Model predicts 'religiosity gene' will dominate society

Athiests!! Get breeding now, so we can take the world back to reason and science!! :)

Model predicts 'religiosity gene' will dominate society

No, because long ago Leaders reached this very same conclusion and began designing religions as ways of pitting these people against one another in orderly and constructive ways.

Religionists will continue to fight and kill each other off by Design. Those few individuals who are pragmatic and resourceful enough to escape the quagmire, will survive and propagate more reasonably and within their means.

This has been the Formula for the last few millenia, and the world has gradually gotten saner as a result. Stability and Progress have flourished. Railroads were built and the interstate was constructed.

Does this mean that the amish will battle the hasidic, the hispanic catholic, and the islamists in the vast and fertile plains of central pennsylvania? Perhaps. Anabaptist armageddon.

The evangelicals will bring the tents, and jesus himself will cater with fishes and loaves. Thanks phissorg for a nice weekend topic.

The more intelligent a person is the more likely they are to have fewer children. An intelligent person is more likely to understand the facts that we are destroying the ecology and we are overpopulated. The smartest people are probably not reproducing even at a replacement rate. I don't know how much of intelligence is actually passed on to offspring, it may not be genetic either in whole or part. It certainly is somewhat by association at the least, smart parents DO have smarter kids.

The point of this diatribe is that our current society may be breeding out intelligence, the less intelligent are definitely having a lot more kids than the replacement rate. If there's a god that said 'go forth and prosper', he didn't mean what we are doing or the devout's interpretation of having as many children as possible.

Symbols are for suckers!

>> Even if some of the people who are born to religious parents defect from religion and become secular, the religious genes they carry

?? what is that supposed to mean? There are such things as religious genes? What utter nonense.

B.S., of course. It should be noted that there is no religiosity gene and neither is there a gene for secularism.

It is instructive to note how frequently highly educated people promote total B.S.

The need/desire to publish apparently overwhelmes any common sense which might otherwise direct behavior into something productive.

Model predicts 'religiosity gene' will dominate society

I highly doubt it, because for one I do not believe it is fully genetic, but highly dependable on the environment you grow up in. Perhaps America is headed toward a more religious state if we don't fix our educational system, food, and government (which they all work in a spiral effect; making Americans more ignorant which deters them from seeing the mess our government and other companies are making).

I have hope however that with the technology age, people will become more educated, and artificial intelligent machines will help us along with personalized genes and brain enhancing technologies. We act as if society is frozen and consistent and by 2100 birth rates and religion will be constant -- they won't be, especially in this up and coming singularity.

I for one believe the birth rate for highly religious people has more to do with indoctrination of the predominant religious culture where the expecatation from childhood is to grow up to have a large family. Simply put; if that is what you were raised to know, and what everyone else is in your segment of society is doing - people tend to follow the crowd.

If you reject your religion, you reject many of the other expectations that come with it, including the number of "little miracles" you bring into this world.

I'm not anti-religion, nor am I pro-religion. I don't think anyone's personal choices (like number of children, size of mortgate or charitable contributions - religious or secular) should be my responsibility through tax incentives. I've seen religions do a lot of good, and I've seen them destroy lives. I prefer judging each tree by its own fruit rather than to color all of them with the same brush.

Its not religion that drives the growth of these population, it is culture.
If India was full of Atheists instead of Hindus etc, it would still have its terribly high population growth because it is due to poor farmers having a lot of children to help work the land.
Its a deeper topic due to what happens to those children, but its not because they are religious.
I would hypothesize that the same is true for the Amish, as what do the Amish do? Farm.

The more intelligent a person is the more likely they are to have fewer children. An intelligent person is more likely to understand the facts that we are destroying the ecology and we are overpopulated.

There are a lot of intelligent people locked into cultures which taught them from birth to serve god and to give him many babies.

If India was full of Atheists instead of Hindus etc, it would still have its terribly high population growth because it is due to poor farmers having a lot of children to help work the land

Those farmers believe in gods which promise to provide for however many babies they can produce, if they remain devoted. Those same types of farmers end up slaughtering each other, as in Burundi and the Sudan. Religion is an integral part of obsolete cultures. Western secular culture can supplant these, but usually not without violence and bloodshed.

And the underlying purpose of this is what? Even more importantly, if this trend is viewed as disastrous for the world, then what remedies might the Godless liberals be proposing next. Family planning of course. I can just see the charlatan Al Gore wannabe's imposing the following necessary measures to try to save the world from another phony looming disaster. They might:
Declare the "God gene" as a disease and those carrying it as defective or non-human.
Sterilize all humans carrying the supposed gene. Make in-utero genetic testing mandatory to ensure that only those fetuses with the "God gene" are aborted.
Impose crippling taxes on "God gene" carriers who dare to procreate in defiance of the law and the new world order teachings.

I am sure there are many more "solutions" because liberals are far more creative in such matters than I am.

And the underlying purpose of this is what? Even more importantly, if this trend is viewed as disastrous for the world, then what remedies might the Godless liberals be proposing next. Family planning of course. ...I am sure there are many more "solutions" because liberals are far more creative in such matters than I am.

And your solution would be to have even more babies to try to outreproduce the other religions, and also to pray harder? Thats what the others are all doing. Which side will god be on the next time you start killing each other because your children are starving?

There is only one solution: give up your god and learn to live within your means. Its the only way you can expect the others to do the same.

Symbols are for suckers!

Then Adolf Hitler must have been a really big sucker!

Pardon my lack of sophistication. I always thought that a fertility rate had to do with a person's ability to conceive. I belive the author is referring to a social (or religious) group's tendency to not prevent conception, when the "seculars," I'll call them, are more likely to try to do so more often. That doesn't mean that their fertility rate is lower. Where is the research that supports the theory of a relogisity gene? Am I reading PhysOrg.com here, or the National Enquirer? This enquiring mind wants to know.

B.S., of course. It should be noted that there is no religiosity gene and neither is there a gene for secularism.

It is instructive to note how frequently highly educated people promote total B.S.

The need/desire to publish apparently overwhelmes any common sense which might otherwise direct behavior into something productive.

There is also no gay gene.

True enough. People are capable of choice.

Pardon my lack of sophistication. I always thought that a fertility rate had to do with a person's ability to conceive.

Its a statistic, actual births per capita:

"Births per 1000 women, categorized according to a specific composition of mothers in the population: (1) Crude birth rate: number of live births per 1000 of population. (2) General fertility rate: number of live births per 1000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 years." -etc.

