Evolution Hates Atheists.

[Grumpy Santa]

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 his bases I say that evolution favors religious theists.

If evolution favored religious theists, why is it that the atheist population is growing faster? Simple question. Evolution is more than simply breeding rate you know.

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?

It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that there is a hereditary link tied to theism. The observation that theists product atheists seems to (at this time) support that, although that recent study explaining that intelligence may be overriding any religious instinct would explain it.

So let's consider another alternative... let's say there is a genetic element to theism for the sake of this argument. Now let's say that there is an inverse causal link between intelligence and the expression of a theistic instinct, with a greater intelligence overriding it. If there's a genetic element to intelligence, wouldn't evolution actually favor intelligence over a theistic instinct? Greater intelligence is being linked to not being a theist, atheists can come from a theistic background, atheists are growing at a faster pace than theists, the intelligence genes are dominating the theistic genes and winning the evolutionary battle. Evolution prefers intelligence over any theistic genes in the modern era.

 

[leroy]

If evolution favored religious theists, why is it that the atheist population is growing faster? Simple question. Evolution is more than simply breeding rate you know.
.

because there are other forces, that have nothing to do with evolution and hereditability, than promotes the growth of the atheist population.

It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that there is a hereditary link tied to theism. The observation that theists product atheists seems to (at this time) support that, although that recent study explaining that intelligence may be overriding any religious instinct would explain it.

well multiple sources, including your own source support the ide that religiosity is hereditable,

So let's consider another alternative... let's say there is a genetic element to theism for the sake of this argument. Now let's say that there is an inverse causal link between intelligence and the expression of a theistic instinct, with a greater intelligence overriding it. If there's a genetic element to intelligence, wouldn't evolution actually favor intelligence over a theistic instinct? Greater intelligence is being linked to not being a theist, atheists can come from a theistic background, atheists are growing at a faster pace than theists, the intelligence genes are dominating the theistic genes and winning the evolutionary battle. Evolution prefers intelligence over any theistic genes in the modern era.

yes if you prove that intelligence = more viable offspring, then you would falsify my point

 

[Gnug215]

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.

Can you change the color of your eyes by choosing a new lifestyle?

No.

I know what your source said, but once again, you have a lacking and simplified understanding of the material AND the subject.

I'm not a biologist, but I know full well that genetics and hereditry is a complicated subject, and it's not just a matter of "inherit this gene, and BAM, you believe in Jesus."

So again, religion is NOT a heritable trait LIKE blue eyes.

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.

Nearly, partly, percentage.

If anything, this study tells the story that religion is to many people so stupid, that their ability to reason is able to overpower (some of their) genetics (the ones pertaining to religiosity).

Besides, if the end result is more atheists, then on some level - if one takes the simplistic approach to the subject - evolution must be favoring atheists.
That's the logical outcome of your line of reasoning.

It's a bit like saying that a "theist" bird is really successful because it manages to raise a lot of cuckoos.

Again, you have to remember that evolution deals with populations, not individuals.

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?

I'm not here to make deals.

Follow the rules, and you shouldn't have any troubles.

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

They are plenty related and relevant to the original topic.

Feel free to respond.

.....

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.

Yet yet YET again, Leroy... and do read and comprehend this time:

That - is - NOT - the - point!

The source/study and the conclusion isn't the problem.

The problem is the message YOU are taking away from the study!

This has been pointed out to you numerous times, and YET you kep bringing it up.

 

[leroy]

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.

Yet yet YET again, Leroy... and do read and comprehend this time:

That - is - NOT - the - point!.

Yes Gnug215 that was your point.

Gnug215 wrote:
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 .

your point was that religiosity is not an hereditable trait, and I proved the oposite.

So again, religion is NOT a heritable trait LIKE blue eyes

strawman, I never said that religiosity is hereditable like blue eyes


blue eyes.......fully determined by hereditable traits

religiosity..........partly determined by hereditable traits


do you understand the difference?

 

[MarsCydonia]

your point was that religiosity is not an hereditable trait, and I proved the oposite.

Its really interesting to see how a theists like Leroy thinks he has proved something.

I think the process goes something like this:
1. Read something
2. Draw the wrong conclusion
3. Proof!

If...
4. Someone points out to that the conclusion is wrong because of A, B and C.
then
5. Ignore A, B and C
6. Proof!

This is why there are still flat-earthers.

 

[leroy]

your point was that religiosity is not an hereditable trait, and I proved the oposite.

Its really interesting to see how a theists like Leroy thinks he has proved something.

I think the process goes something like this:
1. Read something
2. Draw the wrong conclusion
3. Proof!

If...
4. Someone points out to that the conclusion is wrong because of A, B and C.
then
5. Ignore A, B and C
6. Proof!

This is why there are still flat-earthers.

Gnug215, once again this is the kind to idiotic and immature behavior that a moderator should try to prevent.

please ask MarsCydonia to make meaningful contributions to the conversation, for example he can always provide his evidence that proves that religiosity is not hereditable (assuming that he disagrees with my statement)

 

[MarsCydonia]

please ask MarsCydonia to make meaningful contributions to the conversation, for example he can always provide his evidence that proves that religiosity is not hereditable (assuming that he disagrees with my statement)

Wait, you claimed to understand the burden of proof. You claimed religiosity is heriditary, shouldn't you prove it? I mean, with points that have not "already been answered or are not relevant"...

That was the nature of my latest comment: you drew a wrong conclusion and thinks that qualifies as proof. So let's go by the standard you have used so far:
- I read your comments
- Drew a conclusion that you are wrong
- Proof!

 

[leroy]

Wait, you claimed to understand the burden of proof. You claimed religiosity is heriditary, shouldn't you prove it? I mean, with points that have not "already been answered or are not relevant"..

Yes I claimed that religiosity is hereditable and I proved it. (well not me, scientists did)


if you what to claim that these scientists where wrong, you are always free to provide your evidence.


So pelase read the articles that I quoted, understand them and only then come back a make a meaningful contribution,

 

[MarsCydonia]

Yes I claimed that religiosity is hereditable and I proved it.

I asked for proof with points that have not already been answered or that are not irrelevant.

 

[leroy]

Yes I claimed that religiosity is hereditable and I proved it.

I asked for proof with points that have not already been answered or that are not irrelevant.

I honestly don't remember what proof did you ask for, I was answering to Gung.


But I already provided evidence for these 2 statements

1 religious people are more efficient in reproducing

2 religiosity is a hereditable trait.



what else am I suppose to prove ?

 

[MarsCydonia]

But I already provided evidence for these 2 statements

1 religious people are more efficient in reproducing

2 religiosity is a hereditable trait.

what else am I suppose to prove ?

You're not supposed to prove anything else. Prove 1 and 2 Leroy. Prove 1 and 2 without points that have already been answered or that are irrelevant.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

[

But I already provided evidence for these 2 statements

1 religious people are more efficient in reproducing

2 religiosity is a hereditable trait.



what else am I suppose to prove ?

You haven't shown either, sadly.

1. Producing more offspring isn't the same as being more efficient at doing so, it's actually close to the opposite. All you have to do is reword that a bit though (produce more offspring, have more kids, whatever) and I'll be good with that.

2. There is no evidence that religiosity is actually hereditary, and the fact that religious parents (even when both are religious which would be significant if you understood genetics at all) produce both religious and non-religious offspring stands as an argument against your assertion.

You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this simple fact, religious parents produce non-religious offspring. Therefore you cannot treat the two groups, religious and non-religious, as separate groups the way you are. A religious couple having four kids does not mean the population of religious people went up by four, it could mean that both populations went up by 2 for example.

 

[Gnug215]

Yet yet YET again, Leroy... and do read and comprehend this time:

That - is - NOT - the - point!.

Yes Gnug215 that was your point.

Lol, no! Are you really this dense?

How can I make this my point when this is your point that I'm arguing is not the point??

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 .

your point was that religiosity is not an hereditable trait, and I proved the oposite.

No, now stop lying or miscomprehending this.

I pointed out that there is a difference between heritable traits, which the study you linked to makes clear!

It's right there in the study! Religiosity depends on both genes AND evironmental factors.
Eye color is ONLY dependent on genes.

So again, religion is NOT a heritable trait LIKE blue eyes

strawman, I never said that religiosity is hereditable like blue eyes

blue eyes.......fully determined by hereditable traits

religiosity..........partly determined by hereditable traits

do you understand the difference?

It's not a strawman, because the title of this thread and your original post say otherwise!

YOU are the one that has been arguing that evolution hates atheists!

_I_ understand the difference, since _I_ was the one who pointed this out to you. How obtuse can you be? And why even highlight this when it goes against your own conclusion? Are you just trying to score cheap points to scrape together some measly semblance of something that isn't an utter intellectual defeat?
You clearly only realized the difference, but you're somehow not yet mentally capable of making the connection as to how this undermines your own point!

Any kind of fluidity in manifestation of traits - especially such a complicated trait as religiosity - is going to be pretty much immediately mess with natural selection and the evolution of humanity as a whole.

If evolution "hated" atheists, we wouldn't see any atheists today.

You don't understand evolution, and your point is invalid.

 

[Gnug215]

Gnug215, once again this is the kind to idiotic and immature behavior that a moderator should try to prevent.

please ask MarsCydonia to make meaningful contributions to the conversation, for example he can always provide his evidence that proves that religiosity is not hereditable (assuming that he disagrees with my statement)

He has actually pretty accurately described exactly what you're doing, which is more meaningful to the conversation than your waffling about and blundering around in misconceptions.

So you can stop telling me how to do my job, and try to focus on reading comprehension and making logically coherent points instead.