Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

[SkepticThinker]

You appear to be trying to tell your grandmother how to suck eggs. You forget so very quickly that I am the one who has corrected your misunderstanding on how genes contribute to our persona. I know that genes and the environment mold us into who we are.

You corrected me on nothing. I explained long ago how genes work. So did another poster. You “corrected” us by posting a link that said exactly what we had said. In other words, you corrected nobody. I just demonstrated this to you in the very post you are responding to here.

After all, I didn't say that alcoholism is genetics, as you did.

I said this:

“There are several genes associated with alcoholism and addiction that can contribute to a person’s risk of developing those behaviors; given the presence of certain environmental cues and stimuli that person is exposed to during the course of their lifetime. (The presence of such genes alone doesn’t guarantee that the person will become an alcohol or a drug addict.)”

Later I said that it’s genetic. Which it is. To say something is genetic is NOT to say that external factors (and other internal factors as well) are not involved because genetics just doesn’t work that way. Anyone who even remotely understands genetics knows this. Which is what the other poster took issue with in your post, and then said this:

“You really need to educate yourself on genetics before making all of these claims. Here's just one source showing how wrong you are. I have dozens of other sources too.
Genes that affect emotion and personality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21835681
Also, you're implying a false Dilemma--its not that either genes do determine our actions or they don't. Genes interact with the environment to shape us and our actions. Genes have an effect that combined with the environment leads to traits we have. Genes don't solely determine us, but they greatly affect the outcomes. Also, the environment isn't decided by us anyways, so really most of our decisions are a result of things that aren't our choices. You would make entirely different decisions if you were born in india 1000 years ago.
Regardless, the point is that we don't have full free will. We only have partial free will, or sometimes no free will, that determines what we do. You might think you have a choice, but its possible you're predisposed to having religious experiences, and then combined with your family means you're very likely to be religious. That's an example of environmental and genetic factors making you believe what you believe. You could have also had a gene that makes you predisposed to skepticism and doubt, which means that you would be an atheist or an agnostic”

However, you seem to have not fully understood the complexities and shear scale involved in environmental conditioning and the enormous effect it has on our decision making that ultimately creates a norm in our society.

You also need to take into consideration the choices other people make that will effect your choices, that is, what we call, our environment. The environment contains other human being who are partially molded by their genes. We interact with those people and they influence us to varying degrees, The more people that we interact with the more likely our beliefs and characters will be molded, which is why we tell our children not to mix with the bad boys. So, we now have genes that have been greatly influenced and changed by someone else's combination of environment and genes, that we didn't get from our parents. Our children will inherit the genes that I have, genes that have been influenced and changed by those I interact with.

I have no idea how you can make such a claim given that I did explain the interaction between genes and environment. There are a whole host of factors involved other than neurobiological ones (e.g. genetics), including psychological factors like the interaction between chronic stress and/or anxiety and initiation of alcohol use, family history of alcohol abuse, individual differences in novelty-seeking behaviors as mediated by differences in the dopamingergic mesolimbic pathways in our brains; and sociocultural factors involving social and cultural attitudes about drinking. All of these things interact with each other to increase an individual’s risk of developing alcoholism. The fact of the matter is, genetics explains about 50-60% of the variance of risk for developing alcohol dependence while there’s about 38% heritability for the risk of alcohol abuse. For instance, studies with Native American populations have identified at least two potential genes for alcoholism – one on chromosome 11p and one on chromosome 4p. And some alcoholics have lower cerebrospinal fluid levels of 5-HIAA (a serotonin metabolite) that has been linked to impulsivity and suicide in animal and human studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10385934

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1188701/

It can be shown that relatives of alcoholics have a 3-7 times greater risk for developing alcoholism than the general population, and alcoholism concordance rates are higher among identical twins (approximately 54%) than fraternal twins (approximately 28%). So genetics are obviously involved to a high degree, leaving the remaining variability open to the other factors I’ve noted. There are a whole host of gender differences involved as well.


In fact, the very post that both myself and the other poster took issue with was yours, where you said this:

“We all have choices to act in anyway we choose. Genetic have not been proven to cause changes in our emotions, The next thing you will say is that homosexuals have no choice in their sexuality, It is the result of a Gay Gene, that has not been found, because they are too busy looking for a pedophilia gene to excuse the behaviour of pedophiles in our society so that they can make that legal as well. I think that they want to find a alcoholics gene as well. When will the stop trying to excuse bad behaviour. That all has the traits of evil. It is deceptive, dishonest, perverted, ungodly, abominable, satanic and a mockery to God. To claim that you have no choice is a copout and an excuse to sin.”

This seems to indicate three things:

1. That you are under the impression that one single gene is thought to be responsible for things like homosexuality, pedophilia and alcoholism, (which demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of genetics),
   
   
2. That you are not aware that there are several genes involved in the risk of developing alcoholism, and
   
   
3. That you are under the impression that genes are not involved in emotions.

None of which are correct.

And the process continues to a degree that is quiet incomprehensible to perceive watering down the gene pool, which has created this God awful society that we live in, and making us all connected to each other, however, we can still say no.

What do you mean by “watering down the gene pool?”

Science can make it's claims and assertion but it can never understand the resulting complexity of the intermingling of human traits, that are the result of the massive changes, over time, in our genes that result from environmental conditioning.

Science is attempting to, and has done just that (which is not to say that there isn’t more to learn). How do you think we know so much about this stuff?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is why those in different cultures have different norms to us. If we had no environmental conditionings then we would eventually created clones having all the same characteristic and values. Genes need the environmental conditioning as does out society need the complexities of emotions and values that genes brings to it. One without the other is completely untenable. It cannot work. So the next time that a gay man tells you that he was born gay you can tell him that he was not born gay but it was the environment that made him gay. The environment that influenced genes that are conducive to our sexuality. A gay gene(s) can never be held responsible for and character trait without living with other humans.

We could all be clones if we reproduced asexually. But I’m not understanding your logic here. Are you trying to say that people who live in cultures with the same values as one another are clones of each other? It sounds like you’re trying to talk about epigenetics, but I’m not sure.

Of course genes need environmental input, that’s how they operate. I listed some of that environmental input that scientists are aware of, above.

When a person is born with certain genetic predispositions, they can say they were born that way. We do not determine our own environment, especially in utero and in our early years of life, and to a great extent, during the course of our lives. Being exposed to stress in the womb, for example, is not the choice of the fetus. But it can determine that fetus’ genetic makeup in how it will respond to stress later in life. So a gay person or a straight person can certainly say they were “born that way” or “it’s not a choice” given that such things are not conscious choices that human beings make.

And although this is all very interesting, and it is, we are still the ultimate owners of our choices and therefore solely accountable for them. But there is something more within us that is not the result of biology. Something that every one can feel within the core of our being. It sets us apart from every other living organism on our planet. Many call it the light of Christ or our conscience but it is what ultimately determines whether the choice we make are good or bad.

These are unsubstantiated claims. I certainly don’t feel the “light of Christ” inside me. And we can’t say that we are set apart from every other living organism on our planet, especially given that they are made up of DNA as well and given that we have no way of knowing what other organisms think or feel. Apes aren’t all that different from us in many ways, for one example.

We are owners of our choices in the sense that we can consciously decide which action we will take but to say that such choices are free from our previous experiences, our genetic makeup, our environment, etc. would be folly. A person doesn’t make a choice to be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, and if they are not aware of such a predisposition, can easily succumb to alcohol dependence and abuse. At that point, the decision to stop drinking becomes increasingly difficult because now the person is physically addicted to the substance and the choice is further removed from one’s own control. Especially when the withdrawal symptoms are so severe.

