Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

God was behind Big Bang, pope says

page: 14
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
A bit of advice, Vicky. If you want to get people to accept your point of view (and you must, otherwise why are you here?) . The following statement is arrogant in the extreme.


Originally posted by Vicky32
To start with, why on earth should I have a bad conscience about my view that homosexuals are made not born? It happens to be correct. I understand why gay men (and lesbians to a lesser extent) want to believe, but more importantly want the rest of us to believe they're born that way. That way, they get to claim a huge advantage, victim status, alongside people who really are victims (actual or potential) such as black people in America and Australia, women in most of the world, people with disabilities, Jews in some places etc.
But the breathtaking cheek of it floors me.


Can you convincingly explain the well documented homosexual behavior exhibited in numerous animal species ?

Are they doing it for the attention ? For advantage ? For tax breaks maybe ?

You're showing your ignorance/prejudice Vicky.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 

I have been reading this exchange with interest, so allow me, please.

Nowhere in Kailassa's responses to you do I see any of the heavy-handed sarcasm, sneering, nastiness, etc., of which you accuse him. I believe you are mistaken in your judgement. You have already told us you have Asperger's Syndrome, a condition which makes it difficult for the sufferer to assess the feelings and intentions of others; please consider the possibility that your ailment is causing you to misconstrue Kailassa's words.

On the other hand, there is no mistaking the intent of such words as these:


Originally posted by Vicky32
Evidently Kailassa, you're a very angry man (or woman, that's always possible
)


Originally posted by Vicky32
A bit of advice, Kailassa. If you want to get people to accept your point of view (and you must, otherwise why are you here?) a sneery, patronising and insulting tone virtually guarantees that you won't be listened to, you'll be avoided assiduously. Do you find that happening a lot?

Your words, Vicky. Your nasty, sneering, heavy-handedly sarcastic words.

On the subject of people listening or not listening to Kailassa, well: here is a list of members who have picked him (or her, yes, that's always possible
) as a friend on ATS. And yes, you will find my name amongst them.


From Kailassa's Profile Page

adjensen
akkad
americandingbat
Americanist
answerman
antar
Asktheanimals
Astyanax
bringthelight
Bunken Drum
C0bzz
Cadbury
CultureD
DizzyDayDream
Donnie Darko
EagleTalonZ
Eight
gordonwest
HappilyEverAfter
Illusionsaregrander
Indigogirl
Irish Matador
iterationzero
ItsallCrazy
Jessicamsa
Josephus23
KilgoreTrout
LadyGreenEyes
ladyinwaiting
LifeIsEnergy
Lillydale
madnessinmysoul
Memysabu
Mike Stivic
MMPI2
Movhisattva
ofhumandescent
PatesHatriots
pluckynoonez
prevenge
riley
rnaa
Skamindy77
spearhead
Spiramirabilis
Spooky Fox Mulder
suziwong
The Djin
TheMythLives
unityemissions
vaevictis
virgom129
wagtail
wayno
whitewave
x2Strongx
ziggystrange

I count 57 in all. That's quite a lot of listeners, no? Kailassa's 3,200-odd posts have also received 4,000-plus stars from members and been applauded by the board staff no less than 17 times.

By contrast, here is a list of members who have picked you as a friend:


From Vicky32's Profile Page

Cosmic.Artifact
gwynnhwyfar
JohnD
snoopyuk

You have, I see, received fewer than 250 stars for your 377 posts. And your Applause count is... zero.

Admittedly, Kailassa has been here three and a half years. But you've been here a year and a bit, and that's actually quite a long time on ATS. I should think it was fairly clear who is winning the listening contest.

None of this would matter in the least, of course, except that you have chosen to use this thread as a platform for your ignorant, off-topic bigotry:


Originally posted by Vicky32
Fact is, it's the 'free-thinkers', especially the gay ones, who are the rage-filled, intolerant ones


Originally posted by Vicky32
To start with, why on earth should I have a bad conscience about my view that homosexuals are made not born? It happens to be correct.