Whoa.
Is there a gay gene? Probably not. Is homosexuality a matter of choice? Generally no.

Is there a complex combination of genetic traits, the cultural environment, and other factors that influence a person's sexual preference? Absolutely.

Don't be ignorant.

Is it likely that genetic traits influence a person's receptiveness to religious ideas, in addition to the person's culture and upbringing? Yes, it is likely, but by no means has it been proven.

Can religions have an influence on the reproduction rate of a population? Yes. Are there other factors that also contribute? Yes.

Again, let's be reasonable and avoid silly arguments with unnecessary hyperbole and semantic quibbling.

Athiests!! Get breeding now, so we can take the world back to reason and science!! :)

I've been "practicing" since high school.

If they are assuming that there is a religiosity gene then that is there mistake. Science doesn't assume anything, This is almost certainly cultural but isn't certain. Let's take a look at one of the most religious places on earth. Europe, well look how it's become over the last 200 years. It's almost entirely secular. Even in the US data suggests that each generation is more secular than the previous. This study probably shouldn't even be on physorg because it's so flawed.

This sounds to me a lot like the plot to "The Marching Morons." Maybe when there are too many of them we can convince them to board rockets to Venus for the free real estate, blanket trees, ham bushes, and soap roots.

I think the first option should be for the government to not encourage reproduction with tax deductions or incentives - meanwhile moving our entitlement system away from the present Ponzi scheme retirement "security" programs.

Why should some citizens pay for another's choice to have children? Why should we be further burdening our dependants with our financial security - shouldn't we be responsibile for ourselves? We are already set on leaving them a world with less and less resources. The great society is a criminal farce and we need to reconsider self reliance and self accountability. Presently we cannot "afford" to reduce our population without sending our elders to the chairty line. The social agenda of the last 50 years is bankrupting us.

Sounds like nature rebalancing itself...Stronger spreading of "religiousity", at a genetic level, will likely mean an increase in fundamentalism and increased militance.
Over-populated world + fundamentalism + militance = reduced population through religious wars.

Go, Mother Earth, go! Cull this herd!

While this makes for an interesting headline, I think there's a more fundamental trait than 'religiosity' at work here. We can relate it back to social structures we see throughout the animal kingdom - namely the tendency in all social animals for a large proportion of the species to be followers rather than leaders or independents.

Organizationally speaking, you need a lot more Indians than Chiefs, so it makes sense that the follower behavior would be the dominant one in a given population. Combine that follower's instinct with the capacity for abstract thought and symbolism and you have a fairly simple formula for the emergent behavior we describe as Religion.

Will genetic selection push us towards a higher proportion of followers to independents? Probably, if our population density continues to grow.

However, if bands with a high proportion of independent thinkers prove much more adept at technology they may forcibly displace those who rely too heavily on followers... Or not.

For those of us with an interest in enabling humanity to live and advance without relying on some form of mythical leadership, the goal is take advantage of this follower behavior - by providing those who need it with a simple, abstract, symbolic philosophy that is easy to follow, but that allows for a bit more social flexibility and that does not undercut rational thought with meaningless dogma and contradictory belief sets.

So, basically religion is an emergent behavior that is NOT going away, because it serves a real need despite its ridiculous mythical underpinnings. All you need to do is create a religion that serves that need - but without the negative baggage. Not a simple order.

On the plus side, L.Ron Hubbard did show us that its pretty damn easy to start a new religion out of nothing - he just saddled us with a fairly terrible one as some kind of bad joke. :P

I think the first option should be for the government to not encourage reproduction with tax deductions or incentives - meanwhile moving our entitlement system away from the present Ponzi scheme retirement "security" programs...

...The social agenda of the last 50 years is bankrupting us.

Be careful what you wish for. While I agree with your first statement (don't subsidize children), the latter is a mistake. It is quite well understood that in countries where the government does not help arrange for the care of the sick and elderly, religious organizations will, and in so doing they gain an enormous number of direct converts.

Religion won't just 'go away' if you ignore it and force people to fend for themselves, society needs to structure itself in an intentional way to minimize its importance or IT becomes the overriding social support mechanism, displacing government and private industry alike (see: most of the Middle and Far East)

Will genetic selection push us towards a higher proportion of followers to independents? Probably, if our population density continues to grow.

However, if bands with a high proportion of independent thinkers prove much more adept at technology they may forcibly displace those who rely too heavily on followers... Or not.

You're getting somewhere, but evolution acts way too slowly. I'm not that patient, but I hope I don't have to be. Hopefully the interwebnets will assist enough in getting the atheist word out before it's too late; before the religonuts end the world; before we secularists can finally find the true way to be with each other.

Why do I get the feeling this research was inspired by the movie "Idiocracy".

First there is a gene that has been linked to gayness in humans. second we are overpopulated and no matter how clever we become eventually we will run out of room. third at the last graph i checked the USA was more religious than scientific. and religious people Do have a high birthrate that they need to curb or we will run out of resources like fresh water.

I think the first option should be for the government to not encourage reproduction with tax deductions or incentives - meanwhile moving our entitlement system away from the present Ponzi scheme retirement "security" programs.

Why should some citizens pay for another's choice to have children? Why should we be further burdening our dependants with our financial security - shouldn't we be responsibile for ourselves? We are already set on leaving them a world with less and less resources. The great society is a criminal farce and we need to reconsider self reliance and self accountability. Presently we cannot "afford" to reduce our population without sending our elders to the chairty line. The social agenda of the last 50 years is bankrupting us.

While most of what you said make sense. But when you allude to Social Security leading us into bankruptcy you couldn't be further from the truth. SS has been running surpluses for decades.

I belong to a Protestant church, where the two strongest characteristics of the members are 1) that we like everyone, including children, and 2) we enjoy singing. I could argue theology with you, but that is not what our church is mostly about. However, if you came to visit on a Sunday, you would find after the service, young children, polite--but not necessarily quiet--enjoying themselves, and talking to the older church members.

Need a babysitter, especially during the day when teenagers are in school? Almost any retired church member would be glad to entertain your children for a few hours. (And entertain themselves during the process. ;-)

Would I raise children without a good church to help? No. Did I raise two wonderful children with the help of the church? Yes. It really made the process of raising (nice) children pleasant, instead of impossible.

