Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is atheism a negative evolutionary trait?

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?
XLAV
Posts: 13,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:33:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

No. Where do you get this bullsh!t?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:40:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

Lol.

I am at a loss of how one can respond to this
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
XLAV
Posts: 13,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:46:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

You're a negative psychological trait.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 7:48:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

Yeah, it's a great point, and interesting that none of our resident evos get it. At all. You have to tie it in with the fact that theism of some sort has been the default state of humanity. So evos like to think of themselves as more highly advanced lifeforms, yet from an evolutionary viewpoint they are far more likely something to be selected out of the species. It's the evolutionary equivalent of "If I told you what I'm doing I'd have to shoot you". The paradox of evolution is that if man can know he evolved, he must not have.
This space for rent.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 8:24:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 7:48:40 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

Yeah, it's a great point, and interesting that none of our resident evos get it. At all. You have to tie it in with the fact that theism of some sort has been the default state of humanity. So evos like to think of themselves as more highly advanced lifeforms, yet from an evolutionary viewpoint they are far more likely something to be selected out of the species. It's the evolutionary equivalent of "If I told you what I'm doing I'd have to shoot you". The paradox of evolution is that if man can know he evolved, he must not have.

Um... Evolution =/= atheism.
On a second look at that post, you committed a straw man fallacy, a non sequitir, a shifting of BoP and a non argument.
Not bad for such a highly evolved being as yourself!
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:02:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is not. Correlation does not imply causation. Most highly theistic nations are impoverished, wallowing in economical disparity. The marriage age is significantly lower, and a woman's worth is usually determined by how many children she bears. All of these factors contribute to a high birth rate.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:29:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:33:58 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

No. Where do you get this bullsh!t?

He got it from sh*theads who suggest that atheism is behind high standard of living in places like the Scandinavian nations.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:33:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:29:44 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 5:33:58 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

No. Where do you get this bullsh!t?

He got it from sh*theads who suggest that atheism is behind high standard of living in places like the Scandinavian nations.

I agree with this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that theism and atheism are tied to the economic standards of a nation. There is mere correlation.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:55:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:33:08 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:29:44 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 5:33:58 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

No. Where do you get this bullsh!t?

He got it from sh*theads who suggest that atheism is behind high standard of living in places like the Scandinavian nations.

I agree with this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that theism and atheism are tied to the economic standards of a nation. There is mere correlation.

True. The less atheists who peddle this, the better; it speaks ill of their reason(ing). There are lots of precedents to show that economic standards is quite independent of religion.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 8:53:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:55:22 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:33:08 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:29:44 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 5:33:58 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

No. Where do you get this bullsh!t?

He got it from sh*theads who suggest that atheism is behind high standard of living in places like the Scandinavian nations.

I agree with this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that theism and atheism are tied to the economic standards of a nation. There is mere correlation.

True. The less atheists who peddle this, the better; it speaks ill of their reason(ing). There are lots of precedents to show that economic standards is quite independent of religion.

I only ever use this argument to counter the argument that any nation that loses it's religion defends into anarchy. These countries are empirical evidence of that being false =p. I would actually argue that it's the other way around, more highly developed and wealthy nations tend to be less religious, the former more likely the cause of the latter if it is a direct relationship.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:00:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Nah, it's not even an evolutionary trait at all.
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 3:20:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:52:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The OP is on to something: Atheists are predicted to be weeded out by Natural Selection:

http://www.cnsnews.com...

according to a new report by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass

Sounds legit
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
jewelessien
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 3:32:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:55:22 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:33:08 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I agree with this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that theism and atheism are tied to the economic standards of a nation. There is mere correlation.

True. The less atheists who peddle this, the better; it speaks ill of their reason(ing). There are lots of precedents to show that economic standards is quite independent of religion.

Actually, theism/atheism to an extent depend on the economic status of the individual (nation, family, whatever), not the other way round. When you're struggling to make ends meet or you see crazy sh*t on the streets it's psychologically comforting to have some being to blame, a deity to rely on - and when you come into good luck, of course said deity is to be praised. But when you're sitting on a full belly with an iPhone in hand and a comfy nest egg in the bank, it's easy to start wondering why the heck you should believe in anything other than yourself and humanity. No-one debates on an empty stomach.
Everything is up for questioning. If it won't defend itself, then how do we know it can?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 6:33:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

Not directly. The direct correlation is between intelligence and birth rate. Intelligent people tend to have less children. There is also a direct correlation between intelligence and atheism. Higher intelligence have a higher tendency to be atheist.

