Looks like the guy is scouring the internet for just about anything now.

this guy na real son of a shoe.

davidylan:

there is no such thing as religious ecstacy. It is simply a term coined by anti-religious folks like you desperate to delegitimise religion. Christianity is not a "mental state", it is a way or life . . . a spiritual code of conduct for the saved.

This need to classify religion as a "mental imbalance" different from the norm does not hold water at all. People have tried to use brain scans to differentiate between the brain of religious people and secular individuals . . . the result? no difference at all.

Religion is not a "high".

Would you describe the normal law-abiding citizen of having a peculiar mental state different from yours?

Sorry for not having made myself clearer.  There is a BIG difference between religions/beliefs and the mental states it is capable of inducing in some people (in some religions).  Case in point - Shamanism.  How often do people who do not belong to such religions as shamanism go into mental trances.

Have you seen the ministry of some of the Christian charismatic preacher and see what effects they have on the people?  What do you describe this?  Are the almost paralytic states they get into not mental states?

Have you ever heard of the concept of the Power of Suggestion, practiced so deftly by hypnotists?  Do they routine put their clients into mental states?  Are some of these states dissimilar to what you might see in Peter Popoff ministry?

Does Bastage have a unique gene for Buddhism or Sango worshippers? 

huxley:

Sorry for not having made myself clearer. There is a BIG difference between religions/beliefs and the mental states it is capable of inducing in some people (in some religions). Case in point - Shamanism. How often do people who do not belong to such religions as shamanism go into mental trances.

Have you seen the ministry of some of the Christian charismatic preacher and see what effects they have on the people? What do you describe this? Are the almost paralytic states they get into not mental states?

Have you ever heard of the concept of the Power of Suggestion, practiced so deftly by hypnotists? Do they routine put their clients into mental states? Are some of these states dissimilar to what you might see in Peter Popoff ministry?

The problem is you want to use the extreme to define the whole.

The vast majority of christendom does not regard Peter Poppoff as a genuine man of God. If you read through this religion section you must have come across several christians who certainly do not agree with many of the unbiblical practices of charismatic christian preachers today.

davidylan:

The problem is you want to use the extreme to define the whole.

The vast majority of christendom does not regard Peter Poppoff as a genuine man of God. If you read through this religion section you must have come across several christians who certainly do not agree with many of the unbiblical practices of charismatic christian preachers today.

Be that as it may.  The point you made was that

Religion is not a "high".

,  with which I partially agree with you.  But I make subtle distinctions which might have been lost on you.  Let me repeat;

There is religions/beliefs which may simply be as basic as believing that the tree in my backyard has supernatural powers. Then there are mental states which may be an expression of such beliefs by our cognitve systems. 

There are many religions or ideas that do not trigger an elevated mental state.  For instance, the thought that the chemical composition of water is H2O would hardly trigger an elevated mental state in most people.  However, it is within the realms of possibility that I could formulate a religion today that takes something as basic as H2O and create a strong and powerful hold on the minds of some people.  Case in point are the hapless followers of the Comet Hale-Bopp, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(cult)] the Heaven's Gate[/url].  How could something as mundane as a comet have caused so much epileptic zeal in the minds of its followers?

The fact is, beliefs, if taken irrationally are capable of producing a high in many of its followers.  I see it with Pastor Chris followers,  many many other evangelists.

The 2 bolded parts do not constitute evidence of a gene for religion

LMAO. Oh you guys really have me rolling on the floor with laughter!!!!!!!!

DavidDylan just out and out denies the credibility of one of the largest genetic studies ever undertaken and 4-Play does a total U-turn.

4-Play. This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion". Whoever suggested that there was a gene for religion!!!  

Do I really have to go back and copy and paste my claims that religion has influenced genetics? Not once have I mentioned a "gene for religion".

4-Play: The craven dolt has dodged his earlier claim; that everything is a product of religion, presumably, even our genetic make up.

Bastage: Our genetic make-up is influenced by religion.

Bastage: Religion had an influence on genetics here.

