Evolution Hates Atheists.

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Yet it's also been demonstrated that religious people produce atheists and that atheists (nones) are the fastest growing "religious group" in the U.S.

Which, of course, could seem to imply that evolution prefers atheists.

the reason why atheism is growing is because the religion is currently on fashion, it has nothing to do with natural selection. the vegan population and the ancient alien beliver population is also growing exponentially ..but this is not relevant.

Fact: religious people are more efficient in reproducing than atheists (for whatever reason)

Fact: Natural selection tends to select individuals that reproduce more efficiently over those who cant reproduce efficiently

Fact I personally find this ironic and funny

these are 3 uncontroversial facts, atheist forums are the only place where people pretend to be skeptic even when simple and uncontroversial facts are presented

Your depiction of atheism as a religion contradicts your claim that religious people are more promiscuous than atheists.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Visaki]

Fact: religious people are more efficient in reproducing than atheists (for whatever reason)

Fact: Natural selection tends to select individuals that reproduce more efficiently over those who cant reproduce efficiently

Fact I personally find this ironic and funny

these are 3 uncontroversial facts, atheist forums are the only place where people pretend to be skeptic even when simple and uncontroversial facts are presented

Not sure if this has been said before, but Fact #1 does not actually matter. It doesn't matter if religious people are more efficient in reproducing. What matters in the long run, and evolution is all about the long run, is if religious people are more efficient in producing more religious people. I'm pretty sure more religious people become atheists than the other way around which means that religious people not only produce religious people but also atheists. I'm also pretty sure that it is much more common for the children of theist parents to become atheists than the other way around.

So what does this mean? That we can't even say that religious people are better at reproducing theists than non-religious people are at reproducing atheists. Because that is what matters here, not only if religious people have more kids.

 

[MarsCydonia]

these are 3 uncontroversial facts, atheist forums are the only place where people pretend to be skeptic even when simple and uncontroversial facts are presented

:lol:
1- You lack the ability to make an accurate judgment on what is and what is not an uncontroversial fact. Your success rate for this is pretty much equal as your ability to make accurate judgments on what other people believe and think: abyssmal.
2- I'm not sure what is mean by "atheists forum" (forum that value reason?) but if they do have people that pretend to be skeptic, its because they must have their religious trolls just like we have you

 

[leroy]

Greetings,


Your depiction of atheism as a religion contradicts your claim that religious people are more promiscuous than atheists.

Kindest regards,

James

I am not saying that atheism is a religion, I said that fanatic atheists are in many ways like fanatic religious people

 

[leroy]

Fact: religious people are more efficient in reproducing than atheists (for whatever reason)

Fact: Natural selection tends to select individuals that reproduce more efficiently over those who cant reproduce efficiently

Fact I personally find this ironic and funny

these are 3 uncontroversial facts, atheist forums are the only place where people pretend to be skeptic even when simple and uncontroversial facts are presented

Not sure if this has been said before, but Fact #1 does not actually matter. It doesn't matter if religious people are more efficient in reproducing. What matters in the long run, and evolution is all about the long run, is if religious people are more efficient in producing more religious people. I'm pretty sure more religious people become atheists than the other way around which means that religious people not only produce religious people but also atheists. I'm also pretty sure that it is much more common for the children of theist parents to become atheists than the other way around.

So what does this mean? That we can't even say that religious people are better at reproducing theists than non-religious people are at reproducing atheists. Because that is what matters here, not only if religious people have more kids.

however you are not denying any of these facts, are you?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Not sure if this has been said before, but Fact #1 does not actually matter. It doesn't matter if religious people are more efficient in reproducing. What matters in the long run, and evolution is all about the long run, is if religious people are more efficient in producing more religious people. I'm pretty sure more religious people become atheists than the other way around which means that religious people not only produce religious people but also atheists. I'm also pretty sure that it is much more common for the children of theist parents to become atheists than the other way around.

