|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 14, 2019 1:53:43 GMT
I see what you mean. What I would say is that I’m confident very few people would believe religious ideas if they were taught them after that were 20 for instance. Whereas almost everybody would believe any sort of discovery based in math/physics/chemistry/biology because you could present them with the findings. Religion IMO, largely only survives due to constant childhood indoctrination, so I don’t consider it something people are inclined to believe so much as they are tricked into accepting early on, and once their worldview is set, many of them will not allow themselves to be talked out of it. There is a principle for that but I can’t remember what it’s called right now. It’s the same thing as remembering a song lyric incorrectly for instance and being sure you are right even when somebody shows you the real lyrics. Assuming you believe humans evolved from lower life forms (that weren't religious) and the gene pool gradually evolved into what is considered human now, how do you imagine religion got started in the first place? I definitely accept our understanding of evolution. Religions seem to have evolved at first from attempts to make sense of the reality around us that we did not have a good understanding of. For instance, consider how many lived their entire lives not knowing what stars were. And so various tales came about to describe things like sun rises and tides and life and death and all sorts of other things that were beyond early abilities to comprehend. Prehistoric religions developed around these and eventually evolved into polytheistic religions for thousands of years until eventually particular ones like those of the Greek gods arose. Of course as our knowledge grew and it became increasingly clear that polytheism was nonsense, religion evolved again into various monotheistic religions. Religions constantly change to adapt to new knowledge and always claiming that it fits right into their beliefs. But the root of all of these religions is still a myth and always has been.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 14, 2019 7:15:35 GMT
I grew up in a protestant environment...a very pleasant, kind, nurturing environment with good parents, basically good siblings, a nice church and I was never abused. I transitioned from being pretty much a Christian theist when I was ~20 to an atheist by the time I was ~35. It took ~15 years of thinking. That was ~35 yrs ago. I doubt anything is going to change and cause me to believe in God again. I feel bad for people who were treated unkindly in a religious setting and lose their belief for that reason. That kind of decision should be done deliberately, slowly, with careful thought and not be a spur of the moment kind of thing. What if you're wrong? What if you're wrong?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 14, 2019 7:21:20 GMT
Assuming you believe humans evolved from lower life forms (that weren't religious) and the gene pool gradually evolved into what is considered human now, how do you imagine religion got started in the first place? I definitely accept our understanding of evolution. Religions seem to have evolved at first from attempts to make sense of the reality around us that we did not have a good understanding of. For instance, consider how many lived their entire lives not knowing what stars were. And so various tales came about to describe things like sun rises and tides and life and death and all sorts of other things that were beyond early abilities to comprehend. Prehistoric religions developed around these and eventually evolved into polytheistic religions for thousands of years until eventually particular ones like those of the Greek gods arose. Of course as our knowledge grew and it became increasingly clear that polytheism was nonsense, religion evolved again into various monotheistic religions. Religions constantly change to adapt to new knowledge and always claiming that it fits right into their beliefs. But the root of all of these religions is still a myth and always has been. It is interesting to me how all this "unknown" stuff ended up making people think there was something other than the natural. I also think the root of religion is myth, but how did it go from myths about the world around us we can more or less see or sense in some way to imagining a whole world...a supernatural world populated by all kinds of beings including super beings and eventually an ultimately super being.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Oct 14, 2019 7:21:41 GMT
I grew up in a protestant environment...a very pleasant, kind, nurturing environment with good parents, basically good siblings, a nice church and I was never abused. I transitioned from being pretty much a Christian theist when I was ~20 to an atheist by the time I was ~35. It took ~15 years of thinking. That was ~35 yrs ago. I doubt anything is going to change and cause me to believe in God again. I feel bad for people who were treated unkindly in a religious setting and lose their belief for that reason. That kind of decision should be done deliberately, slowly, with careful thought and not be a spur of the moment kind of thing. What if you're wrong? It's possible that rizdek is mistaken in his beliefs. If so, he goes to a marvelously blissful existence while you suffer unimaginable torment forever.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 14, 2019 7:36:41 GMT
It's possible that rizdek is mistaken in his beliefs. If so, he goes to a marvelously blissful existence while you suffer unimaginable torment forever. I think of an thought experiment when I am confronted with "what if I'm wrong."
