Evolution Hates Atheists.

[leroy]

Evolution Hates Atheists.

A brief article that I found on google talks about studies that conclude that religious people are more likely to have children than non religious people,

Do Religious People Have More Children Than the Non-Religious?......
A recent study conducted by the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B analyzed over 3.6 million women of different faiths across 32 countries, and concluded that religious people are more likely to have more children than non-religious ones

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/do-religious-people-have-more-children-than-the-non-religious-167390/#BXkmxWX33yCW5jpg.99


this means that there is a selective benefit that favors religious believes and that any chemical in our brain that cause believe in God (even if delusory), would be favored by natural selection.

 

[surreptitious57]

The title of this thread Evolution Hates Atheists is completely ridiculous because it is not capable of conveying emotion. Now you no
doubt intended it to be metaphorical rather than literal but it is still equally ridiculous. Also there is absolutely no reason why atheists
cannot have as many children as theists. The fact they do have children invalidates your claim that God belief is favoured by natural
selection. Since they are still passing on their genes regardless. Also it is a non sequitur for one has got nothing to do with the other

 

[Gnug215]

Ok Leroy, here's a title for another thread:


"God Hates Christians."


Because he's killing and tormenting them constantly.

 

[MarsCydonia]

"God Hates Christians."

Let's not forget about Reality too

 

[Visaki]

Ok Leroy, here's a title for another thread:


"God Hates Christians."


Because he's killing and tormenting them constantly.

And only Christians because God has never, ever done anything even slightly negative to me, or any other atheist for that matter.

P.S. Just because theists outbreed atheists that doesn't mean that theism is right.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Evolution Hates Atheists.

this means that there is a selective benefit that favors religious believes and that any chemical in our brain that cause believe in God (even if delusory), would be favored by natural selection.

This is a good exemple of what happens when a someone looks at an article, see someone that draws an emotional response from him/her but does not think through.

"this means that there is a selective benefit that favors religious believes and that any chemical in our brain that cause believe in Allah (even if delusory), would be favored by natural selection".

Christians may have more children than atheists but muslims have more children than christians.

Could the reason be more complex than "Evolution Hates Christians"? Or should we stick to moronic baiting attempts because you have to be a complete moron to think a "genetic belief in god" is what is being favoured here.

Leory, making the blunder theists make all the time since he discovered the internet.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Evolution Hates Atheists.

A brief article that I found on google talks about studies that conclude that religious people are more likely to have children than non religious people,

Do Religious People Have More Children Than the Non-Religious?......
A recent study conducted by the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B analyzed over 3.6 million women of different faiths across 32 countries, and concluded that religious people are more likely to have more children than non-religious ones

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/do-religious-people-have-more-children-than-the-non-religious-167390/#BXkmxWX33yCW5jpg.99


this means that there is a selective benefit that favors religious believes and that any chemical in our brain that cause believe in God (even if delusory), would be favored by natural selection.

I'm not sure why you believe that evolution "hates" atheists based on these studies - this appears to be a case of what I call "Chicken Little Syndrome", aka the fallacy of hasty generalization.

It should be noted that these are multi-faith studies, so "God" is not necessarily relevant here.

The most likely to have children are reported to be Jews and mainline Protestants - the least likely being Buddhists (though it doesn't specify which type, those who don't believe in gods or those who do).

Atheists are second last.

One could just as easily infer that the most "promiscuous" are religious people, whilst the least promiscuous are non-believers.

Or that the most uncaring of whether they can support so many children or not are religious, as the last paragraph implies:

"the fertility difference between seculars and religious adherents is so great, it overwhelms the attrition rate among religious believers and the pass-on rate of religious believers to their children.

