(08-25-2016, 09:47 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Could you clarify this ?

If I am correct, (it happens) there are more beneficial neuro-chemicals produced by people that "believe" in a god, than those that do not.
I'm getting ready for bed, or I'd search for the study.
I think they tried to call it "The God Gene Theory", or something of the like.
If I'm interpreting incorrectly, please forgive a tried old man.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

(08-25-2016, 09:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: What about people who believe in unicorns and faeries?

(08-25-2016, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Was this when folks were taking the word of that female blogger over McHugh's because they are open-minded? 

(08-25-2016, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But no thoughts on an opinion piece written by a blogger on Transadvocate? Surely no bias there. 

(08-25-2016, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No Fred, your link calls it an opinion piece. Keep that "open" mind. 

(08-25-2016, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was just interesting that one source gave you pause because it was partisan (biased); yet another did not. But at least you didn't want to pile on.  

(08-25-2016, 07:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I'm just going to take it for what it is. An opinion piece written by an obviously biased author posted on an obviously biased website.

Keep digging and keep that mind "open" fred. I remember how funny it was last time. 

(08-25-2016, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess we just disagree on something giving one pause. 

(08-25-2016, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt I am the one who has failed in this thread. You came in hard with your biased opinion piece that you spent "a lot of time" researching, call McHugh a schill, and suggest you produce facts.

You dismiss McHugh's findings and call him a schill and then in Fred logic call someone else childish for attacking a source.

Between the 2 of us 1 has failed.

(08-25-2016, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But no thoughts on an opinion piece written by a blogger on Transadvocate? Surely no bias there. 

(08-25-2016, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No Fred, your link calls it an opinion piece. Keep that "open" mind. 

(08-25-2016, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was just interesting that one source gave you pause because it was partisan (biased); yet another did not. But at least you didn't want to pile on.  

(08-25-2016, 07:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I'm just going to take it for what it is. An opinion piece written by an obviously biased author posted on an obviously biased website.

Keep digging and keep that mind "open" fred. I remember how funny it was last time. 

(08-25-2016, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess we just disagree on something giving one pause. 

(08-25-2016, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt I am the one who has failed in this thread. You came in hard with your biased opinion piece that you spent "a lot of time" researching, call McHugh a schill, and suggest you produce facts.

You dismiss McHugh's findings and call him a schill and then in Fred logic call someone else childish for attacking a source.

Between the 2 of us 1 has failed.

(08-25-2016, 09:55 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Not sure anyone had funded that study, yet.
I'd honestly wager there would be somewhat similar results though.
If people think about positive things, I'm going to say their health would be improved.
(Probably why I think about boobs a lot)
It does make you wonder where the vengeful God crowd would fall, in the neuro-chemical realm.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

(08-25-2016, 09:47 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Could you clarify this ?

If I am correct, (it happens) there are more beneficial neuro-chemicals produced by people that "believe" in a god, than those that do not.
I'm getting ready for bed, or I'd search for the study.
I think they tried to call it "The God Gene Theory", or something of the like.
If I'm interpreting incorrectly, please forgive a tried old man.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

(08-25-2016, 10:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How many beneficial neuro-chemicals are evidence Zeus/Allah/Odin/Etc exist?

100?  1000?  42?

(08-25-2016, 10:25 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: We know the ultimate answer is always 42.
Did you bring a towel ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

(08-25-2016, 10:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We apologize for the inconvenience. 

(08-25-2016, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt I am the one who has failed in this thread. You came in hard with your biased opinion piece that you spent "a lot of time" researching, call McHugh a schill, and suggest you produce facts.

You dismiss McHugh's findings and call him a schill and then in Fred logic call someone else childish for attacking a source.

Between the 2 of us 1 has failed.

(08-25-2016, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess we just disagree on something giving one pause. 

(08-25-2016, 10:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have posted links to a long list of studies showing that McHugh is wrong.

I posted a quote that showed how McHugh tried to spin the results of s study to claimnit proved something it did not.

I posted proof that McHugh was more influenced by religion than science because he claimed opposes stem cell research on the basis that single cells were people.


Meanhwile you have made a dozen posts and not yet posted one single fact or argument to support your position.  All you have claimed is that you ignore any and all information from any source that supports a position you do not agree with.




But you are 100% correct that of the two of us one has failed.

(08-25-2016, 11:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am not sure what your point here is. I didn't read Fred's post, so it didn't give me pause.

(08-25-2016, 11:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, some may consider McHale's findings as evidence and I have cited them in the past. Obviously not at solid as an opinion piece by the transgender advocate, but still something. 

I now remember why I found the earlier thread so entertaining. 

Did you at least tip the transadvocate when you used her opinion piece as your proof. 

And I appreciate your affirmation of one of us failing.  

(08-25-2016, 11:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, some may consider McHale's findings as evidence

(08-25-2016, 11:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Still in denial about all the studies linked in my posts and the proof that McHugh misinterpreted the findings of a major study to come to a conclusion that even the authors of the study said was not valid.

(08-25-2016, 11:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Even after I pointed out how biased it may have been compared to the link that you didn't want to pile on?

But not reading Fred's posts is probably a sensible policy.