-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
We would just argue over something else.
Like the colour of GODDO's underpants.
Or the Donbas region.
Or Football and Cricket.
The possibilities are endless.
Religion is an evolutionary advantage
Posts
Total:
193
-->
@TWS1405
When I look up "evolutionary advantage" for a definition, this is what I found:"Any phenotypic trait that increases the fitness of one species over another. This could be anything that allows the species to better compete with another species occupying the same niche, obtain food/resources more efficiently, or stave off predators." - SOURCEBased on that definition, I fail to see how the manmade concept of "religion" (or "religions") have anything to do with phenotype let alone the evolution of homo sapiens.In fact, historically, religion has been a rather huge disadvantage, disappointment, detriment, and any other "D" word (that corresponds with violence) one can come up with whereas the true evolution of humanity is concerned.
Yes, you are right, that is the obvious interpretation and so I addressed it from that position. But on re-reading it, it would seem that what the OP is trying to say is that religion after it evolved has impacted on social development, so nothing to do with it being an “evolutionary advantage.” Unfortunately instead of clarifying their position all I got was stupid comments.
-->
@zedvictor4
Like the colour of GODDO's underpants.
I think they're pink.
What do you reckon?
-->
@Avery
Though why would GODDO wear clothes.
Prior to human bashfulness, weren't clothes a temperature related thing?
OK. So maybe it gets cold in heaven.
I'm guessing a very high cut, paisley patterned Y front.
And sandals with socks.
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm guessing a very high cut, paisley patterned Y front.
I didn't ask for you to describe your ones!
-->
@Bones
So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you are an atheist, but then say religion solves our problems, which implies that we should follow religion because it solves said problems, which entails believing in religion.
No need to be a bully.
Need I remind you— YOU are the one attempting to derail the topic and pressing the case for rape as an advantageous behavior. Does this imply you are a rapist? Or does it mean you are confused about whether you should rape or not?
-->
@cristo71
It implies that I do not conform to the naturalistic fallacy in which one believes all that is natural is good. Just because rape may be evolutionary beneficial, does not make it good - the entire point is to draw a reductio ad absurdum by mentioning something which everyone agrees is wrong and applying it to Avery’s logic. I argue if we accept the logic that is proposed, it would then entail absurdities. Obviously I think rape is wrong, that’s the entire point of using it as the absurd counter point.
-->
@Avery
Memories.
-->
@Bones
Everything is natural.
-->
@cristo71
What about a post topic the opposite of that.
Religion is evolutionary disadvantageous.
Or
No hang on .
What about .
Religion is ( CURRENTLY ) an evolutionary advantage.
Because it once wasn't. Ie before religions
Then it was . And now is. But you can definitely see it going back to.
Religion is ( NOT CURRENTLY ) an evolutionary advantage.
Its the new hipper, here and now type of evolution.
Good game.
Good game.
-->
@Bones
You still aren’t addressing this:
So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you are an atheist, but then say religion solves our problems, which implies that we should follow religion because it solves said problems, which entails believing in religion.
Mirroring this line of attack to your position:
“So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you aren’t a rapist, but then say rape offers a reproductive advantage, which implies that men should rape women because it offers a reproductive advantage, which entails being a rapist.”
-->
@zedvictor4
Everything is natural .
Do you mean like cancer hey ?
Do you mean like cancer hey ?
No but seriously.
HOW FUN IS IT FINDING OUT BAD SHIT IS GOOD SHIT FOR THE OVERALL PIC
Then just hammering it home. In your thoughts only.
Like rape being mega benifit.
I only got stuck thinking about rape being a evolutionary advantage for three maybe four hours.
The endless , seemingly nonsensical things that need to be " weighted up "
Becauseeeeeeeeee
unfortunately there is a ( at what age part involved with the rape being good thing . And it would be way to young .
So You don't really want to bring this point up.
So we all agree rape is an evo advent .
Lock it in .
And move on.
Another round of . Is it an evolutionary advantage ? or is it not a evolutionary advantage? Or ( Does not compute ) weighing apples with pears.
Its a good game.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Yep cancer is a naturally occurring organic process.
Everything in the Universe is a product of the universe and can be nothing other than natural.
Unnatural is a contradiction.
So we make plastic, why would that not be a natural process....Are we not natural?
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes 100%..
The Humans becoming extinct factor.
Do reckon zed we , that being the modern humans. could become extinct ?
I doubt we could even if we tried.
I'm so Fuckin APEX .
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I'm so Fuckin APEX .
Not sure what your condition is. But you sound Furked.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Apex.
Do you hunt kangaroos.
Or have a triangular head
Yep we could easily become extinct.
Only takes one fuckin big asteroid.
-->
@Avery
It's certainly a massive evolutionary advantage in modern, Western countries. Women in the USA who attend religious services weekly have almost one more child on average than nonreligious women and have for the last 40 years. Of course not all of these kids remain religious, but even the secular people of the future will largely be the descendants of todays religious people. From a purely Darwinian perspective secular humanism is very bad
-->
@thett3
We're talking now though.
