This is the day and time when all false things including religions will perish.

These nutjobs never cease to amaze me. So Christianity is to blame for the atrocities of their ideological soulmates like Mao Zedong and Stalin.

Read the thread properly before making false comments.
I have not said that. I didn't bring them into the topic. David bought them up in the hope of getting some sympathy for Christianity and in a way of attacking secularism because (in his deranged opinion) all secularists are atheists. I have not stated that Christianity is to blame for their atrocities. I have stated that, in the case of Stalin, Christianity was an influence in his life, just as it is with all of us who live in a Christian society, be they Christians or atheists. Accusations such as "Bastage says Stalin's period of training as a priest is to blame" are just sheer fabrications when anyone can read back through my words here and see that is not what I said - that I am talking about something much deeper here. But then, Christians do like to play the blame game - after all, the whole religion is based on it and shallowness seems to be a common trait in the avid worshipper.
If I were a real critic of Christianity, believe me, I would be able to argue very well that Christianity was responsible for Stalinist terror. But that is not the issue here, even though David would like it to come to the fore so he can hide behind the smoke-screen that would create.

It is only a "nutjob" who would deny the impact of religion on the mind of the human-being. The first time I debated with you, I believed you intelligent. The second, I believed you to be a total idiot. You're on the brink of the third now and teetering on the edge of moronic. If you've got a point, read the thread properly and see if you can pull yourself back from the edge by bringing something more than just the same mindless drivel that David has so far.


Incidentally: Go to the Wiki page for Mao and you will see that the first thing it says about him (as it does in nearly every single biography I've read about him) is that he came from a very devout Buddhist family. I will again deny the false accusation that you have made above and repeat the fact that I do not blame Buddhism for the atrocities carried out during Mao's rule, but again, to deny that religion had no influence on Mao's mental state, to deny that his upbringing in a devout household didn't make him who he was is just further denial of reality.

Bastage:

I have stated that, in the case of Stalin, Christianity was an influence in his life, just as it is with all of us who live in a Christian society, be they Christians or atheists. Accusations such as "Bastage says Stalin's period of training as a priest is to blame" are just sheer fabrications when anyone can read back through my words here and see that is not what I said - that I am talking about something much deeper here. But then, Christians do like to play the blame game - after all, the whole religion is based on it and shallowness seems to be a common trait in the avid worshipper.
If I were a real critic of Christianity, believe me, I would be able to argue very well that Christianity was responsible for Stalinist terror. But that is not the issue here, even though David would like it to come to the fore so he can hide behind the smoke-screen that would create.

This schmuck is an uncompromising idiot. Here is your initial quote.

Christian influence would have produced Stalin. I believe it was Buddhism that created Pol Pot.

True, human beings are partly the product of the varying influences that imparted on their lives of which religion is one. To assert that Buddhism created Pol Pot is the sort of statement that tells us more about the bovine brain of the speaker than the subject itself. It is simultaneously too simplistic and irrelevant. Simplistic, because it mentions only one of innumerable influences. Irrelevant because these characters were not known for their pursuit of religious ideals

Pot and Stalin were rabid anti-religionists. Had Stalin been an admirable pioneer, say the inventor of a HIV vaccine, you would have laughed off any Christian who claimed that Christianity would have produced Stalin.

David raised it in the context of causality for their atrocities. To respond with your dumb statement, and subsequently claim you weren't trying to attribute blame is first rate idiocy

Either you didn't read the topic properly or you're just an ignorant, arrogant, shallow-minded prick, do you know that 4-play?

My quote states that "Christian influence would have produced Stalin."

He lived in a Christian society. He trained to be a priest. He was a product of a Christian society. It is utterly unavoidable for anyone raised in that condition not to be affected. How would he not have been produced by Christian influence? It's impossible that he wasn't influenced. Utterly and totally impossible. All you see is the atheist who attacked your religion. You don't see the child who grew up walking the streets of a Christian city, playing with Christian friends, learning about life in a Christian society, going to a Christian school, training to be a Christian - living and fucking breathing Christianity. You are blind.

