Evolution Hates Atheists.

[leroy]

. An honest person actually wants to discuss the merits of an argument, and not whine about semantics.

1:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


That is exactly what you are doing, you are, not only did you tend to waste time in semantics, but often (as in your last post) you take old semantic games with the intention to start over again.


The fact is that you know exactly what I mean when I use the terms free will, determinism, evolution, fine tuning, religion, and all the other terms.

It is a fact that I usually define these terms with simple and clear definitions

It is a fact that usually other sources use or define these words in the same way I did

usually the only objection that you have against my arguments are based on semantics.


For example remember when I said that Design is the best explanation for fine tuning ?

Did you ever provided a better explanation and explain why is that explanation better than design........................No

Did you ever showed that the universe is not FT .................................No


Did you make a whole bunch of straw man arguments and redefine the concept of FT ......................................Yes


Did you play semantic games .............................................Yes



And the same is true with nearly all the arguments,

 

[Gnug215]

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

As a moderator, I should have banned you ages ago. Nothing you've contributed with on this site comes close to "reason".

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.

Yes, most people know. So why are you complaining about it when we point out that a word can have a different meaning in another context?

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

No.

Everybody doesn't know that.

Because, first of all, you don't know what everybody is thinking.
Second, I've been in many situations with theists where it most definitely was meant in the literal sense. In fact, that's been the case in the majority of instances.
I've also been in plenty of discussions with theists who seriously argued that Christianity was NOT a religion.

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.

Was anyone ever in doubt that this is what you meant?
Again, what people criticized you for was for misunderstanding evolution, and for making a stupid point.

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

Ok, so what are the different meanings?

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.

Notice those weird things he has around the words?

Why are those there? What do they mean?

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

Of course not! Becuase those bloody citation marks make that abundantly clear!

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,

Oh I could indeed start "doing my job".

(See what I did there?)

I'm currently trying to clamp down on stupid word games as we speak. But I'm not surprised that this has gone over your head.

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

There is a difference between being strict with definitions, and playing stupid word games. Guess which one you're doing?

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?

See, this is what happens when kids or teenagers try to be smug or provocative.

Do you know why grown-ups usually have a hard time dealing with stuff like that? Because it's SO stupid, they get baffled by it.

Thing is, this sad attempt at a zinger is you actually trying to be clever. The result? Well... Let's just leave it up for everyone to see, shall we?

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 ?

Now for the grown-up talk:

Reasonable people actually know that definitions matter. They also know when they matter.

You don't.

Let me present the evidence:

for example If a YEC claims that evolution is just a theory, he obviously means that evolution has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (he is using definition 2 of the term theory)

any honest evolutionist would try to provide evidence for evolution in order to overcome the objection

No, what the YEC means is that it's more or less just some random guesswork, which is very likely to be wrong, and hasn't been tested.

That is not what the word "theory" means in that context. Don't believe me? Here's a Christian scientist who wrote a whole book on how "only a theory" is wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_A_Theory

The YECs totally misunderstand what the word means in context, so their argument becomes one from ignorance. They probably think they've made an awesome point, but all they've done is to reveal their total ignorance on the subject.

In their ignorance, they seem to think that the scientific community treats the Theory of Evolution as some kind of guesswork idea, while the scientific community actually treats the ToE as established facts that explain the world, and have never been able to prove the theory wrong.

This is why certain things have to be explained to the YECs BEFORE moving on to providing evidence.


Oh, and please, as if evolutionists don't provide evidence constantly. If an evolutionist isn't presenting you with evidence, he's not being dishonest. He's probably busy thinking you're a waste of time and air.



Let me also adress this:

My point is that religious people reproduce better than atheist. And I even provided a study that proves that the statement is true. ............and I pointed out the fact that I personally find it funny and ironic because evolution (natural selection) favors individuals that reproduce more efficiently


what are the objections that I am receiving ?

did someone quoted a study that shows otherwise...............No

did some one showed that the study used an incorrect methodology........................No

did someone showed that I misunderstood the results ........................No


every single objection has been made is based on semantic games, things like "but didn't you say that atheism is a religion" or "so you now accept evolution"

[/quote]

No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that you thought it ironic that evolution doesn't favor atheists.

It isn't, and no amount of studies posted will change that, because your premise was wrong, NOT the study.

We all KNOW the results of the study. We're not disputing it. We're disputing the conclusions you're drawing from it.


You seem to be thinking that natural selection applies in this case, when clearly, it doesn't.