Let's say some day I, having never been married (that I am aware of), am suddenly provided papers, documents showing that I am, indeed, married. I become convinced the documents are genuine. However, I have zero knowledge about it nor do I know to whom I am married. What to do? Let's say, at the same time, some people that I know bring some woman over and say HERE is your wife. They show me photos of me with that woman, but I can't tell if the photos are fake/doctored. They claim this woman has been doing things for me and even though I am aware of these things having been done, I don't know that that woman is the one who has been doing these things. Do I take them at their word and "accept" this woman as my wife...live with her, sleep with her, attempt to love her, etc? Or do I hold out just in case I really DO have a wife and it's not this woman? If my actual wife is the jealous type, I'm better off NOT accepting the fake wife and in stead just living as if I have no wife. Certainly I would not be pleasing the real wife by bumping ugly with this fake wife.
Same goes with God. There might be a real god and it might really care what I believe about it. But I don't want to take the chance of offending it by whoring after false gods. And while I think there probably aren't any gods, I am not certain. But I am absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Christian God isn't the real god. I am absolutely certain no god actually advocated sacrificing barnyard livestock to appease him for the sins of people. I am absolutely certain no god advocated that people regularly pretend to drink the blood or eat the flesh of his human avatar as part of ritualistic worship. I am absolutely convinced that no god made use of what amounts to human sacrifice as part of his plan for he can have a relationship with people.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 14, 2019 8:58:04 GMT
Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation. Even though I don't adhere to his philosophy, I like F. H. Bradley's quote - 'Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct; but to find these reasons is no less an instinct.' ( Appearance and Reality: A Metaphysical Essay) I'd just like to say something though about the difference of having a belief and lacking a belief. Belief is a cognitive faculty that we have and to have no belief is to not have a cognitive faculty. To be cognitively aware of something is to have mental content of something. Lets call this something p: I lack a belief of something is not the same as I have a belief of no thing. I lack a cognitive faculty of p is not equivalent to I have a cognitive faculty of no p. I lack a cognitive faculty of pigs flying is not equivalent to I have a cognitive faculty of no pigs flying. I lack a belief of pigs flying is not the same as I have a belief of no pigs flying. I lack a cognitive faculty of deity existing is not equivalent to I have a cognitive faculty of no deity existing. I lack a belief of deity existing is not the same as I have a belief of no deity existing. I'm not implying that you don't understand this, albeit subtle, difference (I actually think you do) but people of the mentality that atheism is a belief system, or a religion even, tend to not understand the difference and by using the connective 'or' in your statement, people of this mentality tend to read it as belief and disbelief being two sides of the same coin when in fact is more a case of two separate coins. Yes, point taken. And good quote - I think I'm trying to say the same thing albeit less eloquently. Although I wouldn't call them "bad" reasons necessarily.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 14, 2019 9:01:34 GMT
I'm not debating your argument. I'm saying those with a religious inclination won't accept it while those who lack that inclination probably wouldn't see much of an issue with it. Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation. Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation.Atheism is a conclusion many former believers come to. It’s not like we have not thought about the existence of God. I’ve spent many years thinking about the question and have realized I cannot justify believing in something that has no evidence of being true or false. There may be an intelligence at the center of creation, but so far science has yet to detect it. I think that kinda fits what I'm saying - it's a long journey for one's beliefs to change. It seems to be rarely we encounter an argument (be it theistic or atheistic) and immediately change our mind based on the merits of that argument alone. I'm not saying that doesn't happen on occasion but I think it's rare. Of course sometimes a good argument can be a prod to really consider why we believe what we believe and so I don't think them worthless for that reason.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 14, 2019 9:13:01 GMT