Simplistic, because it mentions only one of innumerable influences. Irrelevant because these characters were not known for their pursuit of religious ideals

If you weren't such a retarded dipshit, you would know that the vast majority of those "innumerable influences" are themselves influenced by the religion that has been adopted by the society concerned, both directly and indirectly. I can guarantee that the very hole in which you live wouldn't be there if it wasn't for religion.

Irrelevant because these characters were not known for their pursuit of religious ideals

You under-educated buffoon. They were known for their pursuit of and the destruction of religion in their societies. It had so much influence over them that they felt the need to destroy it. If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your wig off. Or do you normally just go out and destroy things that you have no care about? Do you persecute the meaningless? You're an illogical idiot.

Pot and Stalin were rabid anti-religionists. Had Stalin been an admirable pioneer, say the inventor of a HIV vaccine, you would have laughed off any Christian who claimed that Christianity would have produced Stalin.

You are a cretin. This is not about condemning Christianity. When someome dares so much as utter a sentence that you, in your world of blindfolded ignorance, don't understand, you automatically take it as a slight against your religion. And you wonder why secularists hate fundamentalists? It's because you do very good impressions of being mentally retarded. As for your statement that I would have laughed off a Christian inventor - you're nothing but an out and out liar. Let me point you to this:

I have to keep repeating myself, yet still I don't think you're going to understand.
EVERY negative is a result of religion. EVERY positive is a result of religion. Mankind was shaped by religion. When he creates negatives and positives, he does so as a result of his creation by religion.

David raised it in the context of causality for their atrocities. To respond with your dumb statement, and subsequently claim you weren't trying to attribute blame is first rate idiocy  .

Don't talk shit. I had told David innumerable times that this topic was not about Christianity but he insisted on adding it. My quote from the second page:

And do you need me to yet again remind you that you're burbling on with your defence of Christianity, even though I've pointed out ad infinitum that the subject under discussion here is general religion.


If being a dipshit was a professional job, you would be in the high-earner bracket. Go and sit in the "I'm a stupid idiot" corner with David.

Hehehe. Abeg bastage when is your church service jo. I hope say no tithe oh

As usual . . . expose their little minds and they go foaming in the mouth.

4 Play:

True, human beings are partly the product of the varying influences that imparted on their lives of which religion is one. To assert that Buddhism created Pol Pot is the sort of statement that tells us more about the bovine brain of the speaker than the subject itself. It is simultaneously too simplistic and irrelevant. Simplistic, because it mentions only one of innumerable influences. Irrelevant because these characters were not known for their pursuit of religious ideals

Pot and Stalin were rabid anti-religionists. Had Stalin been an admirable pioneer, say the inventor of a HIV vaccine, you would have laughed off any Christian who claimed that Christianity would have produced Stalin.

David raised it in the context of causality for their atrocities. To respond with your dumb statement, and subsequently claim you weren't trying to attribute blame is first rate idiocy

You really need to read some of the things they write to believe that such small mindedness still exists.

Either you didn't read the topic properly or you're just an ignorant, arrogant, shallow-minded prick, do you know that 4-play?
My quote states that "Christian influence would have produced Stalin."
He lived in a Christian society. He trained to be a priest. He was a product of a Christian society. It is utterly unavoidable for anyone raised in that condition not to be affected. How would he not have been produced by Christian influence? It's impossible that he wasn't influenced. Utterly and totally impossible. All you see is the atheist who attacked your religion. You don't see the child who grew up walking the streets of a Christian city, playing with Christian friends, learning about life in a Christian society, going to a Christian school, training to be a Christian - living and fucking breathing Christianity. You are blind.

The refuge of imbeciles is to construct a straw man's argument. The question has never been whether Stalin as a human being had some Christian influences but whether the murderous instincts of Stalin are a product of Christian influence or his rabid subscription to a particular secular philosophy. Even a puddenhead like you would admit it was the latter, however, you prefer to indulge in the inane wider issue of whether living among Christians might have some influence on you, what a knob.

