Why does evolution select against atheists?

[leopold]

Preacher

our school teachers are the preachers, parroting evolution without ever stating the scientific law of biogenesis has never been refuted.

if you have any doubts as to the implications of the above statement google the term scientific law.

 

[(Q)]

The basic answer to the question in the O.P., "Why does evolution select against atheists," is that we are pre-programmed to believe in religion.

Highly doubtful. We are not "pre-programmed" to believe in religion, and religion isn't genetic by any stretch of the imagination. Most certainly, there are beneficial social traits associated with religion that have genetic components, but those traits are also associated with a number of other components. Religion has nothing to do with it.

As to why we happen to be preprogrammed for a destructive behavior, I went into that in my earlier post. Religion may have done some good in the Stone Age, but it's far outlived its usefulness. Or it could be a random mutation passed down through a genetic bottleneck.

Again, we are not "pre-programmed" for a destructive behavior, as humans are peaceful, social and kind by nature. It is our attempts to control what we believe to be harmful that is causing the behaviors we are trying to avoid.

I was never indoctrinated into a religion...

That, in essence, is the control mechanisms I was referring.

 

[S.A.M.]

We are not "pre-programmed" to believe in religion, and religion isn't genetic by any stretch of the imagination.

Not according to the scientific evidence.

Again, we are not "pre-programmed" for a destructive behavior, as humans are peaceful, social and kind by nature

You falsify your own delusion. You are neither peaceful, social nor kind.

 

[Enmos]

Again, we are not "pre-programmed" for a destructive behavior, as humans are peaceful, social and kind by nature.

I don't think we are one or the other by nature. We're pretty much a blank slate at birth.
Also, we might not be 'pre-programmed' specifically for destructive behavior but the result is still the same.

 

[(Q)]

Not according to the scientific evidence.

You obviously wouldn't know anything about that.

You falsify your own delusion. You are neither peaceful, social nor kind.

Towards the very same controlling mechanisms that cause humans to be destructive? Yes, indeed.

 

[S.A.M.]

You obviously wouldn't know anything about that.

Feel free to back up your statement.

Towards the very same controlling mechanisms that cause humans to be destructive? Yes, indeed.

Bwahahahaha!

Your delusion is better than someone else's? Oldest story. Take a number and get in line.

 

[(Q)]

I don't think we are one or the other by nature. We're pretty much a blank slate at birth.

You might be interested in reading The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker

 

[(Q)]

Feel free to back up your statement.

You mean like, after you didn't back up yours. Please go back to your myths and superstitions.

 

[Enmos]

You might be interested in reading The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker

I agree that humans are not entirely blank slates, perhaps I should have worded it better, but I meant that with regard to being peaceful, social and kind, and the opposites respectively, the potentials are there.

 

[leopold]

Highly doubtful. We are not "pre-programmed" to believe in religion, and religion isn't genetic by any stretch of the imagination. Most certainly, there are beneficial social traits associated with religion that have genetic components, but those traits are also associated with a number of other components. Religion has nothing to do with it.

wow.
religion is instinctive and in our genes and we have things such as the placebo effect which is entirely faith based.
the noose tightens

 

[(Q)]

I agree that humans are not entirely blank slates, perhaps I should have worded it better, but I meant that with regard to being peaceful, social and kind, and the opposites respectively, the potentials are there.

Of course, the potentials are there, and are brought out quite easily when controlled mechanisms such as religious indoctrination are engaged.

 

[Enmos]

Of course, the potentials are there, and are brought out quite easily when controlled mechanisms such as religious indoctrination are engaged.

Agreed.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah we only potentially not get along with people we potentially disagree with

Except (Q) who presumably lacks all that religious conditioning.

You mean like, after you didn't back up yours. Please go back to your myths and superstitions.

I can back up mine, although I would say a quick epidemiological survey would prove my point

Bloom and colleagues have shown that babies as young as five months make a distinction between inanimate objects and people. Shown a box moving in a stop-start way, babies show surprise. But a person moving in the same way elicits no surprise. To babies, objects ought to obey the laws of physics and move in a predictable way. People, on the other hand, have their own intentions and goals, and move however they choose.

Much of that evidence comes from experiments carried out on children, who are seen as revealing a "default state" of the mind that persists, albeit in modified form, into adulthood. "Children the world over have a strong natural receptivity to believing in gods because of the way their minds work, and this early developing receptivity continues to anchor our intuitive thinking throughout life," says anthropologist Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html?full=true

Now show me yours.

 

[swarm]

Quite a leap from box to god. Funny how none of my children have any "strong natural receptivity to believing in gods."

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that religion is propagated through indoctrination, especially of children. Evolution predisposes children to swallow whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them, he argues, as trusting obedience is valuable for survival. This also leads to what Dawkins calls "slavish gullibility" in the face of religious claims.

From your source

or maybe its both...

If children have an innate belief in god, however, where does that leave the indoctrination hypothesis? "I am thoroughly happy with believing that children are predisposed to believe in invisible gods - I always was," says Dawkins. "But I also find the indoctrination hypothesis plausible. The two influences could, and I suspect do, reinforce one another." He suggests that evolved gullibility converts a child's general predisposition to believe in god into a specific belief in the god (or gods) their parents worship.

Pretty weak for a new scientist article.

 

[leopold]

Pretty weak for a new scientist article.

what about the placebo effect?
you can't possibly say the evidence is weak for that.

what about biogenesis?
the evidence for that is so strong that biogenesis has been elevated to a scientific law.
as a matter of fact there has not been a SINGLE instance of anything ever refuting it.

 

[Enmos]

what about the placebo effect?
you can't possibly say the evidence is weak for that.

what about biogenesis?
the evidence for that is so strong that biogenesis has been elevated to a scientific law.
as a matter of fact there has not been a SINGLE instance of anything ever refuting it.

Dude.. biogenesis IS FACT. You are living proof ! lol
Ask your parents
No one questions it, not even theists..

 

[leopold]

Dude.. biogenesis IS FACT.

thank you enmos.

 

[Enmos]

thank you enmos.

Didn't you mean abiogenesis ?

 

[leopold]

Didn't you mean abiogenesis ?

nope.

 

[Enmos]

nope.

Huh ? Ok.. who questions biogenesis ?