Sandbox (4)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.

675 Replies to “Sandbox (4)”

  1. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox,

    http://www.newsweek.com/religion-healthy-atheism-mutant-genes-756984

    Dang, I got there from here with no paywall. The link is under the first paragraph

    Is that any better?

  2. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    I am persuaded by the arguments and evidence that implies the conclusion that religiosity is a beneficial selective trait for a social species. Simply put, religion evolved.

  3. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket: I am persuaded by the arguments and evidence that implies the conclusion that religiosity is a beneficial selective trait for a social species.

    As a Calvinist with postmillennialist tendencies I’m interested in the idea that proclivity toward atheism and belief in the paranormal might be the result of high mutational load with correlated decreases in fitness. meaning that those sorts of beliefs are not sustainable over evolutionary timescales.

    I had not ever thought of it that way before.
    I don’t have an opinion one way or the other it’s just interesting

    peace

  4. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman:
    Alan Fox,

    http://www.newsweek.com/religion-healthy-atheism-mutant-genes-756984

    Dang, I got there from here with no paywall. The link is under the first paragraph

    Is that any better?

    No. I did try searching for alternative sources but I didn’t find one.

  5. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox: I did try searching for alternative sources but I didn’t find one.

    My whizkid son says that it probably has to do with viewing it in Europe verses good ole Merica.

    Sorry, I can’t help

    peace

  6. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: As a Calvinist with postmillennialist tendencies I’m interested in the idea that proclivity toward atheism and belief in the paranormal might be the result of high mutational load with correlated decreases in fitness. meaning that those sorts of beliefs are not sustainable over evolutionary timescales.

    I had not ever thought of it that way before.
    I don’t have an opinion one way or the other it’s just interesting

    peace

    I have not read all that much about it, but I’ve seen a number of studies that suggest religiosity promotes things like group-cohesion, cooperation and so on. I find it persuasive, among other reasons both because that is what the evidence implies, and because it seems rather intuitively obvious to me that sharing beliefs about social rules and behavior also inadvertently promotes cooperation.

    I would not go so far as to claim that non-religiosity is unsustainable, in the sense that it leads to extinction, or societal collapse. It doesn’t have to be unsustainable, for religiosity to still be associated with higher relative fitness. It is not a black-and-white dichotomy at work, where the society is either religious, or it collapses and goes extinct.

    I also want to emphasize that religiosity doesn’t need to have a supernatural aspect to it. Though there are examples where such beliefs can also promote cooperative behavior.
    I think the chief message is that religiosity is more associated with communally held beliefs about social structure and rules, precepts for behavior, ritual and so on. Those can take an almost endless number of forms, which can be collectively referred to as “religion”. In that view (and that of the authors of the paper you linked), and even something like atheistic Marxist communism in the soviet union and china, are examples of “religions” that positively contribute to group-cohesion, cooperation and therefore higher relative fitness.

  7. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket: I also want to emphasize that religiosity doesn’t need to have a supernatural aspect to it.

    I have a big problem with the idea of the “supernatural” as usually articulated. For most folks it brings to mind forces contrary to nature in some way.

    That is in my opinion just superstition.

    For me anything personal is supernatural.

    Rumraket: even something like atheistic Marxist communism in the soviet union and china, are examples of “religions”

    I would agree.

    However I think the authors of the paper have more in mind ideologies involving a moral god of some sort at the center

    peace

  8. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket: I think the chief message is that religiosity is more associated with communally held beliefs about social structure and rules, precepts for behavior, ritual and so on.

    I think the message is that proclivity to reject moral gods is correlated with reduced fitness and these sorts of beliefs are seem more nowadays due to the strong suppression of selection since the start of the industrial age.

    peace

  9. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I think the message is that proclivity to reject moral gods is correlated with reduced fitness and these sorts of beliefs are seem more nowadays due to the strong suppression of selection since the start of the industrial age.

