source. Unfortunately for you, the need for authentication in this conundrum is scientific and NOT just academic covering the theories of evolutionists, anthropologists and their unproven 'theories' no matter how interesting and akin to your own bias they may be.. You may or may not believe this butt my sis is an acknowledge DNA expert in her field, so I speak from more authority than the average Australian housewife as I have run our conversations past her. Ok fair call re the ad hominem, but lets be honest you have called me out on a separate thread, indicating I am stupid for accepting this printed academia. There are at least two studies I have cited that show that tendency to religion could well be inherited in some manner, not for an instant am I saying that it's like blue eyes. if you have read the things I supplied, not only would you have seen mention of the genetic location, but you would already know that the way in which religious tendency was determined was quantified in at least two of the references I have given. I think you think i am saying 'relIGioN Is inHEriTED, NOthiNG else IS POSSilblE' I am not, I am saying that your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', is not one that is universally held, it is simply not as cut and dried as you are implying and there is a good amount of relevant people with the right qualifications that believe there may be something in it, this includes both academia and scientific articles, both of which I have provided. Just out of interest, I dont want to besmirch your sister, but remember my uncle, I can't fly Harrier Jets.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 22:51:01 GMT
Look, apart from the fact that you have resorted to ad hominem, this is a really stupid argument. Can we agree that due to 'religion' not being able to be quantified, it is unable to be scientifically studied especially in the field of human genetics which is totally the opposite and is unable to be 'interpreted' to fit an agenda? Hence allegedly 'scientific' studied are inherently flawed. You are NOW claiming an 'academic 'source, which is totally different to a scientific source. Unfortunately for you, the need for authentication in this conundrum is scientific and NOT just academic covering the theories of evolutionists, anthropologists and their unproven 'theories' no matter how interesting and akin to your own bias they may be.. You may or may not believe this butt my sis is an acknowledge DNA expert in her field, so I speak from more authority than the average Australian housewife as I have run our conversations past her. Ok fair call re the ad hominem, but lets be honest you have called me out on a separate thread, indicating I am stupid for accepting this printed academia. There are at least two studies I have cited that show that tendency to religion could well be inherited in some manner, not for an instant am I saying that it's like blue eyes. if you have read the things I supplied, not only would you have seen mention of the genetic location, but you would already know that the way in which religious tendency was determined was quantified in at least two of the references I have given. I think you think i am saying 'relIGioN Is inHEriTED, NOthiNG else IS POSSilblE' I am not, I am saying that your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', is not one that is universally held, it is simply not as cut and dried as you are implying and there is a good amount of relevant people with the right qualifications that believe there may be something in it, this includes both academia and scientific articles, both of which I have provided. Just out of interest, I dont want to besmirch your sister, but remember my uncle, I can't fly Harrier Jets. Well, basically I think we have been arguing apples and oranges. Whilst you cannot know my domestic circumstances, my sis lives with us, and we are co-authors of books which are historical and involve considerable DNA research. We confer on these matters and my understanding is above average for an Australian housefrau! We did confer on this and in fact she laughed at the thought of religion being assigned a gene or genes, owing to the fact of 'religion' as an unscientific concept.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 17, 2019 22:57:39 GMT
Out of interest, is your atheism along the lines of "God is an incoherent concept so he cannot exist" or "God is an incoherent concept so the question of his existence cannot even be considered in a meaningful sense"? I’d say the former. If you ask people what is a deity, they seem to answer in terms of it being non-physical. Even asking for evidence of such seems nonsensical as evidence is always physical. How would one go about measuring and observing that which is non-physical or explain without recourse to the physical? I don’t know and I think neither does anyone else. Of course I could be wrong about this and someone may come along with the ability to measure and observe that which is non-physical but I highly doubt it. Someone may even forward that deity is physical but then evidence would need to confirm this but I’ve yet to meet anyone forwarding such a claim. My belief in physicalism is what makes deity, in itself, incoherent. That is, concepts of God(s) do not cohere with my belief in physicalism.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 22:58:25 GMT
Ok fair call re the ad hominem, but lets be honest you have called me out on a separate thread, indicating I am stupid for accepting this printed academia. There are at least two studies I have cited that show that tendency to religion could well be inherited in some manner, not for an instant am I saying that it's like blue eyes. if you have read the things I supplied, not only would you have seen mention of the genetic location, but you would already know that the way in which religious tendency was determined was quantified in at least two of the references I have given. I think you think i am saying 'relIGioN Is inHEriTED, NOthiNG else IS POSSilblE' I am not, I am saying that your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', is not one that is universally held, it is simply not as cut and dried as you are implying and there is a good amount of relevant people with the right qualifications that believe there may be something in it, this includes both academia and scientific articles, both of which I have provided. Just out of interest, I dont want to besmirch your sister, but remember my uncle, I can't fly Harrier Jets. Well, basically I think we have been arguing apples and oranges. Whilst you cannot know my domestic circumstances, my sis lives with us, and we are co-authors of books which are historical and involve considerable DNA research. We confer on these matters and my understanding is above average for an Australian housefrau! We did confer on this and in fact she laughed at the thought of religion being assigned a gene or genes, owing to the fact of 'religion' as an unscientific concept. Great, and lets take your sister at face value, I have shown comprehensively that there are academics and studies that disagree with her.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 23:13:00 GMT
Well, basically I think we have been arguing apples and oranges. Whilst you cannot know my domestic circumstances, my sis lives with us, and we are co-authors of books which are historical and involve considerable DNA research. We confer on these matters and my understanding is above average for an Australian housefrau! We did confer on this and in fact she laughed at the thought of religion being assigned a gene or genes, owing to the fact of 'religion' as an unscientific concept. Great, and lets take your sister at face value, I have shown comprehensively that there are academics and studies that disagree with her. ...butt NOT scientists in the field of genetics!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 18, 2019 0:26:28 GMT
Great, and lets take your sister at face value, I have shown comprehensively that there are academics and studies that disagree with her. ...butt NOT scientists in the field of genetics! You really should have read what I posted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 1:10:25 GMT
You're using the word "see" to mean "want it to be". And what do you see? My intention is to see what is there, and only that. It's a far more radical notion than it seems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 1:12:39 GMT
Ok so help me understand how you can say that there isn’t sufficient evidence, but it still leads you believe it. To put it in context, there is nothing I believe without sufficient evidence, so I don’t know how you’ve reached this conclusion. I see enough evidence to have faith to believe. Just curious - is it a goal of yours to have your beliefs match with reality? That is to say, in this case, you believe that god exists. Do you care whether you're right? Or is that not important to you?
|
|