Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[xmas1997]

Trust me: if that were true there would be an OTC kit available to see if you have the God gene.

So, molecular genetic science isn't good enough for you?
So far no one has been able to debunk his theory.

[DMC]

Science is necessary, I have never seen it as a threat to my beliefs.
I have no idea why anyone would see it that way.
I also have no idea why so many atheists find theism so threatening that they feel the need to ridicule, deride, and attack those of us who believe.
This doesn't happen with me and my Christian or other theistic faiths and my atheistic brethren, nor with other religious people either.
We all get along and respect each other and our beliefs, or disbelief, just fine.
Plus we all study and respect the value of science in our lives too.
In fact most of us wholeheartedly embrace science in our lives in varying degrees.
So why all the flak on here, I wonder?

Theism, especially Christianity and "afterlife" beliefs are not passive belief systems. They include a divine edict to recruit, be "fishers of men". That means Christians actively engage in dissemination of their unfounded belief system. If others were to sit idly by and do nothing, we'd eventually become a theocracy.

How can you wholeheartedly embrace science "in varying degrees"?

What does it mean to "embrace science"? Only a delusional individual would consider non-falsifiable claims to be relevant, and if that same individual dismisses falsifiable claims because the word "science" is attached and because the claim is counter to the non-falsifiable claim of a diety, that's even more proof of delusion. If a person believed that an invisible man was dwelling in his home, and lived his life as if it were true, then scoffed at evidence to suggest otherwise even though easily testable and falsifiable, you'd probably want that person to be under medical supervision. Change the invisible man into an invisible god and suddenly it's enlightenment.

[xmas1997]

Theism, especially Christianity and "afterlife" beliefs are not passive belief systems. They include a divine edict to recruit, be "fishers of men". That means Christians actively engage in dissemination of their unfounded belief system. If others were to sit idly by and do nothing, we'd eventually become a theocracy.

How can you wholeheartedly embrace science "in varying degrees"?

What does it mean to "embrace science"? Only a delusional individual would consider non-falsifiable claims to be relevant, and if that same individual dismisses falsifiable claims because the word "science" is attached and because the claim is counter to the non-falsifiable claim of a diety, that's even more proof of delusion. If a person believed that an invisible man was dwelling in his home, and lived his life as if it were true, then scoffed at evidence to suggest otherwise even though easily testable and falsifiable, you'd probably want that person to be under medical supervision. Change the invisible man into an invisible god and suddenly it's enlightenment.

We are all welcome to our opinions and beliefs, as long as we don't force it on anyone.
But once you do that, it becomes intrusive, and you cross a line you have no right to cross.
Do you not understand this?

[DMC]

So, molecular genetic science isn't good enough for you?
So far no one has been able to debunk his theory.

Appeal to authority isn't good enough for me nor is your layman generalization and misdirection.You misrepresent what Hamer is saying. He's not saying there is a god gene.. it's saying people who are religious are more likely to possess a specific gene than people who are not religious. He says that well known religious figures likely had that gene. What your saying is akin to saying the Native American genetic predisposition toward alcoholism means Jack Daniels created man. There are plenty of genetic issues that affect people in different ways. He's saying one gene predisposes you to be mentally lazy where you are comfortably numb about science and reality, and you'll easily accept "god did it" as the answer.

[DMC]

We are all welcome to our opinions and beliefs, as long as we don't force it on anyone.
But once you do that, it becomes intrusive, and you cross a line you have no right to cross.
Do you not understand this?

The Crusades say hi.

Theists are the ones claiming there's something out there, and then they go so far as to define it and give it qualities and assign it a le and bow down to it. They then run for office and change policy to reflect that this something is the ruler of us all and we should acknowledge it (in god we trust).

The rest of us just say no, there's nothing out there and we don't need to pretend there is.

[Clipper Nation]

Only with respect to blake, he is getting back what he puts out.

You put out for SBM and Avante....

[xmas1997]

Appeal to authority isn't good enough for me nor is your layman generalization and misdirection.You misrepresent what Hamer is saying. He's not saying there is a god gene.. it's saying people who are religious are more likely to possess a specific gene than people who are not religious. He says that well known religious figures likely had that gene. What your saying is akin to saying the Native American genetic predisposition toward alcoholism means Jack Daniels created man. There are plenty of genetic issues that affect people in different ways. He's saying one gene predisposes you to be mentally lazy where you are comfortably numb about science and reality, and you'll easily accept "god did it" as the answer.