Do other religions have other attitudes about raising children? Sure. But this works for me.

SS has been running surpluses for decades

"The SS program paid out more than it took in last year. Their new projection says that it will run a $45 billion deficit this year. "
http:/www.theburningplatform.com/?tag=bankrupt

@skajam66

You are making a claim. That claim is that this study is nonsense. But you also say, you don't understand. Why not read up on genetics a bit before dashing off your claim on how genetics works? You may find some twin studies informative.

Also you refer to "religious genes." No one is saying that genes have a Religion. If they do have one that you know of (you seem to know everything) please let the world know.

SS has been running surpluses for decades

"The SS program paid out more than it took in last year. Their new projection says that it will run a $45 billion deficit this year. "
http:/www.theburningplatform.com/?tag=bankrupt

Half of what you say is true, it paid out more than it took in, but it still ran a surplus because of interest income from its 2.5 trillion accumulated surpluses. Futhermore it was the recession that caused tax revenue deficit last year and for this year it is the 2% payroll tax reduction that will cause the $45 billion tax revenue deficit.
SS will still run a surplus this year when you figure in the interest income on its huge bond holdings!

SS in not responsible for any of the deficit this country has been running for at least the last 25 years!

The 'surplus' is owed by the US govt, YOU, the taxpayer, are on the hook to pay that surplus over and above the FICA tax you now pay.
The only wealth any govt has is what it confiscates from its citizens.

First there is a gene that has been linked to gayness in humans. second we are overpopulated and no matter how clever we become eventually we will run out of room. third at the last graph i checked the USA was more religious than scientific. and religious people Do have a high birthrate that they need to curb or we will run out of resources like fresh water.

Please provide a reliable source for the gay gene you claim to exist.

Since religions have been around for at least all of recorded history, pretty much globally, and have been in virtually every culture a dominant force for a greater or lesser extent temporally, it seems far more likely that -if there actually were a "religiosity" gene- then we would virtually all be religious.

IMO, this gene simply does not exist. While there may very well be, and probably are, a host of heritable characteristics that predispose one towards a devotional-type personality, there are many things that can displace religion.

IMO, adherence to a religion is far more likely linked to an individual's level of affluence and education, in an inverse relation, although this obviously isn't a hard and fast rule.

Regarding the Amish -it is well-established that the numbers of adherents have waxed and waned over time, mainly in relation to overall opportunity for upward mobility, with numbers increasing in hard times, and decreasing in better.

SS has been running surpluses for decades

"The SS program paid out more than it took in last year. Their new projection says that it will run a $45 billion deficit this year. "
http:/www.theburningplatform.com/?tag=bankrupt

Half of what you say is true, it paid out more than it took in, but it still ran a surplus because of interest income from its 2.5 trillion accumulated surpluses. Futhermore it was the recession that caused tax revenue deficit last year and for this year it is the 2% payroll tax reduction that will cause the $45 billion tax revenue deficit.
SS will still run a surplus this year when you figure in the interest income on its huge bond holdings!

SS in not responsible for any of the deficit this country has been running for at least the last 25 years!

Apologies, Question -meant to rate you 5!

The term religiosity gene is misleading.

The most important of all is how a person's brain is wired at birth. As a child grows the wiring of the brain can and does change due to conditioning.

First there is a gene that has been linked to gayness in humans. second we are overpopulated and no matter how clever we become eventually we will run out of room. third at the last graph i checked the USA was more religious than scientific. and religious people Do have a high birthrate that they need to curb or we will run out of resources like fresh water.

Please provide a reliable source for the gay gene you claim to exist.

Homosexuals claim they are born that way.

Homosexuals claim they are born that way.

Some are and some are not. Homosexuals are Gods' children too just like everyone else and not second class citizens. Got a problem with that or are you just trolling around?

Some are and some are not.

How do you know?

How do you know?

That is for you to figure out and to come to terms with, not me!

How do you know?

That is for you to figure out and to come to terms with, not me!

You made the claim homosexuality is not genetic. Homosexuals claim their sexuality is not a choice.
Why would they make that claim?

How do you know?

That is for you to figure out and to come to terms with, not me!

You made the claim homosexuality is not genetic. Homosexuals claim their sexuality is not a choice.
Why would they make that claim?

It certainly isn't a 'choice'. Human sexuality spans a spectrum from straight to gay to asexual. This does not mean a gene is involved (none have been found). There are other possibilities, like hormonal chemistry in the womb which may have developmental epigenetic effects. Bottom line, no one knows for sure, but to assume that sexuality is a simple binary 'choice' is ridiculous.

'religiosity gene ???? This the greatest unscientific nonsence I have ever heard in my life. Religion is given to the new generations by transferring psychological values and behaviour trough contact between the parents and there children. The concept of a religiosity gene' is absolutely unscientific. Maybee hardcore materialists who see humans as biological robots with no own mind and no will of there own eat this kind of soulless discription of the inner life and behaviour of his own species. This fanatic genetic worldview of some scientists looks more like a religion with no prove and a lot of hollow theory's, once succesfull in the last century. And we all know how that ended

Its hard to believe that any serious journal would publish this paper. I reads like a simple minded Victorian early statistician, carried away with half understood Darwinism, whose never heard of sociology or anthropology. Get real!

Moebius:"It certainly is somewhat by association at the least, smart parents DO have smarter kids.
The point of this diatribe is that our current society may be breeding out intelligence, the less intelligent are definitely having a lot more kids than the replacement rate."
You're a eugenicist and sound like Josef Goebbels. I can't believe that you think that YOU'RE intelligent. You're a stupid racist, pure and simple.
And the rest of you, proselytizing atheism, you're as obnoxious as the Vatican. You should believe in God, you shouldn't believe in God, who the fuck are any of you to dictate what people should believe?

Yeah, I've seen enough..

homophobia, political trolling, stereotyping, religious and secular agendas...

Just like this article, there's no real science here. No worthwhile discussion, just a bunch of armchair quarterbacks looking for self glorification.

And as such, I'll be deleting my account, and my bookmarks. There were some kind people out here and I'm gratefull for that. But I've seen quite enough.

Goodbye, Physorg.

I get my conformational bias reinforced by this article.
"I hold it to be a self evident truth that no two humans are equal by any measure at all."

Humans are a work in progress. Some are more fit for survival than others.