So what does this mean? That we can't even say that religious people are better at reproducing theists than non-religious people are at reproducing atheists. Because that is what matters here, not only if religious people have more kids.

however you are not denying any of these facts, are you?

Well, I am, but you haven't got that far yet...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Your depiction of atheism as a religion contradicts your claim that religious people are more promiscuous than atheists.

Kindest regards,

James

I am not saying that atheism is a religion, I said that fanatic atheists are in many ways like fanatic religious people

Your actual statement was:

the reason why atheism is growing is because the religion is currently on fashion

This is part of the problem, leroy - what you say, and what you mean (to say) are not the same.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Your depiction of atheism as a religion contradicts your claim that religious people are more promiscuous than atheists.

Kindest regards,

James

I am not saying that atheism is a religion, I said that fanatic atheists are in many ways like fanatic religious people[/quote]
Your actual statement was:

the reason why atheism is growing is because the religion is currently on fashion

This is part of the problem, leroy - what you say, and what you mean (to say) are not the same.

Kindest regards,

James[/quote]

ok, I made a mistake



but please realize that the context is relevant, one can use the same word twice and mean something different


the context in which I used the word religion and the context in which the study that I quotes use the term is simply different

 

[MarsCydonia]

but please realize that the context is relevant, one can use the same word twice and mean something different

Indeed, Leroy's use of "religion" can mean something completely different than religion.

Never trust that words mean what they usually mean in Leroy-speak.

 

[Gnug215]

Leroy, no.

Just... no.

The context here is that you simply do not have the intellectual capacity to make a logically sound argument.

It's that simple.

We all know what point you were TRYING to make, but you failed.

You probably thought your presentation of this grand irony was really clever, but everyone immediately saw the flaws in your weak arguments, and called you on it.
The rest of the thread is just you flailing about, contradicting yourself.

You JUST got caught in a direct, obvious contradiction (is atheism a religion or not?), and what do you do? You start talking like a politician caught in a lie.

The fact of the matter is, that atheism is not a religion, but when it suits your purposes, you try to make it out to be one.

What is more, your understanding of evolution is so piss poor that the entire premise of this thread is pointless.

Everything you've done wrong so far (and it's a LOT) has been pointed out to you, but instead of listening and correcting your mistakes, you just keep on yapping, hoping that SOMEthing will stick.

You are truly blinded by ideology.

 

[leroy]

Leroy, no.

Just... no.



The context here is that you simply do not have the intellectual capacity to make a logically sound argument.

It's that simple.

We all know what point you were TRYING to make, but you failed.

You probably thought your presentation of this grand irony was really clever, but everyone immediately saw the flaws in your weak arguments, and called you on it.
The rest of the thread is just you flailing about, contradicting yourself.

You JUST got caught in a direct, obvious contradiction (is atheism a religion or not?), and what do you do? You start talking like a politician caught in a lie.

The fact of the matter is, that atheism is not a religion, but when it suits your purposes, you try to make it out to be one.

What is more, your understanding of evolution is so piss poor that the entire premise of this thread is pointless.

Everything you've done wrong so far (and it's a LOT) has been pointed out to you, but instead of listening and correcting your mistakes, you just keep on yapping, hoping that SOMEthing will stick.

You are truly blinded by ideology.

You are the moderator of the League of Reason you should be promoting reason over stupid and pointless word games.


1 Everybody knows that words have different meanings and that the meaning depends on the context.............for example in this context I don't mean everybody in the literal sense, babies might not know that words have more than 1 meaning, but no one would make a big deal.


2 everybody knows that when theist say that atheism is a religion they usually mean it in a sarcastic and provocative tone, not in the literal sense

3 everybody knows that when I said that religious people tend to have more children than atheists, I am talking about people that go to church pray, etc.

the terms religion (religious) are being used in a different context in point 2 and 3 which is why they have a different meaning and a different connotation. and you know it

Grumpy Santa is also calling atheism a religion

Yet it's also been demonstrated that religious people produce atheists and that atheists (nones) are the fastest growing "religious group" in the U.S.