I imagine the following circumstances could perhaps play a part: Genetic predisposition Upbringing (not necessarily of a religious nature but might leave you more susceptible to religious thought from other sources) Intellectual interests (some might be drawn to theology) Personality (eg would a kind child be more drawn to certain aspects of Christianity?) Existential despair Trauma Urge to belong Urge to reject the status quo Reaction to oppression (eg "in the next life things will be better") Reinforcement of oppression, (eg "I am clearly meant to be at the top of society") If you look at it just as a case of indoctrination, that alone wouldn't explain the varieties of ways people react to that indoctrination. Some people buy into it as adults, some modify the belief, some don't think all that much about it, some reject it completely, some discard one set of religious beliefs but take up another (eg imagine a girl raised in a Christian household who becomes a Wiccan in her late teens). Then you have people who were not indoctrinated but become religious as adults. Of course cultures will often dictate the nature of that religious belief. Everything except genetic disposition comes under the broad brush of nurture. There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith, despite someone's claim ( a theist) on here recently. Honestly, I have no idea on that score how much nature may or may not play a part. I wouldn't rule it out that some people might end up being more prone to such ideas than others due to differences in their neurological makeup. I know Michael Persinger's Gold Helmet experiment for instance seemed to be able to simulate religious experience but Persinger claimed the experience differed in effect depending on the subject's temporal lobe sensitivity. However, I am aware that Persinger's experiments have been criticised. Also there are other reasons people may be religious far beyond that person undergoing a "religious experience". I read once that people with autism often tend to be either militantly religious or militantly non-religious with little grey area. So someone with autism indoctrinated into a religion may buy into it more than someone without autism. It's still a debate of course whether autism is due to nature or nurture or a certain combination of the two. Also like I said certain personality traits can in conjunction with other push factors may make someone more open to religion and personality is formed by a mixture of nature and nurture. But yes, nurture definitely plays a massive part - but there's a lot more to nurture than the indoctrination you mentioned. One could also say that existential despair isn't really nature or nurture though either one may make you more prone to it and they might dictate how you react to it.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 14, 2019 9:18:17 GMT
Cool, be aware though that qualified scientists who specialise in this field DO accept this type of research. Basically you are doing what you accuse religious people of and that is dismissing something simply because it does not fit YOUR narrative. No, it is due to the difficulties and complexities of separating nurture from nature and the difficulties of associating specific genes to specific characteristics. You're the one making the definitive statement here - that "religious belief is not influenced by nature". The onus is on you to demonstrate that is the case. The difficulty of separating nature and nurture doesn't support your stance but a more cautious stance of "religious belief might be influenced by nature but we cannot be sure."
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 14, 2019 9:40:31 GMT
No, it is due to the difficulties and complexities of separating nurture from nature and the difficulties of associating specific genes to specific characteristics. You're the one making the definitive statement here - that "religious belief is not influenced by nature". The onus is on you to demonstrate that is the case. The difficulty of separating nature and nurture doesn't support your stance but a more cautious stance of "religious belief might be influenced by nature but we cannot be sure." I only make that claim due to a lack of credible alternatives. The problem as I see it with genetics in respect to 'religion' is that religion or belief in a god, is NOT a specific trait. I could say, however that people may be genetically disposed to be more 'gullible', more trusting etc etc etc, however these traits are not specific to being religious or having a belief in god. You see the problem?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 14, 2019 9:54:54 GMT
You're the one making the definitive statement here - that "religious belief is not influenced by nature". The onus is on you to demonstrate that is the case. The difficulty of separating nature and nurture doesn't support your stance but a more cautious stance of "religious belief might be influenced by nature but we cannot be sure." I only make that claim due to a lack of credible alternatives. The problem as I see it with genetics in respect to 'religion' is that religion or belief in a god, is NOT a specific trait. I could say, however that people may be genetically disposed to be more 'gullible', more trusting etc etc etc, however these traits are not specific to being religious or having a belief in god. You see the problem? Ok, I think I see what you mean. But I didn't argue there was a "religion gene", only that some people may be genetically more likely to embrace religion - I wasn't arguing that genetic makeup alone could make someone religious. So if Bill and Ben are both indoctrinated into a religion, but say Bill has a greater genetic predisposition to be more trusting (for example), all other thing being equal Bill is more likely to be religious. If Gail and Gillian are both oppressed but Gail has a genetic predisposition towards optimism she might believe in a saviour figure who will deliver her where Gillian may not. And so on.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 14, 2019 11:47:15 GMT