.
You see how that goes?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

The title of this thread Evolution Hates Atheists is completely ridiculous because it is not capable of conveying emotion. Now you no
doubt intended it to be metaphorical rather than literal but it is still equally ridiculous. Also there is absolutely no reason why atheists
cannot have as many children as theists. The fact they do have children invalidates your claim that God belief is favoured by natural
selection. Since they are still passing on their genes regardless. Also it is a non sequitur for one has got nothing to do with the other

An atheist is like a slow Zebra, sure it can reproduce and have kids but they are less likely to do it than a fast zebra that can scape from predators, in evolution anything that makes you more likely to reproduce should be interpreted as something beneficial, and something that limits reproduction should be interpreted as a something bad



what the article is saying is that theist are more likely to reproduce therefore any chemicals in your brain that cause a God Delusion would be beneficial and selected by natural selection ,

 

[Gnug215]

An atheist is like a slow Zebra, sure it can reproduce and have kids but they are less likely to do it than a fast zebra that can scape from predators, in evolution anything that makes you more likely to reproduce should be interpreted as something beneficial, and something that limits reproduction should be interpreted as a something bad



what the article is saying is that theist are more likely to reproduce therefore any chemicals in your brain that cause a God Delusion would be beneficial and selected by natural selection ,

So?

No, really. So what?

What is your point here?

Other than making yourself sound really unintelligent and emotionally immature, what is your bloody point with all this??

It reaaaaally sounds like you're trying to make "evolution" into some kind of living entity, some kind of atheistic god, which you then think doesn't care about atheists.

Are you really this obtuse?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

The title of this thread Evolution Hates Atheists is completely ridiculous because it is not capable of conveying emotion. Now you no
doubt intended it to be metaphorical rather than literal but it is still equally ridiculous. Also there is absolutely no reason why atheists
cannot have as many children as theists. The fact they do have children invalidates your claim that God belief is favoured by natural
selection. Since they are still passing on their genes regardless. Also it is a non sequitur for one has got nothing to do with the other

An atheist is like a slow Zebra, sure it can reproduce and have kids but they are less likely to do it than a fast zebra that can scape from predators, in evolution anything that makes you more likely to reproduce should be interpreted as something beneficial, and something that limits reproduction should be interpreted as a something bad



what the article is saying is that theist are more likely to reproduce therefore any chemicals in your brain that cause a God Delusion would be beneficial and selected by natural selection ,

The major flaw with this concept is that a significant number of atheists are the offspring of Christians who then subsequently deconverted. So while atheists may not be breeding as fast as Christians that's no big deal... Christian breeding is taking up the slack my making more future atheists.

 

[thenexttodie]

An atheist is like a slow Zebra, sure it can reproduce and have kids but they are less likely to do it than a fast zebra that can scape from predators, in evolution anything that makes you more likely to reproduce should be interpreted as something beneficial, and something that limits reproduction should be interpreted as a something bad

So?

No, really. So what?

What is your point here?

I think his point is that it is ironic that women seem to find Christians more suitable for mating with than they do Atheists...which it is.

 

[leroy]

An atheist is like a slow Zebra, sure it can reproduce and have kids but they are less likely to do it than a fast zebra that can scape from predators, in evolution anything that makes you more likely to reproduce should be interpreted as something beneficial, and something that limits reproduction should be interpreted as a something bad



what the article is saying is that theist are more likely to reproduce therefore any chemicals in your brain that cause a God Delusion would be beneficial and selected by natural selection ,

So?

No, really. So what?

What is your point here?

Other than making yourself sound really unintelligent and emotionally immature, what is your bloody point with all this??

It reaaaaally sounds like you're trying to make "evolution" into some kind of living entity, some kind of atheistic god, which you then think doesn't care about atheists.

Are you really this obtuse?

It is simply ironic. I have no mayor point.


I simply find it Ironic that if this atheist flag (evolution) where ture atheist will disappear.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I am in the opinion that we should stop acknowledging trolls when they say something completely moronic because they are under the impression that they said something intelligent.

I know I gave them too much of the benefit of the doubt myself.

 

[thenexttodie]

One of the first commandments God ever gave was to have a lot of sex and make children.

Atheists, will of course, be infatuated with every idea they can think of which might prevent this from happening.