That is a terrible analogy IMHO.
In bold is what he is saying. The rest are assumptions on your part.
His actual statement is, "can point to the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator’s ingenuity, a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence".
If he wanted to imply what you are, then he would have said it as you did.

[DMC]

That is a terrible analogy IMHO.
In bold is what he is saying. The rest are assumptions on your part.
His actual statement is, "can point to the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator’s ingenuity, a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence".
If he wanted to imply what you are, then he would have said it as you did.

From Scientific American

By page 77 of The God Gene, Dean H. Hamer has already disowned the le of his own book. He recalls describing to a colleague his discovery of a link between spirituality and a specific gene he calls "the God gene." His colleague raised her eyebrows. "Do you mean there's just one?" she asked. "I deserved her skepticism," Hamer writes. "What I meant to say, of course, was 'a' God gene, not 'the' God gene." Of course. Why, the reader wonders, didn't Hamer call his book A God Gene? That might not have been as catchy, but at least it wouldn't have left him contradicting himself. Whatever you want to call it, this is a frustrating book. The role that genes play in religion is a fascinating question that's ripe for the asking. Psychologists, neurologists and even evolutionary biologists have offered insights about how spiritual behaviors and beliefs emerge from the brain. It is reasonable to ask, as Hamer does, whether certain genes play a significant role in faith. But he is a long way from providing an answer. Hamer, a geneticist at the National Cancer Ins ute, wound up on his quest for the God gene by a roundabout route. Initially he and his colleagues set out to find genes that may make people prone to cigarette addiction. They studied hundreds of pairs of siblings, comparing how strongly their shared heredity influenced different aspects of their personality. In addition to having their subjects fill out psychological questionnaires, the researchers also took samples of DNA from some of them. Hamer then realized that this database might let him investigate the genetics of spirituality. He embarked on this new search by looking at the results of certain survey questions that measured a personality trait known as self-transcendence, originally identified by Washington University psychiatrist Robert Cloninger. Cloninger found that spiritual people tend to share a set of characteristics, such as feeling connected to the world and a willingness to accept things that cannot be objectively demonstrated.

[DMC]

An hypothesis (not a theory) has to be replicated, not debunked.

You lack a basic understanding of the scientific method and you want to discuss genetics?

[DMC]

Yeah that's what I thought....

Here's a parting gift for you... via Carl Zimmer, fellow at Yale's Morse College.

The God Gene might have been a fascinating, enlightening book if Hamer had written it 10 years from now-after his link between VMAT2 and self-transcendence had been confirmed by others and after he had seriously tested its importance to our species. Instead the book we have today would be better led: A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study.

[xmas1997]

From Scientific American

By page 77 of The God Gene, Dean H. Hamer has already disowned the le of his own book. He recalls describing to a colleague his discovery of a link between spirituality and a specific gene he calls "the God gene." His colleague raised her eyebrows. "Do you mean there's just one?" she asked. "I deserved her skepticism," Hamer writes. "What I meant to say, of course, was 'a' God gene, not 'the' God gene." Of course. Why, the reader wonders, didn't Hamer call his book A God Gene? That might not have been as catchy, but at least it wouldn't have left him contradicting himself. Whatever you want to call it, this is a frustrating book. The role that genes play in religion is a fascinating question that's ripe for the asking. Psychologists, neurologists and even evolutionary biologists have offered insights about how spiritual behaviors and beliefs emerge from the brain. It is reasonable to ask, as Hamer does, whether certain genes play a significant role in faith. But he is a long way from providing an answer. Hamer, a geneticist at the National Cancer Ins ute, wound up on his quest for the God gene by a roundabout route. Initially he and his colleagues set out to find genes that may make people prone to cigarette addiction. They studied hundreds of pairs of siblings, comparing how strongly their shared heredity influenced different aspects of their personality. In addition to having their subjects fill out psychological questionnaires, the researchers also took samples of DNA from some of them. Hamer then realized that this database might let him investigate the genetics of spirituality. He embarked on this new search by looking at the results of certain survey questions that measured a personality trait known as self-transcendence, originally identified by Washington University psychiatrist Robert Cloninger. Cloninger found that spiritual people tend to share a set of characteristics, such as feeling connected to the world and a willingness to accept things that cannot be objectively demonstrated.

Can you give me a link for this so I can study this further?
I find it quite interesting.
Thanks.