I definitely accept our understanding of evolution. Religions seem to have evolved at first from attempts to make sense of the reality around us that we did not have a good understanding of. For instance, consider how many lived their entire lives not knowing what stars were. And so various tales came about to describe things like sun rises and tides and life and death and all sorts of other things that were beyond early abilities to comprehend. Prehistoric religions developed around these and eventually evolved into polytheistic religions for thousands of years until eventually particular ones like those of the Greek gods arose. Of course as our knowledge grew and it became increasingly clear that polytheism was nonsense, religion evolved again into various monotheistic religions. Religions constantly change to adapt to new knowledge and always claiming that it fits right into their beliefs. But the root of all of these religions is still a myth and always has been. It is interesting to me how all this "unknown" stuff ended up making people think there was something other than the natural. I also think the root of religion is myth, but how did it go from myths about the world around us we can more or less see or sense in some way to imagining a whole world...a supernatural world populated by all kinds of beings including super beings and eventually an ultimately super being. I think a lot of it had to do with the concept of death and the denial that life simply stops. The concept of an afterlife is basically a blatant denial of that. Religion also bears with it what I consider a conceited point of view, where it’s all about us, everything was made for us, the Earth was considered the center of everything, life is hard to comprehend, yadda yadda yadda, so it must have been made by something intelligent. So that being must live in the place where we go when we die for sure. It’s a complete fantasy but somehow it has still persisted.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 14, 2019 12:20:38 GMT
It is interesting to me how all this "unknown" stuff ended up making people think there was something other than the natural. I also think the root of religion is myth, but how did it go from myths about the world around us we can more or less see or sense in some way to imagining a whole world...a supernatural world populated by all kinds of beings including super beings and eventually an ultimately super being. I think a lot of it had to do with the concept of death and the denial that life simply stops. The concept of an afterlife is basically a blatant denial of that. Religion also bears with it what I consider a conceited point of view, where it’s all about us, everything was made for us, the Earth was considered the center of everything, life is hard to comprehend, yadda yadda yadda, so it must have been made by something intelligent. So that being must live in the place where we go when we die for sure. It’s a complete fantasy but somehow it has still persisted. I think the idea of life after death has a tangible and fairly straight forward basis. I think it had to do with dreams/hallucinations. Most higher animals, at least, dream. And dreams can seem quite real. I imagine that the very earliest "animals" that approached what we think of as human dreamed and in those dreams, things would happen, they would see people and things that were either far away, dead, or lost. They would discuss in their rudimentary way their respective dreams and try to develop explanations for what happened in those dreams. Perhaps they began to believe that long dead friends/loved ones/relatives still lived on in some "dream" world. Even items...a treasured tool/implement/weapon that was long gone appeared in a dream. Perhaps over time, two or several would dream about the same long dead acquaintance or about some item. Eventually they began to think that maybe these dead people still lived on in some fashion and one could visit them in their sleep. And perhaps, since when they sleeped they would close their eyes, they began to think of sleep and death as being related.
Even in recent times, people who had dreams imagined that what they dreamed was some sort of real event/interaction, as when an angels appeared to Mary and Joseph in their dreams and out of that came the idea that Jesus was somehow divine. Heck even to this day, people believe that what Mary and Joseph experienced in their dreams was really them getting some info from on high.
The idea that dreams might have been the original source of believing in the spirit world isn't my original idea. This site discusses it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2019 13:12:59 GMT
I believe that it all boils down to the core concept of is one going to believe that everything in this universe just spontaneously erupted some 14 billion odd years ago, or believe there's something bigger than what we can detect.
Is the universe an accident? Is it just by happenstance that from nothing we got elements that when under the pressure of the core of a star turn into more elements with different fundamental properties from their sources that make it possible for creatures to exist that ponder their own existence?
Or is it that the universe is much smaller than we perceive, that something much more ancient than 14 billion years ago designed it all, something outside that over maybe trillions of years grew from something small.