Something other then, and independent of, genes or environment that molds them. In my opinion it is the spirit of who we once were before our mortal probation began, and who we will again become when we shed the mantle of this earthly body. It is a construction of pure energy and has a tangibility far more refined then anything we know, probably consisting of the same type of quarks and electrons, and many more subatomic particles, that we find in quantum physics, and is intertwined, or as they call it in quantum physics, entanglement with every cell in our body. The world is full of evidences of that spirit of awareness from telepathy to intuition to premonitions. It is what has the final say in our decision making that encompasses our ethics and morality.

Telepathy and premonitions are not demonstrably factual phenomenon and even if they were, what do they have to do with making conscious decisions?

And oddly enough, what you’re describing here sounds very much like something outside and beyond ourselves, which would indicate that we cannot be the “owners of our choices” if these things are true.

Every choice we make is based on our knowledge, experience, intelligence, faith that we are choosing the right, ethic to know we are doing what is right, empathy to know what it will feel like for those involved in our choice, compassion to change our decision if we recognise negativity in it, cognitive awareness to reason the results of our choices, deductive reasoning and integrity to insure that our final decision will be the best one for all concerned. It is not just saying yes or no without conscience. There is much thought that goes into the process of making the right choices.

Our decisions are also based on many unseen neurobiological, sociocultural and psychological factors that are not necessarily within our own control, as noted above.

The weakest link in all of this is genetics. They are very much necessary, however, they are vulnerable and susceptible to mutations and changes through environmental factors. At the end of the day our choices are not the result of innocent, unreliable, unpredictable and ever changing biological factors that determine our actions and may or may not act on our senses dependant upon our environment,

The weakest link is not genetics. Environmental factors and genetics are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite, in fact.

Genes cannot be responsible for us drinking alcohol until they firstly know what alcohol is to act upon it.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Scientists know what alcohol is.

We are not born with that knowledge it is our experiences and memories taken from our world that causes us to know what alcohol is. You cannot say that a gene, or set of genes, are solely responsible for alcoholism if those genes have never been exposed to alcohol and its negative effects on society.

Again, nobody is saying that. And in fact to say as much would demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of genetics.

I don’t know what all this talk about knowing what alcohol is, is supposed to mean. A person can have a genetic predisposition to alcohol that they are not aware of, a family history of alcohol that they are not aware of, and/or low levels of cerebrospinal fluid of 5-HIAA that they are not aware of, and so on. Such a person is not consciously making a choice to become an alcoholic when they try their first drink and stimulate the reward pathways in their brain. Or a person could be like myself, and be aware of all of these things and make a very conscious and deliberate choice not to drink.

If that were true then it would be quiet miraculous for it to cause one to be a alcoholic without the influence of our environment, that contains alcohol that will effect those vulnerable and impressionable genes. Never expose those genes to alcohol and you will never become an alcoholic.

There are plenty of people who can drink and never become addicted to alcohol. That would be the majority of people.

Similarly with any individual or combination of genes. They are not brought into this world corrupted by the environment. They are not aware of sexual attraction until the environment teaches them what it is, creating a situation where we must choose. it is who we are as a result of our environment not who we are as a result of our genes because they are completely inert to moral accountability to the wrongs and rights of our society until environmental conditioning changes all of that. That is where it is free will, or, at least our will as it isn't free because our choices always have consequences on both ourselves and those we interact with..

Now you seem to be saying that genetics and environment are not intertwined with each other? And you’re saying that it is solely our environment that pushes us into choosing to be homosexual or heterosexual?

We are the result of our genetic makeup interacting with environmental and other factors. It doesn’t make sense to say otherwise. And if we don’t choose our genes, and we don’t choose our environment, we can’t be as in control of our decisions as you seem to think we are.

Then why did you say that it is down to genetics. That is what you said. I quoted your post containing your words.

I pointed out to you exactly what I said. Enough of this silly game.

Well, you are the one that brought it up here, not me, so your insinuation is without substance and purely intended to greatly offend and insult someone.

You brought it up, actually. In post #438.
So I guess it was your intention to greatly offend and insult someone?

Your truth and reality have long since separated.

Funny how I explained genetics to you accurately and yet you continue to declare that I was wrong. That’s after you claimed that genes aren’t involved in alcoholism. It’s pretty obvious who is in touch with reality here. I don't know why you're going on about something that I already clearly understand.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It is not a being. It is not an entity. It is not me.

And how do you know this?

 

[loverofhumanity]

You said: "Find me the verse, in the Bible, that states, that there is only one god." Of course I could be misinterpreting it, however, it would be very unlikely. You are asking someone to show you where in the bible does it say that there is only one God? I am no scriptorian but I know that there are scriptures that say that, exactly, so I took a cursory look on the internet and found this list of 28 scripture, that if looked at objectively contain the statement that you have asked for. `

With all due respects to you and your beliefs, you are feigning ignorance to these scriptures by misinterpreting them to suit your belief. It is something that we are all guilty of at times.

Just to give you an example.

1. Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him

"There is none else besides Him," tells me that He is the only God because there is literally none other like Him.

2. Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
"neither is there any God beside thee." Again, I can only conclude from this statement that because there is no other God besides Him then He must be the only one.

3. That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.

This is possibly the clearest statement of them all, "the LORD is God, and that there is none else." This tells us that the LORD is God and that there is none else, making Him the only one.

All 28 scripture are equally as clear as these three.​

And Zechariah 14:9

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one

 

[Serenity7855]

You corrected me on nothing. I explained long ago how genes work. So did another poster. You “corrected” us by posting a link that said exactly what we had said. In other words, you corrected nobody. I just demonstrated this to you in the very post you are responding to here.

You may well have given utterance to words that form your opinion of how genes works, however, your past record would indicate that it could have been taken from sources other then your own knowledge and therefore to be treated with the utmost skepticism.

I said this:

“There are several genes associated with alcoholism and addiction that can contribute to a person’s risk of developing those behaviors; given the presence of certain environmental cues and stimuli that person is exposed to during the course of their lifetime. (The presence of such genes alone doesn’t guarantee that the person will become an alcohol or a drug addict.)”

That is a given

Later I said that it’s genetic. Which it is. To say something is genetic is NOT to say that external factors (and other internal factors as well) are not involved because genetics just doesn’t work that way. Anyone who even remotely understands genetics knows this. Which is what the other poster took issue with in your post, and then said this:

You said: "It's genetic. Which it is," So you are telling me that it is only genetics and no other factors, because that is what you said, suggesting that you are a determinist, are you? Should you have said that it is both genetics and environmental conditioning then I would take it to be both and none other, unless you said that it is genetics, environmental conditioning and many other factors. It is plane logic. You say what you mean, and from someone who claims intellectual supremacy, that is what I took it to be.

