Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
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
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 8:14:51 GMT
WTF is that? Feel free to believe in partisan religious generated junk science without foundation. [/div]
And feel free to believe that the opinions of a middle aged woman in Australia are more informed than published academia.
[/quote] Please supply as previously request, the definition of religiousness as used by this 'published academia' to which you have not linked. At least I know how science works. Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool) Evidence Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples Repetition Critical analysis Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment What is their hypothesis? What objective observations? What critical analysis? What verification and testing?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 17, 2019 8:28:10 GMT
we actually already know that the mathematics allow for a universe to form within the bounds of physics. It’s called quantum fluctuation. And I really don’t know how if you’re weighing possibilities, the “there must be a designer” one ever takes on any believability. If the reason is that you don’t know how things could form without one, then you’d still have the same problem with where the designer came from. The idea doesn’t solve that issue. If there's no design, then we're very lucky that one proton gives us hydrogen, two gives us helium, three gives us lithium and so on, mostly void with electron orbits, yet each having distinct physical properties, and in turn interacting with each other like building blocks to form compounds with their own physical properties. Darn lucky it turned out that way without design. Were it that one proton and two and three didn't have these distinct different properties then there wouldn't be any little bits of the universe like us that could ponder its own existence. Pretty lucky it all turned out this way. The problem with this logic to support a designer is it just moves the problem back a step. Instead of "we're darn lucky that one proton gives us hydrogen..." we're left with "we're darn lucky to have a designer who designed the world so that one proton gives us hydrogen..."
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 17, 2019 8:34:05 GMT
I’m glad you understand the equal odds of the cards. So the question is, why are you suggesting we are the royal flush instead of just seemingly ordinary cards? I suppose we're fairly unique in that we can reflect on our own existence while most other things in the universe (as well as most hypothetical things in hypothetical universes) are not able to do so. I guess that's what leads to the debate around the anthropic principle.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 17, 2019 8:43:29 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. If it's not testable then your assertion "There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is unfalsifiable. The fact that the obverse assertion "there is a genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is also unfalsifiable doesn't change that. The correct stance is we don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 9:01:38 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. If it's not testable then your assertion "There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is unfalsifiable. The fact that the obverse assertion "there is a genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is also unfalsifiable doesn't change that. The correct stance is we don't know. The onus would then be on the person making the claim this it IS possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 17, 2019 9:23:59 GMT
If it's not testable then your assertion "There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is unfalsifiable. The fact that the obverse assertion "there is a genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is also unfalsifiable doesn't change that. The correct stance is we don't know. The onus would then be on the person making the claim this it IS possible. That doesn't make sense to me. If a hypothesis is untestable (at least with current science) then declaring it false is as equally wrongfooted as declaring it true. If you wanted to take the more cautious stance of "we shouldn't assume there is a genetic component to religious belief in any cases until evidence is presented to that effect" then I would have no issue with that. Your earlier assertion that religious belief is fully accounted for by indoctrination is also pretty dubious by your own standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 17, 2019 10:35:18 GMT
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. 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. |
|
