You don't seem to understand that what I want is for you to stop. You can respond more reasonably to things I said back on page 1 and we can start over, but I'm not interested in most of what you have to say. I've explained why. It might be fun to hear your thinking about 6 and 7 though. I assume you mean the term "spirit" changed through history. Or did you do that by accident?RE: 6 & 7. The spirit started out as the soul. Then moved to the ghost to mean knowledge. Then it moved again to mean deity. But I did not add the first one, because it is mostly pre-bible history. And not too many people have traveled there. Therefore when the spirit meant god, and god meant knowledge, then yes there was a god. But in 7, the spirit changed to mean deity god, then no there is no god. Thanks for the obfuscation. Lois Lois, Obfuscation, what an interesting word. And looking at the spirit and obfuscation one has to ask. What ended the Age of Domestication? And what started the Age of Deities at the ending of the Age of Domestication? Whatever it was caused the meaning of the spirit to change. Caused the loss of history and knowledge. Caused the movement of people. Caused the weather to be recorded in all civilizations around the world. Caused the builders in Egypt to start using stone. Whatever it was happened 2700 B.C. and was most likely more than one catastrophe. More likely a major plague and a worldwide natural disaster happing at the same time that hit the controlling civilization that had not yet fully recovered from a previous local catastrophe.
Yea, I should have added that fact. I just thought it was funny that he decided to do a book on the for dummies series of books. He was promoting his book.Yeah, I get that you judge the book by its cover. Just one more example of your bad logic. No, you are always looking for the bad. The logic is that he wrote good data, and put it in a book for dummies. That book for dummies should have been around much earlier in history. It has never been needed more than today. You just don't see why the title of the book is not the issue. I don't know how to explain that to you. The article I linked to explained that the ideas have been around for as long as religions have been around, but they didn't get preserved in the same way religions did. You can't separate popular opinion from truth. I realize there are reasonable critiques against some atheists and some atheist tactics, but all you presented here is a scorecard of what's been accomplished. Using that logic, we should just continue attempting to blow each other up until a small group of people have complete control of all information. That's been a very popular tactic for a long time. It's amazing that almost every post you make, I could respond with "oh, your misunderstanding is worse than I thought."
You don't seem to understand that what I want is for you to stop. You can respond more reasonably to things I said back on page 1 and we can start over, but I'm not interested in most of what you have to say. I've explained why. It might be fun to hear your thinking about 6 and 7 though. I assume you mean the term "spirit" changed through history. Or did you do that by accident?RE: 6 & 7. The spirit started out as the soul. Then moved to the ghost to mean knowledge. Then it moved again to mean deity. But I did not add the first one, because it is mostly pre-bible history. And not too many people have traveled there. Therefore when the spirit meant god, and god meant knowledge, then yes there was a god. But in 7, the spirit changed to mean deity god, then no there is no god. Thanks for the obfuscation. Lois Lois, Obfuscation, what an interesting word. And looking at the spirit and obfuscation one has to ask. What ended the Age of Domestication? And what started the Age of Deities at the ending of the Age of Domestication? Whatever it was caused the meaning of the spirit to change. Caused the loss of history and knowledge. Caused the movement of people. Caused the weather to be recorded in all civilizations around the world. Caused the builders in Egypt to start using stone. Whatever it was happened 2700 B.C. and was most likely more than one catastrophe. More likely a major plague and a worldwide natural disaster happing at the same time that hit the controlling civilization that had not yet fully recovered from a previous local catastrophe. Theistic obfuscation answers all of those questions.
Lois: Theistic obfuscation answers all of those questions.
Lois, Obfuscation, what an interesting word. And looking at the spirit and obfuscation one has to ask. What ended the Age of Domestication? And what started the Age of Deities at the ending of the Age of Domestication? Whatever it was caused the meaning of the spirit to change. Caused the loss of history and knowledge. Caused the movement of people. Caused the weather to be recorded in all civilizations around the world. Caused the builders in Egypt to start using stone. Whatever it was happened 2700 B.C. and was most likely more than one catastrophe. More likely a major plague and a worldwide natural disaster happing at the same time that hit the controlling civilization that had not yet fully recovered from a previous local catastrophe." You just list a bunch of things and I guess you think they are related. You list a date, and I see why you normally don't do that because it makes it easy for me to say that history had been lost, people had moved, weather records were kept and stone was used in building long before 2700 BC. Plagues and natural disasters can also be dated, so if you think that is related, find out when they happened and try to relate it to your theory. Otherwise, you're just rambling. Edit: Sorry for the misquote.
If god is ...This is precisely where your logic falls apart. As we used to say when I lived in Texas, "If my feet would fit a railroad track I'da probably been a train."
When reading, words can have different meanings. You’re understanding the “If" as being use as a noun. But I clearly use the word “if" as a conjunction.If god is ...This is precisely where your logic falls apart. As we used to say when I lived in Texas, "If my feet would fit a railroad track I'da probably been a train."
When reading, words can have different meanings. You’re understanding the “If" as being use as a noun. But I clearly use the word “if" as a conjunction. What? If is not a noun. Never has been and never will be. You understand nothing.If god is ...This is precisely where your logic falls apart. As we used to say when I lived in Texas, "If my feet would fit a railroad track I'da probably been a train."