I would wager that bigger brains will win out, because we have no other strong suite. (Even if the big brains are only used to rationalise their stupidity.)
However, evolution is a random walk, so nothing is given.

don't hate on the amish they build good sheds and grow good veggies.

"Be fruitful and multiply (especially at those tent revivals!)"

My model predicts increasing amounts of imbecilic "research" in order to inveigle grants from the suckers.

I'd love to see more study done into the "spreadsheet genes," "golf genes," and "pizza genes." And whatever else people think there are genes for. Geesh, please. It's as bad as the Guinness Book of Any Record You Can Make Up, or the Olympic Games where ANYTHING is an athletic event that you can win medals for.

There was a time when 100% of the world's population was made up of religious people. Only in the last decades has the non-religious middle class appeared. So i doubt this has something to do with a religious gene.

There was a time when 100% of the world's population was made up of religious people.

That's inaccurate.

I think the model is flawed. As our societies become more complex and our technological needs become more and more paramount, the religous will be left behind unless their religion changes or becomes of less import in their lives.

We can see now that the more religious someone is in America, the less applicable skills they have in modern industrialized societies on average.
The Amish are a prime example. With some of the more fundamental sects utilizing equipment from 200 years ago to farm their productive output puts an upper limit on the population they can support.

This will make groups like the "quiver full" movement more and more economically destitute. Once they can't afford large families, they'll have fewer children as their innate survival mechanisms will kick in.

Natural selection works on ideology as well as biological systems.

Wasn't there a quote somewhere, basically, "The more we know the less need we have for a God to explain an event or phenomena."

Wasn't there a quote somewhere, basically, "The more we know the less need we have for a God to explain an event or phenomena."

That or a paraphrase of it is a common expression of the atheist community. Since human beings have never depended on any god to explain phenomena, the phrase is as meaningless as it is condescending.

That or a paraphrase of it is a common expression of the atheist community. Since human beings have never depended on any god to explain phenomena, the phrase is as meaningless as it is condescending.

Actually, that was LaPlace, and he was a religious skeptic but not an atheist.

The statement "I had no need of (a creator) hypothesis." was said to Napoleon when the two were reviewing LaPlace's book on the mechanics of the solar system.

As for condescention, the majority of people depend on religion to explain reality, otherwise it wouldn't be such a large portion of each mythos.

The comment was on the order of "When we have more understanding [of technology, science, etc.], we won't need a god to explain things".

Since no god spends his/her time explaining science or technology, my comment on the meaningless and condescending nature of the expression was correct.

Since no god spends his/her time explaining science or technology, my comment on the meaningless and condescending nature of the expression was correct.

The religious use their god to explain reality. Science is the use of observation and reason to explain reality. The two are in contrast.

Beyond that you discount Udayism, which is the perversion of science through stating a holy scripture already pre-explained a scientific discovery.

The only condescention here is yours.

Robert Rowthorn is a professor of economics. That there alone should tell us he may not know what he is talking about when it comes to genetics, biology, physics, medicine, etc., etc., etc..

Since no god spends his/her time explaining science or technology, my comment on the meaningless and condescending nature of the expression was correct.

There are a few interesting nuggets of information pertaining to science in religious texts that someone has been trying to tell us.

But before anyone asks, I do not wish to share what those big juicy nuggets are.

TabulaMentis,

There are a few interesting nuggets of information pertaining to science in religious texts ...

Absolutely. Such as Job's knowledge that the world was hung "upon nothing" and that there was no land at the north pole. But people do not normally expect scientific data from their gods.

Such as Job's knowledge that the world was hung "upon nothing."

Looks like Job made a mistake there because from nothing comes nothing, but his point has been well received in the science community.

But before anyone asks, I do not wish to share what those big juicy nuggets are.

They don't exist.

Absolutely. Such as Job's knowledge that the world was hung "upon nothing" and that there was no land at the north pole.

Bullshit.

Looks like Job made a mistake there because from nothing comes nothing.

Then where did your god come from?

Apologists and misologists need not apply.

damn it physorg, you've done it again. Get ready for a several hundred comment article.

But before anyone asks, I do not wish to share what those big juicy nuggets are.

They don't exist.

Absolutely. Such as Job's knowledge that the world was hung "upon nothing" and that there was no land at the north pole.

Bullshit.

Looks like Job made a mistake there because from nothing comes nothing.

Then where did your god come from?

Apologists and misologists need not apply.

damn it physorg, you've done it again. Get ready for a several hundred comment article.

In science we have something called falsifiability, I don't need to explain to you were god comes from.

The comment was on the order of "When we have more understanding [of technology, science, etc.], we won't need a god to explain things".

Since no god spends his/her time explaining science or technology, my comment on the meaningless and condescending nature of the expression was correct.

No, your comprehension of the expression was simply very poor.

What it was referring to is also pretty well known as the "god of the gaps". It goes like this: There is a gap in our knowledge, something we do not understand. The things in this gap are best explained as acts of God.

Note that it is not saying "God will talk to us and explain the gap" - but that the gap is itself explained by the existence of god.

The natural follow-on is that as our knowledge grows, the gaps shrink, as does our need to explain the gap away by saying "god did it".

Simples.

PaulieMac,
You are certainly welcome to worship the gap god.

I don't.

No - I'm more of an Invisible Pink Unicorn kinda guy, personally ;-)

These folk seem to know a lot about this religious gene or genes. Might they enlighten us as to which chromosome they discovered it on? Please? Maybe just a hint?

If this "previous research" suggested that it leads people to be prone to rituals and obedience, it might very well have given the carriers a survival benefit in tribal societies but if that benefit no longer exists in complex societies full of con-artists and cults, then the only advantage the supposed gene confers is to make the carrier more likely to be part of a culture which promotes large families.

But the evidence shows that when cultures become prosperous, the more religious and conservative populations actually fall behind in fertility. Southern Europe with its Catholics have lower total fertility rates than more liberal (socially) Northern Europeans. Theirs are actually rising. Other states with very low fertility rates? Conservative, and ritualistic new Asian economies and patriarchal Russia. Even Islamic states see fertility drops when female literacy grows, especially if their education is not coupled with opportunities outside the home since it then takes longer to get the woman to marry but they don't contribute to the mortgage and getting the family to the point where they can afford to want more kids.

Social conservativism and religiosity increases fertility for the Amish and Islamic herds (but then leaves their kids unvaccinated) but it loses its advantage after one or two generations in an advanced economy.