(Citation needed, as they say on Wikipedia.
)


Originally posted by Vicky32
I understand why gay men (and lesbians to a lesser extent) want... the rest of us to believe they're born that way. That way, they get to claim a huge advantage, victim status, alongside people who really are victims... But the breathtaking cheek of it floors me.

I am heterosexual. But on behalf of my ex-wife, and the dozens of other homosexuals of both sexes I know and love, who have shared their friendship and affection with me, protected and cared for me when I needed care and protection, and who have reposed their confidence in me even as I have in them: How dare you, madam.

This thread is not a venue for your insensate homophobic ravings.

edit on 2/2/11 by Astyanax because: of poor arithmetic.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


From a purely biological standpoint, yes they are worthless. That being said, I don't agree as harshly with that statement. Yes they will leave no lasting impact on this earth through their offspring, but their names live on by you and your other offspring for a couple of generations at least.

There are some intelligent animals out there too, dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, even pigs. It's estimated that a pig has the same level of intelligence as a 3 year old child. I think the more we discover about our planets other inhabitants, the lines separating us will become more blurred.
edit on 2/2/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

A bit of advice, Kailassa. If you want to get people to accept your point of view (and you must, otherwise why are you here?) a sneery, patronising and insulting tone virtually guarantees that you won't be listened to, you'll be avoided assiduously. Do you find that happening a lot?

On the contrary. I've been surprised at the influence I've had on individuals, on groups and even a few company directors just from speaking to them. People generally treat me well and tend to be kind and helpful towards me.

However I'm also surprised at you for bringing this up. You accuse me of using a "sneery, patronising and insulting tone" towards you, and then suggest that if someone does not listen to a person it's that person's fault. Would not this logic mean that if a person has been negative towards you, it's your own fault?


To start with, why on earth should I have a bad conscience about my view that homosexuals are made not born?

Mea culpa.
Excuse me for giving credit where none was due.


It happens to be correct.

Would you like to debunk the many twin studies which prove identical twins are twice as likely to share sexual orientation as fraternal twins? Or perhaps you would like to explain why even fraternal twins are more than twice as likely to share sexual orientation as non-twin brothers?

Or how about debunking a study showing that 90% of homosexual males can be diagnosed as homosexual by five years old, which is presumably a bit young to be craving "victim status".


I understand why gay men (and lesbians to a lesser extent) want to believe, but more importantly want the rest of us to believe they're born that way. That way, they get to claim a huge advantage, victim status, alongside people who really are victims (actual or potential) such as black people in America and Australia, women in most of the world, people with disabilities, Jews in some places etc.
But the breathtaking cheek of it floors me.

You can dish it out, can't you? And then you cry foul if your malicious, bigoted, unfounded insults are answered by something you misconstrue as "sneery".


One of many I could find if I had time

The study you quote sets out to examine whether there is a link between sexual preference and reaction to certain sex-linked pheromones, and it proved there is. Do you have a problem with this?


As does the cheek of your bitchy remarks about followers of religion. What would you make of someone who grew up in an atheist family, in the most secular developed country in the world (New Zealand), but is now a Christian? That's me...also my sister (recently) and my late brother. So much for following the local prevailing belief, or being unable to think for ourselves!
Yes, our parents became Christian also, 6 years apart from each other - in my father's case literally 5 minutes before he died. But we children had all grown up and moved out!

There was nothing bitchy in telling you about the "god gene". Thank you for providing an example so supportive of the existence of these genes. If inclination toward prevailing religious belief is of genetic origin, People are more likely to have this gene if their family members have it. With all five members of an atheist family converting to Christianity, it's highly likely your family are carriers of these genes.

Perhaps you could sign up to have your genes studied, as your family's genes might cast more light onto how this "god gene" works.


As for religious people denying science and logic - I call b.s. That afail is a habit restricted almost entirely to the USA, and to Protestants within the USA. Catholics are, and always have been a very different case even in the USA.
You're showing your ignorance/prejudice.
Vicky

It's quite funny you would accuse someone of showing "ignorance/prejudice", when you have pulled this thread off topic in order to engage in the baseless bashing of homosexuals like a well-trained little religious nut.

