"God" genes?

[EduChris]

Suppose scientists were to discover two genes, a "God" gene, and a "No God" gene. Consider then the following four options:

A) If the "God" gene were switched on, and the "No God" gene switched off, then the person would simply believe that God exists and no amount of contrary evidence or argumentation could change her mind.

B) If the "No God" gene were switched on, and the "God" gene switched off, then the person would simply disbelieve in God's existence, and no amount of contrary evidence or argumentation could change his mind.

C) If both genes were switched on, then the person would find either alternative equally plausible, and have the ability to switch from one position to the other on the basis of sufficient evidence and/or argumentation.

D) Likewise, if both genes were switched off, then the person would find both alternatives equally implausible, but would have the ability to choose the least implausible option on the basis of sufficient evidence and/or argumentation.

Now I'm not saying we actually have these genes. I'm simply trying to engage in a thought experiment.

For debate: of the four options, which one would you choose for yourself, if you could give yourself the appropriate "gene therapy"? Which option gives humans the best chance for genuine human freedom?

[Zzyzx]

.

...most nontheists are not taking a position that requires positive evidence...

How about we drop the word non-theist for the time being because it is a very vague description. The camps that a non-theist can fall into are "atheist, agnostic, or ignostic" yes? Are you going to defend the position that atheists do not make a positive assertion that God does not exist?

Are you STILL not aware of the meaning of "Atheism"?

This is from an Atheist website (people who should know about such things). http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... nition.htm

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Bold added.

Do you feel qualified to tell Atheists how to define their own term?

ChaosBorders is right on all counts, in my opinion, beginning with “most nontheists are not taking a position that requires positive evidence�.

First, Zzyzx, I will ask you whether or not you believe that God exists. The possible choices are : Yes, No, I Don't Know, I refuse to answer because it means I will have to make a positive assertion.

Correction: The first question is WHAT "god"? Which one of the thousands proposed?

Second question: Whose concept of the selected "god" is to be considered? There are many "god concepts" within religions.

If you are asking if the Christians' favored "god" exists, I will say, in a general sense, that "god" is as likely to exist as any of the thousands of others proposed -- and I refuse to be bullied into choosing from limited options to state a decision or position. Any of the "gods" MAY exist, but evidence is insufficient to allow me to make a reasoned decision.

Please do not duck the question with a response along the lines of "I am open to accepting God tales if religionists provide adequate evidence."

I provide an explicit answer. If what you really want is a simplistic answer, the closest of the choices would be, "I don't know" (but that is extremely simplistic).

Now a return question for you. What evidence (other than testimonials, personal experiences, opinions, conjecture and tales by religious promoters) can be used as a basis for a reasoned decision regarding "gods"? Kindly don't duck the question or make excuses.

[Woland]

I do claim that acknowledging ignorance is better than professing false knowledge.

If one is "ignorant" on a topic then one should not be debating it.

Are you saying that the hundreds of mutually exclusive claims made by religionists cannot be challenged and questioned (in debate or otherwise) by those who see inconsistencies in them?

How about if I do it for the sake of intellectual curiosity and methodical examination, is that allowed?

When I see people make endless and very detailed claims (which they firmly believe to be true) about very specific deities which cannot be shown to exist at all, much less even be made coherent in many (most?) cases, my internal nonsense detector blows up, and it can be easily argued in reasoned debate that it would be unreasonable to believe the truth of these countless extraordinary claims based on what is presented on their support - not much, and that's being generous.

I'm think I'm doing just fine in debate, and I enjoy it thoroughly. Please do not presume to tell others what they should do or not do in their own search for knowledge - which religionists of thousands of religions have been claiming to have without ever demonstrating it.

I enjoy learning about things, not hearing people preach and make claim after claim when these claims cannot be separated from wishful thinking - unless they are labeled as being such.

Good observation. An atheist is NOT one who "lack"s belief in god(s) according to the dictionaries, an atheist is one who does not believe in God just as the theist is one who believes in God. Both are faith based propositions, yet I've never heard an atheist admit it. Are you willing to?

Haven't the reasons why what you said above is misrepresentation been explained to you already? It would seem so judging by your previous posts, but there must be something that you are not considering.

Once again,
1. Does not believe in = lacking belief in
2. Believing something does not exist is not the same as not believing something exists.

