Religion is an evolutionary advantage

Arguably in ancient society, two men fight, the stronger wins, thus the stronger mans genes were selected rather than the weaker man's,

The stronger man is then able to pillage gold and take the woman of the weaker man, giving him a wife if he had not previously one, or two if he had one previously.

Arguably in modern society, if a country practiced 'forced eugenics, that required people of desirable genes have X many kids, and people of undesirable genes have less or no kids,

Genetics of later generations would improve.

A tenet of some religions I've heard, allow neither the husband nor wife to refuse their partner sex, even if they don't want it.

One would suppose this would result in more children.

A tenet of some religions I've heard, disapprove of some aspects of modern medicine, resulting in death sometimes from situations where some medical practice might have saved.

--> @Lemming

Arguably in ancient society, two men fight, the stronger wins, thus the stronger mans genes were selected rather than the weaker man's,

The stronger man is then able to pillage gold and take the woman of the weaker man, giving him a wife if he had not previously one, or two if he had one previously.

But this isn't rape. The woman will likely be thrilled to have a strong winner want to mate with her.

Arguably in modern society, if a country practiced 'forced eugenics, that required people of desirable genes have X many kids, and people of undesirable genes have less or no kids,

Genetics of later generations would improve.

I guess the modern society is essentially doing the women's mate selection job, in your scenario. I'm not sure all of the mating would be rape (seeing as the people are of higher quality), but if someone was forced to breed in this scenario when they didn't want to, there would be an evolutionary advantage from rape.

A tenet of some religions I've heard, allow neither the husband nor wife to refuse their partner sex, even if they don't want it.

One would suppose this would result in more children.

If your partner doesn't want to have sex with you, you're probably too ugly for them. Perhaps it's better for society you don't breed so you don't pollute the gene pool. Hence, this is an example of rape being an evolutionary disadvantage. More children doesn't necessarily equal better survival chance in the long run.

A tenet of some religions I've heard, disapprove of some aspects of modern medicine, resulting in death sometimes from situations where some medical practice might have saved.

Sounds like an evolutionary disadvantage to me.

If rape had any evolutionary advantage, raped women would not be seen as victims but held as models of human advancement.

--> @Shila

If rape had any evolutionary advantage, raped women would not be seen as victims but held as models of human advancement.

True. 

There's also heavy emotional evolutionary baggage against it.

But this isn't rape. The woman will likely be thrilled to have a strong winner want to mate with her.

But this isn't rape. The woman will likely be thrilled to have a strong winner want to mate with her.

is this a troll? or are you really saying most women would be happy if their husbands got literally were killed in a fight for a chance to mate with Eddie hall?

It would appear to me to actually be a self report. All you really actually told me is you don't have a robust moral philosophy and a deplorable moral compass if you're capable of falling in love with someone who murders your husband. 

Even if it were the case that this did exist in human female psychology, it will act as a disposition (epigenetics) rather than a sure fire thing. I think it would be unjustified nonsense to also say all women would like this, just like not all men would rape in a war scenario.

Although, all of this stuff is exceptionally reductionist. You point out how men who conquered others places married the women there, you never offer information on consent to such marriages, or on if they willingly chose to have children with them, etc.

Sorry but humans aren't very nice creatures, especially pre modern civilization. If you feel too upset to have a discussion on a nasty aspect of human psychology, feel free to log out.

It's not rape if it's consensual -- that's the whole point. The female mind justifies the new change in power. Besides, what do you think is preferable? Fight the conquerors, or just give in and be taken care of?

You must be a very lost individual, Avery. I hope you find some truth which can lighten your heart from such odd beliefs.

Polytheist-Witch: There has been some ridiculous and scary shit posted at this site since the lockdown. People did not handle it well. 

--> @Shila

Polytheist-Witch: Are you going to quit posting under an alias or continue to be a douchebag?

Avery is convinced only rape can turn her fantasies into reality. The evolutionary advantage Rape brings has convinced her to solicit such pioneers.

--> @Shila

Avery is convinced only rape can turn her fantasies into reality. The evolutionary advantage Rape brings has convinced her to solicit such pioneers.

I've explicitly said, throughout the entire thread, that rape is not an evolutionary advantage.

Here are some examples that took me two minutes to find:

"It's not evolutionarily advantageous." ... "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 is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com)

"In the plainest English: rape is an evolutionary disadvantage."  Religion is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com) 

"Nope. I've argued that it's disgusting **because** it's evolutionarily disadvantageous."  Religion is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com) 

You are simply not reading what I say.

--> @Shila

Avery is convinced only rape can turn her fantasies into reality. The evolutionary advantage Rape brings has convinced her to solicit such pioneers.

I've explicitly said, throughout the entire thread, that rape is not an evolutionary advantage.

Here are some examples that took me two minutes to find:

"It's not evolutionarily advantageous." ... "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 is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com)

"In the plainest English: rape is an evolutionary disadvantage."  Religion is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com) 

"Nope. I've argued that it's disgusting **because** it's evolutionarily disadvantageous."  Religion is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com) 

You are simply not reading what I say.

So now you are against rape being an evolutionary disadvantage. You find that disgusting.

But your links say religion is an evolutionary advantage, which too would be disgusting to an atheist.

You just need more time to decide which disgusts you more.

--> @Shila

--> @Shila

Avery is convinced only rape can turn her fantasies into reality. The evolutionary advantage Rape brings has convinced her to solicit such pioneers.

I've explicitly said, throughout the entire thread, that rape is not an evolutionary advantage.

Here are some examples that took me two minutes to find:

"It's not evolutionarily advantageous." ... "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 is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com)

"In the plainest English: rape is an evolutionary disadvantage."  Religion is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com) 

"Nope. I've argued that it's disgusting **because** it's evolutionarily disadvantageous."  Religion is an evolutionary advantage (debateart.com) 

You are simply not reading what I say.

So now you are against rape being an evolutionary disadvantage. You find that disgusting.

But your links say religion is an evolutionary advantage, which too would be disgusting to an atheist.

You just need more time to decide which disgusts you more.

The feelings are a result of whether it's evolutionarily advantageous. Rape is not, so that explains why there are a lot of hard, negative feelings towards it.

Religion is an evolutionary advantage. It's Atheism that is the disadvantage. Firm Atheistic beliefs will never capture human emotion like religious ones did/do. Also, religious tribes could whether the harshness of evolution better through their beliefs, even if those beliefs were total bs. That's the point of the thread.

The feelings are a result of whether it's evolutionarily advantageous. Rape is not, so that explains why there are a lot of hard, negative feelings towards it.

Religion is an evolutionary advantage. It's Atheism that is the disadvantage. Firm Atheistic beliefs will never capture human emotion like religious ones did/do. Also, religious tribes could whether the harshness of evolution better through their beliefs, even if those beliefs were total bs. That's the point of the thread.

So the point of the thread is religion is an evolutionary advantage even if those beliefs were total bs.

--> @Shila

The feelings are a result of whether it's evolutionarily advantageous. Rape is not, so that explains why there are a lot of hard, negative feelings towards it.

Religion is an evolutionary advantage. It's Atheism that is the disadvantage. Firm Atheistic beliefs will never capture human emotion like religious ones did/do. Also, religious tribes could whether the harshness of evolution better through their beliefs, even if those beliefs were total bs. That's the point of the thread.

So the point of the thread is religion is an evolutionary advantage even if those beliefs were total bs.

Exactly :)

(19) A remarkable feature of these scorpionflies is an appendage that seems specially designed for rape. Called the notal organ, it is a clamp on the top of the male's abdomen with which he can grab on to one of the female's forewings during mating, to prevent her escape. Besides rape, the notal organ does not appear to have any other function. For example, when the notal organs of males are experimentally covered with beeswax, to keep them from functioning, the males cannot rape. Such males still mate successfully, however, when they are allowed to present nuptial gifts to females. And other experiments have shown that the notal organ is not an adaptation for transferring sperm: in unforced mating, the organ contributes nothing to insemination.
(20) Not surprisingly, females prefer voluntary mating to mating by force: they will approach a male bearing a nuptial gift and flee a male that does not have one. Intriguingly, however, the males, too, seem to prefer a consensual arrangement: they rape only when they cannot obtain a nuptial gift. Experiments have shown that when male scorpionflies possessing nuptial gifts are removed from an area, giftless males--typically, the wimpier ones that had failed in male-male competitions over prey--quickly shift from attempting rape to guarding a gift that has been left untended. That preference for consensual sex makes sense in evolutionary terms, because when females are willing, males are much more likely to achieve penetration and sperm transfer.

Added 10.24.22 01:12PM

(19) A remarkable feature of these scorpionflies is an appendage that seems specially designed for rape. Called the notal organ, it is a clamp on the top of the male's abdomen with which he can grab on to one of the female's forewings during mating, to prevent her escape. Besides rape, the notal organ does not appear to have any other function. For example, when the notal organs of males are experimentally covered with beeswax, to keep them from functioning, the males cannot rape. Such males still mate successfully, however, when they are allowed to present nuptial gifts to females. And other experiments have shown that the notal organ is not an adaptation for transferring sperm: in unforced mating, the organ contributes nothing to insemination.

(20) Not surprisingly, females prefer voluntary mating to mating by force: they will approach a male bearing a nuptial gift and flee a male that does not have one. Intriguingly, however, the males, too, seem to prefer a consensual arrangement: they rape only when they cannot obtain a nuptial gift. Experiments have shown that when male scorpionflies possessing nuptial gifts are removed from an area, giftless males--typically, the wimpier ones that had failed in male-male competitions over prey--quickly shift from attempting rape to guarding a gift that has been left untended. That preference for consensual sex makes sense in evolutionary terms, because when females are willing, males are much more likely to achieve penetration and sperm transfer.

Link

Rape is less advantageous than consensual sex, all else being equal, but undesirable circumstances (scarcity in this case) can introduce a Nash equilibrium where some amount of rape confers more advantage to these less successful males than the regular strategy.

For it to be an evolutionary advantage it would need to help maximise our fitness to survive and I can’t see how religion does this.

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.

For it to be an evolutionary advantage it would need to help maximise our fitness to survive and I can’t see how religion does this.

You seriously can't see how a belief system that would eliminate fear of death would be advantageous to a group fighting against groups that value self preservation?

In a time where retreat in battle was easy you don't see how having fighters who refused to retreat because they had no fear of death would be an advantage?

There was some confusion, mainly on my part over the term “evolutionary advantage,” which I took to mean something that would select a genetic mutation

--> @Elliott

There was some confusion, mainly on my part over the term “evolutionary advantage,” which I took to mean something that would select a genetic mutation

I think mutations can occur that make people more prone to certain types of thinking than others.