mwc Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Yes I do. The fact that you can't visualize what I am trying to say is independent of the content. I kind of feel sorry for you. "[W]hat I am trying to say is independent of the content." Ha ha haha haha hahahaha!!!!! "The words coming out of my mouth are independent from the thoughts I am trying to convey." I'm going to piss myself laughing. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 ...there is a steaming pile of arrogance and condescension piled on. Ah, so be it then. Still, at least the arrogance and condescension here addresses the actual question at hand. To be arrogantly on topic is to be on topic. To ask a condescending question is still to be asking a question that warrants an answer if you want to be taken seriously. Dude, you're giving us some of your personal theology, but not coming close to the question posed, re-posed, restated, and asked again. Could it be that deliberately evading the question is itself arrogant? If not deliberate, refer to my previous post about being so vested in a belief system. Bring the science then. Any of you. ANY OF YOU.....specifically with regard to the human race.....although I believe the equilibrium in nature is probably very similar in principle. Show me the genetics of empathy. Show me the genetics where our choices are forced by genetics. Show me the genetic man in his infancy. And you have admitted it has no answer....with condesension of course. You know what I'll get here....."Dawkins says so that the theory is that evolution has a case for x or y" "We can make up a bullshit cause that says evolution needs empathy" WTF? "And our science knows until it changes it's bias mind until it knows again...for dollars of course". "And we are better because we know....and you are nonsensical because you don't have science and Dawkins". You don't have shit except a new group of idiots in which to commiserate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 So.......emotions, ergo god? Is that your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Fucking retarded bunch of losers ...there is a steaming pile of arrogance and condescension piled on. Ah, so be it then. Still, at least the arrogance and condescension here addresses the actual question at hand. To be arrogantly on topic is to be on topic. To ask a condescending question is still to be asking a question that warrants an answer if you want to be taken seriously. Dude, you're giving us some of your personal theology, but not coming close to the question posed, re-posed, restated, and asked again. Could it be that deliberately evading the question is itself arrogant? If not deliberate, refer to my previous post about being so vested in a belief system. How does the tree in South America stand while a tree in North America can stand as well. HOW sir. The specific science. Down to the sub sub atomic particles... and THEN sir, apply that to humanity. I don't hesitate to call each of you grossly over rated for even suggesting you have an inkling of what the fuck is happing. Crap, you don't even know what the fuck is going on in your belly button. Jesus people, get over yourselves already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 So.......emotions, ergo god? Is that your point? No, but suggesting some scientific opinion at this point is NO more valid that a spiritual analogy. The Bible says vs. Dawkins says....and people are too stupid to realize this.....specifically Think 1 and Thing 2 that keep blathering "it's nonsensical". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted August 28, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted August 28, 2012 ...there is a steaming pile of arrogance and condescension piled on. Ah, so be it then. Still, at least the arrogance and condescension here addresses the actual question at hand. To be arrogantly on topic is to be on topic. To ask a condescending question is still to be asking a question that warrants an answer if you want to be taken seriously. Dude, you're giving us some of your personal theology, but not coming close to the question posed, re-posed, restated, and asked again. Could it be that deliberately evading the question is itself arrogant? If not deliberate, refer to my previous post about being so vested in a belief system. Bring the science then. Any of you. ANY OF YOU.....specifically with regard to the human race.....although I believe the equilibrium in nature is probably very similar in principle. Show me the genetics of empathy. Show me the genetics where our choices are forced by genetics. Show me the genetic man in his infancy. And you have admitted it has no answer....with condesension of course. You know what I'll get here....."Dawkins says so that the theory is that evolution has a case for x or y" "We can make up a bullshit cause that says evolution needs empathy" WTF? "And our science knows until it changes it's bias mind until it knows again...for dollars of course". "And we are better because we know....and you are nonsensical because you don't have science and Dawkins". You don't have shit except a new group of idiots in which to commiserate. What does any of this rant have to do with answering the question: What is the point of a sacrifice? Remember? What is it about blood and death that pleases God enough to count it as atonement for sin? Why does the wonderful God of the Hebrews demand that we kill his creatures and each other, rather than say, have us stand on one foot or shave our pubes? How does a sacrifice of any kind actually change anything that's already happened? Why is your deity so hard to please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Bring the science then. Any of you. ANY OF YOU.....specifically with regard to the human race.....although I believe the equilibrium in nature is probably very similar in principle. Show me the genetics of empathy. Show me the genetics where our choices are forced by genetics. Show me the genetic man in his infancy. And you have admitted it has no answer....with condesension of course. Is empathy in our genes? "A large part of how we relate to people emotionally may be hardwired into our DNA. A new study suggests that character traits such as being open, caring, and trusting are so strongly linked to a certain gene variation that a total stranger, simply by watching us listen to another person, may be able to guess whether we have the variation with a high degree of accuracy. Previous studies have linked several personality traits to variations in this gene, which acts