So an indirect relationship is formed between atheism and low-birth rate/religion and high birth rate.

So is it a negative evolutionary trait? Possibly. There have been a lot of studies done on intelligence, lower birth rates, and if that leads to an overall decrease in intelligence over time.

Is it a negative psychological trait? I don't see any correlation there between the title negative evolutionary trait (a trait that could lead to decreased selection) and a negative psychological trait (I guess this would mean personality trait). The two have nothing to do with each other.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:32:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 6:33:28 AM, Floid wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:49:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
If you look at religious countries, they have a high birth-rate. Atheistic countries have a low-birth rate. Could this be due to atheism being a negative psychological trait?

Not directly. The direct correlation is between intelligence and birth rate. Intelligent people tend to have less children. There is also a direct correlation between intelligence and atheism. Higher intelligence have a higher tendency to be atheist.

So an indirect relationship is formed between atheism and low-birth rate/religion and high birth rate.

So is it a negative evolutionary trait? Possibly. There have been a lot of studies done on intelligence, lower birth rates, and if that leads to an overall decrease in intelligence over time.

Is it a negative psychological trait? I don't see any correlation there between the title negative evolutionary trait (a trait that could lead to decreased selection) and a negative psychological trait (I guess this would mean personality trait). The two have nothing to do with each other.

Interesting point. It implies that since higher birth rates tend to overstretch resources there would be more competitiveness for those resources, which then means religiousness is really built upon the concept of survival of the fittest.

More children = more smarter, capable, and willing to carry on the religion. Where I grew up in central MN, there were religious families that tried to take over the world by having families of 20 plus kids.

Fundamental Christians using evolutionary concepts and they didn't even know it.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:59:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 3:32:12 AM, jewelessien wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:55:22 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:33:08 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I agree with this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that theism and atheism are tied to the economic standards of a nation. There is mere correlation.

True. The less atheists who peddle this, the better; it speaks ill of their reason(ing). There are lots of precedents to show that economic standards is quite independent of religion.

Actually, theism/atheism to an extent depend on the economic status of the individual (nation, family, whatever), not the other way round. When you're struggling to make ends meet or you see crazy sh*t on the streets it's psychologically comforting to have some being to blame, a deity to rely on - and when you come into good luck, of course said deity is to be praised. But when you're sitting on a full belly with an iPhone in hand and a comfy nest egg in the bank, it's easy to start wondering why the heck you should believe in anything other than yourself and humanity. No-one debates on an empty stomach.

'Actually, theism/atheism to an extent depend on the economic status of the individual (nation, family, whatever), not the other way round.'

Sure, that's why I wrote 'QUITE independent'. And as for your examples below, you do know there are lots of exceptions. There are poor people who don't believe in God and there are rich religious people; especially mega-church pastors.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:33:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 3:32:12 AM, jewelessien wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:55:22 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:33:08 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I agree with this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that theism and atheism are tied to the economic standards of a nation. There is mere correlation.

True. The less atheists who peddle this, the better; it speaks ill of their reason(ing). There are lots of precedents to show that economic standards is quite independent of religion.

Actually, theism/atheism to an extent depend on the economic status of the individual (nation, family, whatever), not the other way round. When you're struggling to make ends meet or you see crazy sh*t on the streets it's psychologically comforting to have some being to blame, a deity to rely on -

Well, which is it - someone to blame, or someone to rely on? They're kind of opposites, no?

This is really where my thinking hearkens from and I didn't take time to develop it. There's a lot of nonsensical speculation about the origins of religion, but when you really think it through, it should be pretty obvious that nobody ever made the God concept up. "Hey Joe, while I was hunting woolly mammoth today I thought - hey, why don't we make up this idea that somebody - i'll call him God - made everything?" It seems pretty obvious to me that theism is instinctive. So if man evolved, that means theism is somehow good for the species, for it to get selected and integrated into our boot code. So, whatever modern mutation produces widespread doubt of God, what is the likelihood that it's a beneficial mutation? If you're willing to think about it objectively, the answer is, "not much", since it does at least seem to correlate with less reproduction. So we come to the odd realization that if evolution is true, we should probably keep quiet about it. "Be fruitful and multiply" is obviously got more going for it, evolution wise.