If you weren't such a retarded dipshit, you would know that the vast majority of those "innumerable influences" are themselves influenced by the religion that has been adopted by the society concerned, both directly and indirectly. I can guarantee that the very hole in which you live wouldn't be there if it wasn't for religion.

Your hypocrisy verges on the imbecilic. This moronic pseudo-sociologist only trots out this line of argument when the subject is the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

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.

You under-educated buffoon. They were known for their pursuit of and the destruction of religion in their societies. It had so much influence over them that they felt the need to destroy it. If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your wig off. Or do you normally just go out and destroy things that you have no care about? Do you persecute the meaningless? You're an illogical idiot.

If the powers of comprehension elude you, one can only bemoan the unlettered vermin you are. Perhaps you reason in the vernacular, the ''pursuit of religious ideals'' is not the same as the persecution of religionists

Statement: Hitler is not known for the pursuit of Jewish ideals
Bastage: Wrong! Hitler was engaged in the pursuit of Jews

By the above illogic, a Bastage masterpiece, Jews/Judaism produced Hitler. Listen, you dunce, what is meant is that Stalin/Mao were uber secularists. Sure, as social creatures they are the products of society, however, their notoriety(which is the issue at hand) is not the product of religion but their particular brand of secularism. A nitwit like you might find this too hard to grasp.

You are a cretin. This is not about condemning Christianity. When someome dares so much as utter a sentence that you, in your world of blindfolded ignorance, don't understand, you automatically take it as a slight against your religion. And you wonder why secularists hate fundamentalists? It's because you do very good impressions of being mentally retarded. As for your statement that I would have laughed off a Christian inventor - you're nothing but an out and out liar. Let me point you to this:I have to keep repeating myself, yet still I don't think you're going to understand.EVERY negative is a result of religion. EVERY positive is a result of religion. Mankind was shaped by religion. When he creates negatives and positives, he does so as a result of his creation by religion.

Every negative/positive is a product of religion? I did mention that you share the religionists fanaticism as evident in your dilution of human behaviour to one explanatory factor:religion!

If every positive is a result of religion, then citing the proportion of Nobel laurettes who are atheists(as you once did) would be idiotic as their positive, their intellectual contributions, is as "a result of religion". It might be too much to expect some logical consistency from someone who is inebriated in idiocy.

Don't talk shit. I had told David innumerable times that this topic was not about Christianity but he insisted on adding it. My quote from the second page: And do you need me to yet again remind you that you're burbling on with your defence of Christianity, even though I've pointed out ad infinitum that the subject under discussion here is general religion.

You responded to a comment David made about the monsters called Stalin and Mao by glibly stating that they are products of certain religions. Would it be it too much to ask to admit that Mao and Stalin were also products of secularism, the philosophy which they propounded and enforced, instead of yapping with the self-assuredness of an slowpoke about the inevitable influence of religion.

What defined Stalin; Christianity or secularism?  Any person with at least half a brain will realise that his notoriety owes more to the latter.

4 Play:

Every negative/positive is a product of religion? I did mention that you share the religionists fanaticism as evident in your dilution of human behaviour to one explanatory factor:religion!

If every positive is a result of religion, then citing the proportion of Nobel laurettes who are atheists(as you once did) would be idiotic as their positive, their intellectual contributions, is as "a result of religion". It might be too much to expect some logical consistency from someone who is inebriated in idiocy.

Thank you for that succint point.

Its amazing that the very same Bastage and his cronies are the first to trot out the point that MOST scientists are athiests . . . aka they are more intelligent because of the lack of influence of christianity . . .

On which side of the fence does Bastage stand? It is the fault of religion when things go wrong and when they are positive we discard religion as an irrelevant factor?

davidylan:

Thank you for that succint point.

Its amazing that the very same Bastage and his cronies are the first to trot out the point that MOST scientists are athiests . . . aka they are more intelligent because of the lack of influence of christianity . .
On which side of the fence does Bastage stand? It is the fault of religion when things go wrong and when they are positive we discard religion as an irrelevant factor?

