Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 1:10:45 GMT
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? All I've heard is "Nature and Physics has to be some way, and this is the one it happens to be." I don’t need any. You can either demonstrate there was a designer or a need for one, or you can’t. I don’t have to prove that your myth is wrong. So here we find ourselves existing in a universe where you demand proof of design because you don't see it and I don't because I see design. Just as people have done for a very long time. If either of us could prove such with any degree of certainty we would change the world as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 17, 2019 2:00:08 GMT
I don’t need any. You can either demonstrate there was a designer or a need for one, or you can’t. I don’t have to prove that your myth is wrong. So here we find ourselves existing in a universe where you demand proof of design because you don't see it and I don't because I see design. Just as people have done for a very long time. If either of us could prove such with any degree of certainty we would change the world as we know it. You are the only one of the two of us who has claimed something that requires proof. Saying you see design doesn’t mean there is any. We don’t hold equal positions, because everything I believe is supported by significant evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 2:22:58 GMT
I don't because I see design. No, you do not see design. You choose to label it as design out of personal incredulity. There's a difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 2:34:24 GMT
So here we find ourselves existing in a universe where you demand proof of design because you don't see it and I don't because I see design. Just as people have done for a very long time. If either of us could prove such with any degree of certainty we would change the world as we know it. You are the only one of the two of us who has claimed something that requires proof. Saying you see design doesn’t mean there is any. We don’t hold equal positions, because everything I believe is supported by significant evidence. Just one post ago when I asked about evidence you didn't need any, now it's supported by significant evidence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 2:36:04 GMT
I don't because I see design. No, you do not see design. You choose to label it as design out of personal incredulity. There's a difference. I see design. I can't prove design, but I see design.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 2:37:38 GMT
I will just rest my case thanks, your claim that there is absolutely no genetic component to religious belief is very clearly not one held by the scientific community, until you can present actual evidence to the contrary of what I have shown, then you are demonstrably incorrect. You are no 'getting' this are you? FIRST you have to define 'religious belief' a nebulous thing, into something that it is even possible to use scientifically. You are not getting this are you? FIRST you have to provide something that backs up your statement, I have you have not. Until you are able to back up what you claim (that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', your exact words), all you are doing is making bold faced, unsupported assertions, and forgive me but I think I might have more faith in the actual supplied and peer-reviewed science than the assertions of someone on a message board who is incapable of supporting what they say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 2:38:08 GMT
No, you do not see design. You choose to label it as design out of personal incredulity. There's a difference. I see design. I can't prove design, but I see design. You're using the word "see" to mean "want it to be".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 2:43:10 GMT
I see design. I can't prove design, but I see design. You're using the word "see" to mean "want it to be". And what do you see?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 17, 2019 2:58:59 GMT
You are the only one of the two of us who has claimed something that requires proof. Saying you see design doesn’t mean there is any. We don’t hold equal positions, because everything I believe is supported by significant evidence. Just one post ago when I asked about evidence you didn't need any, now it's supported by significant evidence? That hasn’t changed. I said i didn’t need evidence you were wrong. There is evidence for everything I believe. Two different things. Bottom line, there is not a demonstration or sufficient evidence that a god exists. Just saying you think the universe seems designed is not evidence that it is.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 3:18:57 GMT
You are no 'getting' this are you? FIRST you have to define 'religious belief' a nebulous thing, into something that it is even possible to use scientifically. You are not getting this are you? FIRST you have to provide something that backs up your statement, I have you have not. Until you are able to back up what you claim (that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', your exact words), all you are do ing is making bold faced, unsupported assertions, and forgive me but I think I might have more faith in the actual supplied and peer-reviewed science than the assertions of someone on a message board who is incapable of supporting what they say. They are your examples. Show me how those 'scientists' in this study defined 'religious'. I claim bullshit science at best done by 'believers'! Where is the proof that these people in the 'study' were religious'? I repeat. There is no such trait as 'religious'. I also don't accept studies because you claim that they are 'peer reviewed'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 3:20:40 GMT
