Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have no opinion about the religious gene. My point that when you say it is scientific or pseudo-scientific, in any context, you are on thin ice. Because you don't know the difference. That is my point.
creationism has nothing to do with the context of this discussion, you have been asked to produce evidence of a religiosity gene, you have FAILED, the OP is therefore based not on scientific fact, but pure and utter postulation. It has, in this case illustrated the point that unscrupulous individuals are willing to use non science to establish a pol ...[text shortened]... t's another irrelevant and useless assertion. Base materialists are the enemy of spirituality!
Don't use words like that when you don't know the difference!
The other point I have is that you cannot, and not even try, to muffle people who does not agree with you. Don't! This is a debate, not a meeting in JW!
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasyou have no comment about the religiosity gene, good, then we have nothing more to discuss. When you do, let us know.
I have no opinion about the religious gene. My point that when you say it is scientific or pseudo-scientific, in any context, you are on thin ice. Because you don't know the difference. That is my point.
Don't use words like that when you don't know the difference!
The other point I have is that you cannot, and not even try, to muffle people who does not agree with you. Don't! This is a debate, not a meeting in JW!
Did i say you were not free to share your purely speculative postulations masquerading as science with other like minded dogmatic materialists, nope, well then, just spare me the futility, that's all i ask.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWho says that you must discuss with me? If you don't like it? Then don't. I don't cuff you at the keyboard and force you write things. It's your choice.
you have no comment about the religiosity gene, good, then we have nothing more to discuss. When you do, let us know.
Did i say you were not free to share your purely speculative postulations masquerading as science with other like minded dogmatic materialists, nope, well then, just spare me the futility, that's all i ask.
But still you continue, startin with "did I say..."
Whenever you know the difference between pseudo-science, as creationism is, and science, as evolution is, then let us know. If you don't know the difference, then just live in ignorance.
On the other hand, if you tell me that creationism is a part of your religion, then I agree totally with you. Because religion and science never mix. You can have any religion, as long you don't discriminate others, and respect others views in religious matters.
Originally posted by FabianFnaswow that's bitter, i suppose it must be hard for a poor materialist to have his precious dreams of a genetic predisposition to spirituality crushed as a non reality. Pick up the pieces, who knows, you may even yet raise a little sand!
Who says that you must discuss with me? If you don't like it? Then don't. I don't cuff you at the keyboard and force you write things. It's your choice.
But still you continue, startin with "did I say..."
Whenever you know the difference between pseudo-science, as creationism is, and science, as evolution is, then let us know. If you don't know the ...[text shortened]... n, as long you don't discriminate others, and respect others views in religious matters.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd now you got really off-topic.
wow that's bitter, i suppose it must be hard for a poor materialist to have his precious dreams of a genetic predisposition to spirituality crushed as a non reality. Pick up the pieces, who knows, you may even yet raise a little sand!
You take the right to go off-topic, but when you think others do, then you object.
Wow...
Originally posted by FabianFnasactually if you read the Op, you would know that it concerned a genetic predisposition to religious belief, the post is entirely on topic.
And now you got really off-topic.
You take the right to go off-topic, but when you think others do, then you object.
Wow...
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually, if you've read the article, especially the "Rowthorn uses a “religiosity gene” to represent the various genetic factors that combine to genetically predispose a person toward religion" part, you should know that a single gene is not what is discussed there. Just a disposition, nothing more. That's why I think the article to be not that interesting, just old stuff only.
actually if you read the Op, you would know that it concerned a genetic predisposition to religious belief, the post is entirely on topic.
But you thinking it to be pseudo-scientific interests eme a lot. Because you call evolution pseudo-science proving that you dont know what pseudo-science really is.
Originally posted by FabianFnaswhat i think about evolutionary hypothesis is irrelevant to the op.
Actually, if you've read the article, especially the "Rowthorn uses a “religiosity gene” to represent the various genetic factors that combine to genetically predispose a person toward religion" part, you should know that a single gene is not what is discussed there. Just a disposition, nothing more. That's why I think the article to be not that interesti ...[text shortened]... you call evolution pseudo-science proving that you dont know what pseudo-science really is.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe know all what you think about evolution. And we all also know how little you know about evolution. And this is not what I am aiming at.
what i think about evolutionary hypothesis is irrelevant to the op.
What *is* my point, and this is relevant to this discussion, is that you don't even know what pseudo-science is. Becuse you think that creationism *is* science.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow, now, if science tells us something we must not question it. After all, you don't want to sound like those lunatic fringe right wingers who question global warming as being pseudo science now do you?
When will you people stop using pseudo science to politicise your issues.
Face it, it appears that science will one day usher in the genetic master race. Then and only then can we erradicate twisted and defective individuals such as you or I who believe there is a God. Then we could do such things as elimiate such silly forums as the spirituality forum. Won't you join us in welcoming this atheistic utopia?
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo that is an inaccurate depiction and reminiscent of other forum elements (who shall remain nameless, but they know who they are) who do as you now do and assign values to me that are inaccurate or intentionally misleading. Creationism is a religious belief.
We know all what you think about evolution. And we all also know how little you know about evolution. And this is not what I am aiming at.
What *is* my point, and this is relevant to this discussion, is that you don't even know what pseudo-science is. Becuse you think that creationism *is* science.
Originally posted by whodeyI know, they want to assimilate us into the collective subconscious of all materialistic borgs,
Now, now, if science tells us something we must not question it. After all, you don't want to sound like those lunatic fringe right wingers who question global warming as being pseudo science now do you?
Face it, it appears that science will one day usher in the genetic master race. Then and only then can we erradicate twisted and defective individuals s ...[text shortened]... silly forums as the spirituality forum. Won't you join us in welcoming this atheistic utopia?
All hail the unquestionable, the infallible, the all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, God of Science!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGood boy. Now just nod a smile at them. Otherwise they may break out the straight jackets!! 😲
I know, they want to assimilate us into the collective subconscious of all materialistic borgs,
All hail the unquestionable, the infallible, the all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, God of Science!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Creationism is a religious belief."
No that is an inaccurate depiction and reminiscent of other forum elements (who shall remain nameless, but they know who they are) who do as you now do and assign values to me that are inaccurate or intentionally misleading. Creationism is a religious belief.
Yes, I agree. It has nothing to do with science.