I personally believe that man is just scratching the surface, and that there's a truth to something greater and that the purpose of this universe is to produce entities that can ponder their own existence and reach back to whatever designed it.
I'm left with about as many unanswered questions as someone who believes differently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2019 18:45:16 GMT
I believe that it all boils down to the core concept of is one going to believe that everything in this universe just spontaneously erupted some 14 billion odd years ago, or believe there's something bigger than what we can detect. Is the universe an accident? Is it just by happenstance that from nothing we got elements that when under the pressure of the core of a star turn into more elements with different fundamental properties from their sources that make it possible for creatures to exist that ponder their own existence? Or is it that the universe is much smaller than we perceive, that something much more ancient than 14 billion years ago designed it all, something outside that over maybe trillions of years grew from something small. I personally believe that man is just scratching the surface, and that there's a truth to something greater and that the purpose of this universe is to produce entities that can ponder their own existence and reach back to whatever designed it. I'm left with about as many unanswered questions as someone who believes differently. The thing is that throwing god into that discussion doesn't resolve anything, or even help anything. There are hypothetical explanations for where our universe could have come from, with natural causes creating it. Look up Brane Cosmology for an example, which suggests that our universe is a membrane inside a higher-dimensional 'bulk', and that collisions between membranes produce new universes. But of course, that just leads to the question of "well where did the bulk come from?" And if you posit a natural origin for that, where did that come from? Sooner or later you have to have a cause that caused all of nature. Theists often posit god as the original cause of nature, of course. But that just raises the question of where god came from. What's the origin of god? If there is a god then why is there a god, rather than not a god? Theists claim it's a nonsensical question, that god is "the uncaused cause" and needs no origin or explanation of his own. But if you accept that, then you are accepting that things don't actually need to be caused. Things can just exist without a cause. And if you accept that, then why do you even ask where the universe came from? Why do you ask where the bulk - or whatever other natural explanation there might be - came from? If I say "it didn't come from anywhere, it just is", theists start whining and saying I'm being ridiculous. But you can't have it both ways! If I'm being ridiculous in suggesting that nature has no cause, then they're being ridiculous for suggesting god has no cause. Personally I think the only truly informed, intelligent and honest answer anybody can give to "where did nature come from" is "I don't know." Because I don't know - and I don't believe you do, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2019 19:18:45 GMT
I believe that it all boils down to the core concept of is one going to believe that everything in this universe just spontaneously erupted some 14 billion odd years ago, or believe there's something bigger than what we can detect. Is the universe an accident? Is it just by happenstance that from nothing we got elements that when under the pressure of the core of a star turn into more elements with different fundamental properties from their sources that make it possible for creatures to exist that ponder their own existence? Or is it that the universe is much smaller than we perceive, that something much more ancient than 14 billion years ago designed it all, something outside that over maybe trillions of years grew from something small. I personally believe that man is just scratching the surface, and that there's a truth to something greater and that the purpose of this universe is to produce entities that can ponder their own existence and reach back to whatever designed it. I'm left with about as many unanswered questions as someone who believes differently. The thing is that throwing god into that discussion doesn't resolve anything, or even help anything. There are hypothetical explanations for where our universe could have come from, with natural causes creating it. Look up Brane Cosmology for an example, which suggests that our universe is a membrane inside a higher-dimensional 'bulk', and that collisions between membranes produce new universes. But of course, that just leads to the question of "well where did the bulk come from?" And if you posit a natural origin for that, where did that come from? Sooner or later you have to have a cause that caused all of nature. Theists often posit god as the original cause of nature, of course. But that just raises the question of where god came from. What's the origin of god? If there is a god then why is there a god, rather than not a god? Theists claim it's a nonsensical question, that god is "the uncaused cause" and needs no origin or explanation of his own. But if you accept that, then you are accepting that things don't actually need to be caused. Things can just exist without a cause. And if you accept that, then why do you even ask where the universe came from? Why do you ask where the