Just one post ago when I asked about evidence you didn't need any, now it's supported by significant evidence? That hasn’t changed. I said i didn’t need evidence you were wrong. There is evidence for everything I believe. Two different things. Bottom line, there is not a demonstration or sufficient evidence that a god exists. Just saying you think the universe seems designed is not evidence that it is. You're right, it's not a demonstration or sufficient evidence that God exists, if it were, that would be quite something. What I see leads me to believe that God does exist though.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 3:21:30 GMT
You are not getting this are you? FIRST you have to provide something that backs up your statement, I have you have not. Until you are able to back up what you claim (that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', your exact words), all you are do ing is making bold faced, unsupported assertions, and forgive me but I think I might have more faith in the actual supplied and peer-reviewed science than the assertions of someone on a message board who is incapable of supporting what they say. They are your examples. Show me how those 'scientists' in this study defined 'religious'. I claim bullshit science at best done by 'believers'! Where is the proof that these people in the 'study' were religious'? I repeat. There is no such trait as 'religious'. I also don't accept studies because you claim that they are 'peer reviewed'. And I don't accept your assertions as they have come out of a hole in your head. I have provided overwhelming evidence, your refusal to accept what scientists are discovering is on you, not me.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 3:32:46 GMT
They are your examples. Show me how those 'scientists' in this study defined 'religious'. I claim bullshit science at best done by 'believers'! Where is the proof that these people in the 'study' were religious'? I repeat. There is no such trait as 'religious'. I also don't accept studies because you claim that they are 'peer reviewed'. And I don't accept your assertions as they have come out of a hole in your head. I have provided overwhelming evidence, your refusal to accept what scientists are discovering is on you, not me. and I repeat, it is NOT possible to DNA test for being 'religious' because it is not a genetically testable thing. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 3:41:26 GMT
And I don't accept your assertions as they have come out of a hole in your head. I have provided overwhelming evidence, your refusal to accept what scientists are discovering is on you, not me. and I repeat, it is NOT possible to DNA test for being 'religious' because it is not a genetically testable thing. End of story. and I repeat you are NOT on the same authority level as actual scientists in the actual field. why are you incapable of understanding this?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 4:02:31 GMT
and I repeat, it is NOT possible to DNA test for being 'religious' because it is not a genetically testable thing. End of story. and I repeat you are NOT on the same authority level as actual scientists in the actual field. why are you incapable of understanding this? OK, I just did two things: 1. Researched that study and found it was done by a graduate student in psychology NOT a scientist or scientific team. It is the ONLY study I could find on the net on this topic. They defined religion in the study as ie mind bogglingly unscientific. 2. Asked my sis ( who is a scientist and career biometrician and genealogist who worked in genetics for the Australian Government for 45 years) whose job was to design scientific experiments, to run her eye over the study. In her opinion it was 'bullshit' without proper design, application statistical methodology from the information given. Her exact words were 'biased lightweight nonsense based on an unscientific postulation'.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 5:42:30 GMT
and I repeat you are NOT on the same authority level as actual scientists in the actual field. why are you incapable of understanding this? OK, I just did two things: 1. Researched that study and found it was done by a graduate student in psychology NOT a scientist or scientific team. It is the ONLY study I could find on the net on this topic. They defined religion in the study as ie mind bogglingly unscientific. 2. Asked my sis ( who is a scientist and career biometrician and genealogist who worked in genetics for the Australian Government for 45 years) whose job was to design scientific experiments, to run her eye over the study. In her opinion it was 'bullshit' without proper design, application statistical methodology from the information given. Her exact words were 'biased lightweight nonsense based on an unscientific postulation'. Thanks for not just dismissing things and giving it a real shot. Cool you dont like that study. Oh well, sadly once again nothing that you have said can be ascribed to anything other than opinion, I dont know who your sister is but sure lets take her at face value. (Just to be clear I know who you claim your sister to be, but I can claim that my uncle planned the RAF gulf war, it really does not mean much in this context). I accept that it is the only study you can find on the net, I actually found a few more but they were behind paywalls. So the best I can really do is references in I guess second level academia, by which I mean books and the like as opposed to actual studies. a huge one the Dean (I think sorry not going to look him up again) Hamer, who is referenced in tons of things regarding this. It looks like he was the most famous to suggest a link between inheritance and religion. I am sure you will find references to him as you look around. Heres a second tier from the royal publication society; royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2010.2504In which it states: Sadly the links mostly go to book excerpts, but I would consider this legitimate.
This article just takes it as a given, which I know it not very helpful, but anyhow:
There is plenty out there.
I think on the balance of the study I cited and the secondary sources I have just shown you, it is far to say that there is at the very least still debate of there being a genetic component to religious propensity.