[DMC]

http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2004....&id=1177190905



Theists are suckers for confirmation bias. You guys suc b to it all the time, and because of your natural tendency to accept things without real evidence, you take it and run. It always catches you though. 2000 years later and you still haven't passed "Go".

[xmas1997]

Yeah that's what I thought....

Here's a parting gift for you... via Carl Zimmer, fellow at Yale's Morse College.

The God Gene might have been a fascinating, enlightening book if Hamer had written it 10 years from now-after his link between VMAT2 and self-transcendence had been confirmed by others and after he had seriously tested its importance to our species. Instead the book we have today would be better led: A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study.

However, you can dispense with the condescending at ude while providing that link.
There is no need for that.

[Chinook]

Theism, especially Christianity and "afterlife" beliefs are not passive belief systems. They include a divine edict to recruit, be "fishers of men". That means Christians actively engage in dissemination of their unfounded belief system. If others were to sit idly by and do nothing, we'd eventually become a theocracy.

It's horrible form to equate religion to theism. The theist/atheist split and the religious/non-religious split are completely separable. Not all theists are religious, and not all atheists are non-religious.

Theism implies no more mandates than atheism does. Plenty of ideologies on both sides do have mandates, and all folks of free thought should press against them.

[DMC]

It's horrible form to equate religion to theism. The theist/atheist split and the religious/non-religious split are completely separable. Not all theists are religious, and not all atheists are non-religious.

Theism implies no more mandates than atheism does. Plenty of ideologies on both sides do have mandates, and all folks of free thought should press against them.

When I meet a theist who doesn't tell me about it before I ask, I'll give what you said some thought. It's pretentious to suggest that the bulk of theists aren't religious folks. Sure, not all theists are religious, but then theism absolutely implies a mandate. To believe a god exists, you must believe that god has traits, characteristics, be in charge of something. Believing someone else is in charge means you believe there is a mandate, and that doesn't mean you have to follow it, but then you still believe it.

The god of no mandate is no god.

[Chinook]

When I mean a theist who doesn't tell me about it before I ask, I'll give what you said some thought.

An anecdote? That's poorer form.

[DMC]

However, you can dispense with the condescending at ude while providing that link.
There is no need for that.

It's needed, else people like you have no reason to not ride every blurb out there as if you just found the holy grail. That way people like me don't have to do the small amount of research to show you that you're once again wrong. That gene must be really thick in you.

[xmas1997]

http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2004....&id=1177190905



Theists are suckers for confirmation bias. You guys suc b to it all the time, and because of your natural tendency to accept things without real evidence, you take it and run. It always catches you though. 2000 years later and you still haven't passed "Go".

You sound no different than some of the other ignorant condescending atheistic assholes on this site who apparently can't get along with people in the real world so they spew their hatred on here.
Your ridicule however falls on deaf ears and just makes you appear to want to enforce your closed minded biased agenda, rather than get along.
But I thank you again for that link simply because I refuse to stoop to your level. And I will research it some more with an open yet critical mind because this is the first I have seen of any published criticism.

[DMC]

An anecdote? That's poorer form.

You're using an anonymous en y "the non religious theist". Point one out to me.

[DMC]

You sound no different than some of the other ignorant condescending atheistic assholes on this site who apparently can't get along with people in the real world so they spew their hatred on here.
Your ridicule however falls on deaf ears and just makes you appear to want to enforce your closed minded biased agenda, rather than get along.
But I thank you again for that link simply because I refuse to stoop to your level. And I will research it some more with an open yet critical mind because this is the first I have seen of any published criticism.

Some people who have the capacity and tendency for critical and abstract thought don't abide seasoned, wanton ignorance very well, especially from theists who pretend to "embrace science" and don't even understand the basic tenets of science. The multiplier there is when said theist can quote the Bible verbatim but misuses terms like "theory".

[RD2191]

I think it's pretty telling that I've never met an atheists who wasn't a huge got/ , tbh.

[Chinook]

You're using an anonymous en y "the non religious theist". Point one out to me.

I'm one. We've gone over that already. I'm much farther down the non-religious scale than most atheist in this thread. I know quite a few, actually. A bunch of young folks nowadays grow up that way.

[RD2191]

Show of hands, who here has observed a monkey evolving into a man? Or a fish into a reptile?

[DMC]

I think it's pretty telling that I've never met an atheists who wasn't a huge got/ , tbh.

We don't typically associate with be@ners.

[DMC]

Show of hands, who here has observed a monkey evolving into a man? Or a fish into a reptile?

Or a into a leafblower?