Pillock said:And here I thought we were finished blaming **** on genes. Seriously, religiosity sounds fake as hell. Somebody in the Naming Department needs to get their ass fired for that.
But seriously, um, I don't even know what to do about this. If religiosity, or as I like to call it, religitude, was actually determined by which people ****ed which other people, we'd have stamped out the agnostilocity gene a long time ago.
BattleOfValmy said:Oh look, someone else failed to read and/or comprehend the article, or even read the first page.
Pillock said:BattleOfValmy said:Oh look, someone else failed to read and/or comprehend the article, or even read the first page.
The irony in this post is mother****in painful
BattleOfValmy said:You made the same sort of blind, silly assumption Selothi made on the first page, thinking the point was that religion is caused by genes, when the actual point is a combination of factors makes someone more likely to be religious, and converesly, can also make someone more likely to be secular/non-theistic, and those factors are caused by genes. No where did it say that "if you have x allele, YOU WILL BE RELIGIOUS, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO BE!" and to read into it like that is being dishonest.
DameGreyWulf said:Or it just makes more sense.
I'd believe this theory better if it said something more like "you could be genetically predisposed to being paranoid," which is all spirituality does boil down to. In which case, no ****.
DameGreyWulf said:
Fine, religiousness.
You do realize there's more to religion than to be in an organized one, right? Plenty of people do not adhere to a particular doctrine but still claim to be religious.
How is the belief that you're being watched, that everything is alive, that there are spirits, and other such beliefs in beings existing beyond your scope, NOT paranoia?
You mean those traits most everyone has because we're a pack animal?BattleOfValmy said:Yeah, of course, but the genetic traits he was talking about (being part of a group, obedience, etc.)...
The fact is everybody has a degree of this, it's common sense, and as such you could just as easily say some people have an alle that determines if they'll be inclined to join the gay club on campus or some ****. It's a ridiculously generic thing he's taking and trying to make it mean something fantastical. Especially considering secularism is also a group with its own leaders.BattleOfValmy said:Yeah, but you can't make the claim that everyone has the same propensity towards obedience or belonging towards a group, otherwise we'd have no rebels or social loners.
DameGreyWulf said:So you're one of the nutters who believes everything has a gene?BattleOfValmy said:Yeah, but you can't make the claim that everyone has the same propensity towards obedience or belonging towards a group, otherwise we'd have no rebels or social loners.
Well I guess I like cats because I'm predisposed to. I'll call it the felinosity alle.
The fact is everybody has a degree of this, it's common sense, and as such you could just as easily say some people have an alle that determines if they'll be inclined to join the gay club on campus or some ****. It's a ridiculously generic thing he's taking and trying to make it mean something fantastical. Especially considering secularism is also a group with its own leaders.
So you DO believe I'm genetically predisposed to liking cats?Thanks for strawmanning my argument. Not once did I say "everything has a gene." I said "everything we think or do is influenced, however slightly by our genes.
DameGreyWulf said:You see, what's basically being said here is that some people are more likely to join groups than others.
Calling it "religiosity" is just idiotic. It's just a predisposition to want to be in a group. Which most everyone has anyway..
So you DO believe I'm genetically predisposed to liking cats?Thanks for strawmanning my argument. Not once did I say "everything has a gene." I said "everything we think or do is influenced, however slightly by our genes.