    Yes, that is actually what the paper is saying. Here is the abstract:

    Industrialisation leads to relaxed selection and thus the accumulation of fitness-damaging genetic mutations. We argue that religion is a selected trait that would be highly sensitive to mutational load. We further argue that a specific form of religiousness was selected for in complex societies up until industrialisation based around the collective worship of moral gods. With the relaxation of selection, we predict the degeneration of this form of religion and diverse deviations from it. These deviations, however, would correlate with the same indicators because they would all be underpinned by mutational load. We test this hypothesis using two very different deviations: atheism and paranormal belief. We examine associations between these deviations and four indicators of mutational load: (1) poor general health, (2) autism, (3) fluctuating asymmetry, and (4) left-handedness. A systematic literature review combined with primary research on handedness demonstrates that atheism and/or paranormal belief is associated with all of these indicators of high mutational load.

    Dutton, E., Madison, G. & Dunkel, C. Evolutionary Psychological Science (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0133-5

    Left-handedness is an indicator of mutational load. Yeah, right. I don’t buy that.

  10. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Left-handedness is an indicator of mutational load. Yeah, right. I don’t buy that.

    As a lefty I hope that is not the case either. But it might explain why folks find me to be odd at times 😉

    peace

  11. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: My whizkid son says that it probably has to do with viewing it in Europe verses good ole Merica.

    Sorry, I can’t help.

    Not come across that problem before. I suppose I can have another look via VPN. If the full paper is available to you as a download, you can always email me the PDF. Or anyone else for that matter, thanks in advance! 🙂
    alanfox@free.fr

    ETA

    Ah found it! PDF of full paper

  12. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox: If the full paper is available to you as a download, you can always email me the PDF.

    When I try to do that it says that since it’s a complementary shared article it’s unavailable for download.

    I can read it in full but that is it.

    any other ideas?

    peace

  13. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman,
    The “complimentary article” is what I missed. I have the paper, now.

  14. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Left-handedness is an indicator of mutational load. Yeah, right. I don’t buy that.

    Paper says lefthandedness is bad!

  15. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    As a lefty I hope that is not the case either. But it might explain why folks find me to be odd at times

    Um, fifth — that’s not the reason.

  16. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox: Paper says lefthandedness is bad!

    Because handedness is so easy to score, it gets included in many studies. This leads to publication bias, where only significant results make it into the journals. Meta-analyses that take this into account typically come up empty handed (no pun intended), for example here

    Another thing that sets off my personal alarm bells is the “might be associated” part. The mutation load is the part of the genetic load that is due to recent deleterious mutations and is difficult to measure, even in well-controlled model systems. I would be very surprised if handedness would turn out to be a such a convenient proxy for mutation load in humans.

    No, this paper is nonsense.

  17. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: No, this paper is nonsense.

    That was my initial suspicion, too. Sample sizes seem small. And as you say, an apparent correlation is not evidence of a causal link.

  18. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    I interrupt this thread to bring you news of serious crime breaking out on the small island of Guernsey!

  19. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    I found this Guardian article intriguing.

  20. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: I would be very surprised if handedness would turn out to be a such a convenient proxy for mutation load in humans.

    We do know that left handedness is associated with increased risk of mortality and anecdotally it seems to me more common now than in the past.

    All things being equal I would expect that right handedness to be selected for in humans.

    I took the article to be pointing to increases in things like left handedness and autism to be indicators of a general increase in mutation load. I think that makes a little sense

    What I found to be interesting is the relationship of these sorts of “less fit” traits and a proclivity toward atheism or belief in the paranormal.

    I’m not saying that correlation equals causation. But I don’t think that anyone would argue that there wasn’t some small genetic component to the proclivity to reject what the paper called “moral gods”.

    peace

  21. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: What I found to be interesting is the relationship of these sorts of “less fit” traits and a proclivity toward atheism or belief in the paranormal.

    Belief in a supernatural being seems as paranormal as it gets.

  22. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I’m not saying that correlation equals causation. But I don’t think that anyone would argue that there wasn’t some small genetic component to the proclivity to reject what the paper called “moral gods”.