“You really need to educate yourself on genetics before making all of these claims. Here's just one source showing how wrong you are. I have dozens of other sources too.
Genes that affect emotion and personality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21835681
Also, you're implying a false Dilemma--its not that either genes do determine our actions or they don't. Genes interact with the environment to shape us and our actions. Genes have an effect that combined with the environment leads to traits we have. Genes don't solely determine us, but they greatly affect the outcomes. Also, the environment isn't decided by us anyways, [1]so really most of our decisions are a result of things that aren't our choices. [2]You would make entirely different decisions if you were born in india 1000 years ago.
Regardless, the point is that we don't have full free will. We only have partial free will, or sometimes no free will, that determines what we do. You might think you have a choice, but its possible you're predisposed to having religious experiences, and then combined with your family means you're very likely to be religious. That's an example of environmental and genetic factors making you believe what you believe. You could have also had a gene that makes you predisposed to skepticism and doubt, which means that you would be an atheist or an agnostic”

1. This is where I take you understanding of genetics with skepticism. You said: "so really most of our decisions are a result of things that aren't our choices." Most of our choices, where our is defined as "relating to or belonging to us : made or done by us" therefore you are saying that we have ownership of our choices, as I said. We have agency to act as we determine is right or as wrong. The only way that we do not have much of a choice, especially if we value our lives, is if a 7 foot terrorist with a sub-machine gun tell you to do what he says.

2. You then went on to say: "You would make entirely different decisions if you were born in india 1000 years ago." which, I believe, is a false dichotomy because it is an inaccurate similarity or comparison to make, so it does not work. Maybe I would buy their local fruit but I buy local fruit here. Maybe I would wear different clothing, but I would still wear clothing. I would not murder anyone in india and I wouldn't murder anyone here, or anywhere in the world, regardless of culture. Morality is universal. Righteous principles are intended for all of us to follow and if genetics are responsible for it then we would all have the same set of genes that are all switched on.

I have no idea how you can make such a claim given that I did explain the interaction between genes and environment.

Really, are you that supercilious that you believe that what you say is gospel truth and 100% correct, Really?

There are a whole host of factors involved other than neurobiological ones (e.g. genetics), including psychological factors like the interaction between chronic stress and/or anxiety and initiation of alcohol use, family history of alcohol abuse, individual differences in novelty-seeking behaviors as mediated by differences in the dopamingergic mesolimbic pathways in our brains; and sociocultural factors involving social and cultural attitudes about drinking. All of these things interact with each other to increase an individual’s risk of developing alcoholism. The fact of the matter is, genetics explains about 50-60% of the variance of risk for developing alcohol dependence while there’s about 38% heritability for the risk of alcohol abuse. For instance, studies with Native American populations have identified at least two potential genes for alcoholism – one on chromosome 11p and one on chromosome 4p. And some alcoholics have lower cerebrospinal fluid levels of 5-HIAA (a serotonin metabolite) that has been linked to impulsivity and suicide in animal and human studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10385934

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1188701/

It can be shown that relatives of alcoholics have a 3-7 times greater risk for developing alcoholism than the general population, and alcoholism concordance rates are higher among identical twins (approximately 54%) than fraternal twins (approximately 28%). So genetics are obviously involved to a high degree, leaving the remaining variability open to the other factors I’ve noted. There are a whole host of gender differences involved as well.

This is just a poor demonstration of flexing muscles that belong to someone else to cause a impression and show that you are knowledgeable in this field when it is someone else's knowledge you are using. I am not being hypocritical. I don't know everything so I have to learn from those who do.

In fact, the very post that both myself and the other poster took issue with was yours, where you said this:

“We all have choices to act in anyway we choose. Genetic have not been proven to cause changes in our emotions, The next thing you will say is that homosexuals have no choice in their sexuality, It is the result of a Gay Gene, that has not been found, because they are too busy looking for a pedophilia gene to excuse the behaviour of pedophiles in our society so that they can make that legal as well. I think that they want to find a alcoholics gene as well. When will the stop trying to excuse bad behaviour. That all has the traits of evil. It is deceptive, dishonest, perverted, ungodly, abominable, satanic and a mockery to God. To claim that you have no choice is a copout and an excuse to sin.”

This seems to indicate three things:

1. That you are under the impression that one single gene is thought to be responsible for things like homosexuality, pedophilia and alcoholism, (which demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of genetics),
   
   
2. That you are not aware that there are several genes involved in the risk of developing alcoholism, and
   
   
3. That you are under the impression that genes are not involved in emotions.
4. Or what I have said is true.

None of which are correct.

My amendment changes that. My statement "Genetic have not been proven to cause changes in our emotions, " Genetics on their own have not been proven to cause changes in our emotions. Genes are triggered by events that create emotion, which, again, is environmental conditioning.

When I said "I think that they want to find a alcoholics gene as well." I was being sarcastic but not untruthful. They would be enthralled to find a single gene that is responsible for alcoholism. Think about the benefits to our society if the eradication of just one gene could rid the world of alcoholism.

What do you mean by “watering down the gene pool?”

Dilluting it with inferior genes or just different ones. Corrupting it, Defiling it, polluting it, making it imperfect with corruption, making it weaker by keeping the sick alive to pass on their weakness to future generations.

Science is attempting to, and has done just that (which is not to say that there isn’t more to learn). How do you think we know so much about this stuff?

Divine inspiration.[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

You may well have given utterance to words that form your opinion of how genes works, however, your past record would indicate that it could have been taken from sources other then your own knowledge and therefore to be treated with the utmost skepticism.

If it wasn’t taken from “my own knowledge” then I would have quoted the source, as you well know from our past interactions.

That is a given

Yeah, no kidding.

You said: "It's genetic. Which it is," So you are telling me that it is only genetics and no other factors, because that is what you said, suggesting that you are a determinist, are you? Should you have said that it is both genetics and environmental conditioning then I would take it to be both and none other, unless you said that it is genetics, environmental conditioning and many other factors. It is plane logic. You say what you mean, and from someone who claims intellectual supremacy, that is what I took it to be.

If you are seriously asking me that question at this point, I really don’t know what to say. I just gave several detailed explanations clarifying and outlining that for you. Is there something you didn’t understand about it? What do you need me to clarify? You know I said a lot more than those 2 words you keep focusing on, right?

This is where I take you understanding of genetics with skepticism. You said: "so really most of our decisions are a result of things that aren't our choices." Most of our choices, where our is defined as "relating to or belonging to us : made or done by us" therefore you are saying that we have ownership of our choices, as I said. We have agency to act as we determine is right or as wrong. The only way that we do not have much of a choice, especially if we value our lives, is if a 7 foot terrorist with a sub-machine gun tell you to do what he says.

I didn’t write this. As I pointed out in my last post, these were the words of another poster.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here anyway. I just explained how I think about how we make our decisions and choices.

You then went on to say: "You would make entirely different decisions if you were born in india 1000 years ago." which, I believe, is a false dichotomy because it is an inaccurate similarity or comparison to make, so it does not work. Maybe I would buy their local fruit but I buy local fruit here. Maybe I would wear different clothing, but I would still wear clothing. I would not murder anyone in india and I wouldn't murder anyone here, or anywhere in the world, regardless of culture. Morality is universal. Righteous principles are intended for all of us to follow and if genetics are responsible for it then we would all have the same set of genes that are all switched on.

Again, as I pointed out in my last post, this paragraph was not written by me.
I will say I don’t think that poster has made a false dichotomy. You would indeed be making quite different decisions if you lived in India 1000 years ago. Or just about anywhere, for that matter. If you lived in Mexico 800 years ago you’d probably be sacrificing children to Tlaloc. Never mind all the terrible things you’d probably be doing if you lived during Biblical times. There are many places around the world right now that don’t share our Western view of morality and human rights. Some aspects of morality seem to be universal, like murder and rape (not even mentioned in the 10 commandments for some reason), but many are not. Slavery was an acceptable practice in most parts of the world (and still is in some places) for thousands of years. Surely you don’t think that views of morality have not changed since the dawn of humankind.