It's there for all to see. So 4-Play, are you going to falsely claim that I've been talking about a "gene for religion" or are you going to argue that the National Geographic Genome Project is wrong? I'll just fill you in on what you're up against.

The Genographic Project is a five-year research partnership led by National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Dr. Spencer Wells. Dr. Wells and a team of renowned international scientists and IBM researchers, are using cutting-edge genetic and computational technologies to analyze historical patterns in DNA from participants around the world to better understand our human genetic roots.

Good luck!!!

Oh yeah. And maybe you'd like to click on the globe. Spain is particularly interesting.  

Bastage:

LMAO. Oh you guys really have me rolling on the floor with laughter!!!!!!!! ;DDavidDylan just out and out denies the credibility of one of the largest genetic studies ever undertaken and 4-Play does a total U-turn.

4-Play. This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion". Whoever suggested that there was a gene for religion!!!  

The apt term to describe your brain is bovine, since it seems to work in slow motion.Firstly, Here was David's comment:

You have a problem with mental coordination. The crusades were about religion but that is not the issue. The question is did the crusaders carry a gene unique to ALL christians?

Here are my previous comments from which this dolt senses a ''total u-turn'' from me.

Only a cretin will claim that religion constitutes the ''vast majority'' of a human being's life influence. There is little room for any other cause; genes, income, education.

Do Muslims have a unique genetic make up? What is the difference between Edward Said's make up and Yasser Arafat's?

The evidence of a unique Muslim gene is a copy and paste job about Spain's Moorish ancestors?

is there a unique Muslim gene

The stupid copy and paste job didn't establish the existence of a Muslim gene, or any other religious gene.

This unrepentant dolt is still assuming the premise as proven:that there is a unique religious gene, unique to different faiths

This however leaves unanswered the source of your premise, that Muslims have a unique genetic make up which your dumb copy and paste jobs have left us none the wiser.

Bastage thinks that references to racial genes in races where Muslims are dominant is as good as references to a Muslim gene.

Any chance Bastage, resident mutilator of science, can explain what genetic uniquesness exists between Ethiopian Christians and Irish Christians.

So after all the above quotes, Bastage claims that talk of a ''gene for religion'' represents a u-turn, presumably incompatible with the above cited quotes! Calling this swine an slowpoke is an insult to imbeciles.

Now,no one disagrees with the suggestion that events influenced by religion might affect ''mating'' choices. But the debate was the extent the various influences - whether religion or genetics - may play in, for instance, Stalin's murderous instincts. Now, unless Stalin's genetic make up was unique to a particular religious faith or to religion generally, it is the height of idiocy, being utterly irrelevant,  to state that Stalin's ancestral origin might have been somewhat influenced by some religious inspired event.

A crass bovine like you may take forever to grasp things, perhaps, that explains why you thought the pursuit of religious ideals is the same as the persecution of religionists. What a first-grade idiot.

This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion".

All the comments assumed that this was the case your evidence supported but that it failed to show a unique genetical make up exclusive to reliogion, viz, the magic words -gene for religion - which woke you from your stupor. Here was David's comment:

You have a problem with mental coordination. The crusades were about religion but that is not the issue. The question is did the crusaders carry a gene unique to ALL christians?

Stalin is influenced by religion but also his genes, but Stalin's genes, no matter the historical religion inspired mating decisions, does not have a unique religious make up that explains his latter behaviour. That a bovine and an unrepentant dolt like you fails to grasp this beggars belief.

In reality, it's either a failure of comprehension or a craven afterthought from you.

but Stalin's genes, no matter the historical religion inspired mating decisions, does not have a unique religious make up that explains his latter behaviour.

LMAO. You base your whole argument about Stalin on genes? Not once have I claimed that Stalin's genetic make-up was a factor.

My original assertion was that he was influenced by religion. Nothing to do with genes. You came into the thread whining that there was no connection between genes and religion. Don't whine that you specifically targetted genes as in the same sentence when you first mentioned them, you also mentioned income and education. When you did move onto targetting genes, it had nothing to do with Stalin. The issue was did religion influence genes. Nothing else. You may retardedly cherry pick bits of posts all you like and throw them in any context you like - the fact is, you're my bitch.