Do you seriously deny these?

How is it faith-based to admit that you don't know if there is a being out there which would qualify for the extremely vague title "god"?

Do you really, REALLY wish to insist on having others pretend to have knowledge that they simply do not pretend to have? Would that drag down the level of conversation enough to allow any false claims of knowledge to go unchallenged, thus falsely reassuring you that your position is reasonable?

I can make specific claims about specific proposed deities if you wish, something I will not do for the generic "god" question:

1. I think that it's unreasonable to believe in the god described in the Bible and by most Christian theological views I've heard

2. I think that this conceptual being would not even begin to deserve worship if he were somehow to be reconciled with reality (which seems very unlikely)

3. I think that the most reasonable explanation for people who make endless claims about not just the existence, but also the attributes, wishes, dislikes etc. of specific personal and loving deities and believe in the truth these claims, is that they are the result of a combination of factors including autosuggestion, groupthink, and plain wishful thinking i.e. that they do not possess any more knowledge than others (like me) who have patiently studied the issues at hand and determined that the evidence required to make these claims reasonable to believe, considering the abundance and similar nature of other competing claims, was lacking. SEVERELY.

-Woland

[bjs]

.

...most nontheists are not taking a position that requires positive evidence...

How about we drop the word non-theist for the time being because it is a very vague description. The camps that a non-theist can fall into are "atheist, agnostic, or ignostic" yes? Are you going to defend the position that atheists do not make a positive assertion that God does not exist?

Are you STILL not aware of the meaning of "Atheism"?

This is from an Atheist website (people who should know about such things). http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... nition.htm

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Bold added.

Do you feel qualified to tell Atheists how to define their own term?

While I don’t enjoy debates on semantics, I do want to say that atheism is not an atheist’s “own term� any more than theism is a theist’s term. They are terms in the English language.

Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God or gods. If that is what you believe then that is fine. If you believe something else then that is also fine. But it doesn’t change the meaning of the word.

There seems to be a movement, largely on internet sites like this one, to change the meaning atheism to be more similar to agnosticism (the belief that the existence and nature of God is unknown or unknowable). As an outsider looking in my best guess is that this movement exits because agnosticism is a more logically defensible position than atheism. (In just about any debate other than mathematics the positions of “I don’t know,� and “you can’t prove, confirm, or verify it,� are always the most difficult positions to overcome.)

[Flail]

Winepusher wrote:

First, Zzyzx, I will ask you whether or not you believe that God exists. The possible choices are : Yes, No, I Don't Know, I refuse to answer because it means I will have to make a positive assertion.

Please do not duck the question with a response along the lines of "I am open to accepting God tales if religionists provide adequate evidence."

Zzyzx can of course, answer for himself, but I will jump in here to give my answer to the 'do you believe that God exists' question.

First of all, I think it is important, whenever possible, to avoid beliefs which imply a lack of credible evidence and are indicative of the presence of indoctrination. Second of all, I fail to find any valid, evidentiary definition of what a 'God' would be, let alone that anyone knows or can 'point to' any such supernatural, paranormal being. That said, I have no idea if there is or ever has been a 'God'. In short, I don't know....but if you have any verifiable , credible, independent evidence whatsoever to offer for consideration, I would be happy to look at it.

[bernee51]

While I don’t enjoy debates on semantics, I do want to say that atheism is not an atheist’s “own term� any more than theism is a theist’s term. They are terms in the English language.

Without theists, atheists would not exist. It is the invention of the god concept hat has given rise to atheism – not the other way round.

Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God or gods. If that is what you believe then that is fine. If you believe something else then that is also fine. But it doesn’t change the meaning of the word.

It really is quite simple:
Theism = belief in god(s)
Atheism = lack of belief in god(s).

Do you have a belief in the Christian god? You are a theist WRT that god.

Do you have a belief in Zeus? If not you are an atheist WRT Zeus.

What about Odin, Quetzecotyl, any of the Olympian gods, or the Hindu pantheon...where do you stand with those?

There seems to be a movement, largely on internet sites like this one, to change the meaning atheism to be more similar to agnosticism (the belief that the existence and nature of God is unknown or unknowable). As an outsider looking in my best guess is that this movement exits because agnosticism is a more logically defensible position than atheism. (In just about any debate other than mathematics the positions of “I don’t know,� and “you can’t prove, confirm, or verify it,� are always the most difficult positions to overcome.)