But I don't think many evos are ready to admit that truth is pretty irrelevant to evolutionary success. And they shouldn't be ready to abandon truth, they should do the math: If truth as a value isn't compatible with evolution, which one is most likely to be un-true?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 9:47:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:59:37 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/4/2014 3:32:12 AM, jewelessien wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:55:22 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:33:08 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I agree with this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that theism and atheism are tied to the economic standards of a nation. There is mere correlation.

True. The less atheists who peddle this, the better; it speaks ill of their reason(ing). There are lots of precedents to show that economic standards is quite independent of religion.

Actually, theism/atheism to an extent depend on the economic status of the individual (nation, family, whatever), not the other way round.

Well, but the question anti-religious tend to forget to ask is "Why theism"? From your perspective, how do you explain the fact that the bitter clingers choose guns and religion, not butter and darwinism, which might well serve them better? If folks in the tropics have always tended to think the sky was blue, there's always the possibility, you know, that they think that because the sky is in fact blue.
This space for rent.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 10:42:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 9:33:59 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/4/2014 3:32:12 AM, jewelessien wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:55:22 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:33:08 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I agree with this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that theism and atheism are tied to the economic standards of a nation. There is mere correlation.

True. The less atheists who peddle this, the better; it speaks ill of their reason(ing). There are lots of precedents to show that economic standards is quite independent of religion.

Actually, theism/atheism to an extent depend on the economic status of the individual (nation, family, whatever), not the other way round. When you're struggling to make ends meet or you see crazy sh*t on the streets it's psychologically comforting to have some being to blame, a deity to rely on -

Well, which is it - someone to blame, or someone to rely on? They're kind of opposites, no?

This is really where my thinking hearkens from and I didn't take time to develop it. There's a lot of nonsensical speculation about the origins of religion, but when you really think it through, it should be pretty obvious that nobody ever made the God concept up. "Hey Joe, while I was hunting woolly mammoth today I thought - hey, why don't we make up this idea that somebody - i'll call him God - made everything?" It seems pretty obvious to me that theism is instinctive.

And then you think on it some more, and you realize that its really easy to make this God concept up. The instinctive aspect is our need to have an explanation, to make sense of a phenomenon we see. Its more like "Hey Joe, while I was hunting woolly mammoths today I thought - Hey, why does the sun move in a straight line, instead of randomly zigzagging through the heavens? Maybe theres a being that is in charge and moves it across the heavens in a straight line!" We are naturally inquisitive beings.

But even if that werent the case, all it takes is our understanding and imagination of something greater. I can lift a dozen stones in a basket. I wonder if there is a being who can lift a billion stones. I can run a mile until i run out of breath. I wonder if there is a being who can run a thousand miles without running out of breath. "Man", and "Super". Thats all it takes.

So if man evolved, that means theism is somehow good for the species, for it to get selected and integrated into our boot code. So, whatever modern mutation produces widespread doubt of God, what is the likelihood that it's a beneficial mutation? If you're willing to think about it objectively, the answer is, "not much", since it does at least seem to correlate with less reproduction. So we come to the odd realization that if evolution is true, we should probably keep quiet about it. "Be fruitful and multiply" is obviously got more going for it, evolution wise.

Beliefs are not based on genetics. People change their beliefs, all the time.

But, evolution-wise, its the population thats important, and not the individual. And having less kids in an already overpopulated area, is a) what is keeping the standard of living so high for the rest of us in this first world country, and b) smarter in the long run.

But I don't think many evos are ready to admit that truth is pretty irrelevant to evolutionary success. And they shouldn't be ready to abandon truth, they should do the math: If truth as a value isn't compatible with evolution, which one is most likely to be un-true?

Depends on what you are calling as "True". This is, of course, ignoring the fact that truth with regards to theories in science, do not exist, because everything is tentative on evidence.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:06:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Beliefs are not based on genetics. People change their beliefs, all the time.

But, evolution-wise, its the population thats important, and not the individual. And having less kids in an already overpopulated area, is a) what is keeping the standard of living so high for the rest of us in this first world country, and b) smarter in the long run.

But I don't think many evos are ready to admit that truth is pretty irrelevant to evolutionary success. And they shouldn't be ready to abandon truth, they should do the math: If truth as a value isn't compatible with evolution, which one is most likely to be un-true?

I disagree with you to some extent, or' maybe I didn't understand the whole message.

We are hard-wired to see false-positives over false negatives, it's a survival trait of ours. It's much more beneficial to precautionary measures than it is to not do so and get eaten by a predator, populations that have a tendency to make false-negatives are/were trimmed away by the process of evolution.

