An atheists world (2)

[Mr Strawberry]

The title of article to which I quoted from was genetic fallacy. The article talks about the idea of a God gene or religious belief caused by a gene. The error or misconception of both the scientist/atheist is the fact if such a gene existed, then there would either be a gene for atheism or the lack there of meaning that all unbelievers are undeveloped.

If that was the case. Would atheism be the evolving or dying breed?

I've heard Dawkins talk about a religious meme, which is more to do with behaviour being beneficial for a group or community - in the case of religion it might I suppose be the tribal aspect of religious ritual/ceremony strengthening the group identity. But it would be pushing it I think to link religion to a gene.

The human inclination for supernatural belief, and I do think that supernatural belief is the default position in humans, is more to do with the ways our brains have evolved to interpret the world. It's more a by-product of being a speaking animal that lives in complex social groups. We tend to anthropomorphise everything and insert human causation where it doesn't belong.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

What was the point of your video?

There was no claim of a genetic basis for religious belief in it.

Neurotheology researcher, physician and author, Dr. Andy Newberg and his research on a God gene.

It was his research that the quote was referring to.

An answer to your question.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

I've heard Dawkins talk about a religious meme, which is more to do with behaviour being beneficial for a group or community - in the case of religion it might I suppose be the tribal aspect of religious ritual/ceremony strengthening the group identity. But it would be pushing it I think to link religion to a gene.

The human inclination for supernatural belief, and I do think that supernatural belief is the default position in humans, is more to do with the ways our brains have evolved to interpret the world. It's more a by-product of being a speaking animal that lives in complex social groups. We tend to anthropomorphise everything and insert human causation where it doesn't belong.

I have no issue with the ridiculousness of a specific gene for belief. I raised the question because of the research being done.

If it were so, then the question is still valid regarding a scientific hypothesis. It does not have to be proven fact at this point to discuss the reasoning of why there would be research into such a gene.

As for my Christian beliefs, the bible is specific that there are those who are the seed of Adam and those that are the seed of the speaking snake(as referred to by some) or in my understanding the seed of satan. Or other references of those who are of their father the devil. So from a literal point of view that would be genetic, from a non-literal point it carries some observance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neurotheology researcher, physician and author, Dr. Andy Newberg and his research on a God gene.

It was his research that the quote was referring to.

An answer to your question.

There was no mention of a god gene in that video. Therefore you did not answer my claim.

Where is his research on a God gene? You made the claim, you must provide the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I found what toolmanjantzi was referring to. It was a title of a book by that Dr.:

The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes: Dean H. Hamer: 9780385720311: Amazon.com: Books

Now if you look at this that is only the title. There is no "god gene".

toolman, you will never understand anything of note if you only skim the surface.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

I found what toolmanjantzi was referring to. It was a title of a book by that Dr.:

The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes: Dean H. Hamer: 9780385720311: Amazon.com: Books

Now if you look at this that is only the title. There is no "god gene".

toolman, you will never understand anything of note if you only skim the surface.

http://genealogyreligion.net/genetic-hardwiring-for-god

Why would I give you a Christian source? That would not be of any benefit here with you. So, the above gives detail of the research that is being done and talked about here in this blog. Wether it's biased towards Christianity/atheism is of no importance to me. This is not, a point i win conversation as you seem to keep with others.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

"Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982. The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is little changed from the 44% who believed this 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question."

This was quoted from the site I gave.

Does this not go against what was said earlier that evolution is the supreme belief? I know nothing about "Gallup Polls", or their accuracies. I do know that Dr. Andrew Newberg is more publicized then some of the wanna be someone here.

But, it is noted that this information did not come from the Great Science Journal of Empirical wisdom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, interesting. Though toolman did not provide the specific claim at first it seems that Hamer does belief that one gene is responsible to a great extent for some people's religious feelings.

By the way, I do believe this is a better review of the book since it not only mentions the specific gene it also summarizes the work that Hamer had to do:

The God Gene

So it looks like toolman was right about the beliefs of a certain scientist and I was wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982. The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is little changed from the 44% who believed this 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question."

This was quoted from the site I gave.

Does this not go against what was said earlier that evolution is the supreme belief? I know nothing about "Gallup Polls", or their accuracies. I do know that Dr. Andrew Newberg is more publicized then some of the wanna be someone here.

But, it is noted that this information did not come from the Great Science Journal of Empirical wisdom.

And no, it does not go against that belief. Now you are oversimplifying.

Atheism may very well be the correct point of view. Evolution does not hing on the correct or incorrect views of beings. If the gene helped people survive as a whole then it would be a positive trait.

For example groups that work together fare better than groups that do not work together. On a hunt an organized party almost always outperforms a group of individualists. Especially if the hunt is being done with primitive tools.

In the same way genes that cause homosexuality can be positive for a population if the population cooperates more because some members have those genes. Remember even if you have the "right gene" homosexuality is not 100% predetermined.