    You think the reverse is true, a genetic proclivity to accept the assumption of moral gods?

  23. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: You think the reverse is true, a genetic proclivity to accept the assumption of moral gods?

    I’ve argued repeatedly that humans are hardwired to believe in God.

    peace

  24. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Belief in a supernatural being seems as paranormal as it gets.

    I said recently in this very thread I have a real problem with the idea of the “supernatural” as most folks understand it. I would say that if you believe in a being that is in some way counter to nature you have lapsed into the paranormal

    The authors distinguish paranormal beliefs from beliefs in a “moral god”. You might want to check it out.

    quote:

    The second belief which we will explore is belief in the paranormal. This is clearly a deviation from the belief in a moral god and will usually be a deviation from the regular participation in religious ritual, though there may be exceptions, such as Spiritualist churches We would expect that the belief in a world influenced by ghosts would have been selected against because it is, in fact, comparable to the kinds of beliefs held by hunter-gatherer societies, and does not involve a moral god

    end quote:

    peace

  25. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: We do know that left handedness is associated with increased risk of mortality and anecdotally it seems to me more common now than in the past.

    We know no such thing. All of these findings come from small underpowered studies and failed to reproduce. I don’t believe there has been any change in its frequency either.

    fifthmonarchyman: All things being equal I would expect that right handedness to be selected for in humans.

    I might be persuaded that handedness confers some advantage, but why would it matter whether we use our left or right hand?

    fifthmonarchyman: I took the article to be pointing to increases in things like left handedness and autism to be indicators of a general increase in mutation load. I think that makes a little sense

    Why would autism be an indicator of mutation load, rather than the presence specific genetic risk factors? Using left-handedness as an indicator is ridiculous. There is nothing less fit about being left-handed.

    fifthmonarchyman: What I found to be interesting is the relationship of these sorts of “less fit” traits and a proclivity toward atheism or belief in the paranormal.

    The authors simply used bivariate correlation to find these associations, without any sort of serious correction of confounding variables (age and sex only. They don’t say how). I am willing to bet this is a statistical artifact of poor methodology.

    fifthmonarchyman: I’m not saying that correlation equals causation. But I don’t think that anyone would argue that there wasn’t some small genetic component to the proclivity to reject what the paper called “moral gods”.

    I believe religiosity indeed has a heritable component, but the secularization that has been taking place in several countries world wide has been too rapid to be explained as a genetic change.

    Fifth, the paper is crap. You should not believe any of the things the authors have claimed in it.

  26. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel:

    Fifth, the paper is crap. You should not believe any of the things the authors have claimed in it.

    But he wants to. Shouldn’t that be enough?

    Bonus: The Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

    Those are not advantageous traits. Checkmate, evilutionist.

  27. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    dazz:

    Morry crismas everyone

    Felix Navy Dad, dazz.

    ETA: He makes £200,000 a week. Morry crismas, indeed.

  28. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: I don’t believe there has been any change in its frequency either.

    I said it was anecdotal evidence. I’m not sure how we could demonstrate it one way or another.

    I had a cousin that was born left handed and he endured having his dominant hand tied behind his back till he grew accustomed to using his right. I don’t think that would happen today and I don’t think his parents would be as freaked out by his dominate hand as they were at that time.

    Corneel: I might be persuaded that handedness confers some advantage, but why would it matter whether we use our left or right hand?

    I would say that it does not matter unless you are in the minority group. The preponderance of rightys could be a historical accident but once it was established deviations from the norm would in most cases be detrimental.

    I will say that in the ancient Mideast there was some advantage for soldiers who were left handed. (Judges 3:18 and 20:16)

    Corneel: I am willing to bet this is a statistical artifact of poor methodology.

    You could very well be right. I’d like to know.

    Corneel: I believe religiosity indeed has a heritable component, but the secularization that has been taking place in several countries world wide has been too rapid to be explained as a genetic change.

    I think that recent secularization is largely the result of the collapse of liberal “main line” religious groups. More serious understandings of religion seem to be doing just fine.