Where material evolution transcends humanism.
And secular and religious are prefixes you attach to people, who are in fact essentially all the same.
And Mrs Secular and Mrs Religious have produced 5 children.......You do the maths.
And Mrs Khan and Mrs Chaudhry have produced 20.
-->
@Lemming
@Elliott
Of broadly speaking evolutionary advantage,I'm thinking Avery doesn't 'specifically mean the propagation of genes, though I may be wrong,But that he suggests religion to be an advantageous quality/tool for an individual and/or people, in living their lives, in propagating, but not 'purely in propagating,It's simply that those who live well, tend to propagate, maybe.
I thought I was pretty clear, and other people understood, but I'll reword again.
Rape makes tribes weaker because genes are not being selected for. Sure, immediately, genes are being propagated and there is no problem (hence why people are saying it's an evolutionary advantage -- the genes are propagated).
However, the chance of newborns having issues adds up over time, especially when compared to newborns that are selected for. Eventually, you're going to have massive differences between tribes in terms of quality of the people (to put it in your terms). So, the genetically weaker tribe could get conquered by the stronger one and die to disease/illness that they're too weak to contend with. Thus, that's when the "evolutionary advantage" kicks in. When a weaker tribe gets wiped out because they weren't selecting for better genes, that's the moment the genes stop being propagated because of the choice to rape.
-->
@cristo71
You still aren’t addressing this:So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you are an atheist, but then say religion solves our problems, which implies that we should follow religion because it solves said problems, which entails believing in religion.
He doesn't want to address it because it represents a major mistake he made.
He was so adamant and sure I was religious, so sure I made the OP to defend my religion, that it was embarrassing for him when he got proven wrong. Add to that the fact my profile says I'm an Atheist, the OP says specifically I'm not discussing the truth of religions, and all my posts in this thread that never touch on the veracity of any religion, and it's simply too much to admit he's so badly wrong.
Instead, he wants to project his negative feelings onto me, hence the thing you're quoting. He's never going to say 'I wrote this because I knew I was wrong but I wanted to paint the other person wrong to protect my feelings', which is the real reason he wrote it.
-->
@thett3
It's certainly a massive evolutionary advantage in modern, Western countries. Women in the USA who attend religious services weekly have almost one more child on average than nonreligious women and have for the last 40 years. Of course not all of these kids remain religious, but even the secular people of the future will largely be the descendants of todays religious people. From a purely Darwinian perspective secular humanism is very bad
Agreed.
-->
@cristo71
So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you are an atheist, but then say religion solves our problems, which implies that we should follow religion because it solves said problems, which entails believing in religion.Mirroring this line of attack to your position:“So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you aren’t a rapist, but then say rape offers a reproductive advantage, which implies that men should rape women because it offers a reproductive advantage, which entails being a rapist.”
But the problem is, again, I don't conform to the naturalistic fallacy. I don't think evolutionary advantage equates good. Avery does, so I argue that, if it is the case that evolutionary advantageousness can be equated to good, it follows that rape is also good.
-->
@Bones
But the problem is, again, I don't conform to the naturalistic fallacy. I don't think evolutionary advantage equates good. Avery does, so I argue that, if it is the case that evolutionary advantageousness can be equated to good, it follows that rape is also good.
In what way does rape have an evolutionary advantage over normal sex?
-->
@Bones
But the problem is, again, I don't conform to the naturalistic fallacy. I don't think evolutionary advantage equates good. Avery does, so I argue that, if it is the case that evolutionary advantageousness can be equated to good, it follows that rape is also good.
These sorts of topics, evolution and morality, are much more complex than that. You have not met your burden that rape is generally accepted as advantageous, especially in civilized societies; you’ve just made simplistic, very general arguments in favor of that position from a biological perspective. You tacitly give the OP credit outright for meeting the large burden of establishing the evolutionary advantage of religion. Instead of challenging THAT as obviously intended by the OP, you dive straight for the seemingly clever shock value. There’s a name for that.
The fact remains that you made a personal assumption, and when shown to be mistaken, you resorted to bully behavior, and when called out on it, you still refuse to own up to it.
Other than all of that, nice job…
-->
@thett3
Those types family is also homeschool. That nine times out of 10 is a disadvantage.
-->
@Bones
--> @Bones
But the problem is, again, I don't conform to the naturalistic fallacy. I don't think evolutionary advantage equates good. Avery does, so I argue that, if it is the case that evolutionary advantageousness can be equated to good, it follows that rape is also good.
In what way does rape have an evolutionary advantage over normal sex?
The only advantage a rapist has is although being rejected can rape a person higher on the evolutionary ladder by jumping the evolution line and carrying their inferior genes ahead should it take seed.
Failing which a life sentence in jail would put an end to such ambitions and evolution order is maintained.
-->
@Avery
@Avery #141
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
--> @Avery@Avery #141Arguably 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.
Taking over the weaker man’s wife prevent the weaker man’s genes to continue by preventing the weaker man from having more children.
B6 allowing abortions, women can decide which genes to carry forward and which to abort.