|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 23:32:23 GMT
I don't accept that type of research because it is impossible to isolate the genetic component from the nurture, even in twins. 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. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than that. Just ask the research scientists who have linked a complex combination of genes and maternal health issues in utero for evidence of gay being 'genetic'! Add to that the fact that is easier to isolate what being 'gay' is than being 'religious'!
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 13, 2019 23:37:42 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. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than that. Just ask the research scientists who have linked a complex combination of genes and maternal health issues in utero for evidence of gay being 'genetic'! Add to that the fact that is easier to isolate what being 'gay' is than being 'religious'! You can spin it any way you like, but the FACT is that scientists do accept this type of research, and you are dismissing it for personal reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 13, 2019 23:43:51 GMT
Is there a difference between believing in God and believing there is a god?
It's not so much that I don't think there is a god...I don't. But more importantly, so what? I have no idea what a god is, what to believe about it nor what would be the point of believing it exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 23:44:17 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. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than that. Just ask the research scientists who have linked a complex combination of genes and maternal health issues in utero for evidence of gay being 'genetic'! Add to that the fact that is easier to isolate what being 'gay' is than being 'religious'! You can spin it any way you like, but the FACT is that scientists do accept this type of research, and you are dismissing it for personal reasons. No, I am not dismissing this type of research, as this type of research can be of use, just not in these complex circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 13, 2019 23:56:28 GMT
That isn’t awful. What is awful is the idea that not believing in him would somehow result in torture. What a terrible belief. I went to Catholic Church and School. Once I got out on my own I was like you. I turned my back on God. Something happened later in my life that changed me. I will not share it. I just pray that you're as smart as you think you are. 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 13, 2019 23:57:20 GMT
You can spin it any way you like, but the FACT is that scientists do accept this type of research, and you are dismissing it for personal reasons. No, I am not dismissing this type of research, as this type of research can be of use, just not in these complex circumstances. 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 14, 2019 0:01:04 GMT
Simple reason: there is no evidence. In fact, none has ever been presented in the entire history of mankind. When you produce it I’ll change my mind. Until then, I’ll consider it untrue.
But there is plausible evidence for those who can see...
-Eucharistic Miracles
-Our Lady of Gaudalupe image from the year 1531 -Our Lady of Las Lajas (image on a rock from the year 1754) -Our Lady of Fatima (the miracle of the sun from Oct 13th 1917) etc
so those who say there is no evidence in the slightest for God's (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) existence are wrong 
but like I always say it seems to boil down to the following quote for many...
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas
or like one from the bible...
"Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’" - Luke 16:31
Unexplained events might be evidence of unexplained powers, but not necessarily evidence of God. Perhaps humans have the power to affect the world around them in ways that might appear miraculous. Perhaps one just has to have faith in humans. Because, "To the one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To the one without faith, no explanation is possible."
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 14, 2019 0:09:32 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. 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?
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 14, 2019 0:30:16 GMT
I went to Catholic Church and School. Once I got out on my own I was like you. I turned my back on God. Something happened later in my life that changed me. I will not share it. I just pray that you're as smart as you think you are. 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?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 14, 2019 0:38:08 GMT
No, I am not dismissing this type of research, as this type of research can be of use, just not in these complex circumstances. 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?
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 14, 2019 1:43:52 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? The prospect of being wrong isn’t a convincing reason to believe something else unless you have further evidence of what is actually correct. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 14, 2019 1:50:13 GMT
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. 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. AND
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
