Evolution Hates Atheists.

[thenexttodie]

We do have a causation, but the causation isn't religiosity.....

But it isn't religiosity though. The causation I provided is a tendency to not use any contraception and having a lack of sex education, which isn't synonymous with religious, but is more often found among the extremely religious.

Well the idea of men and women having sex with each other and conceiving is actually a normal thing. God in the Bible expects this and it was certainly not shameful for a women to become pregnant in Judeo-Christian culture, unless it envolved breaking a vow of commitment or marriage.

Compare this with the ideas people like you promote concerning sexuality. Is putting a vacuum hose in girls vagina and sucking out her unborn baby actually a normal part of human sexuality? Your idea of sexuality demands illustrative pamphlets to show male refugees how to butt-fuck each other, forcing women to share public restrooms with men and rewarding the acceptance of chemically altered females in male sporting events. And visa versa. (If I have misrepresented any of your beliefs, please show how)

Also virtually all Atheists affirm homosexuality. No mother or father ever hopes that they have a gay son. The words "I hope he's gay!" has never left lips of any expecting mother of father. They might hope that there son will be successful in life, and marry a nice girl and they might hope to have grandchildren someday. But they will never hope for a son who engages in homosexual behavior.

So yeah I actually agree with you that the causation might not be religion. I think the causation might just be that women generally do not want to have children with people like you, who maintain all these weird fucking ideas.

 

[Gnug215]

Look, Leroy...


The entire premise of your post hinges on your wildly misguided notion that atheism is some kind of belief system on par with that of Christians, and that "evolution" is some kind of god for atheists.

It isn't, in both cases.

So... your premise is stupid. All your posts are pointless. And your reasoning is entirely lacking.

 

[Nesslig20]

We do have a causation, but the causation isn't religiosity.....

But it isn't religiosity though. The causation I provided is a tendency to not use any contraception and having a lack of sex education, which isn't synonymous with religious, but is more often found among the extremely religious.

Well the idea of men and women having sex with each other and conceiving is actually a normal thing. God in the Bible expects this and it was certainly not shameful for a women to become pregnant in Judeo-Christian culture, unless it envolved breaking a vow of commitment or marriage.

Also, according to Judeo-Christian culture that if your brother died, his wife automatically becomes your wife.

Deuteronomy 25:5-6"When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. 6"It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

Its that a normal thing? I don't think so.

Compare this with the ideas people like yo upromote concerning sexuality. Is putting a vacuum hose in girls vagina and sucking out her unborn baby actually a normal part of human sexuality? Your idea of sexuality demands illustrative pamphlets to show male refugees how to butt-fuck each other, forcing women to share public restrooms with men and rewarding the acceptance of chemically altered females in male sporting events. And visa versa. (If I have misrepresented any of your beliefs, please show how)

Well at least you are aware to some degree of the BS you have spouted. Well I am pro-choice, which is sensical if you are pro bodily rights, but I am not promoting abortions unless it is done out of safety, but even if a women doesn't want to be pregnant, it is her choice to decide whether to take an abortion or not. I don't know where you get the idea male refugees to butt-fuck each other from any of my comments, I don't what this refers to. Forcing women to share public restrooms with men is triviality. I don't have problems to go to a female restroom if the male restroom is out of order and neither is the case with women going to the male restroom. Also I don't have a problem with uni-sex restrooms, that means sharing the same restroom, because I am doing that at home where I and both my dad and mom are using the same poop throne, nor am I afraid to go to a public uni-sex restroom.

Why the hell would I?
Also, chemically altered females/males, obviously derogatory, can do whatever sports they want just as everyone can.

Also virtually all Atheists affirm homosexuality.

Affirm? more likely are tolerate of homosexuals, my brother is gay and he is nicer than me. I have no problem with that and neither should anybody. So yes, atheists are more likely to be more tolerant to people that have a different sexual orientation.

No mother or father ever hopes that they have a gay son.

No mother or father should. If I have kids, I don't hope they end up either way. It doesn't matter to me if they are gay or straight or bi, just like it doesn't matter to me if they are all boys or girls.

The words "I hope he's gay!" has never left lips of any expecting mother of father. They might hope that there son will be successful in life, and marry a nice girl and they might hope to have grandchildren someday.

If you have gay kids, they can also have kids themselves by adoption or sperm donation. So you can still have grandkids. And if my children don't want to have kids, which can also happen even if they are straight, I won't force them to live otherwise.

So yeah I actually agree with you that the causation might not be religion. I think the causation might just be that women generally do not want to have children with people like you, who maintain all these weird fucking ideas.

