Do we have a GOD gene?

That doesn't mean belief in a deity is genetic. That just means that a lot people are stupid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why do mice have the same gene?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I already said here that this gene may not be specifically god gene but relates to certain traits that may make one more susceptible to 'faith'. Is the MVAt2 gene the same in mice as in humans or does it differ in size/function etc. Why is it absent in some humans?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

indeed a lot of people as most of worlds population are theists, maybe you are the stupid one, afterall intolerance and stupidity do go hand in hand.

 

The gene is related to getting high the natural way. It functions the same in humans and mice. Most research on this gene is done in mice.

The whole idea about mentioning that Mice have this gene is that the idea of a god gene is ridiculous. As I have stated in the other thread. It's not that some people have this gene and others don't. It's merely that some seem to have more of the protein. If there was a 'god' gene that it would be the regulatory genes that regulated the expression of MVAT2, and not MVAT2 itself.

 

Are you calling me intolerant?
I am simply saying that there isn't a gene that makes people believe in a god. People are just naive and tend to believe things just because they sound nice, even if they have no evidence.
And saying that god exists simply because a lot of people believe in it fallacious, by the Ad Populam Logical Fallacy. No matter how many believe a lie, it's still a lie.

 

your belief in the non eixtsance of God is no more evidence based than my belief in god, thus who is lying?

 

However, there is no evidence for god's existence, thus the logical assumption is that it does not exist.

 

God may not be evident to you, but he is to me.

 

Wrong, the logical assumption is that you cannot determine whether it exists. You're jumping to a conclusion in the same manner that a theist would. Using pure logic, agnosticism is more reasonable than either position. Hence, the leap of faith required to be either a theist or a strong atheist.

 

No he isn't. If he would be evident to you he would be evident to hapsburg. You carry the illusion that god is evident to you.

 

What's your favorite color? Seriously?

 

yellreen

 

As I said before, why do you especially an atheist presume God is evident to everyone? Maybe he is exclusive.

God is evident to me. This you cannot dispute as you are not me, do not know me. Thus your 'illusion' comment made in absence of any proof to the contrary is worthless. I could say that your belief that your wife loves you is an illusion, it is not real and neither is the love you imagine your child has for you. Just becuase I have not felt or seen your wifes love for you does not mean it does exist for you.


In fact, Love is a thing we cannot see and cannot prove the existance of so in fact it could be described as an illusion in every scenario could it not. The love you think you receive is NONE existant. You may think you feel it but that's just an illusion. You are nothing but cold cells that respond to stimuli, your life has no meaning, you are born to reproduce and then to die and fertilise the soil. Bleuh, poo to that.

Meanwhile
I think it is quite possible God is not part of everyones existance. Controversial but as we know so little of such things there is no reason to decide that God is one and one for all.

 

You can see these things actually. And measure them.

 

can you see and measure love? What does it look like? How can it be measured?

facial expressions and gifts of self or other won't cut it as a scientific reply.

 

Love has a biological basis, whatever you may think. You can formulate a hypothesis and test it. You can quantify and qualify it. You cannot do that with God. Or the feeling that god is evident.

You can explain it biologically of course like the guy is trying to do with the god gene why some people have the need for religious feelings and feel stronger religious feelings than average. That isn't linked to a real concept though. Love is. Love is a biological tool used to cement bonds. religion is a byproduct of other processes.

 

you do not know what I man when say God is evident to me, thus again you cannot dismiss what I say. You simply have no proof to the contrary. One man may find a dinosaur bone and then have it disintigrate in his hands before any other living being see's it. Does this mean it never existed, it was an illusion? Your lack of experience with God does not imply lack thereof for me.

 

Oh, you must be delusional. Blue is obviously the best color there is.

 

No, you are examining the behavioral patterns that accompany love, or the chemical reactions that produce it, but you are not measuring the experience of love. You can't measure experiences, only things associated with them. The only experiences that you can know of are your own.