Tell us again, how long did it take the Catholic Church to admit Galileo was right?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Vicky32
 

From a purely biological standpoint, yes they are worthless. That being said, I don't agree as harshly with that statement. Yes they will leave no lasting impact on this earth through their offspring, but their names live on by you and your other offspring for a couple of generations at least.

Homosexuals frequently have children.

Also -
People who do not have children of their own frequently make an impact on this earth through their impact on other peoples' offspring. Having a non-reproducing male in the family has, in the past, meant twice the manpower for hunting, farming and defending, making the family clan more likely to survive. This, plus the apparent possibility that carrying the "gay gene" makes the women of the clan produce more offspring, gives an advantage to the genetic codes carried by the non-reproducing male in that his close relatives are helped in passing them on.

Although we are all unique, there is no need to pass on one's own genes to have them propagated, as various parts of your genetic code will be found in your siblings, and reproduction breaks the code into pieces which are recombined to produce new unique individuals anyway. Enabling your siblings to reproduce can be as effective an evolutionary mechanism for the survival of your genes as having children yourself is.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Can you convincingly explain the well documented homosexual behavior exhibited in numerous animal species ?

Are they doing it for the attention ? For advantage ? For tax breaks maybe ?

You're showing your ignorance/prejudice Vicky.

From what I have read, the "well-documented" (except it's not really of course, or you'd have provided a link) homosexual behaviour of animals, has taken place in un-natural conditions of stress, crowding etc - i.e., in zoos. So, not attention, advantage or tax-breaks (how silly and spiteful of you to say that!) but bad conditions.
For instance in Auckland Zoo years ago, there was a polar bear kept in a concrete enclosure painted white, on its own, who did nothing but pace its enclosure, up and down the bare concrete ramp 24/7, and would not interact with anyone (keepers, vets, the public).
The conditions in which it was kept has turned its mind. In the end, when it was moved to a more human environment it was too late, it was elderly in polar bear terms. Thankfully, it died - and also thankfully, zoo animals are now kept in better conditions. (I remember seeing this poor animal and feeling very sorry for it.)
V.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax





. But you've been here a year and a bit, and that's actually quite a long time on ATS. I should think it was fairly clear who is winning the listening contest.

None of this would matter in the least, of course, except that you have chosen to use this thread as a platform for your ignorant, off-topic bigotry:


I am heterosexual. But on behalf of my ex-wife, and the dozens of other homosexuals of both sexes I know and love, who have shared their friendship and affection with me, protected and cared for me when I needed care and protection, and who have reposed their confidence in me even as I have in them: How dare you, madam.



edit on 2/2/11 by Astyanax because: of poor arithmetic.

So, by you, truth is a popularity contest? That's bizarre...
Also, I suggest you have another look - I have not been here a year and a half, I have not even been here 6 months! I signed up in November 2010. That's 2 and a half months, I think.
As for 'citation needed' thrown at me, I gave one in my latest reply to Kailassa. Did you not see it?
V.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Even if you don't believe in "God" per-say, there are alot of strange coincidences in the universe... Makes ya think.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa




One of many I could find if I had time

The study you quote sets out to examine whether there is a link between sexual preference and reaction to certain sex-linked pheromones, and it proved there is. Do you have a problem with this?

I wonder whether you read the same article that I read? If so, how could you have come to that conclusion?


Originally posted by KailassaThere was nothing bitchy in telling you about the "god gene". Thank you for providing an example so supportive of the existence of these genes. If inclination toward prevailing religious belief is of genetic origin, People are more likely to have this gene if their family members have it. With all five members of an atheist family converting to Christianity, it's highly likely your family are carriers of these genes.

Interestingly, I have just read again today, your God gene article. It doesn't say what you want it to say, at all! In fact, it's much more peaceful than you are. In fact, I am skimming it again, and failing to find your assertion that people with this 'god gene' are any more gullible than anyone else! In fact, I can't find any mention, let alone proof of any genetic basis for religion. The anthropologists cited, have come to the conclusion, from the ubiquity of religion that "there must be a gene" - which if you'll pardon me for saying so, is a very American idea. For goodness sake, you lot have Einstein's brain somewhere to study in order to find the meat seat of his (over-rated) genius. That strikes me as both materialist and oddly superstitious..
Therefore I suggest you read your NY Times article again....

