₦airaland Forum

1. the study you highlighted yesterday (which of course you woolhead couldnt read) never said anything about the religious orientation of the Spanish men involved . . .

Then what is a conversion. You dickhead.
Let me remind you: "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.

2. I've said that religion has influenced genetics and I stick by it. - this makes no shred of sense. HOW has religion influenced genetics? Where is the scientific proof to justify your "i stick by it"?

Argue with The National Geographical Society and The Human Genome Project.
""Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

See the words there. "Humans spread religions"? "This has left marks on genetic records"? Dickhead.

As for Huxley's question? "Does this also mean that warfare has a direct impact/influence on genetics."
Direct impact no. Indirect impact yes. Influence yes. Warfare influenced the direct impact on the genetic change in this instance. Just as I have stated that religion has had an influence. Do you know what an influence is? It's the word I've used repeatedly in this thread. Hide behind as much shitty wordplay as you like.

the only thing those links "prove" is that you have a problem with complex reasoning. You just google "muslim, genetics" and post the very first article you see.

And that makes National Geographic irrelevant does it? Your ignorance in trying to belittle them makes you nothing but a prat. Let me post this again. I love it.

"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

Hmm let's look at that again. We can see the words "religion has left marks on genetic records". Of course, you would say that leaving a mark on the genetic code is not an "influence". What is it then dickhead? A mirage?

I answered and even used font size 28 to emphasize it in case you were also visually impaired.

The question wasn't aimed at you. You are irrelevant. As I've already stated, I expect nothing less from you than a denial of truth. You're too stupid to have the capacity to do the twisting and turning that 4-Play has displayed and like I said, you'd dive into a pile of dog-shit if someone told you it was Holy Water. You'd probably then tell anyone who told you you smell bad, that it's "God's Mark" and anyone who suggests it's dog-shit is mad.

Is it any wonder secularists don't want the influence of retards like you in their lives?

David's question:does religion define genetic make up; is merely asking you whether there are unique genetic make ups in relation to religion, whether Ethiopian Christians share a common genetic make up with Indian Christians.

We're back to the "Muslim gene" game again aren't we? Tell me just what the feck that has to do with the topic? I've never suggested for one moment that there are unique genetic make-ups. How many times do you want me to refute it before you'll stop asking the question? I know for a fact that Palestinians share a gene with Jews. They had a common bond before the former's conversion to Islam. So why the feck would I suggest otherwise? The question here is not wether or not there is some unique gene in relation to religion. The question is wether there is a genetic change present in a population that would not be present if religion had not had an influence. In the case of the Spaniards - no Muslim invasion, no chromosome. In the case of the Crusades, no Christian Invasion, no chromosome. Which part of that don't you understand?

Would you like to explain to me how a gene that is only present in a human-being's body due to religious influence (as in the cases I've posted above) has not defined the make-up of that person's genetics?

Does religion define your genetic make up?

In certain cases, it obviously has. The links below show chromosomes in people that would not have been present if it were not for religious influence. Certain chromosomes in Christian Spaniards would not be present if it wasn't for invasion based on Islamic ideals and certain chromosomes would not be present in Lebanese men if it wasn't for the Christian Crusades. I've said that religion has influenced genetics and I stick by it. I totally and utterly refute your accusation that I have stated that there is a "Muslim gene". Anyone can read through and see that I haven't. It's pretty logical to anyone that I haven't as you two dipshits would be copying and pasting my words instead of each other's.

As for proof? Here are the three links again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7316281.stm
Scientists have detected the faint genetic traces left by medieval crusaders in the Middle East.
The team says it found a particular DNA signature which recently appeared in Lebanon and is probably linked to the crusades.
Details of the research have been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
The researchers found that some Christian men in Lebanon carry a DNA signature hailing from Western Europe.

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."


http://spittoon.23andme.com/2008/04/22/historical-genetics-researchers-find-traces-of-crusades-spread-of-islam-in-lebanon/
"Generally, the DNA in a man’s Y-chromosome contains information about prehistoric migrations that happened many millennia in the past. But a recent study of men in Lebanon shows that genetics can be a reflection of more recent events as well.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/globe.html
"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

Is a person born to religious parents genetically religious? Proof please.

Utterly irrelevant. I have never suggested so.

Now, I've answered your question and given the proof. How about answering mine?

Has religion influenced genes?

I'm not interested in any drivel you may have about the links. All I'm interested in is the answer.

Now answer the question I put to you.

LOL. Is that the best you got?

It's not even my quote!!! But the fact that you've tried to use it against me shows just how much you guys piss into the wind to avoid reason.

Show me where I stated that.

I work with genes

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

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?

Has religion influenced genes?

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

Fourth time of asking.

Has religion influenced genes?

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

SANCTION is mainly from US/UK and they bully others to follow like German govt telling the printing company not to do business. Where is the FREE TRADE??

I'll ask you again.
What sanctions and how do they affect the people of Zimbabwe?
You assert that there are oil sanctions. Please post the evidence.

Has religion influenced genes?

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

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.

Are you happy with this? Let me know if this satisfies your question?

I think Ma'at is a great concept and thanks for giving me your view on it. I will stick to my guns and call it a concept though as I look at everything in life as only a shadow. Until I personally know something for a fact, it is always a concept to me.

I take it from your explanation that you believe that you will be judged by Ma'at?
You speak of the "Wisdom of Solomon" as being female. Have you heard of the Greek concept of Sophia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)

Kuns has some very good points.
The comparisons between Christianity and Egyptian mythology are so numerous it's breath-taking.