Religiosity gene, What a load of crap.
All religion is a process of indoctrination and it starts from birth before the child has developed any reasoning ability.
A quote attributed to Saint Francis Xavier says it all
"Give me the child till 7 and I will give you the man"
Or as Saint Ignatius is alleged to have said.
"Give me the child and I will mould you the man"
That says it all.

The difference between 'consciousness work' and 'religiosity' helps one realize the futility of this study.

Amish pay no taxes and fight no wars.
They contribute little to the general welfare of the the state.
I personally like the Amish lifestyle and self reliance, however
without some form of protection from others they would not exist.

Maybe its a gene for following blindly behind those persons who postulate they have the truth. You don't need genetics to explain this. You will probably find that the birth rate in the Amish society has not changed; it is the society around where the birth rate has decreased. So what genetics are in place then. Maybe there is a sophistication and complex lifestyle gene that is responsible for a reduced birth rate; a lethal gene by all counts that will result in the Amish taking over the world........ It is amazing what drivel passes for science these days.

It is highly likely that the large numbers of religious fanatics killed during the Crusades and the various wars between the Protestants and Catholics in the 16th/17th centuries culminating in the bloody Thirty Years War created an imbalance in favor of that polygenic-based phenotype able to question the belief systems which brought so much blood down upon the world, paving the way for the Age of Enlightenment in northwestern Europe, the Scientific Revolution, and the emergence of political systems capable of recognizing that diversity and varieties of beliefs held by the citizenry were not impediments to the functioning of society, but benefits.

Ironically, now that it has been several centuries since wars have been fought over religious doctrine, the genotypes which tend towards fanaticism and blind obedience to authority have regained their numbers-- through the very process described in this study-- and now it appears we are entering a period in which history begins repeating.

Hmm, so a belief in something, including a future presumably, is a trait found in reproducers. And non-belief (including in any attractive sort of future) corresponds more frequently to those who do not produce off-spring. What a shock!

Two things about this 'study.' First this is a model that purports to explain something in terms that may or may not have any reality in fact. As Dr. Jerry McGuire once said, 'show me the data.'

Second, this is not even new. Korean War POW studies and other similar material has shown that belief in a deity or higher power among groups undergoing significant stress provides a benefit to survival.

Who's surprised that self-absorption and disbelief in some form of immortality, accurate or not, leads to elimination from the gene pool.

It should be noted, too, for those who see this as a trait favoring the unintelligent that there's not guarantee nature cares about intelligence--just reproduction.

@PauliMac:

What it was referring to is also pretty well known as the "god of the gaps". It goes like this: There is a gap in our knowledge, something we do not understand. The things in this gap are best explained as acts of God.

Note that it is not saying "God will talk to us and explain the gap" - but that the gap is itself explained by the existence of god.

The natural follow-on is that as our knowledge grows, the gaps shrink, as does our need to explain the gap away by saying "god did it".

Simples.

Then have your Gap God explain how everything came from nothing?

If and when you are able to figure out that everything did not come from nothing then you will have several choices.

Of those choices you will then need to choose one that fits your model.

That is where the math to your Gap God will not add-up.

No, YOU have a gap god. Science is content to say "I don't know yet" and continue to do research. The scientific method works because it can be assembled piecemeal, and it doesn't make any impossible claims; it doesn't have to account for everything immediately.

There is evidence that we will be able to brew up life from the lab in the near future, which indicates we'll solve this mystery and push your god further into the gaps.

There is evidence that we will be able to brew up life from the lab in the near future ...

Actually, there is no evidence that we will be able to "brew up" life. We know nothing about the beginning of life on this planet. Nothing does not constitute evidence of anything.

Then have your Gap God explain how everything came from nothing?

If and when you are able to figure out that everything did not come from nothing then you will have several choices.

So where did God come from? If I recall correctly, the Bible does not say where God came from, just that he suddenly created everything from nothing. Oh wait, people keep saying that is impossible.

So to sum up:
1) where did god come from?
2) where did the universe he/it/she made come from?

PS seems to me that the religious types do the whole "it came from nothing" too, they just label it with "god" whereas science labels it with "big bang," and so far the only evidence for any of it comes from science.

MorituriMax,

1) where did god come from?
2) where did the universe he/it/she made come from?

I believe the standard scientific answer to #1 is that anything which happened prior to the creation of this universe cannot be known.

As to #2:
1) If your view that there was no God involved, then you have no answer.
2) If your view is that God created the universe, then you have no answer.

Either way, you do not know where the substance of the universe "came from".

Then have your Gap God explain how everything came from nothing?

If and when you are able to figure out that everything did not come from nothing then you will have several choices.

Of those choices you will then need to choose one that fits your model.

That is where the math to your Gap God will not add-up.

Au contraire... Your response demonstrates precisely what the God Of the Gaps conjecture is talking about. There is a gap in our knowledge - in your example, the origin of the universe, to paraphrase. Therefore, _insert_god_of_choice_here_
must be responsible.

On an aside: it is not 'my' god. I seem to have misplaced mine ;)

- meanwhile moving our entitlement system away from the present Ponzi scheme retirement "security" programs.

While most of what you said make sense. But when you allude to Social Security leading us into bankruptcy you couldn't be further from the truth. SS has been running surpluses for decades.

My point is that such programs depend on many people contributing to support those in the retirement program. While on the face this seems a goodly thing - in reality it depends on and requires an every increasing population of tax paying workers. Most people in my generation know that they cannot depend on Social Security being there for them when they retire. The solution? We invest in our own retirement. If SS is still solvent, then great. Otherwise, I'm still good. Self reliance and sufficient planning is the solution. The only reason the SS system has been solvent so far is because of the success of the "Baby Boomers". What happens when they start retiring?

Where do you get the ass to tell anybody anything about class or who the hell's got it or what she typifies? You shouldn't even be in the same room with her, you pompous celibate . . . You're totally full of shit! You're all full of shit."
- Jack Nicholson/"Five Easy Pieces"

dogbert opined, "I believe the standard scientific answer to #1 is that anything which happened prior to the creation of this universe cannot be known."

No, that should more correctly be stated:
'I believe the standard scientific answer to #1 is that anything which happened prior to the creation of this universe cannot be known [YET].'

This is nonsense. There is no religious gene.

Mandan: "Ironically, now that it has been several centuries since wars have been fought over religious doctrine"
Are you forgetting Ireland, or was that just a skirmish?

@PauliMac:

On an aside: it is not 'my' god. I seem to have misplaced mine ;)

And so you have filled in the blanks with nothing!

I already know the answer, but like I have said before, I do not work for free.

For the time being I will enjoy all of the ranting for entertainment.

Mandan: "Ironically, now that it has been several centuries since wars have been fought over religious doctrine"
Are you forgetting Ireland, or was that just a skirmish?

Humans' are a greedy bunch, it does not matter what the hell they believe.

Mandan: "Ironically, now that it has been several centuries since wars have been fought over religious doctrine"
Are you forgetting Ireland, or was that just a skirmish?

Humans' are a greedy bunch, it does not matter what the hell they believe.

Greedy wouldn't be the word I would use, more like self preserving and resource based.

SteveL: Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, it is an insurance program.
Yes SS is solvent it has a surplus of about 2.5 trillion dollars.
And the very reason this surplus was built up was to pay for the Baby Boomers retirement.
To cut the benefits of these Baby Boomer would be nothing short of a fraud. After all they have been paying an extra SS tax for years to build up this surplus.
Finally all this talk about cutting SS to help balance the budget is just a big LIE.
SS has not been responsible for any of the present deficit or any of the accumulated debt of the Federal government.

Continued: Social Security does not require an ever increasing younger population to support it, that is just nonsense.
Have you ever heard of increased productivity? Productivity has increased by about 75% since 1980. That is what raises everyone's standard of living, or at least it should. Everyone should share in this including retirees!
You can have a decrease in the supporting population that has a 75% increase in productivity and support an increasing retired population.
With a 75% increase in productivity we should be talking about LOWERING the retirement age and increasing the SS benefits!

Mandan: "Ironically, now that it has been several centuries since wars have been fought over religious doctrine"
Telekinetic: Are you forgetting Ireland, or was that just a skirmish? TabulaMentis:"Humans' are a greedy bunch, it does not matter what the hell they believe."
I was referring to the Irish Protestant/Catholic conflict that lasted for over a decade. It was war. Remember kneecapping? A lot more painful than Ireland's recent economic collapse, which you must've thought I meant.

Actually, there is no evidence that we will be able to "brew up" life. We know nothing about the beginning of life on this planet. Nothing does not constitute evidence of anything.

"Nothing" sure works for you in regards to your belief in a god.

Look up research being done on synthetic proteins recently. It's evidence that we will be able to create life; it's at very least more evidence than what's provided by "'cause the bible says". You once again make the assumption that if we can't do something now, it remains forever the realm of deities. Yet we all keep seeing that realm recede into the background.

Terrible_Bohr,

I point out that your claim that there is evidence that we will soon be able to "brew up life" is false because there is no evidence and we have no idea how life began.

Rather than admit your error, you accuse me of making an assumption that we cannot do something we have not yet done and that I somehow claim that this is "forever in the realm of deities". Of course, I never said any such thing.

But you did claim that there was evidence that we will soon "brew up life".

When you are just spouting nonsense and someone points out that you are spouting nonsense, rather than spout more nonsense, why not either admit you are spouting nonsense or at least stop spouting?

To restate, we do not know how life started and therefore have no expectation that we can duplicate that unknown process. To say otherwise is to be disingenuous.

Your telling me there's a gene religiosity. Naw. Thats just stupid.

And so you have filled in the blanks with nothing!

Exactly. As time passes the gaps we know of shrink, via the acquisition of knowledge, and intruiging new gaps are revealed. Well, as long as a few curious souls reject the temptation to say "magical sky man did it", that is!

I already know the answer, but like I have said before, I do not work for free.

Ahh yes, that's right, I had forgotten you... You're the one with all the answers, as revealed to you by "The Ancients", isn't that how it goes? -And you are simply awaiting the appropriate commercial circumstances to free we poor deluded ones of our ignorance?

Yeahhhh... Umm... Good luck with that, mate :)

Rather than admit your error, you accuse me of making an assumption that we cannot do something we have not yet done and that I somehow claim that this is "forever in the realm of deities". Of course, I never said any such thing.

But you did claim that there was evidence that we will soon "brew up life".

When you are just spouting nonsense and someone points out that you are spouting nonsense, rather than spout more nonsense, why not either admit you are spouting nonsense or at least stop spouting?

So you've never heard of Shostak, Miller, Urey, Venter, Menor, Salvan, Bahadur, or Sen?

I'd suggest you read their work before you state that we don't understand how life came to be. We're quite close to understanding many of the fundamental processes.

I point out that your claim that there is evidence that we will soon be able to "brew up life" is false because there is no evidence and we have no idea how life began.

That is one avenue of research - abiogenisis. However we don't need to know how life started in order produce synthetic life, another words, to 'brew up life'.

thales:

Why do I get the feeling this research was inspired by the movie "Idiocracy".

The good one! Cheers

@VeryEvilDudeofDarkness:

Greedy wouldn't be the word I would use, more like self preserving and resource based.

From your user name alone, I can see the trinity of evil is alive and well.

@Terrible_Bohr:

Look up research being done on synthetic proteins recently. It's evidence that we will be able to create life.

And someday when we are able to create our own universe, if God willing, the people inside will be saying there is no god.

@PaulieMac:

Ahh yes, that's right, I had forgotten you... You're the one with all the answers, as revealed to you by The Ancients, isn't that how it goes? And you are simply awaiting the appropriate commercial circumstances to free we poor deluded ones of our ignorance?

No. I plan to use the funds and technology to rule the world, and to free myself from blood suckers like you.

@Soulman:

That is one avenue of research - abiogenisis.

Do you remember Andrew Crosse and how he inspired Mary Shelly to write the book Frankenstein.

@PaulieMac:

Ahh yes, that's right, I had forgotten you... You're the one with all the answers, as revealed to you by The Ancients, isn't that how it goes? And you are simply awaiting the appropriate commercial circumstances to free we poor deluded ones of our ignorance?

No. I plan to use the funds and technology to rule the world, and to free myself from blood suckers like you.

Ahh - 'bloodsucker'? Well argued, that man... Your rapier-like wit has pierced me, to the quick I say!

I shall watch your climb to riches and power with a certain degree of interest.. Umm - when did you say you would begin this giddy ascent?

Must be quite difficult, sitting on the answer to life, the universe, and everything, and needing to keep mum, the better - apparently - to maximise your profit. To think that it has been revealed only to you! How very... "Special" you must be.