Getting one of your 57 friends to attack, talking about your amazing popularity was a very bad move on your part, when he seriously goofed, accusing me of having been here 18 months, when it's actually less than 3...
Also, the off-topic screech is pretty bizarre, given that you raised the subject!
I am used to attacks by gay men and their good friends whenever I mention the subject. That being so, I didn't want to get involved in the discussion - I simply couldn't let your nastiness go un-answered.

At the minute, I am looking for links about whether gaiety (as I call it) is innate. I am excluding links that you'll automatically dismiss (links to Christian sites etc)... and one link to an Islamic site (I seem to remember that you despise Muslims more than you hate Christians!)
First link

Second

Sorry for the Christian site but it's thorough
The Islamic link (I thought I had lost it)
V.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32
From what I have read, the "well-documented" (except it's not really of course, or you'd have provided a link) homosexual behaviour of animals, has taken place in un-natural conditions of stress, crowding etc - i.e., in zoos. So, not attention, advantage or tax-breaks (how silly and spiteful of you to say that!) but bad conditions.
For instance in Auckland Zoo years ago, there was a polar bear kept in a concrete enclosure painted white, on its own, who did nothing but pace its enclosure, up and down the bare concrete ramp 24/7, and would not interact with anyone (keepers, vets, the public).
The conditions in which it was kept has turned its mind. In the end, when it was moved to a more human environment it was too late, it was elderly in polar bear terms. Thankfully, it died - and also thankfully, zoo animals are now kept in better conditions. (I remember seeing this poor animal and feeling very sorry for it.)
V.


Posting links for you will not change your viewpoint one iota. Encouraging you to broaden your mind, might.

Gentle sarcasm, and it was indeed gentle, is generally used to emphasize the ridiculousness of certain statements.
Your anecdote, touching as it is because I am a lifelong hater of traditional zoos, has absolutely no relevance to the point at hand.

Addendum: Your reference to Einstein's genius as overrated, in a later post, says more about your worldview than anything else.

Deny ignorance Vicky, don't hide behind it.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by Vicky32
From what I have read, the "well-documented" (except it's not really of course, or you'd have provided a link) homosexual behaviour of animals, has taken place in un-natural conditions of stress, crowding etc - i.e., in zoos. So, not attention, advantage or tax-breaks (how silly and spiteful of you to say that!) but bad conditions.
For instance in Auckland Zoo years ago, there was a polar bear kept in a concrete enclosure painted white, on its own, who did nothing but pace its enclosure, up and down the bare concrete ramp 24/7, and would not interact with anyone (keepers, vets, the public).
The conditions in which it was kept has turned its mind. In the end, when it was moved to a more human environment it was too late, it was elderly in polar bear terms. Thankfully, it died - and also thankfully, zoo animals are now kept in better conditions. (I remember seeing this poor animal and feeling very sorry for it.)
V.


Posting links for you will not change your viewpoint one iota. Encouraging you to broaden your mind, might.

Gentle sarcasm, and it was indeed gentle, is generally used to emphasize the ridiculousness of certain statements.
Your anecdote, touching as it is because I am a lifelong hater of traditional zoos, has absolutely no relevance to the point at hand.

Addendum: Your reference to Einstein's genius as overrated, in a later post, says more about your worldview than anything else.

Deny ignorance Vicky, don't hide behind it.

What nutty ideas have you got about me because I regard Einstein's genius as over-rated? Because he ended his life as an American, y'all seem to think he was much more than he was (to judge by American science mags such as Discover last year..)
It's well known to non-Americans that his first wife did all his maths work for him, for instance.
You seem to be the one failing to deny ignorance, if you refuse to answer my point about Einstein's brain, and instead, attack like a Rottweiler on the basis of a parenthetical comment! Bizarre...
Vicky



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Originally posted by Vicky32
So, by you, truth is a popularity contest? That's bizarre...