Depends on what you are calling as "True". This is, of course, ignoring the fact that truth with regards to theories in science, do not exist, because everything is tentative on evidence.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:24:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:06:24 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Beliefs are not based on genetics. People change their beliefs, all the time.

But, evolution-wise, its the population thats important, and not the individual. And having less kids in an already overpopulated area, is a) what is keeping the standard of living so high for the rest of us in this first world country, and b) smarter in the long run.

But I don't think many evos are ready to admit that truth is pretty irrelevant to evolutionary success. And they shouldn't be ready to abandon truth, they should do the math: If truth as a value isn't compatible with evolution, which one is most likely to be un-true?

I disagree with you to some extent, or' maybe I didn't understand the whole message.

We are hard-wired to see false-positives over false negatives, it's a survival trait of ours.

How do you know it's not just a survival trait to feel like we see these things? It makes evolutionary sense that we have certain reactions, but there is no obvious evolutionary benefit to being aware of our reactions. Bacteria presumably aren't concerned with truth and they are far more evolutionary successful than humans.
This space for rent.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:42:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:24:35 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:06:24 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Beliefs are not based on genetics. People change their beliefs, all the time.

But, evolution-wise, its the population thats important, and not the individual. And having less kids in an already overpopulated area, is a) what is keeping the standard of living so high for the rest of us in this first world country, and b) smarter in the long run.

But I don't think many evos are ready to admit that truth is pretty irrelevant to evolutionary success. And they shouldn't be ready to abandon truth, they should do the math: If truth as a value isn't compatible with evolution, which one is most likely to be un-true?

I disagree with you to some extent, or' maybe I didn't understand the whole message.

We are hard-wired to see false-positives over false negatives, it's a survival trait of ours.

How do you know it's not just a survival trait to feel like we see these things? It makes evolutionary sense that we have certain reactions, but there is no obvious evolutionary benefit to being aware of our reactions.

Err, I'm not sure how to respond. You're saying there's no obvious benifit to being aware of potential hazards/dangers? I never argued for this. I argues that given two populations are aware of a situation, the population who makes false positive claims will survive whilst the population who makes false negatives will die off.

Why?

If you have hear a rustle in a bush, react and it turns out it's just the wind, you haven't lost much. If you year the same rustle and you do not react, and it turns out to be a predator, you are dinner. Low-risk high-reward choice.

Bacteria presumably aren't concerned with truth and they are far more evolutionary successful than humans.

Irrelevant.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:52:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:42:20 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:24:35 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:06:24 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Beliefs are not based on genetics. People change their beliefs, all the time.

But, evolution-wise, its the population thats important, and not the individual. And having less kids in an already overpopulated area, is a) what is keeping the standard of living so high for the rest of us in this first world country, and b) smarter in the long run.

But I don't think many evos are ready to admit that truth is pretty irrelevant to evolutionary success. And they shouldn't be ready to abandon truth, they should do the math: If truth as a value isn't compatible with evolution, which one is most likely to be un-true?

I disagree with you to some extent, or' maybe I didn't understand the whole message.

We are hard-wired to see false-positives over false negatives, it's a survival trait of ours.

How do you know it's not just a survival trait to feel like we see these things? It makes evolutionary sense that we have certain reactions, but there is no obvious evolutionary benefit to being aware of our reactions.

Err, I'm not sure how to respond. You're saying there's no obvious benifit to being aware of potential hazards/dangers?

Correct. There is a difference between 'respond to' and 'aware of'. It's important that the cruise control on your car correctly respond to varying load, but it is quite irrelevant whether cruise control is aware or not.

I never argued for this. I argues that given two populations are aware of a situation,

Right, but awareness may be evolutionally irrelevant. Most species don't have it [as far as we can tell] and they mutate and get selected just fine.


Bacteria presumably aren't concerned with truth and they are far more evolutionary successful than humans.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant, lol? Ya do get some bizarre responses sometimes...
This space for rent.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 12:04:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:52:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:42:20 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:24:35 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:06:24 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Beliefs are not based on genetics. People change their beliefs, all the time.

But, evolution-wise, its the population thats important, and not the individual. And having less kids in an already overpopulated area, is a) what is keeping the standard of living so high for the rest of us in this first world country, and b) smarter in the long run.

But I don't think many evos are ready to admit that truth is pretty irrelevant to evolutionary success. And they shouldn't be ready to abandon truth, they should do the math: If truth as a value isn't compatible with evolution, which one is most likely to be un-true?

