Christianity isn't real 194 replies

Please wait...

Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#171 11 years ago

Sedistix;4785822No this is a thread about how christiantiy isn't real. Can you rebut it or not? [/quote]

Yet the line of discussion was regarding the theory of a gene that promotes religious thinking.

[quote=Sedistix;4785822] No need to accuse in the light of reality.

Well you and I see a very different reality.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#172 11 years ago

Ah yes the one unpublished, unreplicated study. Go on.




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#173 11 years ago
Sedistix;4785854Ah yes the one unpublished, unreplicated study. Go on.

I was referring to the point where you claimed it to be a "desperate" study. Yet I don't see how it is any more "desperate" than any other study out there.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#174 11 years ago

So you concede to the homosexual gene too?




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#175 11 years ago

I am not saying I believe either gene exists or not. I am asking for you to tell my why you believe the theory regarding either such gene is a "desperate" study?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#176 11 years ago

I already said why. Its one study that was neither published nor replicated. You could go in your backyard and conduct some experiments and present whatever claims you like and be on the same level as the god gene.




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#177 11 years ago

With the same logic any "theory" is also desperate thinking.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#178 11 years ago

The same logic does not apply to published and or replicated studies. Are you intentionally presenting yourself as daft for the sake of humor? If so it's not working as you might have thought.




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#179 11 years ago
Sedistix;4785879The same logic does not apply to published and or replicated studies. Are you intentionally presenting yourself as daft for the sake of humor? If so it's not working as you might have thought.

You are claiming such a theory is desperate because it is unpublished/unreplicated, my point is how are all other new theories any different? They are not.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#180 11 years ago

That and the fact that most new theories don't involve superstitious deities either.