Fiddlesticks. You were suggesting that Kailassa is a nasty piece of work to whom nobody listens. I showed you, statistically, that you are talking nonsense – plenty of people listen to and appreciate what Kailassa says.


Also, I suggest you have another look - I have not been here a year and a half, I have not even been here 6 months! I signed up in November 2010. That's 2 and a half months, I think.

Enjoy your stay. I suspect it will be short.


As for 'citation needed' thrown at me, I gave one in my latest reply to Kailassa.

That?
A propaganda piece from a 'gay recovery' website that tries and fails to cast doubt on the findings of a piece of respectable scientific research that actually supports the idea that sexual orientation is innate? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

From your precious web site:


NARTH Mission Statment


NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance. Source

From the abstract of the article your anti-gay pals were trying to discredit:


In the present study, the pattern of activation induced by AND and EST was compared among homosexual men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. In contrast to heterosexual men, and in congruence with heterosexual women, homosexual men displayed hypothalamic activation in response to AND. Maximal activation was observed in the medial preoptic area anterior hypothalamus, which, according to animal studies, is highly involved in sexual behavior. As opposed to putative pheromones, common odors were processed similarly in all three groups of subjects and engaged only the olfactory brain... These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.

Brain Response to Putative Pheromones in Homosexual Men, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 102, no. 20, May 2005

Extreme fail, Vicky dear.

By the way, homosexual behaviour has been observed in the wild, not once or a few times, but over and over (and over) again.

Your ignorant, bigoted claims have no foundation in reality. Or can your NARTH pals produce a Japanese macaque they've 'cured' of tribadism?

Now, do you have anything to say on the topic of the thread?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

What nutty ideas have you got about me because I regard Einstein's genius as over-rated? Because he ended his life as an American, y'all seem to think he was much more than he was (to judge by American science mags such as Discover last year..)
It's well known to non-Americans that his first wife did all his maths work for him, for instance.
You seem to be the one failing to deny ignorance, if you refuse to answer my point about Einstein's brain, and instead, attack like a Rottweiler on the basis of a parenthetical comment! Bizarre...
Vicky


Nutty ideas ? None your commentary speaks for itself.

Indeed, being English myself (Oh dear, I assume you thought I was American) I am aware of his life beyond the USA. Just remember genius comes in many forms. The ability to add and subtract is not the defining characteristic.
If you view me as a Rottweiler you truly are in for a rough ride at ATS. I am a cute, cuddly kitten compared to most here.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by Vicky32

What nutty ideas have you got about me because I regard Einstein's genius as over-rated? Because he ended his life as an American, y'all seem to think he was much more than he was (to judge by American science mags such as Discover last year..)
It's well known to non-Americans that his first wife did all his maths work for him, for instance.
You seem to be the one failing to deny ignorance, if you refuse to answer my point about Einstein's brain, and instead, attack like a Rottweiler on the basis of a parenthetical comment! Bizarre...
Vicky


Nutty ideas ? None your commentary speaks for itself.

Indeed, being English myself (Oh dear, I assume you thought I was American) I am aware of his life beyond the USA. Just remember genius comes in many forms. The ability to add and subtract is not the defining characteristic.
If you view me as a Rottweiler you truly are in for a rough ride at ATS. I am a cute, cuddly kitten compared to most here.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)

Sorry, I had assumed you were American.. as most Americans here have assumed I am - and abused me as being unpatriotic for criticising "our brave boys in uniform".

Look, I have been reading a thread full of people who belong on Stormfront!
White supremacists
Gay activists are much less terrifying by comparison (although they're more intelligent, so they can do a lot more damage..).
Nevertheless, I don't like being abused, much less double-teamed, and I like even less, being lied about.
The point you've steadfastly ignored, is that genius is not genetic. Psychologists (such as my psychology lecturer who told us about the whole Einstein's pickled brain thing) can look for his 'genius; in his plastinated cerebellum until the cows come home.
So much less is genetic than you and others seem to want to believe!
V.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


As a counter argument to your point, part of the big bang theory is the idea that space did not exist prior to the big bang. There was nothing at all. How does something form from nothing?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Kailassa

One of many I could find if I had time

The study you quote sets out to examine whether there is a link between sexual preference and reaction to certain sex-linked pheromones, and it proved there is. Do you have a problem with this?