    I would speculate that when the draw of the religion itself is weak underling genetic proclivities can be more likely to surface.

    Corneel: Why would autism be an indicator of mutation load, rather than the presence specific genetic risk factors?

    I’m a little fuzzy on the practical difference between the two ideas.

    I would say that before the industrial revolution people on the autism spectrum would be less likely to thrive and pass on their genes and now they would be more likely to do so.

    That in itself would seem to point to more proclivity to atheism given the correlation between the autism and difficulties with formulating a theory of mind

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism

    Corneel: Fifth, the paper is crap. You should not believe any of the things the authors have claimed in it.

    You could be completely right.
    I just found the premise to be interesting and I had not thought about it before.

    When I get some time I might explore the matter further

    peace

  29. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I said recently in this very thread I have a real problem with the idea of the “supernatural” as most folks understand it. I would say that if you believe in a being that is in some way counter to nature you have lapsed into the paranormal

    “I have a big problem with the idea of the “supernatural” as usually articulated. For most folks it brings to mind forces contrary to nature in some way.”

    Why do you assume ghosts are contrary to nature and angels aren’t?

  30. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: though there may be exceptions, such as Spiritualist churches

    How do the authors determine Spiritualist churches are the exception to the pattern ,the noise, rather than the signal?

  31. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: That in itself would seem to point to more proclivity to atheism given the correlation between the autism and difficulties with formulating a theory of mind

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism

    Interesting article, fifth.

    When people see an event as divine intervention, or a result of intelligent design, they’re just letting their teleological bias run amok. They’re attributing purpose where there is none.

    Are you sure you trust this source? 🙂

  32. ALurker
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I’ve argued repeatedly that humans are hardwired to believe in God.

    I’ll probably regret delurking for this, but it stuck in my head after reading it earlier. Are you asserting that every single human being believes in a god? Do you have evidence supporting that?

  33. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    ALurker: I’ll probably regret delurking for this, but it stuck in my head after reading it earlier.Are you asserting that every single human being believes in a god?Do you have evidence supporting that?

    I can answer for him. Yes he’s asserting that, no he has no evidence for it.

    Fifth is a presuppositionalist. He believes we all KNOW (know, not believes) that god exists, and we are all just in some sort of psychological state of denial

    The reason for that belief is his presuppositional belief in some particular literalist interpretation of some bible verses. That we are in some sort of “rebellion”, but that we have “no excuse”.

  34. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Here’s the passage:

    18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    Romans 1:18-20, NIV

    Never mind that Christians themselves have doubts, and many of them will tell you that doubt is an inevitable part of being a Christian. The contradiction between that and the passage above doesn’t bother them, if it registers with them at all.

    Paul was an idiot, of course. God’s existence is anything but obvious. He gives every sign of not existing at all.

    The ones who are in rebellion are the fifthmonarchymen of the world — they are in rebellion against evidence and logic, having drunk the Kristian Kool-Aid.

  35. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    I think it’s important at this stage to point out that the atheism-autism correlation is just that, a correlation. The connection is not a necessary one.

    Autists might be more likely to become atheists, but that doesn’t mean all autists are atheist, nor that all atheists are autists.

    It is a minority of atheists that are autists, and a minority of autists that are atheists. It is just that a higher proportion of autists are atheists (and a higher proportion of atheists are autists), compared to the general population.

    It makes intuitive sense to me why autism would be correlated with atheism, as there is pretty good evidence that theism owes in large part to an overactive agency detector. Inferring agency and intent behind events in our environment is a form of false-positive-prone tendency that has been argued to be beneficial.
    Again, I find the evidence and arguments persuasive both for the correlation between atheism and autism, and the connection between theism, religiosity, and overactive agency detection.

    These things in combination seems to me to point pretty comprehensively to the conclusion that religious theism is an evolved false belief that was beneficial.