He has a different line of argument, usually incompatible with earlier arguments, for each topic. He was at pains to show the proportion of esteemed scientists who are atheists only to tell us that every positive is as a result of religion.

You would think these secular ''masters of the power of reason'' would have some cogency to their argument.

Bastage:

Don't talk shit. I had told David innumerable times that this topic was not about Christianity but he insisted on adding it. My quote from the second page:

Because we've seen through the hypocrisy of the likes of AC Grayling and you.

When they say secularists are at war with "religion", what they really mean is doing away with christianity. Why dont they ever pick on the muslims? I'm sure AC Grayling doesnt want to become another Salman Rushdie . . .

davidylan:

Because we've seen through the hypocrisy of the likes of AC Grayling and you. When they say secularists are at war with "religion", what they really mean is doing away with christianity. Why don't they ever pick on the muslims? I'm sure AC Grayling doesnt want to become another Salman Rushdie . . .

How many AC Graylings are in Egypt? The craven prefer to be ensconced in the relative safety of the so-called Christian societies of the West yapping endlessly about Christianity, with a few token comments about Islam to construct the facade of balance.

Strangely, this freedom of expression is denied believers by atheists in China, Cuba, N.Korea,e.t.c. Given the relative minority status of secularists compared to believers, it's amazing the tens of millions of lives lost to one form of secularist philosophy, enough to put Osama bin Laden to shame.

4 Play:

How many AC Graylings are in Egypt? The craven prefer to be ensconced in the relative safety of the so-called Christian societies of the West yapping endlessly about Christianity, with a few token comments about Islam to construct the facade of balance.

Strangely, this freedom of expression is denied believers by atheists in China, Cuba, N.Korea,e.t.c. Given the relative minority status of secularists compared to believers, it's amazing the tens of millions of lives lost to one form of secularist philosophy, enough to put Osama bin Laden to shame.

can't tell you how much i've argued this very point on a few secularist blogs on the Guardian.

Will Huxley now head back to Cameroun? Why are more secularists willing to move to christian societies than places like Russia or China? Surely secularist ideals must be better . . . so much "freedom" in North Korea.

@ Chris.

This is the sort of cretinism you learn to expect from the blind.

Statement: Hitler is not known for the pursuit of Jewish ideals
Bastage: Wrong! Hitler was engaged in the pursuit of Jews

By the above illogic, a Bastage masterpiece, Jews/Judaism produced Hitler.

If the mouth-breathing pond life had bothered reading what I have written in this thread he would have realised that I would claim that Judaism did not produce Hitler. It was an influence. Judaism influenced the outlook of Christianity, Christianity influenced views of Judaism. They played off each other. There is no escaping religious influence. Christian fundamentalists are loathe to admit it but they are influenced by Islam - they are reactive to it. Being reactive means that you have to have been influenced.




To deny that religion has not shaped society is the claim made by an idiot.
To deny that society does not shape the man who lives in it is the claim of a total idiot.
But why take my word for it?

The Pope talks about how religion has shaped US society:

From the dawn of the Republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation's founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature's God."

http://www.cleveland.com/religion/index.ssf/2008/04/remarks_by_pope_benedict_xvi_a.html

The claim of the fundamentalist is that there is a point where religion has no influence. They burble on about things like income and education. This is totally and utterly untrue. It has influence over everything:

Finance and Trade:
http://www.nber.org/digest/nov01/w8222.html

(incidentally the banking system we use today was introduced by the Knights Templar. The Pope's "storm-troopers" and the guardians of the Holy Land).

As for education? To claim that religion has no influence over education when for the vast majority of the period that it has been in existence it has been run by the clergy and the Church is a denial of fact. Even today, the major debate in the US is wether Creationism should be taught alongside Evolutionism.

Then we have the things that make a society a society. Often religion isn't just an influence but actually plays a large part in the creation of those things.