I don’t know what you’re saying about everyone having to have identical genes in order to share common values, although human beings do share most of our genes with each other. It’s the small amount of variability between us that allows for different personality types and different emotional responses to different stimuli. Genes absolutely do influence our behaviors, our feelings and emotional responses. It doesn’t make any sense to say that they don’t.

Really, are you that supercilious that you believe that what you say is gospel truth and 100% correct, Really?

No, and that’s not even close to what I said.

The site you linked me to backed up what I had said. Don’t you remember me pointing that out?

This is just a poor demonstration of flexing muscles that belong to someone else to cause a impression and show that you are knowledgeable in this field when it is someone else's knowledge you are using. I am not being hypocritical. I don't know everything so I have to learn from hose who do.

And this is nothing more than a cop out. If you claim you want to learn, then learn for Pete’s sake. Remember when you used to go on about citing proper studies? Well, take a look at proper studies instead of dismissing them for some nonsensical reason. You can’t claim I don’t’ know what I’m talking about when it’s clear that I do, in fact, know what I’m talking about.

My amendment changes that. My statement "Genetic have not been proven to cause changes in our emotions, " Genetics on their own have not been proven to cause changes in our emotions. Genes are triggered by events that create emotion, which, again, is environmental conditioning.

You should have read the link I provided for you (another poster provided one as well) because they address what you’re trying to say here. Genes are involved in the regulation of our emotions.

When I said "I think that they want to find a alcoholics gene as well." I was being sarcastic but not untruthful. They would be enthralled to find a single gene that is responsible for alcoholism. Think about the benefits to our society if the eradication of just one gene could rid the world of alcoholism.

There are several genes that increase a person’s risk for alcoholism.

Nobody (besides yourself?) actually think that there is one single gene for any of these things we are talking about.

Corrupting it, Defiling it, polluting it, making it imperfect with corruption, making it weaker by keeping the sick alive to pass on their weakness to future generations.

What mechanism do you propose is involved in this process? How could this be demonstrated scientifically?

Divine inspiration.

It was the hard work of many hundreds of thousands of scientists and researchers over the course of hundreds of years.

 

[Desert Snake]

You said: "Find me the verse, in the Bible, that states, that there is only one god." Of course I could be misinterpreting it, however, it would be very unlikely. You are asking someone to show you where in the bible does it say that there is only one God? I am no scriptorian but I know that there are scriptures that say that, exactly, so I took a cursory look on the internet and found this list of 28 scripture, that if looked at objectively contain the statement that you have asked for. `

With all due respects to you and your beliefs, you are feigning ignorance to these scriptures by misinterpreting them to suit your belief. It is something that we are all guilty of at times.

Just to give you an example.

1. Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him

"There is none else besides Him," tells me that He is the only God because there is literally none other like Him.

2. Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
"neither is there any God beside thee." Again, I can only conclude from this statement that because there is no other God besides Him then He must be the only one.

3. That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.

This is possibly the clearest statement of them all, "the LORD is God, and that there is none else." This tells us that the LORD is God and that there is none else, making Him the only one.

All 28 scripture are equally as clear as these three.​

There are also verses that /''objectively'', infer, that either, there are other gods, or there could be other gods. That's why i addressed your verses that you presented, in the first place. You are reading the bible, it seems obvious, in a subjective manner, because, if you were really being objective about this argument, you would already be aware of those verses. I assume/d you were, because you seem to know the Scripture well. So, you aren't presenting an argument that does not make the Scripture seem contradictory, actually.

 

[blue taylor]

And how do you know this?

Know thyself.

 

[Serenity7855]

If it wasn’t taken from “my own knowledge” then I would have quoted the source, as you well know from our past interactions.

Unless, of course, you plagiarized it

If you are seriously asking me that question at this point, I really don’t know what to say. I just gave several detailed explanations clarifying and outlining that for you. Is there something you didn’t understand about it? What do you need me to clarify? You know I said a lot more than those 2 words you keep focusing on, right?

Well, the definitions certainly fits with reality, "believing that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way, or relating to this belief:" Which kinda means that we have no choice, as you believe. I was kinda hoping that I might be wrong.

Let me assure you that I am not focusing on two words. I am pointing out that you made a statement, then when I called you on it you frantically tried to back pedalled your way out of it.

I didn’t write this. As I pointed out in my last post, these were the words of another poster.

You may not have written it but you have posted it here to bolster your argument so you are as responsible for its contents as the author is. It is because you made that choice to quote them that I now know about your quote.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here anyway. I just explained how I think about how we make our decisions and choices.

If they are "our decisions," as you have said, then we choose to make them with our free will.

Again, as I pointed out in my last post, this paragraph was not written by me.
I will say I don’t think that poster has made a false dichotomy. You would indeed be making quite different decisions if you lived in India 1000 years ago. Or just about anywhere, for that matter. If you lived in Mexico 800 years ago you’d probably be sacrificing children to Tlaloc. Never mind all the terrible things you’d probably be doing if you lived during Biblical times. There are many places around the world right now that don’t share our Western view of morality and human rights. Some aspects of morality seem to be universal, like murder and rape (not even mentioned in the 10 commandments for some reason), but many are not. Slavery was an acceptable practice in most parts of the world (and still is in some places) for thousands of years. Surely you don’t think that views of morality have not changed since the dawn of humankind.

You may not have written it but you have posted it here to bolster your argument so you are as responsible for its contents as the author is. It is because you made that choice to quote them that I now know about your quote, or maybe it is the result of your environmental conditioning that caused you to do it. I watched a documentary last night, called the "God Within", about the dubious nature of a Steven Hawkins, a theoretical scientist, ideas. He is a self confessed determinist who thinks we are all a bunch of mindless biological machines. It was quoted in that documentary that the majority of dead to rights murder cases are defended by saying that the murderer suffers with determinism so had no responsibility to his choice to kill someone. It was inevitable.

It is by my own mistake in considering the post in the present time rather then a 1000 years, as quoted. Of course my choices would be very different in a world that is totally different. i couldn't decide to fill the car up with petrol, could I? Just because our views on morality have changed over time does not mean that the changes are moral. Having said that, I wonder whether they have changed. The taking of life remains, as does adultery and theft. Pretty much all of the commandments are still very much in force today as they were thousands of years ago.

I don’t know what you’re saying about everyone having to have identical genes in order to share common values, although human beings do share most of our genes with each other. It’s the small amount of variability between us that allows for different personality types and different emotional responses to different stimuli. Genes absolutely do influence our behaviors, our feelings and emotional responses. It doesn’t make any sense to say that they don’t.

Righteous principles are intended for all of us to follow and if genetics are responsible for it then we would all have the same set of genes that are all switched on.

We are all expected not to take lives or to rape, and every other immorality. By you logic, that genes are totally responsible for who we are and the decisions we make, our genes would need to be identical with each other for that moral value to be realised making us clones

I didn't say that they don't I said that they are not the only ingredient in the cake.

No, and that’s not even close to what I said.

The site you linked me to backed up what I had said. Don’t you remember me pointing that out?

That is not true. You said that genes alone are responsible for who we are and my link said that there are other influences that make us who we are. You said "It's genetic." Clearly it is not.

And this is nothing more than a cop out. If you claim you want to learn, then learn for Pete’s sake. Remember when you used to go on about citing proper studies? Well, take a look at proper studies instead of dismissing them for some nonsensical reason. You can’t claim I don’t’ know what I’m talking about when it’s clear that I do, in fact, know what I’m talking about.

It is clear to you, maybe, however, it is not necessarily reality. It certainly is not clear to me that you know what you are talking about as much as it is clear that those you quote know what they are talking about.