And this is what you're too ignorant and ideologically motivated to see: religion or non-religion aren't heritable traits like blue eyes or black hair. People BECOME religious. They don't BECOME blue-eyed.
People also become non-religious, and since that group seems to be growing, then what the hell is your argument?
Evolution deals with populations, not individuals. The fact that some religious mother gives birth to 5 babies, as opposed to the 2 from the non-religious mother, is rendered absolutely pointless when those 5 kids decide to become non-religious.

You. Have. No. Point!

THAT'S what we're disputing. Not your study.

YOU are wrong, NOT the study.

 

[leroy]

And this is what you're too ignorant and ideologically motivated to see: religion or non-religion aren't heritable traits like blue eyes or black hair. People BECOME religious. They .

yes they are, and I even provided a source.

Nevertheless science has shown us clearly that one level of belief in God and overall spirituality is shaped not only by a mix of family environment and upbringing--which is not surprising--but also by our genes. Twin studies conducted around the world in the U.S., the Netherlands and Australia as well as ours in the U.K. show a 40 to 50 percent genetic component to belief in God

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... ene#page-2[/quote]
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene

it is a nearly certain fact that "religiosity" is inherited and partly determine by genetic factors, the only controversy relies on what porcentage is determine by genetic factors and what percentage is determined by family, culture etc.

As a moderator, I should have banned you ages ago. Nothing you've contributed with on this site comes close to "reason".

ok, lets make a deal, I will do my best effort in not moving g away from the original topic, if I ever make a refutation based only on semantic games and insults or if my reply is unrelated to the question (objection) that was raised, please call my attention.


and please apply the same criteria with everyone else.


if I encounter someone makes a refutation based only on semantic games and insults or if my reply is unrelated to the question (objection) that was raised, I will send a PM reporting the incident and hopefully you would intervine and moderate with fairness and always promoting healthy and reasonable discussion.



so do we have a deal?


to honor my word, I will not even mention my points of disagreement in your last comment because none is related to the original topic of the thread, if you think that I am ignoring a relevant point please let me know



.....


so the next step, please read the source at let us know if you agree with it, and let us know if you agree with this statement.

it is a nearly certain fact that "religiosity" is partly determine by genetic factors, the only controversy relies on what percentage is determine by genetic (hereditable) factors and what percentage is determined by society, family, etc.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

And this is what you're too ignorant and ideologically motivated to see: religion or non-religion aren't heritable traits like blue eyes or black hair. People BECOME religious. They .

yes they are, and I even provided a source.

Then how do you explain the fact that religious become non-religious and, to a lesser degree, the opposite?

Nevertheless science has shown us clearly that one level of belief in God and overall spirituality is shaped not only by a mix of family environment and upbringing--which is not surprising--but also by our genes. Twin studies conducted around the world in the U.S., the Netherlands and Australia as well as ours in the U.K. show a 40 to 50 percent genetic component to belief in God

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... ene#page-2
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene

it is a nearly certain fact that "religiosity" is inherited and partly determine by genetic factors, the only controversy relies on what porcentage is determine by genetic factors and what percentage is determined by family, culture etc.

So they've identified the genes that make someone religious and the mutations to those genes that turn "religous" off?

it is a nearly certain fact that "religiosity" is partly determine by genetic factors, the only controversy relies on what percentage is determine by genetic (hereditable) factors and what percentage is determined by society, family, etc.

Until they can actually show the genes and the varying mutations that turn them on/off as well as explain the fact that people switch from religious to not, I have no reason to believe this statement. My biological father's side of the family is pretty much all hard-core Roman Catholics. If there's a gene for that, it never made it into my body.

 

[MarsCydonia]

And this is what you're too ignorant and ideologically motivated to see: religion or non-religion aren't heritable traits like blue eyes or black hair. People BECOME religious. They .

yes they are, and I even provided a source.

Nevertheless science has shown us clearly that one level of belief in God and overall spirituality is shaped not only by a mix of family environment and upbringing--which is not surprising--but also by our genes. Twin studies conducted around the world in the U.S., the Netherlands and Australia as well as ours in the U.K. show a 40 to 50 percent genetic component to belief in God

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... ene#page-2
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene

it is a nearly certain fact that "religiosity" is inherited and partly determine by genetic factors, the only controversy relies on what porcentage is determine by genetic factors and what percentage is determined by family, culture etc.

:lol: This is hilarious.
Leroy asserts "yes they are" then links to a source... that contradicts him but he is too brain-indoctrination-damaged to understand this.

 

[leroy]

Then how do you explain the fact that religious become non-religious and, to a lesser degree, the opposite?

because no one is saying religiosity is fully determined by genes.


religiosity is determined both by genetic and cultural stuff or at least this is what 100% of the studies that have been made show...........the only controversy is the degree in which each these factors contribute.