Or maybe you can cite some studies that back up you assertion that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith'
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 6:44:08 GMT
OK, I just did two things: 1. Researched that study and found it was done by a graduate student in psychology NOT a scientist or scientific team. It is the ONLY study I could find on the net on this topic. They defined religion in the study as ie mind bogglingly unscientific. 2. Asked my sis ( who is a scientist and career biometrician and genealogist who worked in genetics for the Australian Government for 45 years) whose job was to design scientific experiments, to run her eye over the study. In her opinion it was 'bullshit' without proper design, application statistical methodology from the information given. Her exact words were 'biased lightweight nonsense based on an unscientific postulation'. Thanks for not just dismissing things and giving it a real shot. Cool you dont like that study. Oh well, sadly once again nothing that you have said can be ascribed to anything other than opinion, I dont know who your sister is but sure lets take her at face value. (Just to be clear I know who you claim your sister to be, but I can claim that my uncle planned the RAF gulf war, it really does not mean much in this context). I accept that it is the only study you can find on the net, I actually found a few more but they were behind paywalls. So the best I can really do is references in I guess second level academia, by which I mean books and the like as opposed to actual studies. a huge one the Dean (I think sorry not going to look him up again) Hamer, who is referenced in tons of things regarding this. It looks like he was the most famous to suggest a link between inheritance and religion. I am sure you will find references to him as you look around. Heres a second tier from the royal publication society; royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2010.2504In which it states: Sadly the links mostly go to book excerpts, but I would consider this legitimate.
This article just takes it as a given, which I know it not very helpful, but anyhow:
There is plenty out there.
I think on the balance of the study I cited and the secondary sources I have just shown you, it is far to say that there is at the very least still debate of there being a genetic component to religious propensity.
Or maybe you can cite some studies that back up you assertion that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith'
You are seriously not getting this. I repeat AGAIN IF you can isolate things like gullibility, ability to follow instructions naivety lack of logical thinking etc etc etc and other such traits, and prove that they are 'religious' then you may identify people who MAY have 'predispositions' towards religiosity. That is far from a genetic propensity or disposition towards religion. The tricky part is to identify ( as I said previously numerous times) exactly WHAT those identifiable traits are. You may well disagree with the ones I mentioned....hence part of the overall problem in this field.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 7:13:00 GMT
Thanks for not just dismissing things and giving it a real shot. Cool you dont like that study. Oh well, sadly once again nothing that you have said can be ascribed to anything other than opinion, I dont know who your sister is but sure lets take her at face value. (Just to be clear I know who you claim your sister to be, but I can claim that my uncle planned the RAF gulf war, it really does not mean much in this context). I accept that it is the only study you can find on the net, I actually found a few more but they were behind paywalls. So the best I can really do is references in I guess second level academia, by which I mean books and the like as opposed to actual studies. a huge one the Dean (I think sorry not going to look him up again) Hamer, who is referenced in tons of things regarding this. It looks like he was the most famous to suggest a link between inheritance and religion. I am sure you will find references to him as you look around. Heres a second tier from the royal publication society; royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2010.2504In which it states: Sadly the links mostly go to book excerpts, but I would consider this legitimate.
This article just takes it as a given, which I know it not very helpful, but anyhow:
There is plenty out there.
I think on the balance of the study I cited and the secondary sources I have just shown you, it is far to say that there is at the very least still debate of there being a genetic component to religious propensity.
Or maybe you can cite some studies that back up you assertion that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith'
You are seriously not getting this. I repeat AGAIN IF you can isolate things like gullibility, ability to follow instructions naivety lack of logical thinking etc etc etc and other such traits, and prove that they are 'religious' then you may identify people who MAY have 'predispositions' towards religiosity. That is far from a genetic propensity or disposition towards religion. The tricky part is to identify ( as I said previously numerous times) exactly WHAT those identifiable traits are. You may well disagree with the ones I mentioned....hence part of the overall problem in this field. And you are seriously not getting that your unfounded assertions mean nothing.
The evidence provided shows that you are incorrect. 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.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 7:19:54 GMT
You are seriously not getting this. I repeat AGAIN IF you can isolate things like gullibility, ability to follow instructions naivety lack of logical thinking etc etc etc and other such traits, and prove that they are 'religious' then you may identify people who MAY have 'predispositions' towards religiosity. That is far from a genetic propensity or disposition towards religion. The tricky part is to identify ( as I said previously numerous times) exactly WHAT those identifiable traits are. You may well disagree with the ones I mentioned....hence part of the overall problem in this field. And you are seriously not getting that your unfounded assertions mean nothing.
The evidence provided shows that you are incorrect. 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. WTF is that? Feel free to believe in partisan religious generated junk science without foundation. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 7:27:02 GMT
And you are seriously not getting that your unfounded assertions mean nothing.
The evidence provided shows that you are incorrect. 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. WTF is that? Feel free to believe in partisan religious generated junk science without foundation. [/quote][/div]
And feel free to believe that the opinions of a middle aged woman in Australia are more informed than published academia.
|
|