I disagree with you to some extent, or' maybe I didn't understand the whole message.

We are hard-wired to see false-positives over false negatives, it's a survival trait of ours.

How do you know it's not just a survival trait to feel like we see these things? It makes evolutionary sense that we have certain reactions, but there is no obvious evolutionary benefit to being aware of our reactions.

Err, I'm not sure how to respond. You're saying there's no obvious benifit to being aware of potential hazards/dangers?

Correct. There is a difference between 'respond to' and 'aware of'. It's important that the cruise control on your car correctly respond to varying load, but it is quite irrelevant whether cruise control is aware or not.

I never argued for this. I argues that given two populations are aware of a situation,

Right, but awareness may be evolutionally irrelevant. Most species don't have it [as far as we can tell] and they mutate and get selected just fine.

Well I wasn't arguing for awareness vs non-awareness. I was arguing that given two aware populations, the population that responds the way I mentioned is more likely to survive. You are trying to change the subject.


Bacteria presumably aren't concerned with truth and they are far more evolutionary successful than humans.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant, lol? Ya do get some bizarre responses sometimes...

Yes, irrelevant. An interesting discussion it might be yes, but irrelevant to my point.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 12:18:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 12:04:06 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:52:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:42:20 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:24:35 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:06:24 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Beliefs are not based on genetics. People change their beliefs, all the time.

But, evolution-wise, its the population thats important, and not the individual. And having less kids in an already overpopulated area, is a) what is keeping the standard of living so high for the rest of us in this first world country, and b) smarter in the long run.

But I don't think many evos are ready to admit that truth is pretty irrelevant to evolutionary success. And they shouldn't be ready to abandon truth, they should do the math: If truth as a value isn't compatible with evolution, which one is most likely to be un-true?

I disagree with you to some extent, or' maybe I didn't understand the whole message.

We are hard-wired to see false-positives over false negatives, it's a survival trait of ours.

How do you know it's not just a survival trait to feel like we see these things? It makes evolutionary sense that we have certain reactions, but there is no obvious evolutionary benefit to being aware of our reactions.

Err, I'm not sure how to respond. You're saying there's no obvious benifit to being aware of potential hazards/dangers?

Correct. There is a difference between 'respond to' and 'aware of'. It's important that the cruise control on your car correctly respond to varying load, but it is quite irrelevant whether cruise control is aware or not.

I never argued for this. I argues that given two populations are aware of a situation,

Right, but awareness may be evolutionally irrelevant. Most species don't have it [as far as we can tell] and they mutate and get selected just fine.

Well I wasn't arguing for awareness vs non-awareness. I was arguing that given two aware populations, the population that responds the way I mentioned is more likely to survive. You are trying to change the subject.

No, I'm examining assumptions. You're telling me the voltage on the board is 5 volts, I'm asking you how you know your meter is calibrated correctly. How do you know you are actually aware of what you think you're aware of?
This space for rent.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 1:59:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:06:24 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Beliefs are not based on genetics. People change their beliefs, all the time.

But, evolution-wise, its the population thats important, and not the individual. And having less kids in an already overpopulated area, is a) what is keeping the standard of living so high for the rest of us in this first world country, and b) smarter in the long run.

But I don't think many evos are ready to admit that truth is pretty irrelevant to evolutionary success. And they shouldn't be ready to abandon truth, they should do the math: If truth as a value isn't compatible with evolution, which one is most likely to be un-true?

I disagree with you to some extent, or' maybe I didn't understand the whole message.

We are hard-wired to see false-positives over false negatives, it's a survival trait of ours. It's much more beneficial to precautionary measures than it is to not do so and get eaten by a predator, populations that have a tendency to make false-negatives are/were trimmed away by the process of evolution.

Sure, but theres a difference between a core belief and a situational belief. I mean, yes, when you hear something rustling in the bushes, its benefitial to think "Oh, something must be in the bushes, I should be careful", rather than "Im just hearing things", but this is different from "Hey, there must be some sort of fairy being hiding in every bush."


Depends on what you are calling as "True". This is, of course, ignoring the fact that truth with regards to theories in science, do not exist, because everything is tentative on evidence.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 6:27:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:52:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The OP is on to something: Atheists are predicted to be weeded out by Natural Selection:

http://www.cnsnews.com...

Today's paper! Plus, really... Natural Selection?! Hahaha! :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten