Religion is an evolutionary advantage

Religion is an evolutionary advantage

-->

@Shila

      Allahu Akbar !

Well everything you've posted is true no one here wants to talk about those animistic and polytheist religions. They consider them irrelevant to today even though they existed for a very long time before monotheism or as you stated even religion in general. There are certain polyistic religions were even the gods take a back seat to land spirits and dead ancestors. But again nobody here wants to talk about those things because they're irrelevant to their day-to-day life. They only care about the religion they feel have scarred and marked them in some way. The purpose is never for productive conversation. 

Polytheist-Witch: -> @Elliott

Well everything you've posted is true no one here wants to talk about those animistic and polytheist religions. They consider them irrelevant to today even though they existed for a very long time before monotheism or as you stated even religion in general. There are certain polyistic religions were even the gods take a back seat to land spirits and dead ancestors. But again nobody here wants to talk about those things because they're irrelevant to their day-to-day life. They only care about the religion they feel have scarred and marked them in some way. The purpose is never for productive conversation. 

I'll make it very simple for you two <3 :

(1) Having orderly societies is good. Having leaders is good. Leaders making mistakes is front of people is bad. Having perfect/near-perfect leaders (i.e. gods) is better. Societies did better with perfect/near-perfect leaders.

(2) Being moral allows for better societies. Objective, divine morality makes people more likely to be moral. This makes people more likely to be moral.

(3) People often do crazy things when they are scared. Religion answers scary questions. People spend less time being scared and are more likely to spend time on good things. This makes societies more productive.

(4) Work usually costs money. People who believe in a cause are more likely to work for free. Societies get a lot of free work from religious people. This means more work gets done because money doesn't need to be spent on it. This helps societies survive rather than paying people for everything.

Well, religion does help you hijack an airliner and fly it into a building.  'Allahu Akbar'

I'll make it very simple for you two <3 :

(1) Having orderly societies is good. Having leaders is good. Leaders making mistakes is front of people is bad. Having perfect/near-perfect leaders (i.e. gods) is better. Societies did better with perfect/near-perfect leaders.

(2) Being moral allows for better societies. Objective, divine morality makes people more likely to be moral. This makes people more likely to be moral.

(3) People often do crazy things when they are scared. Religion answers scary questions. People spend less time being scared and are more likely to spend time on good things. This makes societies more productive.

(4) Work usually costs money. People who believe in a cause are more likely to work for free. Societies get a lot of free work from religious people. This means more work gets done because money doesn't need to be spent on it. This helps societies survive rather than paying people for everything.

All of that simply relates to the development of social structures within society and has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution by natural selection.

--> @Avery

I'll make it very simple for you two <3 :

(1) Having orderly societies is good. Having leaders is good. Leaders making mistakes is front of people is bad. Having perfect/near-perfect leaders (i.e. gods) is better. Societies did better with perfect/near-perfect leaders.

(2) Being moral allows for better societies. Objective, divine morality makes people more likely to be moral. This makes people more likely to be moral.

(3) People often do crazy things when they are scared. Religion answers scary questions. People spend less time being scared and are more likely to spend time on good things. This makes societies more productive.

(4) Work usually costs money. People who believe in a cause are more likely to work for free. Societies get a lot of free work from religious people. This means more work gets done because money doesn't need to be spent on it. This helps societies survive rather than paying people for everything.

All of that simply relates to the development of social structures within society and has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution by natural selection.

 

Yes when it's time for humans to evolve, they walk out of their societies, do their evolving, and then come back in.
 
Societies and civilizations spawned out of nowhere for no reason.
 
People who make and help to maintain societies weren't selected for at all. That's why there are no societies anymore.

As to the other two please can you support them with some facts or evidence?

Instead of  Religion is a ( evolutionary advantage )  

Can you perhaps reword it ?  

Dumb it down for me.

I can't, actually. It's almost like they are intentionally bad arguments designed to mock something...

I can't, actually. It's almost like they are intentionally bad arguments designed to mock something...

Can be dismissed as irrelevant then.

Women's fantasies usually revolve around being "ravaged". You're actually doing them a favor

--> @Deb-8-a-bull

Instead of  Religion is a ( evolutionary advantage )  

Can you perhaps reword it ?  

Dumb it down for me.

Religion helps people to survive.

Yes, your arguments can be.

Ciao meow.

Rape is also evolutionary advantageous - it allows for one to expand their gene, which is the driving function of evolution.

It's not evolutionarily advantageous. That's why people are shocked, disgusted and appalled by it. That's why you've used "rape" for its shock value to counter via Ad Absurdum, but it actually contradicts your argument. 

You are confusing these: (1) what is good for the individual, and (2) what is good evolutionarily speaking. I'm talking about (2), not (1). Rape may help the ugly, hopeless loser, but that doesn't help the gene pool in the long-run (hence, isn't evolutionarily advantageous).

Religion helps people to survive. 

--> @Deb-8-a-bull

Instead of  Religion is a ( evolutionary advantage )  

Can you perhaps reword it ?  

Dumb it down for me.

Religion helps people to survive.

More wars have been waged in the name of religion than any other cause.

Correct.  That checks out. 

And because the op isn't in regards to the negative points about religion. 

It should be left at that hey. 

It is funny actually because. ( Insert what Elliott said ) , it feels designed to mock.

I think thats because 

One could make a post stating the opposite of most of these points and it to will be correct. 

Now to The broardness of it. 

It is pretty broard. 

You are correct that 1. what is good for the individual and 2. what is good evolutionarily speaking, are not the same things by definition. However, that doesn't mean that something can't be both

Assuming the most common variant of a male aggressor and a female victim (the pleasure part applies to all rape, but pregnancy is generally dependent on this scenario), rape definitely benefits an individual committing the act, as they receive sexual pleasure without the burden of marriage or child-rearing, but assuming the rape victim goes on to have a child from it, then rape has also served an evolutionary advantage by propagating the genetics of the rapist. Evolutionary advantage literally only cares about what contributes to the gene pool. It doesn't care if people are "shocked, disgusted and appalled." If everyone was raping everyone, though, the advantage would be largely mitigated, as evidenced by the fact that some form of marriage has won out in most cultures. See Nash equilibrium.

Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face. Namely:

(1) Creating an untouchable, unseeable leader who can never be caught in a scandal, contradiction or anything untoward (something that humans will never be able to rectify if they themselves are leaders, due to their imperfection).

(2) Adds mystical magic to morality so that it seems divine, rather than just an impulse. This is especially important for cause-driven people who want to feel like they are living with a real purpose. It also helps to prevent crimes of all natures.

(3) Quells fear of the unknown with answers to queries that scare humans (e.g. what happens after death? You go to Heaven or hell; you are reincarnated; you enter paradise etc.).

(4) Creates free labor as a religious zealot will gladly do things in the name of the divine, all the whilst making them feel good for doing so.

Without religion, there are important holes to fill, and I don't think Atheism or Agnosticism fill them. I think it could be said that humans currently need religion to function.

Science is replacing religion in almost every aspect.

Feeding millions.

Curing millions.

Giving hope to millions.

Answering questions that baffled mankind which religion was unable to solve.

This [rape] hurts human evolution due to good and bad genes getting passed on, because women aren't selecting for the good genes. That's why people have moral aversions to rape -- it helps to select for the good genes.

women aren't selecting for the good genes.

Rape is also evolutionary advantageous - it allows for one to expand their gene, which is the driving function of evolution.

It's not evolutionarily advantageous. That's why people are shocked, disgusted and appalled by it. That's why you've used "rape" for its shock value to counter via Ad Absurdum, but it actually contradicts your argument. 

You are confusing these: (1) what is good for the individual, and (2) what is good evolutionarily speaking. I'm talking about (2), not (1). Rape may help the ugly, hopeless loser, but that doesn't help the gene pool in the long-run (hence, isn't evolutionarily advantageous).

You once again misunderstand what evolutionary advantage means. If your genes are more likely to be replicated than an alternative gene, then it has an evolutionary advantage. There are no good or bad genes from the perspective of evolution, only fit and unfit. If raping passes on your genes, then your genes have been promoted in fitness. If all babies born as a result from rape were killed, then the genes would be unfit, as they have an evolutionary disadvantage.

I'm a Biology major, so if you want to have this argument, we can.

Yes, attraction has a high correlation with genetic fitness. For instance, the reason men are more attracted to women with large hips is because they are more suitable for childbearing. However, it is only a correlation, not a perfect fit. Women aren't explicitly selecting for genes, otherwise people would care about sperm count more than penis length.