I wonder whether you read the same article that I read? If so, how could you have come to that conclusion?

You cited a NARTH article analysing a particular study from an anti-homosexual point of view. Opinions from such biased sites do not make a worth while basis for discussion, so I accessed the study your article was discussing:
Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men


The testosterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and the estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) are candidate compounds for human pheromones. AND is detected primarily in male sweat, whereas EST has been found in female urine. In a previous positron emission tomography study, we found that smelling AND and EST activated regions covering sexually dimorphic nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, and that this activation was differentiated with respect to sex and compound. In the present study, the pattern of activation induced by AND and EST was compared among homosexual men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. In contrast to heterosexual men, and in congruence with heterosexual women, homosexual men displayed hypothalamic activation in response to AND. Maximal activation was observed in the medial preoptic areaanterior hypothalamus, which, according to animal studies, is highly involved in sexual behavior. As opposed to putative pheromones, common odors were processed similarly in all three groups of subjects and engaged only the olfactory brain (amygdala, piriform, orbitofrontal, and insular cortex). These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.

The major finding in the present study was that the preferred pathway in relation to the presented compound was associated with the responder’s sexual orientation (at least in men) rather then the biological sex. This finding was based on an objective and user independent state-of-the-art method, consistent across several types of analysis. According to the method applied, the material was sufficient to generate inference at group level, implying that each subject was representative of his or her designated group.


As you can see from reading the above, I was correct in explaining this study: "sets out to examine whether there is a link between sexual preference and reaction to certain sex-linked pheromones, and it proved there is."
The study was not trying to prove a genetic link for homosexuality. Rather, it was investigating a mechanism which may or may not be caused by a genetic inclination towards homosexuality.




Originally posted by KailassaThere was nothing bitchy in telling you about the "god gene". Thank you for providing an example so supportive of the existence of these genes. If inclination toward prevailing religious belief is of genetic origin, People are more likely to have this gene if their family members have it. With all five members of an atheist family converting to Christianity, it's highly likely your family are carriers of these genes.

Interestingly, I have just read again today, your God gene article. It doesn't say what you want it to say, at all! In fact, it's much more peaceful than you are. In fact, I am skimming it again, and failing to find your assertion that people with this 'god gene' are any more gullible than anyone else! In fact, I can't find any mention, let alone proof of any genetic basis for religion. The anthropologists cited, have come to the conclusion, from the ubiquity of religion that "there must be a gene" - which if you'll pardon me for saying so, is a very American idea. For goodness sake, you lot have Einstein's brain somewhere to study in order to find the meat seat of his (over-rated) genius. That strikes me as both materialist and oddly superstitious..
Therefore I suggest you read your NY Times article again....

You've called me bitchy, but you cant make a post to me without including ad hominems.

As I explained, the book, The God Gene, explains the genetic basis for religious tendencies, and the article in the N.Y. Times explained how such a predisposition could have evolved.

One of the genes involved, VMAT2, has been isolated and its effects carefully studied.


Is the Capacity for Spirituality Determined by Brain Chemistry?

"The God Gene," published in September and featured in Time magazine's Oct. 25 cover story, is a sequel to "Living With Our Genes," a 1998 book in which Hamer examined the genetic basis of such behavioral traits as anxiety, thrill-seeking and homosexuality. Hamer said his previous research, most notably his work on anxiety, encouraged him to look into the genetic propensity for religious belief.

What he found was that the brain chemicals associated with anxiety and other emotions, including joy and sadness, appeared to be in play in the deep meditative states of Zen practitioners and the prayerful repose of Roman Catholic nuns -- not to mention the mystical trances brought on by users of peyote and other mind-altering drugs.

At least one gene, which goes by the name VMAT2, controls the flow to the brain of chemicals that play a key role in emotions and consciousness. This is the "God gene" of the book's title, and Hamer acknowledges that it's a misnomer. There probably are dozens or hundreds more genes, yet to be identified, involved in the universal propensity for transcendence, he said.