You should have read the link I provided for you (another poster provided one as well) because they address what you’re trying to say here. Genes are involved in the regulation of our emotions.

This is one of those areas where you don't seem to know what you are talking about. I have read those links. I did not make it known to the forum that I read those links, however, I did, yet you are telling me that I should have read them. You do not know that so you do not know what you are talking about.

There are several genes that increase a person’s risk for alcoholism.

Why are you trying to teach your grandmother how to blow eggs?

Nobody (besides yourself?) actually think that there is one single gene for any of these things we are talking about.

Again, you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about as I do know that a single gene is not responsible for what we are talking about.

What mechanism do you propose is involved in this process? How could this be demonstrated scientifically?

Evolution, genetic shift and probably the most easily recognised and relevant here is natural selection. It would be demonstrated as all scientific hypothesis are determined, by using the scientific method.

It was the hard work of many hundreds of thousands of scientists and researchers over the course of hundreds of years.

Yes, they took that divine inspiration and developed it, but the originator was God who has been drip feeding us knowledge for thousands of years.[/QUOTE]

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Know thyself.

That doesn't really answer my question (at least, not in terms that I can understand).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Unless, of course, you plagiarized it

Are you seriously accusing me of plagiarism? I think you'd better be able to back that one up.

Apparently you aren't observant enough to have noticed that when I use a source, I always quote it. Unlike yourself. Maybe you're just projecting again, who knows. But if you're going to make a claim like that, you need to back it up. So go ahead.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, the definitions certainly fits with reality, "believing that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way, or relating to this belief:" Which kinda means that we have no choice, as you believe. I was kinda hoping that I might be wrong.

I'm sorry, I don't know how this relates to what I said.

Let me assure you that I am not focusing on two words. I am pointing out that you made a statement, then when I called you on it you frantically tried to back pedalled your way out of it.

You can assure me of whatever you want, but what I am seeing is that you are indeed focusing on two words, when in fact, I wrote much more than that. And long before I posted those two words. So now I'm not sure that you know what backpedaling is. How can I backpedal when my original post on the subject went into some detail about the interaction between genetics and the environment?

You may not have written it but you have posted it here to bolster your argument so you are as responsible for its contents as the author is. It is because you made that choice to quote them that I now know about your quote.

I posted it because you straight up claimed that neither of us explained the interaction between genes and the environment when we clearly did. Apparently you missed the part of my post where I defended the statement, as well.

Funny how you didn't bother respond to the actual content of that paragraph, or my response to it though.

If they are "our decisions," as you have said, then we choose to make them with our free will.

Can you write this in a different way so that I can understand what you are trying to say?

You may not have written it but you have posted it here to bolster your argument so you are as responsible for its contents as the author is. It is because you made that choice to quote them that I now know about your quote, or maybe it is the result of your environmental conditioning that caused you to do it.

As I said above, it's odd that you didn't bother responding to the content of either of those posts. I mean, what you said here in response to it is basically nothing.

I watched a documentary last night, called the "God Within", about the dubious nature of a Steven Hawkins, a theoretical scientist, ideas. He is a self confessed determinist who thinks we are all a bunch of mindless biological machines.

What does an attack against Stephen Hawking have to do with anything? Do you think I'm him?

It was quoted in that documentary that the majority of dead to rights murder cases are defended by saying that the murderer suffers with determinism so had no responsibility to his choice to kill someone. It was inevitable.

What does a personal attack against Stephen Hawking have to do with anything?[/quote]

I'm sorry but I can't make this sentence make sense to me. Can you clarify or re-word it?

It is by my own mistake in considering the post in the present time rather then a 1000 years, as quoted. Of course my choices would be very different in a world that is totally different. i couldn't decide to fill the car up with petrol, could I? Just because our views on morality have changed over time does not mean that the changes are moral. Having said that, I wonder whether they have changed. The taking of life remains, as does adultery and theft. Pretty much all of the commandments are still very much in force today as they were thousands of years ago.

It's rather obvious that morals have changed and I think it's obvious to you as well, given that you ignored my slavery example, for one thing. How about stoning unruly children? Do you think that's still good moral thinking?

I don't know where it is that you think the ten commandments are "still very much in force today." Only two of them have anything at all to do with present-day laws in most countries. And none of them mention things like rape or child abuse, which are considered immoral in most places in our present world. They're pretty inadequate, if you ask me.

Righteous principles are intended for all of us to follow and if genetics are responsible for it then we would all have the same set of genes that are all switched on.

You're misunderstanding genetics and repeating yourself. I responded to this claim already.

We are all expected not to take lives or to rape, and every other immorality. By you logic, that genes are totally responsible for who we are and the decisions we make, our genes would need to be identical with each other for that moral value to be realised making us clones

That's not my logic, and I have explained and clarified that to you several times now. All you've done is just repeat what you said above. You are misunderstanding genetics and you don't realize that human beings do share a majority of genes with one another. It's the small amount that we don't share, that accounts for the variability between individuals.

I mean, if you don't think genes are responsible for our makeup, I don't know what to say other than you have no idea what you're talking about. Of course environment plays a role but there's no need to keep pointing out what is actually just an inherent part of our explanation of genetics. Instinctive behavior, like our "fight or flight" response that occurs in the presence of danger, occurs as an interaction with our surrounding environment, but it is mediated by our genetic makeup.

I didn't say that they don't I said that they are not the only ingredient in the cake.

What's not the only ingredient in the cake?

That is not true. You said that genes alone are responsible for who we are and my link said that there are other influences that make us who we are. You said "It's genetic." Clearly it is not.

It's true alright. And I just clearly demonstrated it to you. Twice now. You need to read more carefully. If I see you claim that again, I will know you are being dishonest now.

It is clear to you, maybe, however, it is not necessarily reality. It certainly is not clear to me that you know what you are talking about as much as it is clear that those you quote know what they are talking about.

It would be clear to you as well if you were actually paying attention.

And I’ll ask you to stop accusing me of plagiarism. Back up your claim with some evidence or give it up.

This is one of those areas where you don't seem to know what you are talking about. I have read those links. I did not make it known to the forum that I read those links, however, I did, yet you are telling me that I should have read them. You do not know that so you do not know what you are talking about.

Well then, instead of just saying I don’t know what I’m talking about, how about EXPLAINING where you think I’ve gone wrong. Maybe do something more than just make a claim.

I would say that it’s obvious you haven’t read them, given the responses you have provided since they’ve been posted. In fact, I did say that.

Why are you trying to teach your grandmother how to blow eggs?

What does that mean? Why are you simply repeating it? Why not speak to what I said?

Such a statement amounts to basically nothing.

Again, you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about as I do know that a single gene is not responsible for what we are talking about.

If that’s the case, why do you expect that there is a single gene responsible for homosexuality? Or alcoholism?

On the last thread we in which we interacted, you went on and on about how nobody has found the gay gene. What else am I to take away from such statements, other than the fact that you apparently think there should be a single gene responsible for homosexuality?

Evolution, genetic shift and probably the most easily recognised and relevant here is natural selection. It would be demonstrated as all scientific hypothesis are determined, by using the scientific method.

Oh you just use the scientific method! That’s pretty vague. What kind of tests could we carry out to determine that the gene pool (only the human one?) is corrupt, defiled, polluted, imperfect, weaker,” or any other subjective and emotional word you choose to use to describe it?

Yes, they took that divine inspiration and developed it, but the originator was God who has been drip feeding us knowledge for thousands of years.