Religion has influenced things as diverse as Medicine:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/tsd/acquisitions/cdm/subjects92.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine

to Law:

http://www.ciltpp.com/cha_infl.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history

from Geology:

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2008AM/finalprogram/abstract_147075.htm

to Sex:

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=3680

from Industry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

to Leisure:

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1962/v19-1-article3.htm

The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on. . . . .

And let's not even get into politics. It's probably the biggest thing that has shaped our societies and probably the most influenced by religion.



To add to that we can look back to our ancestry which was smothered in religion. Fundamentalist idiots would have us believe that we, today, weren't shaped by our fathers and grandfathers who in turn weren't shaped by their fathers and grandfathers. They'll ignore direct influence and indirect influence if it has any negative bearing upon their religion.

Everything that man has created has been influenced by religion somewhere along the line. And everything that man creates influences him. It is unavoidable. Inescapable. Even atheists themselves are influenced by it. Otherwise why rebel? But the fundamentalist is a shallow creature. He can't see beyond his own nose and woe betide those who question his heartfelt but usually ignorant beliefs. Fundamentalists are a cancer on man-kind. They are a regression which would drag us all back to the Dark Ages if given half a chance. They discount Science and all human knowledge which is based on logic and reason in a frenzy to protect their belief - no matter what evidence is presented to them.

Notice how they're always claiming how important religion is yet when you point out just how utterly important it is, they downplay it's significance? It's laughable.

Is it any wonder that secularists balk at religion when they see examples like that?

If the mouth-breathing pond life had bothered reading what I have written in this thread he would have realised that I would claim that Judaism did not produce Hitler. It was an influence. Judaism influenced the outlook of Christianity, Christianity influenced views of Judaism. They played off each other. There is no escaping religious influence. Christian fundamentalists are loathe to admit it but they are influenced by Islam - they are reactive to it. Being reactive means that you have to have been influenced.

Firstly, this unlettered slowpoke astonishingly, after a second attempt, still doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase, ''pursuit of religious ideals''.

Let's try a 3rd attempt, hopefully this congenital oaf might comprehend.

Statement:Fidel Castro is not known for the pursuit of Hayekian ideals.
Bastage:Wrong! Castro pursued free-marketers

Perhaps, you think in the vernacular, which must explain why you think pursuit here pertains to the act of ''chasing after''.

Furthermore, you would not have claimed Judaism produced Hitler? Here is Bastage a few hours ago

Christian influence would have produced Stalin. I believe it was Buddhism that created Pol Pot. 

An astonishing example of the self-contradiction of the obscenely idiotic.

To deny that religion has not shaped society is the claim made by an idiot.
To deny that society does not shape the man who lives in it is the claim of a total idiot.
But why take my word for it?

Let me set you one simple task since you possess the visual capacity of Stevie Wonder: Please find where I have expressed the above; that religion does not shape society nor does society shape man.

This gratuitiously mendacious oaf constructs straw man arguments and proceeds in a long unhinged rant about how society is shaped by religion.

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

Please find where I have expressed the above; that religion does not shape society nor does society shape man.

LMAO!!!!

"And the award for the Most Blatant Contradictory Back Pedal goes to. . . . . . . . . 4Play!!!!!!!!!!!"

Bastage:

LMAO!!!!"And the award for the Most Blatant Contradictory Back Pedal goes to. . . . . . . . . 4Play!!!!!!!!!!!"

You would think that if you set a simple task, even for this retard, he would glady set upon the task. Let me repeat it so this unhinged swine can see: Please find where I have expressed the above; that religion does not shape society nor does society shape man.

Here was me a few hours ago:

Sure, as social creatures they are the products of society, however, their notoriety(which is the issue at hand) is not the product of religion but their particular brand of secularism.

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

Fool. I never dodge an idiotic claim.

Our genetic make-up is influenced by religion. Tribes adopted religions. They grew stronger and usurped the less well organised. Their genes spread. Why do you think the stereo-type of the Jew with the hook nose exists. Don't Muslims marry other Muslims? Do Christians normally marry Muslims? Doesn't that have an influence on genetic make-up?


