# Are Atheist genetically deficient?



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 25, 2015)

Scientifically speaking, do Atheist lack the VMAT2 gene?


----------



## Canis latrans (Oct 25, 2015)

No.

They know that the plural form of the word Atheist is atheists.   

And they have the ability to think for themselves, instead of blindly believing things without any reinforcing evidence that other people tell them.

I wouldn't call that "deficient".


----------



## welderguy (Oct 25, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Scientifically speaking, do Atheiest lack the VMAT2 gene?



There have been atheists that have had a work of grace performed in their heart by the Holy Spirit,and have become believers.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics or any other  part of the flesh.It is strictly a spiritual matter.


----------



## Canis latrans (Oct 25, 2015)

Oh, and this is a trolling thread, if there ever was one.

If a thread like this were started in the religious sub-forums, about religious people rather than Atheists, then the OP would promptly be banned.

But in this place, it's ok to call the non-religious "genetically deficient".  Go figure.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 25, 2015)

Canis latrans said:


> And they have the ability to think for themselves, instead of blindly believing things without any reinforcing evidence that other people tell them.


Classic.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2015)

VMAT2 the "Election" gene. Needed for the Holy Spirit to make his effectual calling. Predestined at the foundation to be born with this gene.
Does that mean one of your parents or grandparents would have to be of the Elect in order for you to be born with this gene?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Scientifically speaking, do Atheiest lack the VMAT2 gene?


No.
Because scientifically speaking the one thing that is missing from testing is scientific data.
Even Dean Hammer would say no to your question.
http://www.entheogens.com/godgene.html
"We think that all human beings have an innate capacity for spirituality and that that desire to reach out beyond oneself, which is at the heart of spirituality, is part of the human makeup," Hamer, 53, said in an interview at his Northwest Washington townhouse. "The research suggests some people have a bit more of that capacity than others, but it's present to some degree in everybody."
The rest of the article explains why your question is misleading.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 25, 2015)

When I saw the title I assumed this was trolling, then I googled vmat2 gene, and see kind-of where it's going.

I am more a believer in nurture than nature when it comes to personality/beliefs/behaviors until scientific discovery proves otherwise.  Or, I believe we are products of our environment, and our thought patterns become "hard-coded" as we grow and thought processes cement with age.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> When I saw the title I assumed this was trolling, then I googled vmat2 gene, and see kind-of where it's going.
> 
> I am more a believer in nurture than nature when it comes to personality/beliefs/behaviors until scientific discovery proves otherwise.  Or, I believe we are products of our environment, and our thought patterns become "hard-coded" as we grow and thought processes cement with age.



Thank you for researching the reference and being more open minded to discussion than the average Coyote. 

Every debate between the various factions here on GON always comes down to an Atheist using science to back what they feel is a plausible explanation for everything. Thus when I found out about tge VMAT2 gene the question had to be asked.

Oh, and for the spelling nazi's, I'm using my phone to post and occasionally the wrong tiny little key gets in the way.


----------



## Canis latrans (Oct 25, 2015)

No matter what kind of bait is used, trolling is still trolling.  

Somebody is a little testy today.

How does a spacebar key get in the way of an "s"?  That was an omission; not a typo.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Thank you for researching the reference and being more open minded to discussion than the average Coyote.
> 
> Every debate between the various factions here on GON always comes down to an Atheist using science to back what they feel is a plausible explanation for everything. Thus when I found out about tge VMAT2 gene the question had to be asked.
> 
> Oh, and for the spelling nazi's, I'm using my phone to post and occasionally the wrong tiny little key gets in the way.


Have you actually researched what Science says about the VMAT2 or have you just read about the VMAT2 and assume the testing and data is complete and correct?


----------



## Israel (Oct 25, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Classic.



^^^^that^^^^


----------



## Israel (Oct 25, 2015)

It's a new game that only goes back to the beginning.

Deficiency deficiency...who's got the deficiency?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 25, 2015)

Canis latrans said:


> No matter what kind of bait is used, trolling is still trolling.
> 
> Somebody is a little testy today.
> 
> How does a spacebar key get in the way of an "s"?  That was an omission; not a typo.



Do you have a comment on the subject matter or do you intend to troll your way through this entire thread with feeble attempts at derailing it?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Have you actually researched what Science says about the VMAT2 or have you just read about the VMAT2 and assume the testing and data is complete and correct?


I have read a couple of links on the subject and there do seem to be about as many pro on the existence of such a gene as there are cons from which to choose. 

I was hoping for more input and discussion on it other than from one source, since evidentiary science plays a large role in many debates on the various forums in this section of GON.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 26, 2015)

bullethead said:


> No.
> Because scientifically speaking the one thing that is missing from testing is scientific data.


In regards to it being a "God" gene I suppose "scientific data" would be impossible, since science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a "God" entity. 

In regards to the biological function of the VMAT2 gene, there is scientific data. 

http://www.fasebj.org/content/14/15/2459.full


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

I'm not certain why the assumption here is that missing this gene is a 'deficiency'. Is the insinuation that it is better to have this gene than to not? Why is it better to be pre-dispositioned to religious experience?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 26, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I'm not certain why the assumption here is that missing this gene is a 'deficiency'. Is the insinuation that it is better to have this gene than to not? Why is it better to be pre-dispositioned to religious experience?



The purpose of the gene goes far beyond anything "religious". At least that is what I am understanding from what I am reading. It has a biological function. Perhaps it isn't missing, but merely more suppressed in some than in others? If you have a better word than deficient we can gladly discuss the topic around that. 

Genes and genetic markers play an important role in identifying susceptibility to diseases, or resistance to the same. I have a friend that has recently completed a year of treatment and a double mastectomy due to cancer. Her fear was that her girls would be genetically predisposed to the same later in life. Testing proved that the markers for that fear were not present and they should not have to suffer the same.

Since genetic makeup controls biological susceptibility or resistance, and the brain is a chemically controlled bio-computer of sorts, can it not be argued that genetic makeup also controls the neurological side of the game as well, to the point of psychological predispositions?

Maybe it is the "religious" people that are deficient and lack the coping mechanisms necessary to go through life without creating an imaginary superior entity, I don't know, but that isn't how the topic has presented itself on TV (history channel) or in what I have read online thus far.


----------



## Israel (Oct 26, 2015)

Are we not all, in some most fundamental sense, seeking the why of man in his most naked state?
Man...whole.
Some argue..."you have added this "to man" and made him something he is not to be"...others may take the other side "you have abandoned this rudiment that is as much 'a part of man' and cannot be denied without actually abandoning what man truly is".

How does man get naked...free of all spurious inputs and false data...how does man "get back" to what he is...in order to know "who" he is? And ultimately in that...all and anything else that is...without the overlay of all the prejudices and dispositions developed over many lifetimes...lifetimes to which he either owes some allegiance...or should actually be free from...to know himself.
Who, or what...is the "whole" man?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The purpose of the gene goes far beyond anything "religious". At least that is what I am understanding from what I am reading. It has a biological function. Perhaps it isn't missing, but merely more suppressed in some than in others? If you have a better word than deficient we can gladly discuss the topic around that.



You may be right in that VMAT2 may have other purposes outside of its (not adequately tested from what I've read) influence on our receptiveness to spiritual experiences. My concern was that the word 'deficiency' was being used as a way to call non-religious people as 'deficiency' by proxy, which I strongly disagree with.



> Since genetic makeup controls biological susceptibility or resistance, and the brain is a chemically controlled bio-computer of sorts, can it not be argued that genetic makeup also controls the neurological side of the game as well, to the point of psychological predispositions?



I certainly agree with you that our genetic makeup plays a major role in our psychological predispositions. After all our physical and mental potentials are mostly determined by our genetics, and any given human (or living creature for that matter) is fundamentally the result of their genetic makeup. I think psychological predispositions pose quite a problem for religious folks though, because ultimately psychological predisposition due to their genetic makeup is pretty much equivalent to predestination.



> Maybe it is the "religious" people that are deficient and lack the coping mechanisms necessary to go through life without creating an imaginary superior entity, I don't know, but that isn't how the topic has presented itself on TV (history channel) or in what I have read online thus far.



I know some people who would probably take that interpretation, although I do not personally. However you have to consider our culture is largely Christian, so it isn't likely that any TV network or other profit-driven enterprise is going to launch such an attack on the majority of their viewership as to call them 'deficient' for their religious beliefs.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 26, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I think psychological predispositions pose quite a problem for religious folks though, because ultimately psychological predisposition due to their genetic makeup is pretty much equivalent to predestination.



The argument of predestination is as old as religion itself. I'm afraid I'll need clarification on this remark prior to replying or expanding on it further.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The argument of predestination is as old as religion itself. I'm afraid I'll need clarification on this remark prior to replying or expanding on it further.



I mean if we are psychologically predisposed toward believing or not believing in supernatural (unproven, but unfalsifiable) things based on our genetic makeup, if there is a 'God' who created us and judges us based on our belief or lack thereof, this 'God' has already chosen our fate because he created us with a predisposition one way or another, undermining the doctrine of free-will that some folks hold to. It's essentially the problem of evil: God cannot be simultaneously be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent because evil exists.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 26, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I mean if we are psychologically predisposed toward believing or not believing in supernatural (unproven, but unfalsifiable) things based on our genetic makeup, if there is a 'God' who created us and judges us based on our belief or lack thereof, this 'God' has already chosen our fate because he created us with a predisposition one way or another, undermining the doctrine of free-will that some folks hold to. It's essentially the problem of evil: God cannot be simultaneously be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent because evil exists.



That is a handful of topics in that one statement alone. All of them religious in nature and assuming there is a "God" entity to begin with. 

Is the take away that genetics cannot be discussed without interjecting an deity?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That is a handful of topics in that one statement alone. All of them religious in nature and assuming there is a "God" entity to begin with.
> 
> Is the take away that genetics cannot be discussed without interjecting an deity?



Indeed, I think it's safe to assume any discussion on the Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics forum has at least some bearing on religious beliefs. As a matter of fact I suspect the concepts I just mentioned are central to the reason this discussion is even occurring here instead of in a science section.

Of course genetics can be discussed without reference to any sort of deity.

If the science is all you are truly interested in. I will point out that there is very little scientific backing to the proposition that VMAT2 is directly related to religiosity. That finding has not been replicated by the larger scientific community, at least not at this juncture.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 26, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Indeed, I think it's safe to assume any discussion on the Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics forum has at least some bearing on religious beliefs. As a matter of fact I suspect the concepts I just mentioned are central to the reason this discussion is even occurring here instead of in a science section.
> 
> Of course genetics can be discussed without reference to any sort of deity.
> 
> If the science is all you are truly interested in. I will point out that there is very little scientific backing to the proposition that VMAT2 is directly related to religiosity. That finding has not been replicated by the larger scientific community, at least not at this juncture.



To be honest, I had no idea we had a "science" section. 

Regardless, I suspect the reaction would have been the same.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> To be honest, I had no idea we had a "science" section.
> 
> Regardless, I suspect the reaction would have been the same.



Huh.. maybe there isn't. I do see a Q&A forum for on-topic answers though. Maybe there should be a science section as well =D. You're probably right, if you bring up the 'God' Gene you're probably going to encounter people ready talk about it in relation to religion or non-religion.. especially on a subsection dedicated to the debate of exactly that =D.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 26, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Huh.. maybe there isn't. I do see a Q&A forum for on-topic answers though. Maybe there should be a science section as well =D. You're probably right, if you bring up the 'God' Gene you're probably going to encounter people ready talk about it in relation to religion or non-religion.. especially on a subsection dedicated to the debate of exactly that =D.



I guess it is a multi-faceted topic of potential contention regardless of where we go with it. The episode on the History Channel that I watched did manage to monitor levels of use, or hypothesized this at the very least, in the ability to boost ones immune system via an active VMAT2 gene, even to the point of fending off cancer vs. those with lesser active levels of the same gene. 

IF this can be substantiated then certainly the same controls over the monoamine neurotransmitters that control euphoria vs. depression and the capability of one to understand cognitive subjects vs. ones insistence to refute them as preposterous. 

The possibilities are limitless, and just another cog in the wheel of the "human condition" globally.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 26, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I guess it is a multi-faceted topic of potential contention regardless of where we go with it. The episode on the History Channel that I watched did manage to monitor levels of use, or hypothesized this at the very least, in the ability to boost ones immune system via an active VMAT2 gene, even to the point of fending off cancer vs. those with lesser active levels of the same gene.
> 
> IF this can be substantiated then certainly the same controls over the monoamine neurotransmitters that control euphoria vs. depression and the capability of one to understand cognitive subjects vs. ones insistence to refute them as preposterous.
> 
> The possibilities are limitless, and just another cog in the wheel of the "human condition" globally.




Do you remember the name of the show on the History channel?  I'd love to watch it.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 26, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I'm not certain why the assumption here is that missing this gene is a 'deficiency'. Is the insinuation that it is better to have this gene than to not? Why is it better to be pre-dispositioned to religious experience?



Maybe it's an evolutionary advancement?


----------



## 660griz (Oct 26, 2015)

Since we split from apes, humans have lost 40.7 million base pairs as we evolved. Mostly useless ones. Evolution can still be seen in our DNA. By the population explosion of atheist, looks like the God gene is on its way out.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

660griz said:


> Since we split from apes, humans have lost 40.7 million base pairs as we evolved. Mostly useless ones. Evolution can still be seen in our DNA. By the population explosion of atheist, looks like the God gene is on its way out.



Nah I highly doubt the rise of atheism is due to a decrease in the prevalence of the 'God Gene' even if it did have as big of an impact on the likelihood that a person is religious as the term 'God Gene' has led folks to believe.

In my opinion the single largest reason for the rise of atheism is how easily available information is now that the internet has become an everyday tool for most. Also as some point it will stop being such a social death sentence (at least here in the south) to identify as an atheist, and many people who have never been strongly religious but stick to the status-quo will start to identify as non-religious / atheist more freely.

There's a running joke in some atheist circles: "I don't care if you don't believe in God, just for heaven's sake don't become an atheist!"


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 26, 2015)

660griz said:


> Since we split from apes, humans have lost 40.7 million base pairs as we evolved. Mostly useless ones. Evolution can still be seen in our DNA. By the population explosion of atheist, looks like the God gene is on its way out.



I was really just kind not joking but it would seem that in the past folks needed faith to cope with the life they lived that was devoid of the knowledge base we have now in regards to science and such where they don't need it in the lives we love today. Information is available instantly almost 24/7 to even our poor. That's never happened in our history to this degree. Who needs 'faith' in something when you can have fact? Being religious would seem like something we'd outgrow as a species, who knows tho? 

 The population explosion of Athiests could be attributed to the religious not being allowed to openly kill us anymore like they did when they ran things. Eeeeyyuuup 



MiGGeLLo said:


> Nah I highly doubt the rise of atheism is due to a decrease in the prevalence of the 'God Gene' even if it did have as big of an impact on the likelihood that a person is religious as the term 'God Gene' has led folks to believe.
> 
> In my opinion the single largest reason for the rise of atheism is how easily available information is now that the internet has become an everyday tool for most. Also as some point it will stop being such a social death sentence (at least here in the south) to identify as an atheist, and many people who have never been strongly religious but stick to the status-quo will start to identify as non-religious / atheist more freely.
> 
> There's a running joke in some atheist circles: "I don't care if you don't believe in God, just for heaven's sake don't become an atheist!"



I agree. 

I would imagine if this progression continues it will some day be socially unacceptable to be religious.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 27, 2015)

There was supposed to be a smiley at the end of post 30. It didn't show. Stupid proxy. 

Never mind. It showed when I bypassed the proxy.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

660griz said:


> Since we split from apes, humans have lost 40.7 million base pairs as we evolved. Mostly useless ones. Evolution can still be seen in our DNA. By the population explosion of atheist, looks like the God gene is on its way out.



Some have yet to split that far from the apes.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Some have yet to split that far from the apes.



I could interpret that response in a couple ways:

1) Yea. They usually have the most gods.

OR

2) You and marketgunner should get a room.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

660griz said:


> I could interpret that response in a couple ways:
> 
> 1) Yea. They usually have the most gods.
> 
> ...



Or, there are idiots on all sides of the playing field, always have been, always will be. 

You must learn to expand your thinking and the possibilities.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> You must learn to expand your thinking and the possibilities.



I am expanding. I am the atheist remember? I questioned my indoctrination into the religious world. 
I thought outside of the box.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

660griz said:


> I am expanding. I am the atheist remember? I questioned my indoctrination into the religious world.
> I thought outside of the box.



That is an assumption that it never happens the other way around. 

That is not expanded thinking. In nautical terms that is a sharp list due to over loading or flooding on one side of the vessel.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That is an assumption that it never happens the other way around.
> 
> That is not expanded thinking. In nautical terms that is a sharp list due to over loading or flooding on one side of the vessel.



No assumptions. Facts. It is only labeled an assumption by folks that are locked into one way of thinking. 

Since I will not assume your religious affiliation or non-affiliation, I will end my response at that.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

660griz said:


> No assumptions. Facts. It is only labeled an assumption by folks that are locked into one way of thinking.
> 
> Since I will not assume your religious affiliation or non-affiliation, I will end my response at that.



So you are claiming that only religious people convert to Atheism and it never happens the other way around?


----------



## 660griz (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So you are claiming that only religious people convert to Atheism and it never happens the other way around?



Nope. 
I am claiming folks that expand their minds become atheist...eventually. 
People do revert. Folks often switch religions too.
Some folks are off drugs for years, and then fall off the wagon. Some folks can't handle reality very well.

Also, you specifically said, "You need to expand.." I explained that I was expanding. 
Then, you proceeded to imply I made a blanket statement that atheist never go back to religion. I was just talking intitially about me since that was your direction.

Really trying to stay focused here.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

660griz said:


> Nope.
> I am claiming folks that expand their minds become atheist...eventually.
> People do revert. Folks often switch religions too.
> Some folks are off drugs for years, and then fall off the wagon. Some folks can't handle reality very well.



See, that is a list in the efficiency of a vessel. I don't consider anyone, regardless of which direction they go to be more or less expanded in their thinking. In fact, to go from one to the other could be considered expanding your thinking, moving outside of your comfort zone, etc. regardless of which way you are going.

To suggest otherwise is prejudiced thinking, and against everything my Atheist friends have taught me they are about.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> See, that is a list in the efficiency of a vessel. I don't consider anyone, regardless of which direction they go to be more or less expanded in their thinking. In fact, to go from one to the other could be considered expanding your thinking, moving outside of your comfort zone, etc. regardless of which way you are going.
> 
> To suggest otherwise is prejudiced thinking, and against everything my Atheist friends have taught me they are about.



I am claiming folks that expand their minds become atheist...eventually.

If you keep expanding, there is one inevitable conclusion.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

660griz said:


> I am claiming folks that expand their minds become atheist...eventually.



And there in-lies the prejudice.

But to the point of the topic, are you saying they have the VMAT2 gene, but did not use it to it's full potential?


----------



## 660griz (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> See, that is a list in the efficiency of a vessel. I don't consider anyone, regardless of which direction they go to be more or less expanded in their thinking.



So, why did you suggest I expand my thinking? Prejudicial?


----------



## 660griz (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> And there in-lies the prejudice.
> 
> But to the point of the topic, are you saying they have the VMAT2 gene, but did not use it to it's full potential?



Prejudice? Now that is heee-larious. I call it an observation.

They probably don't have it or don't use it. 
If you don't have it, and are born in a Baptist home in the deep south, you are going to believe in God.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

660griz said:


> Prejudice? Now that is heee-larious. I call it an observation.
> 
> They probably don't have it or don't use it.
> If you don't have it, and are born in a Baptist home in the deep south, you are going to believe in God.



Ahhhh, now it's a Southern disease.......got it.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So you are claiming that only religious people convert to Atheism and it never happens the other way around?



As an aside, there are numerous Biblical claims about the physical world that science has disproven but there are no examples of the opposite.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Ahhhh, now it's a Southern disease.......got it.



You live in the South right? Are you claiming religion isn't extremely prevalent around these parts? I was raised in a baptist home, just about everyone I know around here was raised in some christian denomination or another. At least in my life it's pretty ubiquitous.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> As an aside, there are numerous Biblical claims about the physical world that science has disproven but there are no examples of the opposite.



Especially that butter, eggs and whole milk are bad for us. Scientist determined this decades ago.

Oh wait!!! They've recently decided maybe they were wrong. Evidence is there, if you only search with an open mind, and not to fit an agenda.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Especially that butter, eggs and whole milk are bad for us. Scientist determined this decades ago.
> 
> Oh wait!!! They've recently decided maybe they were wrong. Evidence is there, if you only search with an open mind, and not to fit an agenda.



There's one major difference:

 Science changes its mind about previous conclusions in light of new evidence, changing faulty conclusions is a good thing. 

Religions (or the original authors of their holy books at least) reach bad conclusions and then adherents of the religion figure out how to make those conclusions somehow correct if you look at it through some twisted up lens full of logical leaps and fallacies. And that's if we're lucky, if we're not lucky they have enough power to simply call people who challenge their beliefs heretics and have them exiled or worse.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> There's one major difference:
> 
> Science changes its mind about previous conclusions in light of new evidence, changing faulty conclusions is a good thing.
> 
> Religions (or the original authors of their holy books at least) reach bad conclusions and then adherents of the religion figure out how to make those conclusions somehow correct if you look at it through some twisted up lens full of logical leaps and fallacies. And that's if we're lucky, if we're not lucky they have enough power to simply call people who challenge their beliefs heretics and have them exiled or worse.



Not to stray too far off topic here, but are you claiming that Christianity hasn't changed since it's inception?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Not to stray too far off topic here, but are you claiming that Christianity hasn't changed since it's inception?



Nope, only that it hasn't introduced any new evidence in 2000 years, and that the evidence it has doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Nope, only that it hasn't introduced any new evidence in 2000 years, and that the evidence they have doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



The earth is still round, the earth still revolves around the sun. What do you want? Nothing within their religion requires them to produce "evidence" of God's existence just like I never press my Atheist friends to produce evidence that he doesn't exist. It's not their job.

Do you believe the VMAT2 gene exist in some people but not in others, or that it is active in some and not in others?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The earth is still round, the earth still revolves around the sun. What do you want? Nothing within their religion requires them to produce "evidence" of God's existence just like I never press my Atheist friends to produce evidence that he doesn't exist. It's not their job.
> 
> Do you believe the VMAT2 gene exist in some people but not in others, or that it is active in some and not in others?



Yet here is a sub-forum dedicated to that very thing albeit almost entirely philosophical and logical argument.

It's not my "job" to try to disprove gods or ghosts to friends, family or people I meet but if a discussion turns to either, I try to present good evidence to support my beliefs.

In the same way that some people are predisposed to intelligence or even perhaps sensitivity and empathy based on their physiology, I can see how the VMAT2 could directly correlate to "(2) the underlying tendency to spirituality" but the claim that "spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level." --  From Wiki,  is questionable.

Over sensitivity or under sensitivity may not be good things.  And in a normative state, spirituality might be found in mundane experience with no need for religious histrionics.  There are some good books available that explain how one can lead a rich moral and spiritual life without the need for the supernatural.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Yet here is a sub-forum dedicated to that very thing albeit almost entirely philosophical and logical argument.
> 
> It's not my "job" to try to disprove gods or ghosts to friends, family or people I meet but if a discussion turns to either, I try to present good evidence to support my beliefs.



Well good for you, however this topic has nothing to do with proving or disproving either, so how did we get here?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The earth is still round, the earth still revolves around the sun. What do you want? Nothing within their religion requires them to produce "evidence" of God's existence just like I never press my Atheist friends to produce evidence that he doesn't exist. It's not their job.
> 
> Do you believe the VMAT2 gene exist in some people but not in others, or that it is active in some and not in others?



For someone posting on a Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics subforum you sure aren't very prone to discuss religious topics =D. I want to discuss these things, to challenge and be challenged on topics of great interest to me for the last year or so. There is a fundamental difference between making a positive claim (i.e. god exists, and I know him personally!) and making a claim that you are not convinced that a positive claim is demonstrably true (i.e. I don't know if a god exists, but I have no reason to believe one does). If you make a positive claim about something that is largely unknown, you should expect to be challenged on it, especially if your behavior because of it has an impact on the people around you.

I'll return the question: What do YOU want?

I don't know by what methods the effects of the VMAT2 gene manifest themselves, but the general scientific consensus seems to be that it doesn't have nearly the impact on religiosity as some have postulated.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I don't know by what methods the effects of the VMAT2 gene manifest themselves, but the general scientific consensus seems to be that it doesn't have nearly the impact on religiosity as some have postulated.



Besides Hamer's opinion, and honestly, that's all it is, what data do you have to draw such a conclusion?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Well good for you, however this topic has nothing to do with proving or disproving either, so how did we get here?



Sorry, I edited my post and steered it back towards the OP.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Besides Hamer's opinion, and honestly, that's all it is, what data do you have to draw such a conclusion?



CARL ZIMMER – VMAT2 is a gene that accounts for less than 1% of the variance of self-transcendence scores. Those, an signify anything from belonging to The Green Party to ESP. The god gene theory is based on an unreliable, unpublished study.  To date no one has continued.

https://secularscarlet.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/the-god-gene-and-im-not-talking-levis/


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

Certain people are prone to melodrama and manic depression because of their physiology and sometimes it makes people sociopaths .  Often times these kinds of people are drawn to certain notions.  Hyper religiosity might be one of them.

Have you seen any study where they discuss whether higher monoamine levels produce greater, more vivid or intense spiritual experience?  Could very high levels produce hallucination or psychosis?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> CARL ZIMMER – VMAT2 is a gene that accounts for less than 1% of the variance of self-transcendence scores. Those, an signify anything from belonging to The Green Party to ESP. The god gene theory is based on an unreliable, unpublished study.  To date no one has continued.
> 
> https://secularscarlet.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/the-god-gene-and-im-not-talking-levis/



"Self-transcendence scores"......Now that's a juicy little nugget.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Certain people are prone to melodrama and manic depression because of their physiology and sometimes it makes people sociopaths .  Often times these kinds of people are drawn to certain notions.  Hyper religiosity might be one of them.
> 
> Have you see any study where they discuss whether higher monoamine levels produce greater or more vivid or intense spiritual experience?  Could very high levels produce hallucination or psychosis?



According to wikipedia (I know.. not a great source) monoamine levels are affected by VMAT2. Although they seem to be important for personality, I think the point in contention is how important they are to spiritual tendencies in particular.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Have you seen any study where they discuss whether higher monoamine levels produce greater, more vivid or intense spiritual experience?  Could very high levels produce hallucination or psychosis?



I imagine that is certainly a possibility, if those studies were available to look at.


----------



## Israel (Oct 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Certain people are prone to melodrama and manic depression because of their physiology and sometimes it makes people sociopaths .  Often times these kinds of people are drawn to certain notions.  Hyper religiosity might be one of them.
> 
> Have you seen any study where they discuss whether higher monoamine levels produce greater, more vivid or intense spiritual experience?  Could very high levels produce hallucination or psychosis?



Just wondering what for you would be the "normal" level, of what I suppose you would, or might, otherwise call "God enthusiasm"? (although I don't see those specific terms as interchangeable)


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

Israel said:


> Just wondering what for you would be the "normal" level, of what I suppose you would, or might, otherwise call "God enthusiasm"? (although I don't see those specific terms as interchangeable)



I haven't seen the study.

But it absolutely should be studied.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 28, 2015)

I usually get ignored when I bring up DMT and its relation to spirituality but I believe it fits into this discussion well. 
http://silenttruth.co.uk/?p=46


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 28, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I usually get ignored when I bring up DMT and its relation to spirituality but I believe it fits into this discussion well.
> http://silenttruth.co.uk/?p=46



Looks like he's saying the pineal gland the seat of the soul:
_
 "Most sound vibrations produced by people speaking, commercial music, vehicles, appliances, etc. do not activate the VMAT2 in one’s Soul, or pineal gland. However, the repetition of prayers, certain tones and/or mantras will activate VMAT2 and other spiritual energies in the DNA of one’s pineal gland or Soul."_


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 28, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Looks like he's saying the pineal gland the seat of the soul:
> _
> "Most sound vibrations produced by people speaking, commercial music, vehicles, appliances, etc. do not activate the VMAT2 in one’s Soul, or pineal gland. However, the repetition of prayers, certain tones and/or mantras will activate VMAT2 and other spiritual energies in the DNA of one’s pineal gland or Soul."_



Really what I am exploring is the concept of DMT and it's relationship to the VMAT2 gene; How this all points to the idea that we are our own god.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 28, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Really what I am exploring is the concept of DMT and it's relationship to the VMAT2 gene; How this all points to the idea that we are our own god.



Or at the very least expand on the assertion that we only use a fraction of our brains capacity. 

Oh the possibilities.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 28, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Or at the very least expand on the assertion that we only use a fraction of our brains capacity.
> 
> Oh the possibilities.



Welll.......... I think the idea that we only use a fraction of our brains is false.

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 28, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Welll.......... I think the idea that we only use a fraction of our brains is false.
> 
> https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html



I didn't claim a percentage, just a fraction and wasn't specific at that. For this topic to be out there and admissions to the fact that we don't know all biological functions or limitations of what our brain is capable of or what exactly the limits of it's control over our body and psyche are kind of proves that kiddies site wrong huh?


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 28, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I didn't claim a percentage, just a fraction and wasn't specific at that. For this topic to be out there and admissions to the fact that we don't know all biological functions or limitations of what our brain is capable of or what exactly the limits of it's control over our body and psyche are kind of proves that kiddies site wrong huh?



Don't get hung up on the kiddie part.  The more we know, the more we grow.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 28, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Don't get hung up on the kiddie part.  The more we know, the more we grow.


Ergo, we don't know as much as we think and there is plenty of learnin bout the brain to do.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 28, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Ergo, we don't know as much as we think and there is plenty of learnin bout the brain to do.



Have you ever read anything about the body's production of DMT?  Do you think it could have anything to do with spirituality?


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 28, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Ergo, we don't know as much as we think and there is plenty of learnin bout the brain to do.



Yes, I agree.


----------

