|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 22:04:07 GMT
Have you actually read those articles? They are full of 'notions' 'Genes may.....the jury is out on the genetic component etc ..... in essence they are theories, and unless and until the traits can be isolated and assigned to genetics scientifically....notions and theories and news articles AS CLICKBAIT for the religious audience and for you to google... is all that they are. Yes I have read those articles, and 'they may' from an academic source is well good enough to refute the absolute claim made from an Australian housewife.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 22:00:23 GMT
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. 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' You can't prove a negative. The sole burden of proof is on you. Therefore, you must supply every piece of evidence you have, present it to Goz, so she can evaluate the proof and try to reproduce it. Also, never argue from a point of bias. The only question here is "Does God Exist." Always keep in mind the answer with the least complicated path is generally the most likely to be correct. That is correct, Goz cannot prove a negative, at best she was ill informed making that statement. I responded suggesting that it was not as cut and dried as Goz was implying, I have since provided at least two peer-reviewed articles and numerous secondary sources that show that academics and researchers in the field believe that there may be a genetic component to how religious a person is. I am not here to prove that religion is inherited, merely to point out that the relevant scholars do not feel the same way as Goz does. I am not arguing from a point of Bias, my stance is agnostic in terms of gods existence, my point is that Goz made a spurious claim, a point I have backed up with overwhelming evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:55:22 GMT
Show me evidence of which traits and which genes by genetic scientists in the field peer reviewed or GTFO. Notions are not science. Read the fucking evidence, it has been presented to you multiple times now, including anumber of scientific articles, I am sorry but I can't help you comprehend this, you are going to have to struggle on your own.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:53:59 GMT
Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted. Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet! oo more
thequestforagoodlife.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/the-genetics-of-religion-and-spirituality/
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:51:48 GMT
Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted. Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet!
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:50:23 GMT
Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted. Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet! oh look more: www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/beliefs
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:49:09 GMT
Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted. Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet! Your claim certainly does have an absence of evidence, heres some more to back my observation that your claim is incorrect www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/13/religion.scienceandnature
Dont tell me to provide evidence for your ignorance, I have provided ample evidence that your statement 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not widely held in academia. Time for you to support your stance. I bet you wont.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:36:46 GMT
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. You can say that as many times as you like however it is an untrue statement. What is the definition of 'religious tendency' and what genes are involved? You have provided no evidence in that regard and in fact only one vague dodgy study by a graduate student psychologist without qualification in the scientific study of genetics. The study of genetics and DNA is a scientific one. To link genes with some trait, the trait would need to be identified and refined to a testable entity according to standard scientific method... in order to link it with some gene or genes. Please show studies or evidence of this. Notions are not scientific evidence of anything. Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:20:49 GMT
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. No, you haven't, and I am not. Answer my questions. You can't butt have a go. 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 gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:18:07 GMT
I have never made a claim, I refuted (successfully) your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', and you have provided absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim. so as I say: 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. What is 'religious tendency'? How is it matched with of DNA? 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 gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:06:30 GMT
No the onus is on you to provide evidence to back your claim, something you are incapable of doing. No, you are the one with the dodgy positive claim. I cannot prove a negative especially when the positive claim is not yet defined. WTF is 'religiousness'? I have never made a claim, I refuted (successfully) your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', and you have provided absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim. so as I say: 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 gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 20:36:54 GMT
^ Your exact words. Yes it is difficult to take down a Hippo or an Elephant with a spear or a sword, that is why historically the hunters hunted in packs. I meant in comparison to the Behemoth creature. If only God could take it on then slaying a hippo or elephant would be a walk in the park next to it. Ok fair enough, compared to a fictional creature a real creature is far easier to kill.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 20:29:08 GMT
No not for fun, and not alone. They hunted in large groups and it was very dangerous. I haven’t at any stage argued that it would be easy to hunt and take down hippos or elephants alone nor that it wouldn’t be dangerous. ^ Your exact words. Yes it is difficult to take down a Hippo or an Elephant with a spear or a sword, that is why historically the hunters hunted in packs.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 20:17:55 GMT
Do you have any idea how a sword or spear works? Because I know how to fight with them both in an historical way. Taking out an Elephant or a Hippo with A spear or A sword is damn near impossible, that is why primitive man hunted in packs. Hell even in the middle ages with specially created spears it was dangerous to hunt boar. Oh god look who I am talking to, of course you dont have any idea. The ancient Egyptians were hunting and killing Hippos and elephants for fun. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting,_fishing_and_animals_in_ancient_Egypt No not for fun, and not alone. They hunted in large groups and it was very dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 18:10:07 GMT
Well then you’re an idiot. Do you have any idea how a sword or spear works? Because I know how to fight with them both in an historical way. Taking out an Elephant or a Hippo with A spear or A sword is damn near impossible, that is why primitive man hunted in packs. Hell even in the middle ages with specially created spears it was dangerous to hunt boar. Oh god look who I am talking to, of course you dont have any idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 17:51:14 GMT
They both would be difficult to hunt down and slay, which again the verse say nothing about, in 3500 years ago. You seriously think a hippo or an elephant would be difficult to slay with a spear or a sword? Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 17:20:12 GMT
Holy crap! Don't show this to gadreel ! He is trying to convince me being religious is genetic!  Is he of the opinion that mental defect is a purely heritable trait?  Probably it might be a good idea to read what I wrote before making snide remarks.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 17:19:00 GMT
Yes, god as defined metaphysically is the one single source for all that is. Would you see God as separate from its creation? Yes and no.
(tempted to leave it at that  ) Yes God is the wellspring, and so the source of creation, but as creation comes from his word and is impelled by the power of his word creation is a part of god. Mostly I go with the vibration type of philosophy, creation is the vibration energy of God lowered.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 17:16:50 GMT
[/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? [/quote][/div]
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 gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 17:15:41 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. No the onus is on you to provide evidence to back your claim, something you are incapable of doing.
|
|
)