The ideas are not weird as you want them to make out to be. And weird is subjective anyway. Eating Lobster was also weird to the people who wrote the old testament.

And since you have tried your best to insult me, a poor job btw, I am going to do it back at ya, but better.

What I think is very weird is judging people not on their actions, what you did during your life, but on their beliefs. Which is central to the dogma of christianity. He who accepts Jesus christ as their lord and savior are rewarded in heaven, wether they are mass murderers or not, doesn't matter. All sins can be forgiven if you believe that a middle eastern Jew became a zombie and that the idea of vicarious redemption is not inhumanly barbaric. Conversely, if you don't buy all that bullshit and you think that you yourself are responsible for your actions and that no sacrifice on the part of another person can release you from your wrong doings, just like any person who accepts the notion of responsibility should. If you are like this, it doesn't matter how good and nice of a person you are, the one sin not even God can forgive is disbelief and you will burn forever. That is fucking disturbing in book that says snakes and donkeys can talk, and promotes slavery, racism, sexism and all other kinds of disturbing shit. And that the people who are chosen by God as the most moral have offered his virgin daughters to a mob of rapists, and later had sex with them as in the case with Lot and was a naked old drunk who cursed his son just for seeing him like that as the case with Noah, and also a murderer before God met him and became a mass murderer, pillaging tribe after tribe at the order of God himself, as is the case with Moses. THAT is some fucking weird ass shit.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

So Leroy. You've been ignoring this fact, now it's time to incorporate it into your argument. More atheists are the result of religious parents than not.?

that is simply a confirmation of the point that I am trying to make, most atheist (in this forum) are first generation atheists, their parents where not atheists,


this confirms the point that atheists genes and/or atheist memes are not inherited as easily as their theist counterparts.

Or, perhaps, maybe theism isn't really an inheritable trait after all. We could be looking instead at an offshoot of a survival instinct, curiosity, and the need to satisfy that curiosity so the next time we hear a rustle in the bushes we know enough to run and not walk into the lion's mouth.

If Christians, for example, are supplementing the atheist population by also producing atheists

so what ?.....legless humans usually come from legged parents, the point is that both legless individuals and atheist are less likely to reproduce than legged and theist individuals.

Fantastic job dodging the point. Masterfully done, kudos to you sir. But now, let's get back to it, shall we?

, and when you include the fact that atheism is the fastest growing "religious group"

this simply proves that atheism is currently on fashion ancient alien believers are also growing at very fast rates?

but this is not relevant, the point is that there are selective pressures against atheism ...........evolution favors theists, ...................you can always argue that other factors unrelated to evolution and natural selection might favor atheism ............but that doesn't change the fact that evolution favor theists. and I personally fin d it ironic.

with atheist genes I mean> all the genetic material that would produce the emotional, psychological, intelectual .....state that would produce a bias towards preferring atheism rather than theism. I am not implying that there are actual genes that code for atheism.

Well, it proves nothing, but it certainly debunks the argument that atheists are simply the result of breeding and that they're being out-bred. You even admit this when you call it "in fashion" or something... if it's reproductive, it can't simply be a fad. Plus consider also that some countries are atheist majority, if you use numbers from those countries then you could assert that atheism is the "dominant gene" and it out-breeding theism, driving it extinct. Look at... what was it, Iceland? Recently a poll there showed 0% of people under 25 in Iceland are theists. None. By those numbers, theism is doomed.

 

[leroy]

[
Well, it proves nothing, but it certainly debunks the argument that atheists are simply the result of breeding and that they're being out-bred. You even admit this when you call it "in fashion" or something... if it's reproductive, it can't simply be a fad. Plus consider also that some countries are atheist majority, if you use numbers from those countries then you could assert that atheism is the "dominant gene" and it out-breeding theism, driving it extinct. Look at... what was it, Iceland? Recently a poll there showed 0% of people under 25 in Iceland are theists. None. By those numbers, theism is doomed.

No one is sayin that atheism is simply the result of breeding, ..............stop making strawman arguments


all I am saying is that genes play a role in determining ones religion, this is an uncontroversial fact, the only controversy is the importance of that role

a poll there showed 0% of people under 25 in Iceland are theists

and the population growth in Iceland is 2 children per woman, while the average population growth in the world is 2.52 children per woman..............this proves my point, atheists are less efficient in reproducing. ....natural selection prefers theists.

 

[leroy]

It is a widely uncontroversial fact religious believe is determined by both genetic factors and memes, the only controversial thing is the relevance that each of this has.

[




Really? What are these factors then if they are so uncontroversial?

No sir, this is not going to be the kind of conversation where you pretend not to know the scientific facts...............and where you deny everything I say without presenting evidence for the contrary.