What? If is not a noun. Never has been and never will be. You understand nothing.Technically, "if" can be made into a noun, as in "There are a lot of "ifs" in that plan of your's". But there would be no way for someone to mistake the way Mike used it. Nor would making that mistake explain what he says it explains. It's a double fallacy of trying to read someone's mind and redefine a word in some twisted way. Nice try MikeY.
What? If is not a noun. Never has been and never will be. You understand nothing.Technically, "if" can be made into a noun, as in "There are a lot of "ifs" in that plan of your's". But there would be no way for someone to mistake the way Mike used it. Nor would making that mistake explain what he says it explains. It's a double fallacy of trying to read someone's mind and redefine a word in some twisted way. Nice try MikeY. You're right. I hadn't thought of that explanation for "if." I was thinking of the way I used it in the old Texas saying. MikeY seems to commit a logical fallacy every time he clicks Submit Post.
What? If is not a noun. Never has been and never will be. You understand nothing.Technically, "if" can be made into a noun, as in "There are a lot of "ifs" in that plan of your's". But there would be no way for someone to mistake the way Mike used it. Nor would making that mistake explain what he says it explains. It's a double fallacy of trying to read someone's mind and redefine a word in some twisted way. Nice try MikeY. I used the word “if" correctly. And I don’t think anybody should have trouble understanding my meaning. If you’re looking for any twisting going on, read your posts.
What? If is not a noun. Never has been and never will be. You understand nothing.Technically, "if" can be made into a noun, as in "There are a lot of "ifs" in that plan of your's". But there would be no way for someone to mistake the way Mike used it. Nor would making that mistake explain what he says it explains. It's a double fallacy of trying to read someone's mind and redefine a word in some twisted way. Nice try MikeY. I used the word “if" correctly. And I don’t think anybody should have trouble understanding my meaning. If you’re looking for any twisting going on, read your posts. You did not use the word "if," I did. Then you stated I was misunderstanding the word, but within the context of my usage "if" could not be a noun. Anyone with sixth-grade English skills would recognize that, yet you failed.
If god is part of the human trait to live forever, then god is physical and part of the genes and has to be dealt with by the brain. And look where the gene research is today, amazing.
When reading, words can have different meanings. You’re understanding the “If" as being use as a noun. But I clearly use the word “if" as a conjunction. Your original statement about genes and god lacked logic. Then your response about what Darron said was just completely off base. Your continued confusion shows you're either incapable of connecting a few simple ideas, or you're just stringing this conversation on for some reason known only to you. Have you noticed no one is actually discussing any of the points you make?If god is ...This is precisely where your logic falls apart. As we used to say when I lived in Texas, "If my feet would fit a railroad track I'da probably been a train."
Your original statement about genes and god lacked logic. Then your response about what Darron said was just completely off base. Your continued confusion shows you're either incapable of connecting a few simple ideas, or you're just stringing this conversation on for some reason known only to you. Have you noticed no one is actually discussing any of the points you make?How can they? No one seems to have taken the time to understand the cause and effect of religion on the known and unknown history of mankind, as used as a datum line for response. I am seeing that most of the atheists have the same basic reaction to consequence of the god effect as the Christians do. Thus it is all about the genes and located in the brain. Thank you for helping clear that up. I was not sure until I tested it in these posts.
Your original statement about genes and god lacked logic. Then your response about what Darron said was just completely off base. Your continued confusion shows you're either incapable of connecting a few simple ideas, or you're just stringing this conversation on for some reason known only to you. Have you noticed no one is actually discussing any of the points you make?How can they? No one seems to have taken the time to understand the cause and effect of religion on the known and unknown history of mankind, as used as a datum line for response. I am seeing that most of the atheists have the same basic reaction to consequence of the god effect as the Christians do. Thus it is all about the genes and located in the brain. Thank you for helping clear that up. I was not sure until I tested it in these posts. We understand the time line just fine, which is why we aren't discussing whatever it is you have made up. You tested nothing. What you have done is confirm your own bias.
MikeYoho, Dr. Carrier did exactly what you claim no one has done.
Please just let this thread die. It’s been on life support for so long. It deserve to die with dignity.
MikeYoho, Dr. Carrier did exactly what you claim no one has done.Dr. Carrier has applied history, and yes, I see that he has done what I am talking about. But I want to take the discussion to the next step. And that is, if there is a “GOD", then it is inherited in the genes and resides in the brain as part of a system that controls knowledge. We can call god “knowledge" and if certain events happen to mankind then the gene reacts. Christianity for example would be a form of “anti-knowledge". For example, every time there is stress or disaster upon the masses the genes perceive new knowledge as bad for the human and reverse and block out certain thinking process to try and remove the new knowledge. An evolution survival techniques the brain uses to advance in a direction without stress and to increase reproductive . The question of does humans operate in this manner? If this was possible then the history of mankind would have many missing times or parts of history that would have been removed by mankind himself. If this was possible, then mankind could actually at times of history lose knowledge and go backwards in technology and development. If this was possible then the gene would be the same in the Atheist and the Christian. And if that was true then the resistance to viewing the same knowledge that are blocked by the Christian would also be blocked by the Atheists. Bingo, read the data in these posting. What I have done in these postings is just a basic observation of the subject of GOD being in the genes.