When I showed beyond doubt that religion has influenced the gene pool you start whining on about some "unique religion gene". It was never an issue that I even attempted to broach after earlier dismissing it out of hand by calling you a cock (which you are).

So lets look at the evidence. I stated that Stalin was influenced by religion. I stated that he was born to a Christian family, raised in a Christian city, went to a Christian school, played with Christian friends, went to a Christian seminary, trained to be a Christian priest.
Then you join the thread burbling about income, education and genes and how these things are not affected by religion. I then decided to show you that you are wrong and did so in all three instances. Your quotations about the "Muslim gene" weren't even on the table until after I showed you proof that Islamic moors affected the gene pool of Christian Spain. You have quite literally moved the goalposts once you've had your dumb ass kicked.

My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke. Don't bring it into the topic as a smokescreen and then start saying that I don't know what I'm talking about when I neither give a shit about a "Muslim gene", find it relative to the topic nor even believe it exists.

So, did religion have an influence over genes?
Yes or no, bitch? It's a simple question. How about you answer it and stop hiding behind long winded posts full of bullshit.

Bastage:

LMAO. You base your whole argument about Stalin on genes? Not once have I claimed that Stalin's genetic make-up was a factor.

You are a recidivist bovine. What would give you the impression that my whole argument is based on Stalin's genes - the argument is that Stalin's behaviour, like any other human's, is based on a range of factors of which religion and genes are some of the factors.

My original assertion was that he was influenced by religion. Nothing to do with genes. [b]You came into the thread whining that there was no connection between genes and religion. [/b]Don't whine that you specifically targetted genes as in the same sentence when you first mentioned them, you also mentioned income and education. When you did move onto targetting genes, it had nothing to do with Stalin. The issue was did religion influence genes. Nothing else. You may retardedly cherry pick bits of posts all you like and throw them in any context you like - the fact is, you're my bitch.

A gratuitiously mendacious oaf, let me give you another simple task you craven liar: find where I asserted no connection between genes and religion.

I referred to the diversity in the range of causative factors on a human being's behaviour vis a vis Stalin's behaviour,here is the original quote:

Only a cretin will claim that religion constitutes the ''vast majority'' of a human being's life influence. There is little room for any other cause; genes, income, education.

The point is that the vast majority of Stalin's life influence is not religion. Genes, income and education, inter alia, play a part. Claiming that religion had some influence on these is besides the point. Influence here is not one-dimensional;these factors themselves shape religion.

I listed a multitude of quotes from David and I, in case, given your bovine nature, you failed to understand. You called all these ''cherry picking'', pray, where are my other quotes which constitute a contradiction of those ''cherry picked'' quotes? You don't seem to have an honest bone in you, do you?

When I showed beyond doubt that religion has influenced the gene pool you start whining on about some "unique religion gene". It was never an issue that I even attempted to broach after earlier dismissing it out of hand by calling you a cock (which you are).

This guy is a self-assured liar! A unique religious gene was never an issue? Why then did it take until the dead of the night to remark on what you called a ''total u-turn'' when all the quotes I listed, many of you which you quoted, asked for evidence of a unique religious gene. You are either bovine or a craven liar or an astonishing combination of both features.

Like David noted here:

You have a problem with mental coordination. The crusades were about religion but that is not the issue. The question is did the crusaders carry a gene unique to ALL christians?

The issue of religion influencing genetic make up is besides the point. You can't proclaim that someone is a creation of religion when man is a product of a variety of factors, of which religion is one, unless you are trying to establish that each factor has a unique religious nature.

So lets look at the evidence. I stated that Stalin was influenced by religion. I stated that he was born to a Christian family, raised in a Christian city, went to a Christian school, played with Christian friends, went to a Christian seminary, trained to be a Christian priest.
Then you join the thread burbling about income, education and genes and how these things are not affected by religion. I then decided to show you that you are wrong and did so in all three instances. Your quotations about the "Muslim gene" weren't even on the table until after I showed you proof that Islamic moors affected the gene pool of Christian Spain. You have quite literally moved the goalposts once you've had your dumb ass kicked.