How a species does is only determined by its survivability, not its beliefs.

Religion, especially for primitive man, may have been a positive trait.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Hmm, interesting. Though toolman did not provide the specific claim at first it seems that Hamer does belief that one gene is responsible to a great extent for some people's religious feelings.

By the way, I do believe this is a better review of the book since it not only mentions the specific gene it also summarizes the work that Hamer had to do:

The God Gene

So it looks like toolman was right about the beliefs of a certain scientist and I was wrong.

I could care less about Hamer, the research is by Dr. Andrew Newberg, and his research was what brought up the question, through the first quote. I will mention I am not well equated with the Doctors beliefs, but from his talks here:


Check out this video on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/BKWsc87H2YU

I would say he is not an atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could care less about Hamer, the research is by Dr. Andrew Newberg, and his research was what brought up the question, through the first quote. I will mention I am not well equated with the Doctors beliefs, but from his talks here:


Check out this video on YouTube:

Beyond the Brain: The Experiential Implications of Neurotheology - United Nations 9/11/2008 - YouTube

I would say he is not an atheist.

You mean you "couldn't care less". When you say "I could care less" you are saying that it matters an unspecified amount to you.

Sorry, that misuse of the English language is a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not going to watch an hour and a half long video on a topic that does not really interest me.

And you should look at Hamer's work. If there is a "god gene" he may have identified it. I have not seen anything that indicates your man found this particular gene, but then I have barely skimmed his work.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

I am not going to watch an hour and a half long video on a topic that does not really interest me.

And you should look at Hamer's work. If there is a "god gene" he may have identified it. I have not seen anything that indicates your man found this particular gene, but then I have barely skimmed his work.

The gene is called VMAT2.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

http://youtu.be/3XDclvOVC54

Is this correct. At the beginning of this the news anchor says there was insufficient amount of Oxygen for RNA to survive on earth. So now we are to believe that life started on Mars?

I wish someone would get the theory right. I thought all the planets formed from the Big Bang. Now, I am to understand that a meteorite from Mars came to earth and then we got CF.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'd have to see it. Given your track record, though, I'm doubtful.

so you've just said that you'd have to see it, meaning that unless it fits your particular taste, it's either a quote mine, or an illegitimate source....you don't at all feel guilty of dishonesty here?

"It is extremely improbably that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Ye it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glace, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means." - Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, Vol 271 October 1994

"Recent photochemical calculations by atmospheric researchers at Langley were presented at an international scientific conference last fall. They state that, at the time complex organic molecules (the precursors of living systems) were first formed from atmospheric gases the earth's atmosphere was not composed primarily of methane, ammonia and hydrogen as was previously supposed. Instead it was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor, all resulting from volcanic activity."

"Ultraviolet radiation on the earth from the young sun hay have been up to 100,000 times greater than today."

"How could life have formed and evolved in such a hostile environment? According to our calculation, there was virtually no ozone in the early atmosphere to protect against ultraviolet radiation levels that were much greater than they are today. It clearly should have affected the evolution of life on earth."

above from "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American meteorological society, vol. 63 (November 1982, pp 1328-1330

 

[createdtoworship]

The trouble is that you are finding these references on creationist websites and literally nothing on creationist websites can be taken at face value.

wrong again, do a search for them. You may find them, you may not.

 

[createdtoworship]

You guys are quoting from a book where a man argues that the flu, polio and mad cow diseases come from space.

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoyle did a lot of great work, but a lot of his ideas were panned by the scientific community. Evolution From Space is part of that work.

Book Review - Evolution from Space: a theory of cosmic creationism



Try again.

funny that the wikipedia states some believed hoyle was an "athiest for ID"

thanks, I didn't know that I will add it to my list of athiests who support ID.

(btw- he believed some things came from space on asteroids and introduced themselves, but He also invented the steady state theory)

besides what if dawkins allowed for the possibility of aliens as apposed to ID? would you still read his works?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiVoS78lNqM

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aliens : It's Official, Human life came from a rock on Mars so says a Scientist (Aug 31, 2013) - YouTube

Is this correct. At the beginning of this the news anchor says there was insufficient amount of Oxygen for RNA to survive on earth. So now we are to believe that life started on Mars?

I wish someone would get the theory right. I thought all the planets formed from the Big Bang. Now, I am to understand that a meteorite from Mars came to earth and then we got CF.

One scientists opinion, and the popular news always gets the details wrong. I would not jump at this idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The gene is called VMAT2.

Yep, as I said, the possibility that this may cause spirituality in some people was Hamer's work:


Vesicular monoamine transporter 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UncleHermit]

besides what if dawkins allowed for the possibility of aliens as apposed to ID? would you still read his works?

Richard Dawkins believes extraterrestrials created man! - YouTube

Ohhhh, a dishonest quotemine, which is even further misrepresented. Take that, athiests!