Until they can actually show the genes and the varying mutations that turn them on/off as well as explain the fact that people switch from religious to not, I have no reason to believe this statement. My biological father's side of the family is pretty much all hard-core Roman Catholics. If there's a gene for that, it never made it into my body.

well 2 points

1 at least some candidate genes have been identified like the VMAT2 gene for example

Dean Hamer argues that a variation in the VMAT2 gene plays a role in one's openness to spiritual experiences

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2262126/

2 aren't you raising the bar unrealistically to high? ........I mean I am pretty sure that you grant that the size of your fingers is determined by genetic factors, but I am pretty sure that no one has ever find a gene that codes for the size of our fingers.............usually (if not always) scientists infer heritability even if they cant identify the exact genes,.......in my opinion asking for the exact genes in order to infer heritability is raising the bar too high

 

[leroy]

:lol: This is hilarious.
Leroy asserts "yes they are" then links to a source... that contradicts him but he is too brain-indoctrination-damaged to understand this.

look Gnug215, this is the kind of meaningless and useless insults that a moderator should try to prevent.


why don't you promote good healthy and reasonable discussions and ask MarsCydonia to justify his assertions, ?

Nevertheless science has shown us clearly that one level of belief in God and overall spirituality is shaped not only by a mix of family environment and upbringing--which is not surprising--but also by our genes. Twin studies conducted around the world in the U.S., the Netherlands and Australia as well as ours in the U.K. show a 40 to 50 percent genetic component to belief in God

anyone who reads the quote would agree that the article is saying that genes play a role in religiosity, but maybe MarsCydonia with his wide knowledge and insuperable reading comprehension skills saw something that I missed.......so perhaps you can ask him to share his knowledge with us

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

. An honest person actually wants to discuss the merits of an argument, and not whine about semantics.

1:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


That is exactly what you are doing, you are, not only did you tend to waste time in semantics, but often (as in your last post) you take old semantic games with the intention to start over again.

:facepalm:

Since it appears you did not read my whole reply and decided to try (and fail) to read my mind:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

when someone makes an objection and you don't know how to answer it, a dishonest person would simply try to focus on semantics, instad of simply admitting that the objection was a good one

That is exactly what you do. Just look at the examples I have linked to in this post. Perhaps write that on your bathroom mirror so you will see it every morning.

This is an example of the pot calling the silverware black.

The fact is that you know exactly what I mean when I use the terms free will, determinism, evolution, fine tuning, religion, and all the other terms.

Yet another failed attempt at mind reading. If we knew what you meant when you used words, we would not have to waste time asking you to define things. Again, everyone in this thread has exposed that you do not know what evolution is, thus you are not using it in away that anyone here would understand; for just one example.

It is a fact that I usually define these terms with simple and clear definitions

And it is a fact that you define them incorrectly. See the will/free will discussion previously linked.

It is a fact that usually other sources use or define these words in the same way I did

If that were true, you would not have to quote-mine. Again, see previous discussion about free will/will.

usually the only objection that you have against my arguments are based on semantics.

Usually, your whole argument hinges on semantics. Remember when you used to say that if one accepts will, they are also accepting something supernatural? It is not until recently that you finally admitted that one can have will without the supernatural. Again, why would you lie on a written forum? I can expose your lies with just one click.

For example remember when I said that Design is the best explanation for fine tuning ?

Did you ever provided a better explanation and explain why is that explanation better than design........................No

:facepalm:

That is because you never demonstrated that there is such a thing as fine-tuning. Honestly, it is like you were saying extraterrestrials are the best explanation for El Chupacabra, and me asking when was it demonstrated that there ever was a Chupacabra.

Did you ever showed that the universe is not FT .................................No

I do not have to. You are claiming it is, you demonstrate it is. Me asking you to meet your burden does not mean I have to disprove your claim. Again, I do not have to disprove El Chupacabra, it is up to you to prove it exists in the first place. For the record, I do not know if the universe is or not. You just failed to meet your burden and whined about it.

Did you make a whole bunch of straw man arguments and redefine the concept of FT ......................................Yes

That never happened. In fact, I used a definition you did not agree with, even though it was from a source you should have trusted. Than I was the first one to quote the definition that we both agreed with. You were the one that kept saying "narrow range" and "only slightly different" do not imply things could be different. Again, how can something be narrow unless it was being compared to something else? How can one say things could be slightly different if they do not mean things could be slightly different? And again, with just a few clicks, I expose your lie. What is the point of lying on a written forum?