as a docking station (or receptor) for the brain chemical oxytocin -- often referred to as the "love hormone" because it plays a role in social behaviors such as bonding, empathy, and anxiety. People who have two "G" variants of this oxytocin receptor gene tend to have better social skills and higher self-esteem, research has shown. Conversely, those with at least one "A" variant tend to have a harder time dealing with stress, worse mental-health outcomes, and a greater likelihood of being autistic." You know what I'll get here....."Dawkins says so that the theory is that evolution has a case for x or y" "We can make up a bullshit cause that says evolution needs empathy" WTF? "And our science knows until it changes it's bias mind until it knows again...for dollars of course". The Evolution of Empathy "And we are better because we know....and you are nonsensical because you don't have science and Dawkins". You don't have shit except a new group of idiots in which to commiserate. They actually do know shit about evolution and empathy. Just because you don't know the shit doesn't mean scientist don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Empathy Gene and Body Language: http://www.webmd.com...ls-empathy-gene Empathy Gene and Overcoming Fear: http://www.sott.net/...reats-and-Fear- List of scientific articles about empathy and genetics: http://scholar.googl...ved=0CBoQgQMwAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Bring the science then. Any of you. ANY OF YOU.....specifically with regard to the human race.....although I believe the equilibrium in nature is probably very similar in principle. Show me the genetics of empathy. Show me the genetics where our choices are forced by genetics. Show me the genetic man in his infancy. And you have admitted it has no answer....with condesension of course. Is empathy in our genes? "A large part of how we relate to people emotionally may be hardwired into our DNA. A new study suggests that character traits such as being open, caring, and trusting are so strongly linked to a certain gene variation that a total stranger, simply by watching us listen to another person, may be able to guess whether we have the variation with a high degree of accuracy. Previous studies have linked several personality traits to variations in this gene, which acts as a docking station (or receptor) for the brain chemical oxytocin -- often referred to as the "love hormone" because it plays a role in social behaviors such as bonding, empathy, and anxiety. People who have two "G" variants of this oxytocin receptor gene tend to have better social skills and higher self-esteem, research has shown. Conversely, those with at least one "A" variant tend to have a harder time dealing with stress, worse mental-health outcomes, and a greater likelihood of being autistic." You know what I'll get here....."Dawkins says so that the theory is that evolution has a case for x or y" "We can make up a bullshit cause that says evolution needs empathy" WTF? "And our science knows until it changes it's bias mind until it knows again...for dollars of course". The Evolution of Empathy "And we are better because we know....and you are nonsensical because you don't have science and Dawkins". You don't have shit except a new group of idiots in which to commiserate. They actually do know shit about evolution and empathy. Just because you don't know the shit doesn't mean scientist don't. pwned 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Bring the science then. Any of you. ANY OF YOU.....specifically with regard to the human race.....although I believe the equilibrium in nature is probably very similar in principle. Show me the genetics of empathy. Show me the genetics where our choices are forced by genetics. Show me the genetic man in his infancy. And you have admitted it has no answer....with condesension of course. Is empathy in our genes? "A large part of how we relate to people emotionally may be hardwired into our DNA. A new study suggests that character traits such as being open, caring, and trusting are so strongly linked to a certain gene variation that a total stranger, simply by watching us listen to another person, may be able to guess whether we have the variation with a high degree of accuracy. Previous studies have linked several personality traits to variations in this gene, which acts as a docking station (or receptor) for the brain chemical oxytocin -- often referred to as the "love hormone" because it plays a role in social behaviors such as bonding, empathy, and anxiety. People who have two "G" variants of this oxytocin receptor gene tend to have better social skills and higher self-esteem, research has shown. Conversely, those with at least one "A" variant tend to have a harder time dealing with stress, worse mental-health outcomes, and a greater likelihood of being autistic." You know what I'll get here....."Dawkins says so that the theory is that evolution has a case for x or y" "We can make up a bullshit cause that says evolution needs empathy" WTF? "And our science knows until it changes it's bias mind until it knows again...for dollars of course". The Evolution of Empathy "And we are better because we know....and you are nonsensical because you don't have science and Dawkins". You don't have shit except a new group of idiots in which to commiserate. They actually do know shit about evolution and empathy. Just because you don't know the shit doesn't mean scientist don't. I looked at one Hans. Didn't see any data. I guess it's visual data....damn those primate scientists are hooked up. We watched them do it....it has to be as Dawkins says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I looked at one Hans. Didn't see any data. I guess it's visual data....damn those primate scientists are hooked up. We watched them do it....it has to be as Dawkins says. Because you have to go to a library and search for the scholarly articles. The studies and research has been done. You know chemistry, don't you? Here's a claim: salt and water makes gold. Prove to me otherwise. A 2,000 old book told me this is true, so it must be true. And there's no scientist who can prove me wrong. You're not a geneticist, yet you make claims about it and argue "they don't know shit." You're a chemist, hence you don't know shit about chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 pwned No dumbass, even if the mechanisms are understood...which they are not, this doesn't rule out God in the least....the effect of poor choices(sin) on genetics. Idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 pwned No dumbass, even if the mechanisms are understood...which they are not, this doesn't rule out God in the least....the effect of poor choices(sin) on genetics. Idiot. Give me a scientific evidence that water and salt doesn't make gold. Water and salt makes gold and you can't say otherwise. Besides, those articles do present the results of the studies and research. I think you need to take some fish oil supplements, buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 pwned No dumbass, even if the mechanisms are understood...which they are not, this doesn't rule out God in the least....the effect of poor choices(sin) on genetics. Idiot. Ah, sin. Yet another imaginary thing you like to flaunt about as though it were real. Oh, an fick you too buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You really think doing an action that displeases an invisible sky fairy alters our genetics? And I'm the idiot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 End, you want a more scholarly article and research? Here's one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.80/full And then, look at the references at the bottom. Many other articles can be found at the library for study of the actual research (instead of your assumptions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You really think doing an action that displeases an invisible sky fairy alters our genetics? And I'm the idiot? I think he's arguing that empathy is supernatural or magical and not natural. If it's not genetics and not learned behavior (nature or nurture), it must be spiritual. Unfortunately, he's wrong, since it has been studied for many years now. And there are plenty of articles and books that talk about the results. It's both genetic and cultural. Or, as the more popular term now, it's biopsychosocial (BPS). In other words, it has a biological foundation (which can be overridden or destroyed), and it has to be trained (memorized and used intentionally), and it comes from social learning and experience. All of it at once. Not one or the other, but all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I looked at one Hans. Didn't see any data. I guess it's visual data....damn those primate scientists are hooked up. We watched them do it....it has to be as Dawkins says. Because you have to go to a library and search for the scholarly articles. The studies and research has been done. You know chemistry, don't you? Here's a claim: salt and water makes gold. Prove to me otherwise. A 2,000 old book told me this is true, so it must be true. And there's no scientist who can prove me wrong. You're not a geneticist, yet you make claims about it and argue "they don't know shit." You're a chemist, hence you don't know shit about chemistry. Again the fact that we might have an inkling of understanding doesn't override our understanding of the source, yet people don't hesitate to deliver their convictions on that. If these bunch of idiots are going to declare "conclusive" and "condensension" on their fellow man, then they haven't a leg to stand on. End of story. Hey, btw, do cells have empathy? or trees? We're all starstuff, right? Intellectual idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Again the fact that we might have an inkling of understanding doesn't override our understanding of the source, yet people don't hesitate to deliver their convictions on that. If these bunch of idiots are going to declare "conclusive" and "condensension" on their fellow man, then they haven't a leg to stand on. End of story. Hey, btw, do cells have empathy? or trees? We're all starstuff, right? Intellectual idiots. you're the one being condescending by avoiding reading the articles and really make an effort studying this topic. I'm done explaining it to you. You're the intellectual idiot by making claims about a field of science you don't know shit about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You really think doing an action that displeases an invisible sky fairy alters our genetics? And I'm the idiot? Epigenetics McD? Our actions effecting our bodies? Hello?????? McFly....I mean McD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Again the fact that we might have an inkling of understanding doesn't override our understanding of the source, yet people don't hesitate to deliver their convictions on that. If these bunch of idiots are going to declare "conclusive" and "condensension" on their fellow man, then they haven't a leg to stand on. End of story. Hey, btw, do cells have empathy? or trees? We're all starstuff, right? Intellectual idiots. you're the one being condescending by avoiding reading the articles and really make an effort studying this topic. I'm done explaining it to you. You're the intellectual idiot by making claims about a field of science you don't know shit about. I gave an opinion and got attacked for it being nonsensical? Marry that to what you just said smart guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You really think doing an action that displeases an invisible sky fairy alters our genetics? And I'm the idiot? Epigenetics McD? Our actions effecting our bodies? Hello?????? McFly....I mean McD. That shows that you don't understand what epigenetics is. It's a proper scientific field and it's not supernatural (as you're suggesting). you need to have some intellectual honesty here, End. This is really boring that you can't even make an honest attempt of understanding these things. If you had approached your chemistry class this way, you wouldn't have your job today. Let me ask you this, chemistry question. Does atoms have fire? How can a fire exist? It is supernatural in nature because atoms don't burn. Right? You see. I'm right. Fire is supernatural. Epiatomic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I gave an opinion and got attacked for it being nonsensical? Marry that to what you just said smart guy. You're talking shit. Chemistry guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I'll play along and assume a assume a deistic posture. How would any of this point to the xian god, End? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Another scientific article about empathy: http://home.uchicago.edu/~decety/publications/Decety_CDPS06.pdf Empathy and lack of empathy has been studied in asperger's syndrome, autism, and more. Oh, and there are drugs that enhance the feeling of empathy and "love". How can that be "epi-supernatural-genetic" if chemistry is directly altering it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts