Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,143
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: + +
Talk:Essay:The Problems with Conservapedia (view source)
Revision as of 00:46, October 18, 2021
, 00:46, October 18, 2021no edit summary
::This is not a put down of Prof. Dutton, he makes many very interesting and valid points, albeit a personal bias does also come through. Dutton says, “Religiousness makes you more pro-social, and you become more religious when you're stressed. Religious people would have been sexually selected for because their pro-social, moral, unstressed nature would be attractive," and "modern science means many people who would not previously have survived are making it to adulthood." No argument there on any of that. However, that is not a natural scientific analysis found under a microscope, it's purely from a social science perspective which again, dozens of atheist social scientists are waiting in the wings with their own, however lame, academic refutations.
::This is not a put down of Prof. Dutton, he makes many very interesting and valid points, albeit a personal bias does also come through. Dutton says, “Religiousness makes you more pro-social, and you become more religious when you're stressed. Religious people would have been sexually selected for because their pro-social, moral, unstressed nature would be attractive," and "modern science means many people who would not previously have survived are making it to adulthood." No argument there on any of that. However, that is not a natural scientific analysis found under a microscope, it's purely from a social science perspective which again, dozens of atheist social scientists are waiting in the wings with their own, however lame, academic refutations.
::Much of Dutton's work has a sound basis. It's how it's being used here that people find objections. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:26, October 17, 2021 (EDT)
::Much of Dutton's work has a sound basis. It's how it's being used here that people find objections. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:26, October 17, 2021 (EDT)
::So, how should scientific evidence of a greater likelihood of genetic mutations among atheists be used? Should it be used to mock people with disabilities? od created people with mutations, should they and/or God be mocked as well? No. This sort of evidence, or scientific evidence if you will, should be used like other warnings, like the signs of diabetes, sickle cell anemia, or warning signs of heart attack. I'm sure no one would object to informative content like that placed on MPR. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:46, October 17, 2021 (EDT)