Did you play semantic games .............................................Yes

Only if you call defining things properly "semantic games". I will, if that makes you happy dandan/leroy. I am not the one that cries "word games" at every turn.

And the same is true with nearly all the arguments,

All the links I am providing expose the lies you are telling. Feel free to tell some more.





Starting at 8:20 of the above video seems relevant to this discussion. Note Paulogia response and how eerily similar it is to everyone else's here. One wonders why.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Then how do you explain the fact that religious become non-religious and, to a lesser degree, the opposite?

because no one is saying religiosity is fully determined by genes.


religiosity is determined both by genetic and cultural stuff or at least this is what 100% of the studies that have been made show...........the only controversy is the degree in which each these factors contribute.
[/quote}

So by admitting there are outside factors aside from genetics (which I'm not ready to grant yet, regarding genetics...) you've effectively neutered your own argument. Religious people seeming to breed a bit more often may not be tied to any spiritual genes after all, because there are other factors.

Until they can actually show the genes and the varying mutations that turn them on/off as well as explain the fact that people switch from religious to not, I have no reason to believe this statement. My biological father's side of the family is pretty much all hard-core Roman Catholics. If there's a gene for that, it never made it into my body.

well 2 points

1 at least some candidate genes have been identified like the VMAT2 gene for example

Dean Hamer argues that a variation in the VMAT2 gene plays a role in one's openness to spiritual experiences

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2262126/

2 aren't you raising the bar unrealistically to high? ........I mean I am pretty sure that you grant that the size of your fingers is determined by genetic factors, but I am pretty sure that no one has ever find a gene that codes for the size of our fingers.............usually (if not always) scientists infer heritability even if they cant identify the exact genes,.......in my opinion asking for the exact genes in order to infer heritability is raising the bar too high

You mean the SMOC 1 genes?

 

[leroy]

You mean the SMOC 1 genes?

I am not familiar with those genes....


do you agree that there is solid scientific evidence that religiosity is partly determined by hereditable stuff (genes) and partly by cultural stuff (family, education, etc.)?

If not, then why not?..................I provided sources that conclude that the statement is true, so what is wrong with those sources?

 

[leroy]

Starting at 8:20 of the above video seems relevant to this discussion. Note Paulogia response and how eerily similar it is to everyone else's here. One wonders why.

I don't know why you think this is relevant for this discussion but granted.

People that are more educated are more likely to be atheists...............And the same is true for all other fashion new age theories people that are more educated are more likely to believe in eternal inflation, that we are a simulation, that aliens build pyramids etc.

the reason is very simple, people with education have access to these fancy new age theories, and a small minority of them will become believers in any of these theories. people without education are not even aware of the existence of these theories, and therefore are less likely to believe in any of those things.

in other words, the mayority of those who believe that the universe is a computer simulation are educated people who ............but so what? it doesn't follow that therefore the theory is true or even a good theory



but still, I don't know why is this suppose to be relevant to this conversation

 

[Grumpy Santa]

You mean the SMOC 1 genes?

I am not familiar with those genes....


do you agree that there is solid scientific evidence that religiosity is partly determined by hereditable stuff (genes) and partly by cultural stuff (family, education, etc.)?

If not, then why not?..................I provided sources that conclude that the statement is true, so what is wrong with those sources?

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-do-more-intelligent-people-tend-be-atheist-2540302

Let's assume for a moment that you're right. Here's the monkey wrench... if intelligence overrides instinct, then your whole argument falls completely apart.

 

[leroy]

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-do-more-intelligent-people-tend-be-atheist-2540302

Let's assume for a moment that you're right. Here's the monkey wrench... if intelligence overrides instinct, then your whole argument falls completely apart.

argument? what argument?

natural selection has a bias for religiosity and I personally find it funny and ironic................there is nothing in that paper that changes any of these facts............what argument is your paper suppose to be refuting?

 

[Visaki]

One could change every instance of "religious" in this thread to "gullible" and it wouldn't really change a thing.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I think reports of these sort of studies, and sometimes the studies themselves, misrepresent what's actually being measured.

People are capable of experiencing "oneness" with others, and indeed Nature itself, due to the right hemisphere of the brain. It is this that's being mistakenly reported as a propensity for "spiritual", and/or "religious" experiences.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Grumpy Santa]

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-do-more-intelligent-people-tend-be-atheist-2540302

Let's assume for a moment that you're right. Here's the monkey wrench... if intelligence overrides instinct, then your whole argument falls completely apart.

argument? what argument?

natural selection has a bias for religiosity and I personally find it funny and ironic................there is nothing in that paper that changes any of these facts............what argument is your paper suppose to be refuting?