I already provided my source and even your own sources show that there are genetic factors that influence your believes about the existence of God.



unless you present evidence that shows that gens have no influence, my participations in this conversation are going to be based on the assumption that genes do play a role becase that tis what all the evidence that has been presented in this conversation shows..............feel free to ignore me if you don't agree with these terms.

 

[MarsCydonia]

all I am saying is that genes play a role in determining ones religion, this is an uncontroversial fact, the only controversy is the importance of that role

Not only is this completely false its also completely idiotic (in other words, typical for Leroy)

and the population growth in Iceland is 2 children per woman, while the average population growth in the world is 2.52 children per woman..............this proves my point, atheists are less efficient in reproducing. ....natural selection prefers theists.

Again false and idiotic (in other words, again typical for Leroy)

Can Leroy go 3 for 3 in the false and idiotic category? Drum roll....

No sir, this is not going to be the kind of conversation where you pretend not to know the scientific facts...............and where you deny everything I say without presenting evidence for the contrary.

I already provided my source and even your own sources show that there are genetic factors that influence your believes about the existence of God.

Congratulations Leroy!

 

[leroy]

Not only is this completely false its also completely idiotic (in other words, typical for Leroy)

let me guess, even though you claim it is false, you wont present any evidence supporting your assertion, ...............

 

[Grumpy Santa]

[
Well, it proves nothing, but it certainly debunks the argument that atheists are simply the result of breeding and that they're being out-bred. You even admit this when you call it "in fashion" or something... if it's reproductive, it can't simply be a fad. Plus consider also that some countries are atheist majority, if you use numbers from those countries then you could assert that atheism is the "dominant gene" and it out-breeding theism, driving it extinct. Look at... what was it, Iceland? Recently a poll there showed 0% of people under 25 in Iceland are theists. None. By those numbers, theism is doomed.

No one is sayin that atheism is simply the result of breeding, ..............stop making strawman arguments


all I am saying is that genes play a role in determining ones religion, this is an uncontroversial fact, the only controversy is the importance of that role

Actually it's still controversial. First of all, I'll credit this to bad wording on your part (an accident), but there's no evidence at all that genes determine your religion, I believe you meant whether or not someone is religious and will go on that assumption. Secondly, there's no actual "god-gene" discovered, no causative evidence of genetics and religiosity. The appearance of a correlation does not demonstrate a causation.

a poll there showed 0% of people under 25 in Iceland are theists

and the population growth in Iceland is 2 children per woman, while the average population growth in the world is 2.52 children per woman..............this proves my point, atheists are less efficient in reproducing. ....natural selection prefers theists.

Again I see a misinterpretation of the data. There are other factors you're ignoring in Iceland... universal healthcare, higher education as a result of no tuition fees making college affordable to everyone... one could also easily state that more educated people have less children and focus more resources on the fewer ones they do have.

Plus again you ignore or hand wave away the fact that even though theistic parents tend to breed faster they also produce atheists, thus increasing the atheist population in addition to atheist breeding. There is no line of demarcation separating the two groups, they leak into each other with the greater flow being from theist to atheist. In other words, it's far more probable that a difference in breeding rates between theists and atheists has nothing to do with anything genetic with regards to religion. The data need to be compiled against economic status, education levels, access to better healthcare and contraception, etc. to determine if there are more likely causative aspects.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

It is a widely uncontroversial fact religious believe is determined by both genetic factors and memes, the only controversial thing is the relevance that each of this has.

[




Really? What are these factors then if they are so uncontroversial?

No sir, this is not going to be the kind of conversation where you pretend not to know the scientific facts...............and where you deny everything I say without presenting evidence for the contrary.

You actually do carry the burden of demonstrating the validity of your claims with evidence before someone can address the alleged evidence for faults.

I already provided my source and even your own sources show that there are genetic factors that influence your believes about the existence of God.

unless you present evidence that shows that gens have no influence, my participations in this conversation are going to be based on the assumption that genes do play a role becase that tis what all the evidence that has been presented in this conversation shows..............feel free to ignore me if you don't agree with these terms.

What of all the parts of the world where belief in your god du jour is the vast minority and the other religions (or the nones) dominate? Again you're claiming it refers to your particular "God" as opposed to a more generic "religiosity". People not raised to believe in your god as a part of their culture tend to not even consider that it exists, instead focusing more on the gods (if any) of their own culture. "Which religion" is a learned behavior. "Religiosity" is likely an evolutionary offshoot of the beneficial traits of intelligence and information processing, a side track that got out of control. Knowledge would have saved lives during our species evolution, and the brain creating "knowledge" from too little information would explain religiosity.

