"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]

.

While I dont enjoy debates on semantics, I do want to say that atheism is not an atheists own term any more than theism is a theists term. They are terms in the English language.

Perhaps I should have replaced the idea of "own term" with "right to define or describe what the term means". Just as Christians have the right to decide what constitutes Christianity, and Shriners have the right to say what it means to be a Shriner, Atheists should have the right to say what their identifying term denotes.

Notice that there is great diversity in how individual Atheists think of the term as it applies to themselves -- just as there is great diversity among Christians about what the term Christian means, particularly as applied to themselves and their immediate group.

As the article I cited noted, confusion about the definition of "Atheist" comes primarily from Christians who insist that the term mean something different than what Atheists themselves say.

Playing semantic games; the prefix "A" before a term indicates "not" (agreed so far?). Put "not" in front of "theist" and what do you have? Since "theist" is defined as: "one who believes in a god or gods". Combining the terms = not one who believes in a god or gods OR "one who does not believe in gods". Notice that does not include denial.

I understand that theists have a vested interest in attempting to inject "denial of gods" into the term to give themselves leverage in denouncing atheism or to claim that Atheists have "made a positive assertion that must be defended" (since they cannot defend their own assertion that "gods" exist).

This disagreement about the meaning of "atheist" (and "agnostic") is precisely why I choose to identify as a Non-Theist. Still, many who I debate say or imply, "You are really a god-denier, but just won't say so" -- when that is decidedly not the case. Their choice to make a false assumption hands me an advantage in debate. Most seem unable to deal with with my actual position -- that ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" MAY exist -- and request for evidence upon which to make a reasoned decision favoring one over others.

[RightKnowledge999]

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.

Let Me Make This Clear For You And Those Who Feel The Same Way You Do , If You Have A Problem With ( Anything I Post Write ) Be An Adult And By Pass Any And All My Post . Because Your Not Going Tell Me What To Say How To Write It Because Your To Lazyyyy To Read It . Some Of You People Here Need To Grow Up . Meaning Those Who Can Read Will , Those Who Can't Wont , Trying To Sabotage My Post Not Going Change Anything . Leave That School Yard Carp And The School With Children Ok .

[Flail]

.

While I dont enjoy debates on semantics, I do want to say that atheism is not an atheists own term any more than theism is a theists term. They are terms in the English language.

Perhaps I should have replaced the idea of "own term" with "right to define or describe what the term means". Just as Christians have the right to decide what constitutes Christianity, and Shriners have the right to say what it means to be a Shriner, Atheists should have the right to say what their identifying term denotes.

Notice that there is great diversity in how individual Atheists think of the term as it applies to themselves -- just as there is great diversity among Christians about what the term Christian means, particularly as applied to themselves and their immediate group.

As the article I cited noted, confusion about the definition of "Atheist" comes primarily from Christians who insist that the term mean something different than what Atheists themselves say.

Playing semantic games; the prefix "A" before a term indicates "not" (agreed so far?). Put "not" in front of "theist" and what do you have? Since "theist" is defined as: "one who believes in a god or gods". Combining the terms = not one who believes in a god or gods OR "one who does not believe in gods". Notice that does not include denial.

I understand that theists have a vested interest in attempting to inject "denial of gods" into the term to give themselves leverage in denouncing atheism or to claim that Atheists have "made a positive assertion that must be defended" (since they cannot defend their own assertion that "gods" exist).

This disagreement about the meaning of "atheist" (and "agnostic") is precisely why I choose to identify as a Non-Theist. Still, many who I debate say or imply, "You are really a god-denier, but just won't say so" -- when that is decidedly not the case. Their choice to make a false assumption hands me an advantage in debate. Most seem unable to deal with with my actual position -- that ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" MAY exist -- and request for evidence upon which to make a reasoned decision favoring one over others.

Right. It appears as though theists who have no evidence or support for their God claims, want non-theists to have the same problem...ie, that we don't have evidence or support for our claims of 'no God'. They don't want to acknowledge that there are other 'atheistic options' such as your non-theism and my Ignosticism (to which you introduced me).