No it is in the interests of accuracy of the position. It provides a firm place from which to judge the position of others.

BTW, an agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 249:

I do claim that acknowledging ignorance is better than professing false knowledge.

If one is "ignorant" on a topic then one should not be debating it.

Hush man! They're liable to ban me right here and now.

Or, I completly disagree. What better way to gain the knowledge one lacks than to go on and admit it and then ask those professing to hold that knowledge to show they actually do? Remember, debate is kinduva two-way street, where this'n claims and that'n challenges.

You can deny it all day, but lacking belief in god(s) is not the same as believing there are no god(s).

>I'm gonna interrupt here and say that's kinda goofy. If one lacks belief in gods that's just the same as believing there are no gods. Semantics have seldom won wars. The lack of belief though is NOT a positive claim that there are no gods.

An atheist is NOT one who "lack"s belief in god(s) according to the dictionaries, an atheist is one who does not believe in God just as the theist is one who believes in God. Both are faith based propositions, yet I've never heard an atheist admit it. Are you willing to?

This "strong atheist" professes there are no gods, and at the same time admits that evidence for my claim is outside the bounds of verification. Thus, I'm unable to make positive claims, in honorable debate, regarding my position and try my best to ensure that when I make such claims I have clarified them so much they're cleaner'n a toilet bowl at a fancy motel.

I think the difficulty here lies in the approach to the terms. "I'm a theist" is commonly understood to mean "And there's God right there". Who can blame folks for thinking it? Notice though, there are those theists who readily admit to the nature of such a statement, with more qualifiers than a weekend at the dragstrip. The same applies to atheists. I propose the solution is for all involved to not "hide behind" (or allow to go misunderstood) the definition that properly suits them, but to admit it right up front and who cares what the neighbors say.

I can see where theists can be frustrated in debating atheists, because "we" so often don't mention our particular defintions, and the same goes for us atheists who rail at the mere mention of the "G-word".

Conclusion? Don't wait for someone to attempt to understand your position. Tell 'em right up front and you can't help if it upsets their mommas.

[Woland]

Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God or gods. If that is what you believe then that is fine. If you believe something else then that is also fine. But it doesn’t change the meaning of the word.

That's pretty incredible... In your last post, you quoted a statement explaining in detail why what you wrote above is a misrepresentation of the atheistic position.

I, for one, do NOT believe that there is no god. I DO note, however, than the god concepts presented to me thus far which involve an interventionist, personal, loving deity are inconsistent and have no evidential basis in reality.

Please reply with an answer which acknowledges that you now understand what "atheism" is - certainly NOT a belief or "doctrine" that there is no god, and which implies that you will CEASE misrepresenting our position. Doing so after this would be considered incredibly dishonest unless you REALLY mean to tell us that you simply cannot understand the difference between the expressions "not believing in god" and "believing there is no god".

If that's the case...Will any Christian theist please explain to bjs why what he said is misrepresentation? Seems to me it would have more impact.

There seems to be a movement, largely on internet sites like this one, to change the meaning atheism to be more similar to agnosticism (the belief that the existence and nature of God is unknown or unknowable). As an outsider looking in my best guess is that this movement exits because agnosticism is a more logically defensible position than atheism. (In just about any debate other than mathematics the positions of “I don’t know,� and “you can’t prove, confirm, or verify it,� are always the most difficult positions to overcome.)

Oh noes!!11!
He found out about the conspiracy!

Seriously... What on EARTH are you talking about? How could what you wrote above even potentially be correct? If "atheists" (you're improperly using the word) thought that agnosticism was a more defensible position.... they'd be agnostics - which they can still be anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Let me guess, the existence of that web page is part of the movement you were talking about. How about the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy?

Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none.

What more do you need?

WHAT exactly would even POSSIBLY make one want to redefine one's position to match another which one holds as being more logically defensible while calling his redefined position the same name as his initial position (assuming they are mutually exclusive, because they weren't in your inadequate example)?

Are you saying that self-described atheists who explain that they do not make any claims concerning god(s) are dishonest or ignorant about their own lack of belief?