OK. Maybe I don't believe in his theory about spacemen and I'm not in agreement with his ideas about the "New Age" Egyptian religion that he seems to be a hard-core fan of (obviously he would argue that it is actually more ancient than Christianity and Judaism but I use New Age merely to express it's resurgence) but to suggest he has nothing to input is ridiculous. People who study Egyptology and Egyptian religions tend to look at a lot of historical data as well as scriptural influence, whereas most Christians only look at the scripture.

Some Christians here display the age old ignorance of just dismissing out of hand something that they don't understand.

Bro. This thread is two years old. Did you really have to resurrect it from the dead to tell everyone you're a Satanist when you've already posted about it elsewhere? Who do you think you are? Jesus?

Like I told you elsewhere, believe what you want. But drop this "Higher power" crap. Everything you know about Satan is based upon The New Testament. In it's pages, Satan is nothing but a fallen angel. He has no power. God owns him. He's God's bitch. If you base your beliefs on the Biblical Satan, you're always going to be stuck worshipping second best.

Sure go ahead and worship Satan. But realise that compared to the god of the Christians, he's just small fry. I honestly think you haven't thought this through. If you want to study what I would call real Satanism, go look up the works of LaVey or maybe Crowley. At least they based their philosophy on more than a load of illogical mumbo-jumbo stolen from Christianity.

I'm not even a hard-core Christian. Like, I said: believe what you want. But at least have the intelligence to work out why you believe and what you're believing in. Otherwise you're absolutely no different from a regular religious fundamentalist.

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.

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.  

Read it and weep.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/globe.html

"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

The crusades could be a strong possibility for the presence of Western European markers.

And in the next breath.

This has NOTHING to do with religion

I told you that they'd even try to deny that the Crusades had anything to do with religion.


Merry Sol Invicta Day guys!!!!

The reason they know that there were conversions was because of the similarity of genetic make-up between the anscestors of the converted and the Moors.

The article states such? Surprise me, show me where this dumb claim was made in the article.

How blatant do you want the evidence to be?

"Their decision to do so is revealed through the genetic make-up of modern Spanish Catholic men who were often unaware of their ancestry. . . 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors. In addition, the scientists characterised the Y chromosomes of the Arab and Berber army that invaded Spain in AD 711 from data on people living in Morocco and the Western Sahara."

Now unless those "Moorish ancestors" were also "Spanish Catholic men". Unless they were Muslims and Christians at the same time, I'd say that there had to be conversions somewhere along the line, wouldn't you?

And another:

http://spittoon.23andme.com/2008/04/22/historical-genetics-researchers-find-traces-of-crusades-spread-of-islam-in-lebanon/

"Generally, the DNA in a man’s Y-chromosome contains information about prehistoric migrations that happened many millennia in the past. But a recent study of men in Lebanon shows that genetics can be a reflection of more recent events as well.

A paper published in the April issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics shows that two major events in the history of religion – the spread of Islam and the Crusades – have left their mark on Lebanon’s male population."

The stupid copy and paste job didn't establish the existence of a Muslim gene, or any other religious gene. You would think supercillious atheists will be able to inteprete science.

Dear 4-Play. Quite simply, you defy logic.

But have this one too:


Scientists have detected the faint genetic traces left by medieval crusaders in the Middle East.
The team says it found a particular DNA signature which recently appeared in Lebanon and is probably linked to the crusades.
Details of the research have been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
The researchers found that some Christian men in Lebanon carry a DNA signature hailing from Western Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7316281.stm

Of course, you can say that this has nothing to do with religion either. After all the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity did they?
You can also belittle this one as it was the first I got when I Googled "crusades+genetics".

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.

LMAO. You were the idiot that decided to use genetics to prove your untenable position. I've merely replied to the false statements you've made to create a smokescreen. Let me remind you:

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

You can hardly accuse me of illogical consistency when it was you who pursued the subject. Don't come crying back to me just because it's bitten you in the ass.

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.

Read the article again. The reason they know that there were conversions was because of the similarity of genetic make-up between the anscestors of the converted and the Moors. There is a genetic similarity that would not exist if there had been no conversions to religion. They would not be able to get a result if there was not a genetic marker. Which part of that don't you understand?

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. In addition, the scientists characterised the Y chromosomes of the Arab and Berber army that invaded Spain in AD 711 from data on people living in Morocco and the Western Sahara.

I guess you're doubly screwed. Not only is the chromosome present in modern day Spain because of religious conversion but it made it's original appearance on the back of a religious crusade.

Of course, according to you, that is not evidence of religious influence.

If you google "religion genes" his article is EXACTLY the first one you come across!

LOL. Then I guess you can't accuse me of using material that is not known to the mainstream. Are we meant to assert from your childish outburst that it's any less pertinent because it features at the top of Google?

As for your claims about Seraphic Jews you've emboldened "enforced population movement" without seeing the irony that you're trying to use it in your argument. You also totally ignore the fact that Jews and Christians didn't intermarry. But anyway, you were asking specifically about Muslims so I concentrated on them. How do you excuse the fact that they are present in the gene pool? They settled there? Is that all you can come up with. Of course they settled there you fool!!! They settled there as a result of religion and they converted as a result of religion. Their genes are now present in the Christian population. Or are you going to tell me that, just as with the Jews, interfaith marriages were the norm?

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!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!"

There are no oil sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe.

If there are, would you like to show me a source on the internet that says otherwise?

Put up or shut up, mugu.

@ 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?

Tayo-D.

Are you sure there's no-one out there who Obama could use who isn't a little bit more lower-key? Surely there is?

You know, I had a cynical thought. When I wrote my post, I saw the situation as being divisive. But is there the possibility that it's actually the opposite and that by the picking of a "conservative" minister, Obama might be trying to bring the Christian right wing electorate on board?

Politicians don't make a move without looking for political capital out of that move. Even with something like this. Do you see an ulterior motive?

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.