But no one makes a big deal because it is obvious that he didn't mean it in the literal sense of the word,




so Gnug215, why don't you do your job and promote healthy and reasonable discussions, instead of promoting stupid word games, and making an unnecessary big deal with words and definitions........(well I am assuming that it is the job of a moderator) correct me if I am wrong,


or in any case, if you what to be strict with definitions, why aren't you being strict with everybody, why just me?

Gnug215

but instead of listening and correcting your mistakes, you just keep on yapping, hoping that SOMEthing will stick.

this is the definition of listen

to give attention with the ear; attend closely for the purpose of hearing;.

how can I listen to others if this is a written forum? why don't you use the proper words and the proper definitions?

I mean I was not going to make a big deal, because I know what you meant, and I understand that you didn't mean listen in the literal sense ...............but since you apparently what to be very strict with terms and definitions, why don't you start with yourself ?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Grumpy Santa is also calling atheism a religion

Yet it's also been demonstrated that religious people produce atheists and that atheists (nones) are the fastest growing "religious group" in the U.S.

But no one makes a big deal because it is obvious that he didn't mean it in the literal sense of the word,

Hence the quotes to demonstrate that. Normally a question on what religion someone belongs to is worded to assume a religion yet an answer would include "none" or "atheist" or the like. I like to believe that it's pretty clear that I never called atheism a religion and simply indicated the category it's often grouped under with regards to polling. I'm sure someone will correct me if I failed at that...

 

[thenexttodie]

I can find nothing which shows that non-atheists produce a significant amount of atheist offspring, like Grumpy Santa claims.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I can find nothing which shows that non-atheists produce a significant amount of atheist offspring, like Grumpy Santa claims.

Really?

Look at this piece:
Nearly half of Britain's population is now non-religious.
Two-thirds of that came from religious parents.

That means the religious, near 50% of Britain, gave birth to a non-religious near 33% of the population (the remaining 17% being non-religious from non-religious parents).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-faith-agnostic-atheism-report-a7737856.html

So Britain's previous generations had more religious and less non-religious. I guess that count's as "producing a significant amount".


The same thing is true for my society:
From my grand-parents generation, religosity is around 80% and increasing the further back in the past you go with the generations. From my generation? That's 30% and less the further foward you go.


The religious may breed more children in western societies but there's still less and less of them.

It seems Evolution hates Theists.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

My very first two comments to dandan/leroy:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

When creationists say that “evolution is just a theory” you know exactly what they mean, you know exactly that they mean that evolution has never been proven. Maybe creationists are not using the correct wording, but you still know what they mean.

Actually, no. I do not know what creationists mean by this. Do they actually reject the accepted definition of evolution, as this creationist did? Do they reject evolutionary theory? Or do they actually accept evolution as it is defined, they just reject deep time, the big bang, and abiogenesis. Because at any given point when a creationist says they reject evolution, they may reject any one of these (and some of them do not have anything to do with biology, let alone evolutionary theory).

I have said this before; semantics is the last bastion of creationism. That is why it is important to get them to agree to terms otherwise they will change definitions, as this creationist did, in order to suit their argument. Thus, please do not be upset when an evolutionary proponent asks for clarification by what you actually reject, because there is history behind creationist not knowing the first thing about evolution and creationist equivocating the term to suit their needs.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Creationists accept the fact that mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection etc. occur, and can cause “change over time” but creationists would deny that these mechanisms can account for ALL the diversity of life.

I honestly don´t understand why do you have so many problems understanding this.

As I pointed out, and you ignored, this creationist did not accept those when he first came to this forum. Thus, stating creationists accept all those as facts is simply a mistake on your part.

Second, if creationists accept all those things, then why do they say things like “prove evolution”? As you point out, some creationists already accept it. Thus, those creationists need to start using the correct terms when entering into a discussion. Otherwise, I cannot tell them apart from the creationists that still reject the observed fact of evolution. If a creationist already accepts evolution, but rejects that evolution alone can lead to the biodiversity of life on earth, then why do they not just say that from the beginning so evolutionary proponents will not confuse them with the ones still rejecting observed facts of biology?