You keep asserting that even though it's been demonstrated to be an invalid argument. The sets overlap... religious people producing atheists and atheists sometimes producing religious people (I assume, the latter has not been confirmed as of yet). Because both groups produce both types of offspring and due to the fact that the "nones" are the fastest growing group one cannot conclude the result you are asserting.

If your source is making the assertion you are yet ignores the fact that the sets overlap then your source is also flawed.

 

[leroy]

You keep asserting that even though it's been demonstrated to be an invalid argument. The sets overlap... religious people producing atheists and atheists sometimes producing religious people (I assume, the latter has not been confirmed as of yet). Because both groups produce both types of offspring and due to the fact that the "nones" are the fastest growing group one cannot conclude the result you are asserting.

If your source is making the assertion you are yet ignores the fact that the sets overlap then your source is also flawed.

the assertion that I am making is that religious people are more likely to reproduce than atheist, whether if the offspring are atheist or religious is irrelevant.

in a similar sense that a legless zebra is more likely to die and not reproduce than a legged zebra, whether if legged zebra can produce legless offspring or not is irrelevant, the point is that natural selection will filter legless zebra, atheist and all variations that are less likely to reproduce. the only way to prevent this filtration is if there is an external force (different form natural selection) prevents it.


it might be that atheist (or nones) is the fasted growing "religion" but that growth has nothing to do with heritability and genes................agree?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

You keep asserting that even though it's been demonstrated to be an invalid argument. The sets overlap... religious people producing atheists and atheists sometimes producing religious people (I assume, the latter has not been confirmed as of yet). Because both groups produce both types of offspring and due to the fact that the "nones" are the fastest growing group one cannot conclude the result you are asserting.

If your source is making the assertion you are yet ignores the fact that the sets overlap then your source is also flawed.

the assertion that I am making is that religious people are more likely to reproduce than atheist, whether if the offspring are atheist or religious is irrelevant.

in a similar sense that a legless zebra is more likely to die and not reproduce than a legged zebra, whether if legged zebra can produce legless offspring or not is irrelevant, the point is that natural selection will filter legless zebra, atheist and all variations that are less likely to reproduce. the only way to prevent this filtration is if there is an external force (different form natural selection) prevents it.


it might be that atheist (or nones) is the fasted growing "religion" but that growth has nothing to do with heritability and genes................agree?

Exactly, it may very well have nothing to do with heredity or genes. Therefore you can't say that evolution favors theists simply because the seem to breed at a bit of a faster pace. If the population of atheists is indeed growing faster than the theist population (which it is) then it would be more logical to conclude that evolution favors atheists (not an argument I'm making either).

Seriously, if the population of atheists is growing faster, how can you claim that theists are favored at all?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Starting at 8:20 of the above video seems relevant to this discussion. Note Paulogia response and how eerily similar it is to everyone else's here. One wonders why.

I don't know why you think this is relevant for this discussion but granted.

People that are more educated are more likely to be atheists...............And the same is true for all other fashion new age theories people that are more educated are more likely to believe in eternal inflation, that we are a simulation, that aliens build pyramids etc.

the reason is very simple, people with education have access to these fancy new age theories, and a small minority of them will become believers in any of these theories. people without education are not even aware of the existence of these theories, and therefore are less likely to believe in any of those things.

in other words, the mayority of those who believe that the universe is a computer simulation are educated people who ............but so what? it doesn't follow that therefore the theory is true or even a good theory



but still, I don't know why is this suppose to be relevant to this conversation

:facepalm:

Note Paulogia response and how eerily similar it is to everyone else's here. One wonders why.

Work on your reading comprehension. I said exactly why I thought it was relevant and you quoted it.

 

[leroy]

Exactly, it may very well have nothing to do with heredity or genes. Therefore you can't say that evolution favors theists simply because the seem to breed at a bit of a faster pace. If the population of atheists is indeed growing faster than the theist population (which it is) then it would be more logical to conclude that evolution favors atheists (not an argument I'm making either).

Seriously, if the population of atheists is growing faster, how can you claim that theists are favored at all?

so as the evidence shows, religiosity is a heredable trait. and religious people reproduce better than atheist............under this bases I say that evolution favors religious theists.


it could be said that other forces, independent from evolution and natural selection, come in to scene and allow atheist to be the fastest growing religion, if that where the case then it could be said that evolution favors religious theists and some other not hereditable force favors atheists .................do you agree?