If you want to debate whether or not it's REASONABLE to believe in YOUR proposed god with all its specific attributes or even in a generic god (like Einstein's god), we can do so.

-Woland

[bjs]

Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God or gods. If that is what you believe then that is fine. If you believe something else then that is also fine. But it doesn’t change the meaning of the word.

That's pretty incredible... In your last post, you quoted a statement explaining in detail why what you wrote above is a misrepresentation of the atheistic position.

I, for one, do NOT believe that there is no god. I DO note, however, than the god concepts presented to me thus far which involve an interventionist, personal, loving deity are inconsistent and have no evidential basis in reality.

Please reply with an answer which acknowledges that you now understand what "atheism" is - certainly NOT a belief or "doctrine" that there is no god, and which implies that you will CEASE misrepresenting our position. Doing so after this would be considered incredibly dishonest unless you REALLY mean to tell us that you simply cannot understand the difference between the expressions "not believing in god" and "believing there is no god".

If that's the case...Will any Christian theist please explain to bjs why what he said is misrepresentation? Seems to me it would have more impact.

You are free to any position you want to hold. I make no claims about that. I am making a claim about what the word atheism means.

There seems to be a movement, largely on internet sites like this one, to change the meaning atheism to be more similar to agnosticism (the belief that the existence and nature of God is unknown or unknowable). As an outsider looking in my best guess is that this movement exits because agnosticism is a more logically defensible position than atheism. (In just about any debate other than mathematics the positions of “I don’t know,� and “you can’t prove, confirm, or verify it,� are always the most difficult positions to overcome.)

Oh noes!!11!
He found out about the conspiracy!

Seriously... What on EARTH are you talking about? How could what you wrote above even potentially be correct? If "atheists" (you're improperly using the word) thought that agnosticism was a more defensible position.... they'd be agnostics - which they can still be anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Let me guess, the existence of that web page is part of the movement you were talking about. How about the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy?

I don’t think that I claimed that there was any conspiracy. If the word “movement� is too conspiratorial for you, would calling the apparent misuse of the word atheism a “trend� on some web sites be more appropriate?

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines atheism as: the denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence.

[RightKnowledge999]

Christian Won't Know How To Answer This One . Sine Adam Was Created In The Image And After The Likeness Of God According To Genesis 1 ; 27 , Then Ask Your Teacher , Preacher , Ministers . Deacons , Rabbis , Imaam AndOther Religious Leaders What Was God's Blood Type? They Don't Have An Answer !
Question ; Since EveryOne Came From Adam And Eve Who , According To Christian Doctrine , Were The First Human Beings . Then Why Doesn't EveryOne LQQk Exactly Alike ? When It SaysThat Eve Taken From His Rib , What Does That Mean ? The Rib Is What ? A Bone AndWhat Take Place In The Bones ? Bones Are Made Up Of Mineral - Filled Rings And Of Blood Vessels That Run Through Canals In Each Group Of Rings , And Blood Vessels Enter And Exit At Specific Points Along The Bone . The Bone In Animals Having A Back Bone Or Spinal Column / Vertebrates Is Also


Involved In Regulating The Concentration For Calcium Icons In The Blood . Creation Takes Place In Bones . What Do I Mean By Creation ? Inside Of The Bones . You Have Bone Marrows Which . Is Tissue Inside Of Your Bones That Is Responsible For The ProductionOf Blood Cells . The Bone Marrow Fills The Center And Spaces At Both Ends Of The Bones Where Growth Happen . In Infants , The Marrow Of The Bones Prodance Blood Cells , Whereas The Function Of Bone Marrow Changes Into Soring Fat As You Get Older . As Adults , Most Blood Cells Are Produced In The Marrow Of Flat Bones Such As The Sternum Or The Breast Bone , Which Is The Narrow Flat Bone In The Middle Line Of The Thorax In Front . The Breast Bone Is Composed Of Three Portions Called The Manubrium Which Is A Latin Word