 

[leroy]

It is a fact that religious people are more likely to reproduce than atheist


and it is a fact that natural selection favors those that are better in reproducing,


whether if you find this ironic or not is a matter of personal opinion,

 

[Nesslig20]

Evolution Hates Atheists.
A brief article that I found on google talks about studies that conclude that religious people are more likely to have children than non religious people,

Do Religious People Have More Children Than the Non-Religious?......
A recent study conducted by the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B analyzed over 3.6 million women of different faiths across 32 countries, and concluded that religious people are more likely to have more children than non-religious ones

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/do-religious-people-have-more-children-than-the-non-religious-167390/#BXkmxWX33yCW5jpg.99

this means that there is a selective benefit that favors religious believes and that any chemical in our brain that cause believe in God (even if delusory), would be favored by natural selection.

No it actually doesn't. The main point you are missing is that correlation doesn't mean causation. Religious belief doesn't necessarily translate into increase fertility. Secondly, bear in mind that religious belief isn't passed on genetically, thus natural selection cannot have an affect on it. Nor is belief in God (with a capital G) either, which is evident by the existence of independent religions, whose followers also have lots of babies, include completely different gods or no gods at all.

Can religion spread culturally by promoting its followers to breed like rabbits? Sure. Although the most likely explanation that the religious are less likely to use something called "contraception" and have "sex-education" compared to the non-religious. Thus the non-religious are more likely to use counter measures that prevent unwanted pregnancies and only have kids when they want to, typically when they have planned to have kids and are thus prepared to give them a high quality upbringing. This also explains why things like teenage-pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies in general are typically found among the religious, which leads to the following that kids that are raised by non-religious are often better of than being raised religiously in terms of having a good sense of empathy and altruism and being tolerant and less hateful to others.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html
https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2015/11/05/religious-upbringing-associated-less-altruism-study-finds
And also having a better education.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/04/the-most-and-least-educated-u-s-religious-groups/
and that is not mentioning the likelihood that parent neglect to give health care to their children in favor of the belief in the power of prayer, which can result in the death of their kids and it sadly often does.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

So having kids between the religious and the non-religious is a matter of quantity vs quality. I favor quality.

 

[leroy]

No it actually doesn't. The main point you are missing is that correlation doesn't mean causation.

granted, not necessarily, but atleast according to you and your comments, in this case we do have causation, not just correlation.

Can religion spread culturally by promoting its followers to breed like rabbits? Sure. Although the most likely explanation that the religious are less likely to use something called "contraception" and have "sex-education" compared to the non-religious. Thus the non-religious are more likely to use counter measures that prevent unwanted pregnancies and only have kids when they want to, typically when they have planned to have kids and are thus prepared to give them a high quality upbringing

here yo go, you already provided a causal explanation for it.

So having kids between the religious and the non-religious is a matter of quantity vs quality. I favor quality.

sure, but evolution and natural selection prefer quantity over what you would call quality,


don't get me wrong, I am not a religious person, and I am personally pro quality (as you call it) ...........I just find it ironic that evolution prefers religious people rather than atheist

.

Secondly, bear in mind that religious belief isn't passed on genetically, thus natural selection cannot have an affect on it. Nor is belief in God (with a capital G) either, which is evident by the existence of independent religions, whose followers also have lots of babies, include completely different gods or no gods at all.

well many scholars believe that we are born with a religious instinct.


besides religious experiences are suppose to be delusions caused by chemicals in our brain ..........the point is that these chemicals have a positive effect in terms or natural selection< therefore any genetic material that promotes this delusory experiences would be selected by natural selection.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

OK Atheists, SOUND OFF!

Who here was formerly religious, born to religious parents?

And doesn't this make the whole argument moot?

(Oh, I'm in the minority... never been religious.)

 

[Gnug215]

So?

No, really. So what?

What is your point here?

I think his point is that it is ironic that women seem to find Christians more suitable for mating with than they do Atheists...which it is.

Lol, what? No, that's not the point. That's not what's going on. And that's not ironic.

Gah, do you need special training to be this wrong in just one sentence?

 

[Gnug215]

It is simply ironic. I have no mayor point.


I simply find it Ironic that if this atheist flag (evolution) where ture atheist will disappear.

... You're gonna have to try again...

Your last sentence doesn't really make sense. What's a "ture"?

And how exactly is evolution an atheist "flag"?