LOL. I laugh in your religion created face.

Bastage:
Fool. I never dodge an idiotic claim.
Our genetic make-up is influenced by religion. Tribes adopted religions. They grew stronger and usurped the less well organised. Their genes spread. Why do you think the stereo-type of the Jew with the hook nose exists. Don't Muslims marry other Muslims? Do Christians normally marry Muslims? Doesn't that have an influence on genetic make-up?


LOL. I laugh in your religion created face.

Look at this absurd attempt to defend the obtuse suggestion that our genes is the product of religion.

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

Has this craven liar finished the very simple task I set him

Bastage:

Fool. I never dodge an idiotic claim.

[size=14pt]Our genetic make-up is influenced by religion.[/size] Tribes adopted religions. They grew stronger and usurped the less well organised. Their genes spread. Why do you think the stereo-type of the Jew with the hook nose exists. Don't Muslims marry other Muslims? Do Christians normally marry Muslims? Doesn't that have an influence on genetic make-up?

Ol' boy stop disgracing science here. 
Na today i hear this one for the first time. So the sickle cell patient was influenced by his religion? Oh hell no! How do we get rid of religion?

Bastage . . . you have Bastadised your claim to literacy.

davidylan:

Bastage . . . you have Bastadised your claim to literacy.

Never have I witnessed on NL, perhaps since the 'demise' of Denex, such a full frontal assault on common sense. He contradicts himself within minutes while adopting the garb of a pseudo-sociologist and scientist.

Sure, as social creatures they are the products of society, however, their notoriety(which is the issue at hand) is not the product of religion but their particular brand of secularism.

Dipshit. Secularism is a reaction caused by religion. There would be no secularism if there was no religion. Simply because the concept wouldn't need to exist. Secularism is a by-product of religion. Ergo if they were created by secularism, they were created by the influence of religion.
I wouldn't expect a shallow idiot like you to be able to see that, but then I have learnt not to have very high expectations of you so I won't be too suprised if you come back with yet more illogical gibberish. You simply don't understand the concept of how big religion is, yet you're dumb enough to put all of your faith into something you do not understand.


Keep digging your holes. You must have quite a collection by now.

Do Muslims have a unique genetic make up?

LOL. What a cock. Every single person on this planet has a unique genetic make-up - only identical twins don't differ.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/genetics-conversion-catholicism-spain-religion


"An international team of scientists has uncovered striking evidence that mass conversions to Catholicism by Sephardic Jews and Muslims took place in the 15th and 16th centuries in Spain and Portugal. The research was carried out by a team led by Professor Mark Jobling of Leicester University and Francesc Calafell of the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. They found that 20 per cent of men in Spain and Portugal today still have distinctive Sephardic Jewish ancestry while 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors."

Religion had an influence on genetics here. One ethnic group was assimilated into another. Hmmm. This happened 500 years ago. I wonder how many kids now carry those genes due to those religious conversions?
Or are you going to deny reality again?


David. I would answer your points but please. I only feel the need to address one idiot at a time.

Bastage:

LOL. What a cock. Every single person on this planet has a unique genetic make-up - only identical twins don't differ.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/genetics-conversion-catholicism-spain-religion


"An international team of scientists has uncovered striking evidence that mass conversions to Catholicism by Sephardic Jews and Muslims took place in the 15th and 16th centuries in Spain and Portugal. The research was carried out by a team led by Professor Mark Jobling of Leicester University and Francesc Calafell of the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. They found that 20 per cent of men in Spain and Portugal today still have distinctive Sephardic Jewish ancestry while 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors."

Religion had an influence on genetics here. One ethnic group was assimilated into another. Hmmm. This happened 500 years ago. I wonder how many kids now carry those genes due to those religious conversions?
Or are you going to deny reality again?


David. I would answer your points but please. I only feel the need to address one idiot at a time.

Read your own article again . . . RACE NOT RELIGION is the defining characteristics that was used in that study.