Neither of us makes any claims about an actual/factual God; neither of us claims that no God exists; we both demand verifiable, credible evidence for any God proposed or claimed by others. In fact, I don't think either of us claim to know what a 'God' would even consist of, if such a supernatural creature ever became discernible to man. In sum, I don't know any thing at all about any God, nor do I think anyone else does, but I intend to keep looking around and searching to see if I can find One.

[Woland]

Hello bjs,

I repeat: why would anyone identifying themselves as belonging to a position try to redefine their position to match one with another name (ignoring the very real fact that one can be a subset of the other despite your apparent denial of this) if they find the other position more logically tenable than their own? This is what you claimed, isn't it?

Are you saying that self-described atheists who do not profess knowledge about god(s) or the lack thereof are ALL spectacularly ignorant about what atheism means, or dishonest about it? Have you considered that dictionaries support the definition of atheism used by many non-theists here?

Do you simply not care because you insist on having others make claims that they do NOT make because they have the integrity required to understand that they do NOT have special knowledge unavailable to others? Does pointing at others and saying "See? Your position is faith-based! It's a doctrine! It's a belief system!" (especially when these are simply not true) really give you that much reassurance that yours is reasonable?

If atheism is a doctrine, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Is non-theism "the doctrine that there are no god(s)" as well in your opinion?

-Woland

[Woland]

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.

Let Me Make This Clear For You And Those Who Feel The Same Way You Do , If You Have A Problem With ( Anything I Post Write ) Be An Adult And By Pass Any And All My Post . Because Your Not Going Tell Me What To Say How To Write It Because Your To Lazyyyy To Read It . Some Of You People Here Need To Grow Up . Meaning Those Who Can Read Will , Those Who Can't Wont , Trying To Sabotage My Post Not Going Change Anything . Leave That School Yard Carp And The School With Children Ok .

He was merely giving you advice on making your posts more "readable". Calling people lazy for asking you to make an effort (or not make an effort to capitalize each word, as it were) to post according to basic rules of the English language is supremely childish unless one has a learning disability - and even then, it's still very uncivil.

Why would you refuse to easily improve the readability of the material you post, and move on? It seems to me that doing this would be the most reasonable path.

If you're dyslexic or something, I understand completely, and will read your posts despite their pecularities.

-Woland

[fewwillfindit]

If atheism is a doctrine, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If non-stamp collectors spent countless hours a day refuting stamp collectors as to the validity of their craft, "hobby" would be an understatement. The unbiased observer might even call it an obsession.

[Flail]

Woland wrote:

If atheism is a doctrine, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

This is my nomination for quote of the week....excellent...

[fewwillfindit]

Leave That School Yard Carp And The School With Children Ok .

What does this even mean? I'm fairly certain that a schoolyard attendant would not let children play with fish.

[Woland]

If atheism is a doctrine, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If non-stamp collectors spent countless hours a day refuting stamp collectors as to the validity of their craft, "hobby" would be an understatement. The unbiased observer might even call it an obsession.

This again?

In summary: if millions of stamp collectors were bent on imposing their hobby on the rest of the population and pretended to have authority to do so, you can bet anything that I would be the first one to shut them up by asking them where they presume to get this authority from, and like their religious analogues, they would surely FAIL miserably to defend their claims with anything else than more claims.

Note that this wouldn't make "not collecting stamps" any more of a hobby.

Does that answer your comment?

-Woland

[fewwillfindit]

If atheism is a doctrine, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If non-stamp collectors spent countless hours a day refuting stamp collectors as to the validity of their craft, "hobby" would be an understatement. The unbiased observer might even call it an obsession.

This again?

In summary: if millions of stamp collectors were bent on imposing their hobby on the rest of the population and pretended to have authority to do so, you can bet anything that I would be the first one to shut them up by asking them where they presume to get this authority from, and like their religious analogues, they would surely FAIL miserably to defend their claims with anything else than more claims.

Note that this wouldn't make "not collecting stamps" any more of a hobby.

Does that answer your comment?

-Woland

Lol, yes it does Mr. Woland. Thank you.