@ dogbert:
Nonsense? I referred to valid scientific work. Do you need links to research papers? I only didn't provide one because I assumed you wouldn't read it. Dude, I can get you a link.

I'm not being nonsensical. You're being ignorant of current scientific work.

@Terrible_Bohr:

Look up research being done on synthetic proteins recently. It's evidence that we will be able to create life.

And someday when we are able to create our own universe, if God willing, the people inside will be saying there is no god.

We're just building proteins right now. Who knows if we'll ever be able to create whole universes. It would be far in the future, at a point which -- I hope -- people will have gotten rid of the crutch that is religion. But whether or not religion will still be practiced at that time, it still won't be supported be evidence.

Good for those hypothetical doubters!

In one respect science supports one of the basic tenets of what has become Christianity - that breeding at the insane rates Christians do will inevitably lead to over-population, and that over-population will lead to some kind of Armageddon. The pity of it is that Yeshua (Jesus to the ignorant) spent 3 years trying to destroy religion and make people see where breeding like religions told them to would get them - that's why chastity and abstinence was so popular back then.

@PaulieMac:

Where did you say the universe came from? Again, you atheists seem to have all the answers, except for the answers.

Any money I make, it will be from hard work. Do you work for free?

One question: How do determine which beliefs are religious and which are secular? Last time I checked, life has no secular purpose so it could be argued that all beliefs are religious. (Human Rights:Liberals::God:Conservatives)

Over-population is largely a myth because economic theory states that increased population leads to increased technology which allows resources to be used more efficiently, resulting in increased standard of living. I site all of human history to support this. (more pop = higher living standard).

The problem isn't the number of people but that the wrong ones are having children.

One of the greatest ironies here is that Christians, with no understanding of evolution, properly regulated sex/marriage to stop the least fit from out-breeding us while modern secularists basically pay the least fit to breed like bunnies (social welfare state), while at the same time decreasing the need for children amongst the elite (Social Security, Medicare).

@PaulieMac:

Where did you say the universe came from?

I didn't. That would be a gap in human knowledge. I for one am comfortable with there being such gaps. Are you operating under the impression that 'we atheists' think that humanity has sufficient knowledge at its current disposal to answer every question about the universe? I've never heard anyone imply such a thing - and if I did, I'd think them a fool.

Again, you atheists seem to have all the answers, except for the answers.

OK, so, you are saying that since there is something we have not (yet) the knowledge to explain, that _insert_god_name_here_ must have done it? So, now you are arguing *for* the god of the gaps? :)

Any money I make, it will be from hard work. Do you work for free?

So, you have at your disposal the 'secrets of existence' as revealed *only* to you, by 'The Ancients'... But can't figure out how to monetize it?? In repayment for the entertainment value that concept gives me, I'll give you some advice. Write a book. Go on the talkshow circuit. Grant exclusive interviews to the highest bidder.

Should be easy, given the extraordinary nature of the secret knowledge you have been granted, to pile up a few million just by doing those few things! Royalties will keep it rolling in for years. And that's just the tip of the iceberg! Prizes - the Nobel perhaps? Consultancy fees. Motivational speaking (quite an earner I hear). Directorships! Honorary chairs!

The world is your oyster, mate. What are you waiting for??

How do you guys look yourselves in the mirror when you go around acting so smart yet are so naive, ignorant and stupid?

Christians built the universities that led to your god 'science' (which you now do sloppily but still call science because you guys all come together for your religious services where you agree that it's ok to murder your children in the womb but "DON'T HAVE DANGEROUS CHRISTIAN BELIEFS CAUSE US "SMART GUYS" WILL CALL YOU STUPID AND TELL YOU YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION EVEN IF WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT".

The guy who coined the term "big bang theory" was a Catholic priest, the leading geneticist in the world is an Evangelical Christian. Galileo, Newton, Pascal, Davinci, Michaelangelo, all devout Christians (and that's just the list of names you smart guys will actually know).
All the other atheist scientists were reared in thoroughly Christian societies (whatever they say when they put on their dresses and curse Christians).

:)

How do you guys look yourselves in the mirror when you go around acting so smart yet are so naive, ignorant and stupid?

Well, I wouldn't normally bother responding to out and out nutjob rants - but hey, this guy looks like fun :)

Christians built the universities that led to your god 'science'

The history of science is a long one, reaching far back into antiquity. The mesopotamians, for instance, may have pipped Pythagoras to the post by thousands of years. The babylonians were excellent astronomers. The ancient egyptians developed scientific empiricism - some 1500 years BC. Then there were the Greeks, of course. The prolific and brilliant Indian mathematicians.

And that's not even touching on the incredibly rich intellectual history of China, nor the significant and important role of the Muslim world - particularly though the European Dark Ages.

So claiming science, as a whole, as a 'Christian' invention? That's a bit rich, wouldn't you admit?

Christians built the universities that led to your god 'science' [snip pointless rantings]
The guy who coined the term "big bang theory" was a Catholic priest, the leading geneticist in the world is an Evangelical Christian. Galileo, Newton, Pascal, Davinci, Michaelangelo, all devout Christians (and that's just the list of names you smart guys will actually know).

And? I could enumerate the names of many great thinkers through the ages, each of which subscribed to a different belief system. The fact that Pythagoras may have believed that Zeus rules the universe says what, exactly?

All the other atheist scientists were reared in thoroughly Christian societies

What - all of them? Every single one in the history of science? To that I would respond - rubbish.

You spout nonsense. What's more, were every word verified as the truth, it would make exactly zero contribution to the conversation.

I'm optimistic. Very shortly pretty much everyone worldwide will have figured out that religion is simply a scam in support of (commonly) corrupt priesthoods.

"Be fruitful and multiply "

We could have hung a big "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" sign on that one about a thousand years ago.

Actully only a couple hundred. And we do need to keep our population down. because no matter how advanced we get there is only so much space and eventually we WILL RUN OUT OF SPACE. (eventually is not in the next five minuets for you doubters)
Skeptic i agree this will be a couple hundred post article. This also seems to be bordering on the one article about how "intelligent people have behaviors that are a novel in evolution", anyone remember that?

@PaulieMac:

I was thinking more of in the billions! God is good!