BTW, just who is "you lot", other than a group you have invented to enable yourself to indulge in more ad hominem attacks?



Getting one of your 57 friends to attack, talking about your amazing popularity was a very bad move on your part, when he seriously goofed, accusing me of having been here 18 months, when it's actually less than 3...

Did he really? I hope that didn't upset you too much. I guess it's like a journey. If it's boringly repetitive, it appears to last longer.
And no, I didn't ask Asty to attack you, (which he didn't, he merely defended me from your strange accusations,) or to post on my behalf. But I am grateful to him, it's a good feeling to find someone "has your back".


Also, the off-topic screech is pretty bizarre, given that you raised the subject!
I am used to attacks by gay men and their good friends whenever I mention the subject. That being so, I didn't want to get involved in the discussion - I simply couldn't let your nastiness go un-answered.

You're seriously confused.
1. You brought up homosexuality. I made n mention of it until after you brought it up.
2. I have not been nasty to you. I'd previously friended you after supporting your posts in a thread on rape, and was merely giving you information about studies on the god gene.
3. Telling people who have lived with homosexuality, when they had no choice over their inclinations, that it is just a choice, is an attack on them. So it's not surprising if they didn't appreciate your bigoted preaching.



At the minute, I am looking for links about whether gaiety (as I call it) is innate. I am excluding links that you'll automatically dismiss (links to Christian sites etc)... and one link to an Islamic site (I seem to remember that you despise Muslims more than you hate Christians!)

More unfounded ad hominems. You don't seem to understand the difference between argument and insults.
I've consistently argued that America and Co. were wrong to attack Muslim countries, and more often than not, I'm housing Muslim women who need a half-way house in my own home.

However there are certain tenets of both Islam and Christianity which I find objectionable.

Now to check out your hilariously biased citations from NARTH, who believe homosexuality is evil and can be changed, and Christianity and Islam, which are based on scriptures which teach practising homosexuals should be killed.


First link

This essay ignores the complex aspects of gene expression. To simplify that for you, a gene can cause something without always causing it, because it can be switched off or on.


Second

From this essay,

An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality.

And you're citing this as proof homosexuality is not a heritable characteristic?


Sorry for the Christian site but it's thorough

No, it's as far from thorough as you can get.
For example, the discussion of the twin studies takes the least thorough one and leaves out any reference to the difference in rates of homosexuality in filial as opposed to identical twins, which negates the conclusions this site comes to.

It also ignores the existence of bisexuals, claiming that the fact a few people, generally women, have changed sexual preferences, means that everybody can.


The Islamic link (I thought I had lost it)

This paper makes its motives for attempting to disprove any innate determination of sexual identity.

[P]roof of an inborn difference between gay and heterosexual men could provide further ammunition in the battle against discrimination. If homosexuality were viewed legally as a biological phenomenon, rather than a fuzzier matter of “choice” or “preference,” then gay people could no more rightfully be kept out of the military, a housing complex or a teaching job than could, say blacks.


Then it goes on to "analyse" studies, not only twisting interpretations to suit their agenda, but even downright lying. The data it gives regarding the following study is completely fabricated.
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation

I've learnt something from analysing the above articles. It's not worth spending time reading papers from obviously biased sites. Data can only be safely gained from the original research.


Vicki, all you have proven is you are not capable of engaging in a civil discourse. You attack everyone who you think disagrees with you, cite the most dubious sources imaginable, and have yet to show an iota of evidence for any of your claims.




edit on 3/2/11 by Kailassa because: I chose to.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by awfitz
reply to post by Condemned0625
 

As a counter argument to your point, part of the big bang theory is the idea that space did not exist prior to the big bang. There was nothing at all. How does something form from nothing?

The big bang may be an endlessly repeating phenomenon, occurring when the branes of two bubble-verses collide. Or it may be a cyclical contraction to a point, followed by explosive expansion from that point.

As for something not being able to come from nothing, how many +1's and -1's can you add together to get zero? The known universe is made up of positive and negative elements. Everything we are aware of comes with opposites. Perhaps they all add together to zero.

If god created the universe, and nothing can come from nothing, where did god come from?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join