    What greater irony can there be in this world, than the fact that the origin and persistence of religious beliefs, is itself evidence for the reality that we are an evolved species? I have a weakness for irony, it brings me joy and wonder to think about it. 🙂

  36. ALurker
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket: Fifth is a presuppositionalist. He believes we all KNOW (know, not believes) that god exists, and we are all just in some sort of psychological state of denial

    Thank you and keiths for the responses. I looked up presuppositionalist and got to the Wikipedia page for “Presuppositional apologetics”. Have you ever had the experience of reading something and getting an almost physical sensation of your brain bouncing off it? I mean, wow. Even before I got to the line “Critics of presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the truth of Christianity and the non-truth of other worldviews.” I was thinking that this is nothing more than question begging.

    While I find your comments here interesting and informative, I would like to hear fifthmonarchyman confirm directly that he is asserting that literally everyone believes in a god. I certainly don’t and I can’t imagine anyone making a claim like that about other people they don’t even know. Then again, I can’t imagine anyone taking presuppositional apologetics seriously, either. Maybe I need to get out more.

  37. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Are you sure you trust this source?

    Of course.

    We all have bias. I don’t discount peoples facts just because I don’t agree with their opinions.

    peace

  38. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket: It makes intuitive sense to me why autism would be correlated with atheism, as there is pretty good evidence that theism owes in large part to an overactive agency detector.

    You would call it overactive the theist would call it just active enough 😉

    In the end it all boils down to the problem of other minds.

    I have no way of demonstrating any mind whatsoever exists beyond my own but I am compelled to believe that they do.

    Each of us acts as if we believe other minds exist even if we deny that they do.

    peace

  39. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    ALurker,

    Presuppositionalism is all fallacies in one. They’re also prone, but heavily prone, to rhetorical play and comebacks. They have full blown rhetorical tactics to distract from their failures and self-defeating claims and focus on deforming whatever you explain to them. Honesty is the least of their concerns. They could not care less. They deform what you say in-your-face, and feel proud about it. The moment you respond with insults to their imbecility they claim that such insults confirm their “worldview” and the atheist’s “denial in unrighteousness.”

    It’s most disgusting bullshit. Absurd, dishonest, and infuriating. All on purpose. Of course, they’ll deny every charge, even though you’ll have a full record of the whole affair. There’s no reasoning with those idiots.

  40. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    ALurker: I would like to hear fifthmonarchyman confirm directly that he is asserting that literally everyone believes in a god.

    No I’m not asserting that at all.
    Everyone knows God exists but I would not go so far as to call it a conscious belief.

    You might want to check this out

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/living-a-lie-we-deceive-ourselves-to-better-deceive-others/

    peace

  41. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    ALurker: I can’t imagine anyone taking presuppositional apologetics seriously, either.

    I don’t like the term apologetics. It sounds to the modern ear like I am apologizing 😉

    I’m not and I’m not “defending” God or Christianity either. God does not need my help.

    I am a presuppositionalist in the sense that I understand that we all have presuppositions and I think it’s important to examine them if we can.

    peace

  42. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    ALurker: I looked up presuppositionalist and got to the Wikipedia page for “Presuppositional apologetics”.

    Wikipedia, what it looks like when the entire internet pools our biases

    peace

  43. ALurker
    Ignored
    says:

    I would like to hear fifthmonarchyman confirm directly that he is asserting that literally everyone believes in a god.

    fifthmonarchyman: No I’m not asserting that at all.
    Everyone knows God exists but I would not go so far as to call it a conscious belief.

    Thanks for responding. Unfortunately, I don’t understand your response. The Merriam-Webster definition of “know” is what I mean by the word:
    “1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern
    b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
    2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
    b : to have a practical understanding of knows how to write”

    By this definition, if I know something, I know it consciously. I assure you that I do not believe in a god of any sort, so your claim that “Everyone knows God exists” is refuted.

  44. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    ALurker,

    Oh, too late, you’re attempting to engage with one of them …

  45. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    ALurker: By this definition, if I know something, I know it consciously.

    There are lots of things you know that you are not directly conscious of at a given moment.