Then I wonder why this god felt the need to leave us in the dark so long and didn’t bother to put any of this fantastic scientific knowledge in the Bible. Instead we had to wallow in ignorance for thousands and thousands of years.

 

[Serenity7855]

Are you seriously accusing me of plagiarism? I think you'd better be able to back that one up.

Apparently you aren't observant enough to have noticed that when I use a source, I always quote it. Unlike yourself. Maybe you're just projecting again, who knows. But if you're going to make a claim like that, you need to back it up. So go ahead.

You are obviously seeing something that is not there. I merely gave a third option. None of my words contained any accusations. I said "Unless, of course, you plagiarized it". If I were to accuse you I would have omitted the word "Unless".

 

[Walter Russell]

If your God exists then why does He allow children to starve and pedophiles to exist. It is one of the most frequently asked questions of atheists and one that they think dismisses the existence of God. On another thread and another topic I recieved this post that caused me to think that maybe it is not something that Christians know or believe. Maybe it was lost with the creeds?



I believe that the answer is so obvious that we do not consider it. You first have to consider why you are here, what is this life all about and what happens to us when it is all over? Why are we here?
Coming here allows you to:

• Receive a physical body.
• Exercise agency and learn to choose between good and evil.
• Learn and gain experience that will help you become more like your Heavenly Father.
• Form family relationships that may become eternal.
• To be tried and tested in the flesh to see if we will have sufficient faith if God to keep His commandments.

Your life didn’t begin at birth and it won’t end at death. Before you came to earth, your spirit lived with Heavenly Father who created you. You knew Him, and He knew and loved you. It was a happy time during which you were taught God’s plan of happiness and the path to true joy.

One thing that makes this life so hard sometimes is that we’re out of God’s physical presence. Not only that, but we can’t remember our pre-earth life which means we have to operate by faith rather than sight. God didn’t say it would be easy, but He promised His spirit would be there when we needed Him. Even though it feels like it sometimes, we’re not alone in our journey.

So what is faith? To have faith is to “hope for things which are not seen, which are true” Hebrews 11:1). Each day you act upon things you hope for, even before you see the end result. This is similar to faith. Faith in God is more than a theoretical belief in Him. To have faith in God is to trust Him, to have confidence in Him, and to be willing to act on your belief in Him. It is a principle of action and power. That is the test that we are here to take. The test of our faith. To make choices that reflect upon that faith in Christ. If we had a perfect knowledge of Him then we could not be tried and tested by our faith because a perfect knowledge and faith could not exist together, there is either one or the other. There is a Mormon scripture that discribes this very well

Alma 32: 17-21

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much more cursed is he thatknoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

And that is the reaso why God cannot intervene and prevent the children from starving or take away the temptations of the pedophile. As soon as He does then the whole meaning of our existence will no longer be tenable and we would all be subjected to Satan. It is not that God turns His back on those who are suffering, I am sure that He weeps for them and longs to do something to alliviate their suffering, however, He cannot do that without destroying the entire Plan of Salvation by taking away the essential ingredient of faith.

Now, that is my belief. As I believe that God is a personage of infinite knowledge, I believe, so the entire Plan of Salvation is perfect with every single eventuality being covered. What do you think?

These sufferings are created by man due to his imbalance and will be required to become balanced to end them.
God isn't going to do that for us. The quicker we realize that the better off we'll be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are obviously seeing something that is not there. I merely gave a third option. None of my words contained any accusations. I said "Unless, of course, you plagiarized it". If I were to accuse you I would have omitted the word "Unless".

Oh please. Why say such a thing if you didn't mean to imply it? It's because you clearly meant to imply it.

You might be able to get away with this nonsensical game with others, but it doesn't fly with me.

If you think I've plagiarized something, that should be relatively easy to prove. So go ahead. Or quit making baseless accusations.

 

[Serenity7855]

We could all be clones if we reproduced asexually. But I’m not understanding your logic here. Are you trying to say that people who live in cultures with the same values as one another are clones of each other? It sounds like you’re trying to talk about epigenetics, but I’m not sure.

Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression but I am talking about adaptive behaviour and, of course, environmental conditioning. For example, potty training is now a universal practice in civilised environments. It transcends continents and cultures. Parents use adaptive conditioning to teach their children to conform to the standards expected in our society; Spend enough time living with pigs and you will start to squeal. Our genes evolve.

Of course genes need environmental input, that’s how they operate. I listed some of that environmental input that scientists are aware of, above.

So why did you say that Alcoholism is down to genetics? You said: "Anyhoo, alcoholism is genetic. The link you gave reinforces that fact that myself and another poster had previously pointed out. So as it turns out, I do know what I'm talking about. You're the person trying to say alcoholism isn't genetic. That would make you wrong. Sorry." I see no mention of the environment or other factors in your statement. I see you trying to gloat at the potential of someone being wrong but that is an atheist thing.

When a person is born with certain genetic predispositions, they can say they were born that way. We do not determine our own environment, especially in utero and in our early years of life, and to a great extent, during the course of our lives. Being exposed to stress in the womb, for example, is not the choice of the fetus. But it can determine that fetus’ genetic makeup in how it will respond to stress later in life. So a gay person or a straight person can certainly say they were “born that way” or “it’s not a choice” given that such things are not conscious choices that human beings make.

Sorry, are you saying that gays have genetic predispositions? That it is the result of a mutation?

You cannot say for a surety that we have not chosen the path we tread. By doing so you say that our lives began at birth and that our life's energy had a beginning, when we know that energy can neither be created or destroyed. That goes against a basic natural law of the universe. I don't know for sure what we were before we came here but I do know for sure that we existed in one form or another. As William Wordsworth once wrote

536. Ode
Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home: ​

These are unsubstantiated claims. [1]I certainly don’t feel the “light of Christ” inside me. [2]And we can’t say that we are set apart from every other living organism on our planet, [3]especially given that they are made up of DNA [4]as well and given that we have no way of knowing what other organisms think or feel. [5]Apes aren’t all that different from us in many ways, for one example.

1. No, I am sure that you don't feel the light of Christ. I fear that even if you did you would ascribe it to something rational and easy to comprehend. The light of Christ is our conscience that tells when something is right or wrong.

2. I can say that. I am set apart from every other living organism on our planet. I have cognitive awareness that far exceeds and basic awareness of any animal that lives and breaths. My ability to reason is far greater than any animal and my perception of God is not a concept that animals possess.

3. I love it when atheists say that we are all made of the same DNA. It confirms that events that took place at the creation, when God created every living organism from the dust of the earth, as Adam was. The very same material that was used to create animals was used to create Adam. Of course we all have the same type of DNA, we were all created from the same elements. So, by saying that "especially given that they are made up of DNA as well" tells the reader that you agree with the principles surrounding the creation. Well done!

4. I think that there is much evidence that we have substantial knowledge as to what organisms think and feel, just by observation.

5. The only similarity between apes and humans is physical. Intellectually they are nothing like us, you may draw comparisons between yourself and apes, however, the majority of us don't.​

 

[Serenity7855]

Continued

We are owners of our choices in the sense that we can consciously decide which action we will take but to say that such choices are free from our previous experiences, our genetic makeup, our environment, etc. would be folly. A person doesn’t make a choice to be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, and if they are not aware of such a predisposition, can easily succumb to alcohol dependence and abuse. At that point, the decision to stop drinking becomes increasingly difficult because now the person is physically addicted to the substance and the choice is further removed from one’s own control. Especially when the withdrawal symptoms are so severe.