Again do muslims have a unique genetic make up? NO because the DNA of an ARAB is distinctly different from that of an Ijebu muslim.

the DNA of a jew defines him not according to his religion but according to his race.

The article is essentially saying in layman language . . . 20% of Spanish and Portuguese men have Jewish ancestry . . . it then goes on to describe how that could have happened. i.e. thousands of Jews must have converted to catholicism and then assimilated into the native population.

Nowhere in the article is it canvassing a unique DNA marker determined by religion.

Bastage, considering you call us idiots . . . this is the worst rape of science i have ever been priviledged to see on NL.

That religion defines DNA? Even a high school student would laugh at you.

RACE NOT RELIGION is the defining characteristics that was used in that study.

Come now. You are really clutching at straws. Race was only used as the medium to gauge the results.
The fact remains that an ethnic group was converted and the indigenous population absorbed their genes.
Religion was an influence on genetics.


Before anyone quotes this:

only identical twins don't differ.

I know I made a mistake. I've already altered it. We're all guilty of typing faux pas now and again though.

Bastage:

Dipshit. Secularism is a reaction caused by religion. There would be no secularism if there was no religion. Simply because the concept wouldn't need to exist. Secularism is a by-product of religion. Ergo if they were created by secularism, they were created by the influence of religion.
I wouldn't expect a shallow idiot like you to be able to see that, but then I have learnt not to have very high expectations of you so I won't be too suprised if you come back with yet more illogical gibberish. You simply don't understand the concept of how big religion is, yet you're dumb enough to put all of your faith into something you do not understand.

Let's see how this swine's logic works using an analogy

Statement: I attribute  Thatcher's economic principles to monetarism, not Keynesianism
Bastage: Wrong: Monetarism is a reaction to Keynesianism, so Thatcher's economic principles were a product Keynesian economics.

Only a first-grade slowpoke will purport to repudiate the assertion that Stalin's beliefs were guided by secularism by stating that secularism was in reaction to religion.

LOL. What a cock. Every single person on this planet has a unique genetic make-up - only identical twins don't differ.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/genetics-conversion-catholicism-spain-religion

The evidence of a unique Muslim gene is a copy and paste job about Spain's Moorish ancestors? Are you possessed by a retarded ghost?

Bastage:

Come now. You are really clutching at straws. Race was only used as the medium to gauge the results.
The fact remains that an ethnic group was converted and the indigenous population absorbed their genes.
Religion was an influence on genetics.

Bastage . . . do you know what DNA is? Do you work with it?

Maybe maybe not but i do and can tell you there is NO evidence that religion plays a role in defining genetic make-up of an individual.
The reason i know your warped explanation holds no water is because genetic profiling is actively used here in the US to fight crime. By comparing certain genetic markers in a DNA profile, you can to a certain extent determine the ethnicity of an individual down to his ancestral lineage.

That is what the paper was trying to say . . . so enough with your bullshit like you know what u're talking about. They were talking about racial identity using DNA as a marker.

Where is religion shown to be an influence on genes?

Sheesh . . . the number of idiots who spam this forum who think that by typing long english they can prove smart is alarming.

What school did you attend? Collect your school fees because they did a bad job.

Your analogies suck.

Let me give you a proper one.

An invading Muslim is forced to convert to Christianity.
He breeds with other Christians (something he certainly wouldn't have done before conversion).
His genes are added to the local gene pool.
The gene pool is therefore altered.
Religion has created a situation where the gene pool has been altered.

Oh hang on. That's not an analogy. That's what actually happened!!!

The evidence of a unique Muslim gene is a copy and paste job about Spain's Moorish ancestors? Are you possessed by a retarded ghost?

I've shown that religion has had an influence on genetics. It wasn't even a big issue on the topic but you tried to use it as a whipping boy and got caned yourself. Belittle it all you like as a "cut and paste job" but the article proves it beyond a doubt 100%.

Next!!!!

Bastage:

Your analogies suck.Let me give you a proper one.A Muslim is forced to convert to Christianity.
He breeds with other Christians (something he certainly wouldn't have done before conversion).
His genes are added to the local gene pool.
The gene pool is therefore altered.
Religion has created a situation where the gene pool has been altered.