bulk - or whatever other natural explanation there might be - came from? If I say "it didn't come from anywhere, it just is", theists start whining and saying I'm being ridiculous. But you can't have it both ways! If I'm being ridiculous in suggesting that nature has no cause, then they're being ridiculous for suggesting god has no cause. Personally I think the only truly informed, intelligent and honest answer anybody can give to "where did nature come from" is "I don't know." Because I don't know - and I don't believe you do, either. I don't know either, nobody does, I don't think I pretended to know in my post. I just see a complex universe created of matter that shows, to me, at the core, design. I agree at the root there is something that has an uncaused cause, and that is something far beyond our comprehension at this point.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 14, 2019 20:14:46 GMT
I only make that claim due to a lack of credible alternatives. The problem as I see it with genetics in respect to 'religion' is that religion or belief in a god, is NOT a specific trait. I could say, however that people may be genetically disposed to be more 'gullible', more trusting etc etc etc, however these traits are not specific to being religious or having a belief in god. You see the problem? Ok, I think I see what you mean. But I didn't argue there was a "religion gene", only that some people may be genetically more likely to embrace religion - I wasn't arguing that genetic makeup alone could make someone religious. So if Bill and Ben are both indoctrinated into a religion, but say Bill has a greater genetic predisposition to be more trusting (for example), all other thing being equal Bill is more likely to be religious. If Gail and Gillian are both oppressed but Gail has a genetic predisposition towards optimism she might believe in a saviour figure who will deliver her where Gillian may not. And so on. With the greatest respect, I see those as stretches due to a pre-conceived 'agenda' and highly unscientific. What you are proposing may appear true/likely however there is no scientific evidence to back up such assertions due to the fact that we are dealing with unquantifiable traits. We are getting into the general area of discussion and disagreement that scientist and statisticians have with some studies in psychology and related fields rather than the more quantifiable field of genetics, and like everything else scientific, facts/genetics cannot lie yet the interpretation of them can be doubtful. My sis is currently working in the field of genetics as applicable to family history and this problem comes up all the time. The genetics is infallible however working out the likelihood of relationships and the derivation of those actual relationships is largely misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 14, 2019 20:44:15 GMT
Why don't you read the information provided. You made a claim that genetics has absolutely nothing to do with religion, I provided evidence that at least some of the relevant scientific community disagree with you. As far as I am concerned I have made my point, there is evidence that genetics has a part to play in religion. if you don't believe me, or want to start making straw men about there being some claim that religion resembles a gene, fine go ahead, it's no skin off my nose, my point has been adequately proven. It is either a bullshit study or reported as such. TWO things: ANYONE who claims that hasn't the faintest idea about genetics. Fraternal twins have the same genetics as siblings ALL of whom inherit 50% of their genes from each at the rate of 50% not necessarily the SAME genes. In fact the chances of that happening are infinitesimal. It makes you wonder why ANY 'scientist' would include 'fraternal twins' in any study and think that they are any more related than regular siblings. It certainly compromises any result that they get as it is a false assumption and scientifically inaccurate. Well at least now you are actually presenting something other than a vague "i dont agree" explorebiotech.com/10-bizarre-facts-fraternal-twins-probably-didnt-know/link
So I am not really sure what 'experts' you are referring too, but here are two saying that you are wrong, you are welcome to evidence expert commentary that refutes this if you like, but your assertions are not evidence.
Cool, that is one study, and yes it can only be applied to the subject group, however that is not the only academic paper that posits a religosity gene:
www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.07-05-0029
And before you say it, no this is not proven but it there is enough feeling in the scientific community that your assertion that
Simply does not hold water, as there may well be.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 14, 2019 22:08:28 GMT
What you are proposing may appear true/likely however there is no scientific evidence to back up such assertions due to the fact that we are dealing with unquantifiable traits. Except all I've asserted is it might be the case that genetics plays a part in taking up religious belief. What my agenda is supposed to be here I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 14, 2019 22:37:15 GMT
when your papal stamp of approval is drenched in saudi blood
what is the equivalent of a pope going down on an arab sheikh these days?
sjw 10/14/19 inspired at this very moment in time by the glimmering white robes against the effervescent backdrops.
from the 'blasphemy series' of poems
|
|