You are teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs. She already knows how to do that.​

[1]Telepathy and premonitions are not demonstrably factual phenomenon and even if they were, [2]what do they have to do with making conscious decisions?

1. That is why there is so much research into its existence. The Indian Ocean Tsunami-December 26 2004 took thousands of lives, however, relatively few animals died, and the majority of those were domestic animals. Not one single elephant died because they left the area 2 weeks before the Tsunami struck. All the wild life left the area long before the earthquake took place. Coincidence or a sixth sense. The more astute of us keep our minds open to any reason.​

2. You do not think that if you had a sixth sense that your decisions wouldn't be effected by it. Really?​

And oddly enough, what you’re describing here sounds very much like something outside and beyond ourselves, which would indicate that we cannot be the “owners of our choices” if these things are true.

No influence can be held responsible for the choices we make. We determine what our choices should be after considering the evidence but the final decision is made by us and therefore the consequences are also ours.​

Our decisions are also based on many unseen neurobiological, sociocultural and psychological factors that are not necessarily within our own control, as noted above.

That is environmental conditioning. Our decision are undoubtedly influenced by that because that is the only environment that we have to make choices by, however, that does not mean we have no control over them, it just means that is all we know. You cannot make a choice based on things you don't know.

The weakest link is not genetics. Environmental factors and genetics are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite, in fact

.

Our genes are influenced by our society resulting in genes that are molded by the environment that we live in. When our environment is wicked and corrupt it will eventually cause us to become the same. Live with pigs long enough and you will begin to squeal/​

I have no idea what you mean by this. Scientists know what alcohol is.

I don't know why, it is pretty simplistic. If we have genes that can effect our desires to drink with excess then those genes can only react to alcohol if it becomes a part of their environment.​

Again, nobody is saying that. And in fact to say as much would demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of genetics.

So should we continue if you believe that I have a complete lack of understanding of genetics. It would seem futile, would it not. You keep making the put down yet you are still answering my posts.​

I don’t know what all this talk about knowing what alcohol is, is supposed to mean. A person can have a genetic predisposition to alcohol that they are not aware of, a family history of alcohol that they are not aware of, and/or low levels of cerebrospinal fluid of 5-HIAA that they are not aware of, and so on. Such a person is not consciously making a choice to become an alcoholic when they try their first drink and stimulate the reward pathways in their brain. Or a person could be like myself, and be aware of all of these things and make a very conscious and deliberate choice not to drink.

How does genes cause someone to overly consume alcohol. What is the mechanism used by genes to cause us to do anything. If I had genes that would make me take a life than can I use that in my defence or would I be judged on the choice that I made. How can our genes make us predisposed to alcoholism if they are not intelegent enough to determine what alcohol is and they cannot cause us to do anything that we really do not want to do. I could easily fall back into relying on alcohol but I decide not to/ My choice. Your analogy makes us all sound like we are stupid.​

There are plenty of people who can drink and never become addicted to alcohol. That would be the majority of people.

That is simply because they choose not to, based on whatever influences the environment has on them..​

[1]Now you seem to be saying that genetics and environment are not intertwined with each other? [2]And you’re saying that it is solely our environment that pushes us into choosing to be homosexual or heterosexual?

1. Do I. Is that what my words have conveyed to your understanding? Can you at least understand why your intellect is under suspicion when you say things like this. How do you confuse this "it is who we are as a result of our environment not who we are as a result of our genes because they are completely inert to moral accountability to the wrongs and rights of our society until environmental conditioning changes all of that. " with saying that genetics and environment are not intertwined with each other?" That clearly states that they are intertwined. Quite how it means something different to you is baffling.

2. No, of course not. The scripture talk about this when they say that there must be those thing that are acted upon and those thing that act. Genes are acted upon by the environment, that acts. One cannot work without the other. If someone is predisposed into having genes that makes them attracted to men, quite how a set of genes can do that is beyond me, then it will never react unless their environment contains men.​

We are the result of our genetic makeup interacting with environmental and other factors. It doesn’t make sense to say otherwise. And if we don’t choose our genes, and we don’t choose our environment, we can’t be as in control of our decisions as you seem to think we are.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion. The world is full of drug addicts, so if you are offered drugs do you say yes because everyone else is taking them or no because you know it is wrong. Choice are made by our understanding of right and wrong and not our genes or environment. They may influence our choices buy ultimately we decide.​

I pointed out to you exactly what I said. Enough of this silly game.

It is not a silly game, it is a fact.​

You brought it up, actually. In post #438.
So I guess it was your intention to greatly offend and insult someone?

Again, your comprehension is abysmal. You said "I don’t know who these sinister people are who want to find a pedophile gene so they can legalize child molestation. And I fail to see the logic in that argument.” You brought it up in that post. In that post you wrote these words intending to offend. You like to offend those who you argue with. A cursory glance at your dealings with other Christians demonstrates that. Besides, all I said was, "The next thing you will say is that homosexuals have no choice in their sexuality," That actually offends nobody. It is your ineptitude in comprehension that has caused you to see something that is not there.​

Funny how I explained genetics to you accurately and yet you continue to declare that I was wrong.

It is because you do not seem qualified to give any explanations of genetics if you cannot understand basic english. Just because you say it does not make it right, although I think that you believe that it does.​

That’s after you claimed that genes aren’t involved in alcoholism. It’s pretty obvious who is in touch with reality here. I don't know why you're going on about something that I already clearly understand.

You said that alcoholism is down to genetics. What do you know about genetics when making such ridiculous statements. I have never said that I am an authority on genetics, that would be arrogance and egocentric bordering on narcissism. What I do know is that alcoholism is not down to genetics, as you have said. However, if you want to best me on genetics then be my guest if you apeases you and makes you happy.​

 

[Serenity7855]

I'm sorry, I don't know how this relates to what I said.

No, I believe you.

You can assure me of whatever you want, but what I am seeing is that you are indeed focusing on two words, when in fact, I wrote much more than that. And long before I posted those two words. So now I'm not sure that you know what backpedaling is. How can I backpedal when my original post on the subject went into some detail about the interaction between genetics and the environment?

Again another put down suggesting I do not know basic words. When you are losing the debate it is always best to slander you opponent. Why do you answer the post of someone who is as stupid as I am.

I posted it because you straight up claimed that neither of us explained the interaction between genes and the environment when we clearly did. Apparently you missed the part of my post where I defended the statement, as well.

OK

Funny how you didn't bother respond to the actual content of that paragraph, or my response to it though.

I have a busy life that sometimes keeps me away from my laptop but I am sorry for not being as attentive as you would like for me to be.

Can you write this in a different way so that I can understand what you are trying to say?

Not really. I do endeavour to simplify my post to you as much as I can but I could not simplify this anymore than it is.

As I said above, it's odd that you didn't bother responding to the content of either of those posts. I mean, what you said here in response to it is basically nothing.

As I said above I have a busy life that sometimes keeps me away from my laptop but I am sorry for not being as attentive as you would like for me to be.

What does an attack against Stephen Hawking have to do with anything? Do you think I'm him?

Do you believe that a truthful quote, by someone else, is a attack by me?

What does a personal attack against Stephen Hawking have to do with anything?

This is what I wrote. Do you see Stephen Hawking's name in it or anything referring to him?

"It was quoted in that documentary that the majority of dead to rights murder cases are defended by saying that the murderer suffers with determinism so had no responsibility to his choice to kill someone. It was inevitable.

I'm sorry but I can't make this sentence make sense to me. Can you clarify or re-word it?

No, I appreciate that. You obviously have some difficulties in comprehension.