 

[MarsCydonia]

let me guess, even though you claim it is false, you wont present any evidence supporting your assertion, ...............

:lol:

I know! I'll present Leroy-type evidence. Are you ready?

"This is an uncontroversial fact"

Are you happy with my evidence?

 

[leroy]

let me guess, even though you claim it is false, you wont present any evidence supporting your assertion, ...............

:lol:

I know! I'll present Leroy-type evidence. Are you ready?

"This is an uncontroversial fact"

Are you happy with my evidence?

I did provided a source, and the source that Ness provided also confirms my statement,


but don't worry no one is expecting you to look at those sources

 

[MarsCydonia]

I did provided a source, and the source that Ness provided also confirms my statement,

but don't worry no one is expecting you to look at those sources

Except none of the sources confirms your statement.

But don't worry, no one is expecting to understand these sources... That's also an uncontroversial fact.

 

[Nesslig20]

It is a widely uncontroversial fact religious believe is determined by both genetic factors and memes, the only controversial thing is the relevance that each of this has.

Really? What are these factors then if they are so uncontroversial?

No sir, this is not going to be the kind of conversation where you pretend not to know the scientific facts...............and where you deny everything I say without presenting evidence for the contrary.

I am not pretending, I am asking you to back up your claims. And here you are again shifting the burden of proof. I don't need to present evidence to the contrary since I didn't made the claim, YOU did.

So, try it again, What are these genetic factors if they are so uncontroversial?
If you can't give any for which there are citations to the scientific literature, then admit with honesty that none of them have been identified.

I already provided my source and even your own sources show that there are genetic factors that influence your believes about the existence of God.
unless you present evidence that shows that gens have no influence, my participations in this conversation are going to be based on the assumption that genes do play a role becase that tis what all the evidence that has been presented in this conversation shows..............feel free to ignore me if you don't agree with these terms.

The terms you are pushing forward are logically fallacious by definition. Look up shifting the burden of proof, that is what you are doing.
And no, my source does not support your position. It says what I have said previously about the complexity of human cognition.
I will repeat in case you have missed.

At best (as I said before) the tendency to be obedient to authority, superstitious and hyper agency detectors (which is common across humanity, not just the religious) could be factors that make religiosity as a by product, a spandrel. But even this is not very certain. My tentative position is that the human cognitive behavior is very complex and ascribing certain behaviors as genetically determined does not reflect the underlying process as a whole. A better way of looking at the evolution of human cognition is what Steven J. Gould has said about it:

...markedly increased brain size in human evolution may have had the most profound allometric consequences of all-for it added enough neural connections to convert an inflexible and rather rigidly programmed device into a labile organ, endowed with sufficient logic and memory to substitute non-
programmed learning for direct specification as the ground ofsocial behavior. Flexibility may well be the most important determinant of human consciousness (see essay 7); the direct programming of behavior has probably become inadaptive. Why imagine that specific genes for aggression, dominance, or spite have any importance when we know that the brain's enormous flexibility permits us to be aggressive or peaceful, dominant or submissive, spiteful or generous? Violence, sexism, and general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of behaviors. But peacefulness, equality, and kindness are just as biological- and we may see their influence increase ifwe can create social structures that permit them to flourish. Thus, my criticism of Wilson does not invoke a nonbiological "environmentalism"; it merely pits the concept of biological potentiality a brain capable of the full range of human behaviors and rigidly predisposed toward none-against the idea of biological determinism-specific genes for specific behavioral traits.
https://cbs.asu.edu/sites/default/files ... minism.pdf

Viewing human cognition this way makes sense in light of that humans can change their minds wildly over their life time. Many atheists being former believes.

 

[leroy]

The terms you are pushing forward are logically fallacious by definition. Look up shifting the burden of proof, that is what you are doing.
And no, my source does not support your position. It says what I have said previously about the complexity of human cognition.
I will repeat in case you have missed.

again, I already provided a source and even you own source confirms my statement. feel free to provide evidence against the statement.


this is not going to be a endless conversation where I repeat the same thing over and over again.

At best (as I said before) the tendency to be obedient to authority, superstitious and hyper agency detectors (which is common across humanity, not just the religious) could be factors that make religiosity as a by product, a spandrel. But even this is not very certain. My tentative position is that the human cognitive behavior is very complex and ascribing certain behaviors as genetically determined does not reflect the underlying process as a whole. A better way of looking at the evolution of human cognition is what

[/Viewing human cognition this way makes sense in light of that humans can change their minds wildly over their life time. Many atheists being former believes.

yes that is my point, no one is saying that there is a gene that codes for being religious but being religious is a bi product of stuff that is inherited and subject to natural selection.



you see why are you asking for sources if we both agree on that point.

 

[MarsCydonia]

again, I already provided a source and even you own source confirms my statement. feel free to provide evidence against the statement.

this is not going to be a endless conversation where I repeat the same thing over and over again.

... no one is saying that there is a gene that codes for being religious but being religious is a bi product of stuff that is inherited and subject to natural selection.

you see why are you asking for sources if we both agree on that point.

:lol:

See, another exemple of Leroy failing to understand the point. Indulging Leroy leads to hilarity but I see no other reason to because did Leroy ever show any capacity to understand anything that was presented to him? He obviously missed what is presented because he's invested his stupid idea.

Leroy: making boxes of rocks look intelligent everytime he tries to make an argument.

 

[leroy]

Again I see a misinterpretation of the data. There are other factors you're ignoring in Iceland... universal healthcare, higher education as a result of no tuition fees making college affordable to everyone... one could also easily state that more educated people have less children and focus more resources on the fewer ones they do have.

but that is not relevant it is still a fact that theist tend to have more children than atheist, .............whether if we know what causes this fact or not is irrelevant.


and it is also a fact that at least at some degree genes determine your predisposition to be or not to be religious. all the sources that have been provided in this thread confirm this fact.

Plus again you ignore or hand wave away the fact that even though theistic parents tend to breed faster they also produce atheists, thus increasing the atheist population in addition to atheist breeding. There is no line of demarcation separating the two groups, they leak into each other with the greater flow being from theist to atheist. In other words, it's far more probable that a difference in breeding rates between theists and atheists has nothing to do with anything genetic with regards to religion. The data need to be compiled against economic status, education levels, access to better healthcare and contraception, etc. to determine if there are more likely causative aspects.

you don't seem to get it.


the fact that atheist countries have slower reproductive rates and the fact that atheists tend to be firs generation atheists serve as adicional evidence that confirms the fact that theist are more likely to reproduce

 

[MarsCydonia]

but that is not relevant it is still a fact that theist tend to have more children than atheist, .............whether if we know what causes this fact or not is irrelevant.

Oh my... So is this an admission that you are a troll Leroy? I mean, it's pretty clear to everyone but it would show that you have a minimum of integrity of you admitted it.

Because if the cause is irrelevant then why bother mentionning evolution?

and it is also a fact that at least at some degree genes determine your predisposition to be or not to be religious. all the sources that have been provided in this thread confirm this fact.

None have been presented. This is an uncontroversial fact.

Again, you have no idea what your talking about. You're just trolling.

you don't seem to get it.

the fact that atheist countries have slower reproductive rates and the fact that atheists tend to be firs generation atheists serve as adicional evidence that confirms the fact that theist are more likely to reproduce

No Leroy, you don't get it.

But don't worry, no one ever expected you to.

 

[thenexttodie]

Well the idea of men and women having sex with each other and conceiving is actually a normal thing. God in the Bible expects this and it was certainly not shameful for a women to become pregnant in Judeo-Christian culture, unless it envolved breaking a vow of commitment or marriage.

Also, according to Judeo-Christian culture that if your brother died, his wife automatically becomes your wife.

Deuteronomy 25:5-6"When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. 6"It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

Its that a normal thing? I don't think so.

The commandment God gave to us, that we are to have sex and conceive actually predates the existence of Judeo-Christian culture. I only referenced Judeo-Christian culture to point out that this commandment is still reflected in their culture and that the fault you accuse them with which allows them to reproduce more than atheists are able to ,is non sensical.

You tried to paint a picture of millions of Christian men in America that are too stupid to know how to put a condom on and thus this is this reason women are less likely to procreate with Atheists. I am arguing that there are inherent flaws in secular ideas on sexuality which inhibit their ability to have children.

Your ramblings about how you wouldn't care if your kids were gay(If you had kids). And going on about how much you affirm abortion and how comfortable you feel using the women's restroom? and your affirmations on transexuallism are rather pointless. Everyone already knows.

 

[Nesslig20]

The terms you are pushing forward are logically fallacious by definition. Look up shifting the burden of proof, that is what you are doing.
And no, my source does not support your position. It says what I have said previously about the complexity of human cognition.
I will repeat in case you have missed.

again, I already provided a source and even you own source confirms my statement. feel free to provide evidence against the statement.
this is not going to be a endless conversation where I repeat the same thing over and over again.

That is my line. I have to point out, repeatedly, that you commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. It not up to me to provide evidence against the statement, it is up to you to provide evidence that support your statement. Put up of shut up.

And before you are going to say that you already have, by referring to that previous link, I already addressed that.