Why does evolution select against atheists?

[leopold]

I also ran into some stuff about placebo effects in dogs and rats.

which at first seems odd, but dogs and rats are alive, right?
it does cast serious doubts about the placebo effect being related to religion.
it may even be that religion in humans is something else in animals.

There would appear to be a genetic component, perhaps correlated with the known genetic component regarding susceptibility to hypnosis?

maybe.

Dawkins has long sections in a couple of his books discussing the evolutionary advantages of a tendency toward theistic belief - which would be relevant here, if the OP question had been phrased reasonably. He seems to think it very likely that evolution selected for such a tendency - that it's built in, in a sense, along with an ability to recognize faces and pick up languages.

if true then shouldn't we "let nature take its course"?

 

[leopold]

*sigh*

never mind.

if i'm missing anything tell me, it sure won't be the first boat i've missed.

 

[iceaura]

if true then shouldn't we "let nature take its course"?

Treat the employment of theism in society's institutions as we do addictive drugs or gambling? Maybe.

 

[leopold]

Treat the employment of theism in society's institutions as we do addictive drugs or gambling? Maybe.

i believe what you actually mean is "god".
you can't say the precepts of religion/theism are wrong.

 

[iceaura]

i believe what you actually mean is "god".
you can't say the precepts of religion/theism are wrong.

The employment of theism to market precepts or whatever seems to have some side effects that one might wish to avoid.

 

[leopold]

The employment of theism to market precepts or whatever seems to have some side effects that one might wish to avoid.

yes, one of them seems to be "my god is the biggest, baddest, and the hairiest of them all".
another seems to be "let god deal with it".

you are correct though, one could get a good dose of theism by an evening with, say, shakespear.
but would it be the same? would it "mean" anything?

 

[S.A.M.]

What studies? Show them.

Ask your BFF, you're more likely to believe the evidence if it comes from him.

 

[Enmos]

and?
you presented no evidence that biogenesis has been refuted.
i could go the same circular route you are going enmos.
where did this "point source" that caused the big bang come from?
where did the energy to heat it come from?

Why would I want to refute biogenesis ?
The big bang is a whole other discussion. Please stick to our little side topic here..
I presented you with a logical and rational argument against your claim that life can only come from life. Now, if you disagree with it please point out with what exactly.

 

[leopold]

Why would I want to refute biogenesis ?

it seems you eventually have to if you believe things become alive.

The big bang is a whole other discussion. Please stick to our little side topic here..

i believe the big bang dictates the general conditions under which life was formed according to abiogenesis.

I presented you with a logical and rational argument against your claim that life can only come from life.

you did?
things becoming alive is as illogical to me as it ever was.

Now, if you disagree with it please point out with what exactly.

someone else would probably say irrelevant but if you can imagine me flipping my lips with a goofy look on my face you pretty well got it. :m:
seriously though, the only thing i can say is biogenesis has never been refuted and abiogenesis hasn't been proved at all.
now, if thousands of scientists have collectively elevated biogenesis to the status of a scientific law without encountering a single instance where it failed then who am i to argue?

 

[Enmos]

it seems you eventually have to if you believe things become alive.

First of all, I don't have to refute anything. We were discussing your take on biogenesis.
If anything, you need to come up with some evidence. But I'm not even asking that. I'm just asking you to answer my questions. If that's too hard, just say so.

i believe the big bang dictates the general conditions under which life was formed according to abiogenesis.

And ? I thought we were talking about biogenesis and its impossibilities.

you did?
things becoming alive is as illogical to me as it ever was.

Things do not become alive.
Are you denying that living things consist of dead matter ?

seriously though, the only thing i can say is biogenesis has never been refuted and abiogenesis hasn't been proved at all.

Oh nice one
Abiogenesis has never been refuted and biogenesis (your unique definition) hasn't been proved at all.

now, if thousands of scientists have collectively elevated biogenesis to the status of a scientific law without encountering a single instance where it failed then who am i to argue?

Sources please. And make sure they use your particular definition of the word.

 

[leopold]

First of all, I don't have to refute anything. We were discussing your take on biogenesis.
If anything, you need to come up with some evidence.

evidence? huh?
don't you know what it takes to become an irrefuted scientific law?

But I'm not even asking that. I'm just asking you to answer my questions. If that's too hard, just say so.

i've answered your questions to the best of my ability enmos.

I thought we were talking about biogenesis and its impossibilities.

i find nothing impossible about biogenesis, even the possibility of it being false.

Things do not become alive.

the last i checked, i was alive and:

Are you denying that living things consist of dead matter ?

no of course not.

Abiogenesis has never been refuted and biogenesis (your unique definition) hasn't been proved at all.

any definition from an encyclopedia will do for biogenesis. (except wiki)
as for the quote itself i've got this to say:
i'm done talking to you about this enmos.

Sources please. And make sure they use your particular definition of the word.

 

[Enmos]

evidence? huh?
don't you know what it takes to become an irrefuted scientific law?

i've answered your questions to the best of my ability enmos.

i find nothing impossible about biogenesis, even the possibility of it being false.


the last i checked, i was alive and:

no of course not.


any definition from an encyclopedia will do for biogenesis. (except wiki)
as for the quote itself i've got this to say:
i'm done talking to you about this enmos.

Figures. Continue your delusion.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Why does evolution select against atheists?

What makes atheistic societies self limiting?

Why does evolution select against intelligence & logic?
Why do humans make societies so self limiting?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

.and you don't find it odd that biogenesis has not one shred of evidence against it?
never, at any time, has a scientist anywhere observed life coming from non life.
even the very notion is absurd.

Less absurd than coming from gods.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

i believe what you actually mean is "god".
you can't say the precepts of religion/theism are wrong.

The precepts of religion/theism are wrong.

 

[Nutter]

It would seem that atheistic societies are self limiting, they shrink, do not replace their populations, then are overwhelmed by theistic societies.

What makes atheistic societies self limiting?

The absurdity of their premises.

 

[leopold]

Figures. Continue your delusion.

my delusion?
i believe i made an honest effort at being objective here enmos while you on the other hand dismiss scientific laws and twist the meaning of things to suit your argument.

 

[Enmos]

my delusion?
i believe i made an honest effort at being objective here enmos while you on the other hand dismiss scientific laws and twist the meaning of things to suit your argument.

:m:

 

[cosmictraveler]

Actually for over a million years evolution seemed to be choosing athiests all along. It wasn't until about 6,000 years ago or so that humans developed the ideas about religion and God. Ever since the myths were created about God everyone has just accepted them as part of life and in certain times if you didn't agree with the church, priests or others in charge, you were killed!

 

[swarm]

They main problem is we ran into was we developed a way for the insane to communicate before we realized they were insane. So they made up crazy stories and confirmation bias made a few seem plausible at the time because we didn't understand science or journalism or fiction.

So the greedy, the ruthless and the prudes used the crazies to seize power and they have held it so long that the traditionalists and the uber conservatives don't want to change.

Mean while every one else suffers while we trash the planet and over populate to collapse because everything is still based on an insane view of reality.