It's rather obvious that morals have changed and I think it's obvious to you as well, given that you ignored my slavery example, for one thing. How about stoning unruly children? Do you think that's still good moral thinking?

I have never said that stoning children is a moral act. You are misrepresenting me. Stoning children is as wrong today as it was back then. As I said, and you have demonstrated for me, morals are set in stone, they do not change. People change and their desire to do wickedness increases with it. I do not recall your slavery example. But i do know that you cannot admit defeat so you keep moving goal posts. I may have become bored of that.

I don't know where it is that you think the ten commandments are "still very much in force today." Only two of them have anything at all to do with present-day laws in most countries. And none of them mention things like rape or child abuse, which are considered immoral in most places in our present world. They're pretty inadequate, if you ask me.

You are comparing man made laws to the laws of God' You never cease to amaze me. What a silly thing to do. Moses was the one who wrote these commandments dictated to him by God. The Mosaic law was fulfilled with the Beatitudes in the sermon on the mount. It is those you need to look to. For example, "thou shalt not commit adultery" changed to "even if you look at a woman with lust in your eyes, you have committed adultery."

You do not think that the commandment to love one another does not included abstinence of rape or child abuse. If you loved one another than the furthest thing from you mind would be to rape them or abuse them. You are arguing from ignorance.

You're misunderstanding genetics and repeating yourself. I responded to this claim already.

I didn't say that alcoholism is genetic, however, yet again another put down suggesting that I am uneducated, if you knew what I do then you would feel so very silly.

When you are losing the debate it is always best to slander you opponent. Why do you answer the post of someone who is as stupid as I am.

That's not my logic, and I have explained and clarified that to you several times now. All you've done is just repeat what you said above. You are misunderstanding genetics and you don't realize that human beings do share a majority of genes with one another. It's the small amount that we don't share, that accounts for the variability between individuals.

How am I suppose to answer blatant put downs like this?

I mean, if you don't think genes are responsible for our makeup, I don't know what to say other than you have no idea what you're talking about. Of course environment plays a role but there's no need to keep pointing out what is actually just an inherent part of our explanation of genetics. Instinctive behavior, like our "fight or flight" response that occurs in the presence of danger, occurs as an interaction with our surrounding environment, but it is mediated by our genetic makeup.

I didn't say that genes are not responsible for our make up. You are lying. I didn't say that environment does not play a part. You are lying. You said "Anyhoo, alcoholism is genetic. The link you gave reinforces that fact that myself and another poster had previously pointed out. So as it turns out, I do know what I'm talking about. You're the person trying to say alcoholism isn't genetic. That would make you wrong. Sorry." I see no mention of the environment or other factors in your statement. I see you trying to gloat at the potential of someone being wrong but that is an atheist thing.

Second sentence is yet another put down. If you know little about anything else you certainly are very proficient at putting posters down. I suppose it relates to you being an atheist so no accountability for your bad mouthing.

What's not the only ingredient in the cake?

If you don't know, then me telling you will not make a difference to your ignorance.

It's true alright. And I just clearly demonstrated it to you. Twice now. You need to read more carefully. If I see you claim that again, I will know you are being dishonest now.

That is not true. You said that genes alone are responsible for who we are and my link said that there are other influences that make us who we are. You said "It's genetic." Clearly it is not.

It would be clear to you as well if you were actually paying attention.

Another put down.

And I’ll ask you to stop accusing me of plagiarism. Back up your claim with some evidence or give it up.

And I will tell you to stop accusing me of something that I have not done.

Well then, instead of just saying I don’t know what I’m talking about, how about EXPLAINING where you think I’ve gone wrong. Maybe do something more than just make a claim.

I said: "This is one of those areas where you don't seem to know what you are talking about. I have read those links. I did not make it known to the forum that I read those links, however, I did, yet you are telling me that I should have read them. You do not know that so you do not know what you are talking about."

To anyone else they would know that I was talking about your false accusation that I had not read the links that you left when I had. To that I said that you do not know what you are talking about. This just confirms you poor comprehension.

I would say that it’s obvious you haven’t read them, given the responses you have provided since they’ve been posted. In fact, I did say that.

Then you judge me based on your own intellectual arrogance, which you also misinterpret.

What does that mean? Why are you simply repeating it? Why not speak to what I said?

If you don't know then do what you usually do and google it.

Such a statement amounts to basically nothing.

It does to the mind who does not understand it.

If that’s the case, why do you expect that there is a single gene responsible for homosexuality? Or alcoholism?

I don't

On the last thread we in which we interacted, you went on and on about how nobody has found the gay gene. What else am I to take away from such statements, other than the fact that you apparently think there should be a single gene responsible for homosexuality?

That does not mean that I believe their is one. I remember the genome project when they clearly stated that no gay gene exists. They were looking for a gay gene, does that make them stupid as well? It was then that the gay activists decided that it must be a group of genes, adding ambiguity to it, but still no real evidence has been found. Maybe, seeings you know so much about genetics, even if you only say it yourself, you could demonstrate to me how a set of genes could determine whether someone will be gay. What exactly obliterates moral values and makes someone want to desire to be in a same sex relationship. I could very easily break into my next door neighbors house and steal his TV because I desire having it in my house, however, I wouldn't think of it because it is morally wrong. So if I succumb to my desire could I blame it on a set of genes that made me do it. Something ain't quite right in that kind of reasoning. It sounds like a cop out.

Oh you just use the scientific method! That’s pretty vague. What kind of tests could we carry out to determine that the gene pool (only the human one?) is corrupt, defiled, polluted, imperfect, weaker,” or any other subjective and emotional word you choose to use to describe it?

One thing that the scientific method is not is vague. You do yourself no favours by saying that. You need not test something that is evident. Look at our society and it moral standards.The results are conclusive to those who can see it but a norm to those who thrive in it.

Then I wonder why this god felt the need to leave us in the dark so long and didn’t bother to put any of this fantastic scientific knowledge in the Bible. Instead we had to wallow in ignorance for thousands and thousands of years.

He did put it in the bible but only to those who have eyes to see it. I even quoted some of it to you in my last post. "The scripture talk about this when they say that there must be those thing that are acted upon and those thing that act. Genes are acted upon by the environment, that acts. One cannot work without the other." You do not have those eyes and your attitude will insure that you never do. As for why God has left us here. You would never understand the reason until you stop denouncing it. It would be a classic case of throwing my pearl before swine.

 

[loverofhumanity]

These sufferings are created by man due to his imbalance and will be required to become balanced to end them.
God isn't going to do that for us. The quicker we realize that the better off we'll be.

The question is flawed. It's we not God that allows evil and crime to exist by not following Gd's laws and ways. God forbids these things and we have the resources to eliminate them as well as to spiritually educate people but is spiritual education a part of the world's educational ciriculum? It's all centred around making money, a system we set up not God, instead of a system set up to serve humanity. That's all our fault not God's.

 

[Serenity7855]

Oh please. Why say such a thing if you didn't mean to imply it? It's because you clearly meant to imply it.

Right, so it has gone from "Are you seriously accusing me of plagiarism?" To "It's because you clearly meant to imply it." From an accusation to an implications.

You might be able to get away with this nonsensical game with others, but it doesn't fly with me.

Oh please! Stop being so puerile.

If you think I've plagiarized something, that should be relatively easy to prove. So go ahead. Or quit making baseless accusations.

I did not say that you plagiarized anything I was saying that you could have, not that you did. I based that opinion on the fact that your an athiest, no accountability to anyone.