Oh hang on. That's not an analogy. That's what actually happened!!!I've shown that religion has had an influence on genetics. It wasn't even a big issue on the topic but you tried to use it as a whipping boy and got caned yourself. Belittle it all you like as a "cut and paste job" but the article proves it beyond a doubt 100%.ext!!!!

Things you don't grasp suck, like logical consistency. Is this supposed to be a repudiation of the first point, that Stalin's beliefs were secularist, because it's obviously not. Your doltishness is plumbing new depths.

As for your own mangled analogy. It is undermined by one crucial question: is there a unique Muslim gene ab initio that eventually gets ''added to the local gene pool''? As an unrepentant dolt, you have chosen to assume the premise as proven.

Bastage:

Come now. You are really clutching at straws. Race was only used as the medium to gauge the results.
The fact remains that an ethnic group was converted and the indigenous population absorbed their genes.
Religion was an influence on genetics.


Before anyone quotes this:

I know I made a mistake. I've already altered it. We're all guilty of typing faux pas now and again though.

WOW.  The first I have heard this.   What is the mechanism by which religion might have an influence on genetic?   It cannot certainly be directly, can it?

I know there are some scholars who think that religion should be considered as a natural phenonemon.  Or rather belief in god should be considered a natural phenonomenon, and as such subject to the same mechanism of evolution and dispersal as other biological artifacts.  Daniel Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell" goes into a lot of details about this approach.  In this regard, religion and beliefs are simply treated as memes.

If you say religions influences genetics, you most be capable of providing a plausible mechanism by which that might be true.  Any other sociological factors that determines who people segregate into tribes, countries, etc could equally be claimed to influence genetics, which I find very doubtful.

Bastage:

Your analogies suck.

Let me give you a proper one.

An invading Muslim is forced to convert to Christianity.
He breeds with other Christians (something he certainly wouldn't have done before conversion).
His genes are added to the local gene pool.
The gene pool is therefore altered.
Religion has created a situation where the gene pool has been altered.

Oh hang on. That's not an analogy. That's what actually happened!!!

woolhead . . . here is a summary from the article itself which you would do well to read instead of just copying from Guardian. . .

To address this issue, we analyzed Y chromosome haplotypes, which provide the necessary phylogeographic resolution, in 1140 males from the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands. Admixture analysis based on binary and Y-STR haplotypes indicates a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%) and Sephardic Jewish (19.8%) sources. Despite alternative possible sources for[b] lineages ascribed a Sephardic Jewish origin[/b], these proportions attest to a high level of religious conversion (whether voluntary or enforced), driven by historical episodes of social and religious intolerance, that ultimately led to the integration of descendants. In agreement with the historical record, analysis of haplotype sharing and diversity within specific haplogroups suggests that the Sephardic Jewish component is the more ancient. The geographical distribution of North African ancestry in the peninsula does not reflect the initial colonization and subsequent withdrawal and is likely to result from later enforced population movement—more marked in some regions than in others—plus the effects of genetic drift.

What is immediately apparent in the article is that the authors are NOT discussing the influence of religion on the genes but rather trying to provide a rational for why they see such a high frequency of genetic markers from sephardic jews among Spanish males.

It is their theory that quite a number of sephardic jews from the 16th century did not actually leave Spain but settled and inter-married with the natives. Since Spain itself does not have such a large and distinct jewish people and culture . . . the authors assume those Jews who stayed behind must have converted to catholicism to avoid discrimination and remain within the Spanish population.

It is absurd how many idiots come here breathing fire and brimsone YET never bother to go back and read the articles they try to use to pull the wool over our eyes.

@Davidylan

All Bastage has done, which is why his argument lacks cogency, is google muslim genes and cited the first article he came across. That he doesn't understand the full import of the article has no bearing in his stridence.

He makes it up as he goes along contradicting himself with wreckless abandon. Everything is as a result of religion indeed