This guy is a mendacious oaf. If I assert that a man is a product of many factors - religion,genes,income,education - that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be understood to mean that each is mutually impervious to influence.

Stalin is a product of many factors, no where have I claimed that each factor has no influence on each other. Take income; education,genes and religion are affected by income. However, it will be stupid to claim that everything is as a result of income.

Pray, how does telling us that religion might have an influence in Stalin's ancestor's mating decisions shed light on Stalin's gulag policies unless it carried the implication that Stalin's genetic make up was unique in its relation to religion.

My quotations about "Muslim gene'' wasn't on the table until after your copy and paste? What an idiotic liar. This quote came before your crass copy and paste and you quoted it in your first response containing the Moors' link :

Do Muslims have a unique genetic make up? What is the difference between Edward Said's make up and Yasser Arafat's? 

  Your dishonesty must be inbred and is utterly shocking!

Shifting the goal posts? Why did you respond to my question about a Muslim gene by referring me to an article about the Moors? It was only in the middle of the night that you came back with a new line after David and I had been futilely trying to get you to see that genes are not unique to religion.

This is the same craven liar that once challenged me several times to cite one historical mention of Jesus outside scriptures, only to re-emerge later with a different tack; they are not contemporaneous historical mentions. Another idiot on NL trying to save face on a web forum.

My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke. Don't bring it into the topic as a smokescreen and then start saying that I don't know what I'm talking about when I neither give a shit about a "Muslim gene", find it relative to the topic nor even believe it exists.So, did religion have an influence over genes?Yes or no, bitch? It's a simple question. How about you answer it and stop hiding behind long winded posts full of bullshit.

Why repeatedly cite quotes demanding an answer to a specific question and suddenly re-emerge the next day to proclaim that you were unaware of the questions being asked? You must be dumb as a stump.

If religion can influence genetic make up, which is besides the point, how does it shed light on the question of why a man - whether Mao or Stalin -acted in a particular way? That is and always has been the crux of the debate.

A recidivist retard adducing non-sequiturs in an absurd bid to save face while pretending to mis-understand what his interlocutors were asking. I wonder what new tack he will adopt tomorrow, one day he is citing scientist who are atheists, the next he is saying their acheivements is as a result of religion. Bloody idiot!

All that crap and you haven't answered the question.

Has religion influenced genes?

Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

Bastage no mind the guy he is certainly david's sidekick at throwing smoke grenades and he sucks at it.

Bastage:

All that crap and you haven't answered the question.Has religion influenced genes?
Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

You are obviously a congenital liar:

Now,no one disagrees with the suggestion that events influenced by religion might affect ''mating'' choices.

That this self-regarding numbskull has chosen to hide behind an irrelevant question is hardly surprising. Like I asked earlier, how does it shed light on the question of why a man - whether Mao or Stalin - acted in a particular way? Bloody Arrow.

Chrisbenogor:

Bastage no mind the guy he is certainly david's sidekick at throwing smoke grenades and he sucks at it.

Another self-regarding Arrow.

Hehehehe 4play you no dey chop bottle .
Abeg I need your book of name calling oh, you beat david hands down in that department.

Chrisbenogor:

Abeg I need a book

The above is now much better framed. . . . it epitomises the unlettered Arrow that you are.

Hehehehehe be careful foaming and convulsing is surely not too far away now .
But wait oh you no get joy at all oh, you no fit even do christmas for your enemies?

Chrisbenogor:

Hehehehehe be careful foaming and convulsing is surely not too far away now .
But wait oh you no get joy at all oh, you no fit even do christmas for your enemies?

Au contraire. Calling a Arrow a Arrow is very much enjoyable especially if said Arrow may have delusions that he is not a Arrow.

Hehehehehehe delusion lol, your cracking me up.
Merry christmas to you too.

Has religion influenced genes?

Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

Bastage:

Has religion influenced genes?
Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

Is your imbecility and dishonesty congenital or acquired? Yes or no. . . simple answer will suffice.

Fourth time of asking.

Has religion influenced genes?

Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

For the 2nd time, is your dishonesty and imbecility congenital or acquired? Yes or no. . .a simple answer will suffice.

Catholism and organise christianity is a continuation of imperial rome and white supremacy.When will black people have enough of that bullshit?.Religion erase reality and can be clearly seen in africa today,we are so unrealistic that the brain has become so useles and dormant,we live in a fairy world where we literally expect angels from fictitious heaven to think and act for us.Catholic church is one of the richest organisation in the world,all those poor women and men contributing their hard earn money everyday in africa and the rest of the third world to finance the supremacist pope,another hitler and the cleargys living in heaven on earth while the ones making them happy and powerful are in hell on earth.Heaven and hell is right here with us,open your eyes.

Has religion influenced genes?

Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

Bastage:

Has religion influenced genes?
Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

The refuge of a lying scoundrel is repetitive infantilism. To function at your level I have asked whether your dishonesty and imbecility is congenital or acquired? Simple answer will suffice.

Bastage:

Has religion influenced genes?

Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

[size=28pt]NO![/size]

I work with genes and so i shld know . . . when you start doing more than just googling for silly, misinterpreted articles then we can listen to you.

davidylan:

[size=28pt]NO![/size]
I work with genes and so i shld know . . . when you start doing more than just googling for silly, misinterpreted articles then we can listen to you.

He came back in the middle of the night with a new spin. That what he actually means is a that a person's genes is influenced by religion in so far as that at some point, events inspired by religion affected the choice of partners in procreation.

He has been reduced to a blithering oaf posting repetitive infantile questions to save face.

Why won't you answer the question 4-Play? What are you afraid of?

Anyone can see what I originally wrote and it was most certainly not the drivel that you've just posted. There's no spin in my posts - plenty in yours. I welcome anyone to read through this thread and give any example where I have either said that Stalin was influenced by genes or that there is a specific gene in Islam.

I expect David to deny truth as he's nothing but a cretin - he'll dive into dog-shit if you tell him it's Holy Water. But you've avoided the question by merely replying with what? Six posts of insults, bullshit, fabrication and bluster?

Has religion influenced genes?
Yes or no?

I work with genes

No David. You work with jeans. £3 per hour sewing denim in a sweat-shop.
Big difference.

Bastage:

I expect David to deny truth as he's nothing but a cretin - he'll dive into dog-shit if you tell him it's Holy Water. But you've avoided the question by merely replying with what? Six posts of insults, bullshit, fabrication and bluster?

Does religion define your genetic make up? Yes or No with concrete proof pls.

Bastage:

No David. You work with jeans. £3 per hour sewing denim in a sweat-shop.
Big difference.

Just answer the question.

4 Play:

He came back in the middle of the night with a new spin. That what he actually means is a that a person's genes is influenced by religion in so far as that at some point, events inspired by religion affected the choice of partners in procreation.

He has been reduced to a blithering oaf posting repetitive infantile questions to save face.

So a person born to religious parents is genetically religious? 

Pls Bastage, i would be interested in this religious gene. Thank you.

Bastage:

Why won't you answer the question 4-Play? What are you afraid of?

I have referred this blind oaf to my previous post.

Anyone can see what I originally wrote and it was most certainly not the drivel that you've just posted. There's no spin in my posts - plenty in yours. I welcome anyone to read through this thread and give any example where I have either said that Stalin was influenced by genes or that there is a specific gene in Islam.

Anyone? Even Huxley was bamboozled and claimed he was hearing your then spin for the first time. I asked you a question innumerable times as to whether genes have a unique religious element, you often cited my question in response only to claim later in the middle of the night that I have made a total u-turn, bloody idiot.

No spin? Even your repetitive infantile questions is a daft obfuscation because it lends nothing to the debate and represents a craven attempt to save face. Is your gene influenced by religion. . . .  .the real question is how this slowpoke thinks this relates to the topic.