|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 14, 2019 0:46:22 GMT
You can spin it any way you like, but the FACT is that scientists DO accept this type of research in this type of situation and until you can provide something other than your personal assertions to back up your stance, then you ARE dismissing it simply for personal reasons. Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your opinion and it's great you have one, but in this instance I think I will go with the assertions of the professionals who actually specialise in this stuff. Upon what basis do these 'experts' define 'religion' in a way that bears any resemblance to a gene? 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.
|
|