Meaning '' Handle '' ( The Portion Of The Malleus LQQking Like A Handle .Xiphold Is From The Greek Words Xiphos Meaning '' Sword '' And Eidos , Meaning '' Process '' Or Ensiform From The Latin Word Ensis Meaning '' Sword '' Forma Meaning '' Form '' [ Sword Shaped Cartiaginous Process Supported By The Bone ; It Has No Ribs Attached To It ] . And The Gladiolus Process , From The Latin Word Gladiolus Meaning '' Little Sword '' ( The Femur Bone , A Long Bone In The Thigh , Show Which As Bone Marrow Compact Bone , Blood Vessels And Spongy Bone .Bone Marrow Is Responsible For The Production Of Blood Cells. And What Is In Blood ?First Of All . Blood Is The Only Liquid Tissue In




The Body . What Makes Blood A Liquid Is A Protenin - Rich Substance Called Plasma . , Which Makes Up Approximately 55 Percent Of Blood , While The Other 45 Percent Of Blood Is Made Up Of Red And White Blood Cells . And Platelets . Red Blood Cells Or Erythrocytes
[ From The Greek Words Leukos , Meaning '' White '' And Cyte Meaning '' Cell '' Carry Oxygen From The Lungs To All Cells Of The Body And It Also Carries Carbon Dioxide From Cells Back To The Lungs To Be Exhaled . WhiteBlood Cells Or Leukocytes [ From The Greek Word Leukos Meaning '' White '' , And Cyte Meaning '' Cell '' ] Also Called Microphages , Can Go In And Out Of Blood Vessels To Clean Up Worn-Out Or Dead Cells And Protect The Body Against Invading Bacteria , Viruses , Or Other Foreign Cells . Platelets Or Thrombocytes [ From The Greek Words


Leukos , Meaning '' White '' And Cyte Meaning '' Cell '' Which Are Fragment Of Cells Formed From Large White Blood Cells Within Bone Marrow , Are Needed For The Blood Clotting Process That Happen When Blood Bessels Are Injured . Red Blood Cells . White Blood Cells . Platelets ;.... Human Beings Are Constantly Creating Duplicates Of Themselves In The Form Of What Is Called Genes , Which Hold The Genetic Code For Your Exact Mak-Up . Genes Are Carriers Of Of The Genetic Information Passed On From Generation To Generation In TheSex Cells Of All Organisms . It Consists Of A Helix Structure Of Chain-Like Molecules Of Deoxyribonucleic Acids ( DNA ) In Most Organisms And Ribonucleic Acid ( RNA



In Certain Viruses And Is Usually Associated In A Linear Arrangement That Makes Up The Chromosome . Nucleic Acids . Are Long Chain-Like Molecules , Made Of Repeated Sequences Of Phosphate And Sugar Likeages-Ribose Sugar In RNA And Deoxyribose Sugars In DNA . Attached To The Sugar Like In The Backbone Are Two Kinds Of Purines ; Adenine ( A ) And Guanine ( G ) . And Two Kinds Of Pyrimdines Cytosine ( C ) Anduracil ( U ) In RNA . A Single Purine Or A Pyrimdine Is Attached To Each Sugar ; The Compound Being Called A Nucleotide . The Nuckeic Acids Extracted From Different Species Of Animals And Plants Have Different Proporytion Of The Four Nucleotide . Some Have More Adenine ( A ) And Thymine ( T ) , While Others Have More Guanine ( G ) And Cytosine ( C ) .


However , The Ratios Of A To '' T '' And Also G To C. Are Equal . How Does All Of This Tie In ? Inside Of The Bones , In The Marrow Of The Bone Blood Cells Are Produced . They Are A Whole Person Being Created Inside Of Yourself . Inside Of Your Bones Fresh Humans AreBeing Created And Old Ones Are Dying . Thus If According To The Bible Eve Was Taken From The Rib Or Bone Marrow Of Adam
Genesis 2 ; 21 - 22 And I Quote . And The Lord God Caused A Deep Sleep To Fall Upon Adam And He Slept ; And He Took One Of His Ribs , And Closed Up The Flesh Instead Therefore . And The Ribs Which The LORD God Had Taken From Man
Made He A Woman And Brought Her Unto Man .
Then Shouldn't She Have Been An Exact Duplicate Of Adam In Every Way ?



The Next Question Would Be < ([ What blood type were Adam & Eve? )}

[fewwillfindit]

Christian Won't Know How To Answer This One

Would you please quit spamming threads with large bodies of text that have the first letter in every word capitalized? You've been asked this numerous times now.