Thus, my problem understanding it stems from some creationists outright rejection of basic facts (such as evolution), and creationists that accept such facts, yet reject one, or more, aspect of evolutionary theory. Simply saying, “Prove evolution” and hoping I (or anyone else) knows what you are talking about is asinine to say the least.

He has always had this problem of using improper definitions and just believing that people should just "know what he means" when he uses a word. He is Humpty Dumpty and we are all Alice, it is our fault for not knowing what dandan/leroy meant when he writes.

 

[leroy]

I can find nothing which shows that non-atheists produce a significant amount of atheist offspring, like Grumpy Santa claims.

Really?

Look at this piece:
Nearly half of Britain's population is now non-religious.
Two-thirds of that came from religious parents.

That means the religious, near 50% of Britain, gave birth to a non-religious near 33% of the population (the remaining 17% being non-religious from non-religious parents).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-faith-agnostic-atheism-report-a7737856.html

So Britain's previous generations had more religious and less non-religious. I guess that count's as "producing a significant amount".


The same thing is true for my society:
From my grand-parents generation, religosity is around 80% and increasing the further back in the past you go with the generations. From my generation? That's 30% and less the further foward you go.


The religious may breed more children in western societies but there's still less and less of them.

It seems Evolution hates Theists.

I haven't looked at Gate Brittan's demography but I can predict that they have a birth rate under average. and below the average of religious countries.


if everything else is equal ......societies with a low birth rate are more likely to perish than societies with a high birth rate ...................this is the kind of uncontroversial fact that it is only denied in atheist forums

 

[MarsCydonia]

I haven't looked at Gate Brittan's demography but I can predict that they have a birth rate under average. and below the average of religious countries.

if everything else is equal ......societies with a low birth rate are more likely to perish than societies with a high birth rate ...................this is the kind of uncontroversial fact that it is only denied in atheist forums

Really?

Look at the African and middle-east societies. How are they doing? I mean, compared to Britain, Canada, Japan, etc.?

Leroy having no clue what an uncontroversial fact is.

You always surprised me with how dumb you can get.

Edited to frame the quote correctly

 

[leroy]

so he_who_is_nobody...................


l what is exactly your problem?


1 accepting the fact that words have more than 1 meaning?

2 the meaning is given by the context?



for example if you look for theory in the dictionary you will find this definitions

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.


2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

if someone says that "something" is just a theory, he is talking about definition 2 because the word theory is being preceded by the word just



again this is something that even a 13yo would understand, atheist forums seem to be the only place where people have problems in understanding this kind of stuff and the only place where people make a big deal out of definitions.

 

[thenexttodie]

if everything else is equal ......societies with a low birth rate are more likely to perish than societies with a high birth rate ...................this is the kind of uncontroversial fact that it is only denied in atheist forums

Really?

Look at the African and middle-east societies. How are they doing? I mean, compared to Britain, Canada, Japan, etc.?

Leroy having no clue what an uncontroversial fact is.

You always surprised me with how dumb you can get.

What is so dumb about what he is saying? It is true that women generally do not select Atheists for mating.

Personally I think the reason for this is that Atheists tend to have weird ideas about sexuality.

 

[leroy]

Look at the African and middle-east societies. How are they doing? I mean, compared to Britain, Canada, Japan, etc.?

Leroy having no clue what an uncontroversial fact is.

You always surprised me with how dumb you can get.

so what? natural selection, tends to select individuals that are better at reproducing, natural selection (evolution) doesn't care which one is happier or lives better.




there is a selective bias for individuals that reproduce better (fact)


religious people reproduce better than non religious (fact)

Leroy having no clue what an uncontroversial fact is.

but yet, you don't have the balls to deny any of those 2 facts explicitly because you know that you will be proven wrong,