    A child knows that it’s wrong to steal even if they don’t consciously believe it’s wrong to take the candy at the moment they grabbed it.

    A youngster knows that the law of non-contridiction can’t be violated even if he never once has heard of the term.

    Ever hear of Meno’s slave?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno%27s_slave

    ALurker: I assure you that I do not believe in a god of any sort

    quote:

    Whatever man loves, that is his god. For he carries it in his heart; he goes about with it night and day; he sleeps and wakes with it, be it what it may – wealth or self, pleasure or renown.

    end quote:

    Martin Luther

    You are not saying you don’t love anything whatsoever are you?

    If I had to guess I bet you just mean you don’t believe in any being that’s like what you think God is like.

    trust me

    I don’t believe in that guy either 😉

    peace

    .

  46. ALurker
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: There are lots of things you know that you are not directly conscious of at a given moment.

    Sure, but by the definition I provided, there are no things I know that I have never been conscious of. I certainly don’t “know” things that I lack belief in, like gods.

    “Whatever man loves, that is his god. For he carries it in his heart; he goes about with it night and day; he sleeps and wakes with it, be it what it may – wealth or self, pleasure or renown.

    I’ll ask my girlfriend if she’d like to be worshipped.

    If I had to guess I bet you just mean you don’t believe in any being that’s like what you think God is like.

    Well, you’re the one making the claim that “Everyone knows God exists.” What exactly do you mean by “God” in that assertion? If it’s anything like the Christian god, I don’t believe in that.

  47. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    ALurker: but by the definition I provided, there are no things I know that I have never been conscious of.

    Is the definition you provided authoritative in some way? why?

    ALurker: I’ll ask my girlfriend if she’d like to be worshipped.

    It might be a good idea to do that if she is your god.
    Do you love her even more than you love yourself?

    ALurker: If it’s anything like the Christian god, I don’t believe in that.

    I would certainly assume that your idea of what the Christian God is just that,. Your idea

    And I would assume that your idea of the Christian God is not something I believe in either.

    😉

    ALurker: What exactly do you mean by “God” in that assertion?

    That is a huge topic we could camp out on that one forever.

    When I say God I mean at least “Truth” as in

    quote:
    Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
    (Joh 14:6a)
    end quote:

    hope that helps

    peace

  48. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    ALurker,

    I don’t want to be rude but unless you have some point about the article I’d rather not get into another long conversation of this sort right now. I’m kind of busy.

    If you are really interested in examining our individual worldviews for inconsistencies and contradictions I suppose I can give it a go. But you will need to do better than just blanket flippant denials you would need to provide some justification for your claim.

    As it is I think you’d get a better conversation if I was able to give you my full attention.

    I hope you understand

    peace

  49. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    There are around 100 recently contacted tribes in Brazil that had not had any contacts with civilization at all before…

    When after many months researchers were finally able to communicate with the heads of the many tribes, without exception, all of the tribe members turned out to be atheists… While it was hard to pinpoint the exact details, they seem to claim to have developed from mud. Scientists interpreted these findings as proof of their evolution from simpler forms of life swarming in the life-rich Amazonian muddy waters…

    After further studies, researchers have established that the concept of a god/creator or higher power is totally absent among the members of the tribes…

    When asked about the origins of life of the simpler organisms they have evolved from, the head of the tribe stated: ” I don’t that know. Nor does anyone else…”

    When asked about the possibility of a Intelligent Designer as the creator of life, the only possibility they were able to concede was the following scenario:

    “If a civilization developed from the mud on the moon and they wanted to spread their life form, they could have shot an arrow toward the Earth containing simple life forms that landed in the mud in the Amazon. Life evolved there and they later developed from those simpler life forms… ”

    While the mechanism of their evolution is unknown, many members seem to point at the sun as the driving force of the development as many times they have observed complex life forms sprouting out of dried and rotten by sun food mixed with mud….

    These findings are consistent with other scientific results that the belief in any Higher Being/God/ID is a learned and not inherent in DNA…
    Further research is needed to confirm these findings…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.