Freud called religion "a mental illness". I call it a delusion. For all the symbols you
show, every one thinks that theirs is the "truth". Most people are religious because
they were brainwashed into believing it with their whole being as children.
Religion is trickery, superstition and shame. You can be a good person without it.
Teach ethics. There are websites that discuss how god is imaginary. Research it.

Jewish Nobelists: Chemistry (31 prize winners, 20% of world total, 27% of US total)
Economics (28 prize winners, 42% of world total, 55% of US total)
Literature (13 prize winners, 12% of world total, 27% of US total)
Peace (9 prize winners, 9% of world total, 10% of US total)4
Physics (47 prize winners, 25% of world total, 36% of US total)
Physiology or Medicine (53 prize winners, 27% of world total, 40% of US total)
Well, whaddya know?

Many of you posters are so vituperative toward religion, it's as if you were molested by a priest.
If that's the case, I can understand the furiousness of your hatred. But if that's not the case, and you were to enter someone's home, would you ask them to remove a religious icon from the wall because it offends you? Or if a neighbor, distraught from some personal tragedy and was asking you for solace, and began praying, would you insist that they stop their babbling? There is an inherent respect one must show to the belief systems of others. Atheism is also a belief system.

There is an inherent respect one must show to the belief systems of others.

Why? Not that I go around insulting people's belief system. I see no reason why superstitious nonsense shouldn't be called out for what it is. Ignorance can be cured.

Atheism is also a belief system.

Not so. I don't believe there isn't a God. I am thoroughly convinced by a preponderance of evidence that a supernatural creator isn't necessary. I can be convinced otherwise if I were provided with evidence that one existed. Belief has nothing to do with it. Semantics, but an important distinction.
Faith is believing in something despite a lack of evidence for it. I don't suffer from it.

The root of my animosity towards western religions is their attitude towards people who don't share their delusions and their desire to force their beliefs on others or to exterminate them.

...enter someone's home, would you ask them to remove a religious icon from the wall because it offends you?

Of course not, it's not my home, it's theirs. Asking them to do so would be ridiculous, not to mention rude.

Or if a neighbor, distraught from some personal tragedy and was asking you for solace, and began praying, would you insist that they stop their babbling?

Again, that would be rude and insensitive, so no.

There is an inherent respect one must show to the belief systems of others.

Bullshit. If it's crap it's crap. The only thing that's relevant is context, as in the above two cases. It makes moral sense to be sympathetic to others when the situation calls for it.

Atheism is also a belief system.

More bullshit.

@pyle:
I understand your resentment of the imposition of Western religious values on others, but I think the real enemy is capitalism, that uses religion and militarism to reinforce its legitimacy. Just follow the money, and the people who are the most amused by the "believing" masses have Swiss bank accounts. However, that doesn't prove that those who "believe" are fools, they just don't necessarily worship gold.
In fact, many believers distrust the "churches" of their respective religions, and speak of the spirituality they seek. And I think that's a big part of the human experience, because life is not a set of variables that must fit formulaically.

Atheism is also a belief system.

No, it's a lack of a belief system based on theism.

Religion is submission. I'd do less of that in my life if I were you.

So all religions, including the non-aggressive, non-proselytizing ones have gotta go? In a place like the Soviet Union, where religious freedom was aggressively discouraged, were the people more enlightened without the dreaded "opiate of the masses?" I think there's a rigidity in your stance, that may have blinded you to the concept of acceptance.

So all religions, including the non-aggressive, non-proselytizing ones have gotta go?

That would be preferable.

Soviet Union, where religious freedom was aggressively discouraged, were the people more enlightened without the dreaded "opiate of the masses?"

No, but they went around it the wrong way. The solution isn't to ban religion by decree, but to educate the masses in critical thinking and evidence based mechanisms. That, however, is a much, much harder task.

Actually, the Soviets did a much better job at educating their citizenry than the U.S.- An amazing number of engineers, researchers, doctors- highly
empirical by nature, but still not emotionally free.
The end of religion will not end human suffering, violence or self-destructive behavior.

@PaulieMac:

I was thinking more of in the billions! God is good!

Don't you mean- "MAMMON is good"? last I heard, you had a camel's chance of passing through the eye of a needle of getting your final reward in the sweet by m by -possibly as a consequence of pursuing that reward in the here and now.

But if that's not the case, and you were to enter someone's home, would you ask them to remove a religious icon from the wall because it offends you? Or if a neighbor, distraught from some personal tragedy and was asking you for solace, and began praying, would you insist that they stop their babbling?

I just want them to stop posting religious explainations here. This is a SCIENCE website.

As for the Soviets, they sure pushed dogma pretty hard upon their citizens. It wasn't the glorification of a god, but rather of the Party. This sort of blind devotion has to go to eliminate suffering and violence. (provided it can be done) Religion isn't the only place it exists, but all will have to be completely abandoned in the process.

Don't you mean- "MAMMON is good"? last I heard, you had a camel's chance of passing through the eye of a needle of getting your final reward in the sweet by m by -possibly as a consequence of pursuing that reward in the here and now.

There is nothing dishonest going on here, only hard work!

@PaulieMac:

By the way, what I would like the funds for the most is to purchase eavesdropping detection equipment that can cost upwards to $100,000.00 in total to find those nasty bugs that the perverts in the news media, government officials, the rich, famous and insiders have using to get the goods on me for when I make my big debut. The Internet will prove to be a wonderful invention for them. Oh yeah, even the Christians got involved years ago thinking they had the Antichrist by the tail. It should be a lot of fun. I cannot wait to finish something after all the losses and setups. And I just cannot wait to see what happens in 2060, or sooner, when all of this future technology stuff becomes possible. Funny what a person has to go through these days to become immortal here on earth. Actually, the agnostics and atheists have not been all that bad, only the very twisted ones! Now the U.S.A. is almost bankrupt. I wonder why?

What the fuck are you talking about?

You are not 'ready' for yourselves, are you?
Your 'works'. Your languages.

"for exact understanding exact language is necessary."

(Gurdjieff to Ouspensky)

Of course, that understanding and that language is not human. Hardly 'useful' at this moment.

The only assumption or conjecture, (or 'hope') is you will evolve. Ready or not.

I predict the religiosity gene will be found on the same chromosome as the loyalty gene and the race gene.

Those same types of farmers end up slaughtering each other, as in Burundi and the Sudan.

Religionists will continue to fight and kill each other off by Design. Those few individuals who are pragmatic and resourceful enough to escape the quagmire, will survive and propagate more reasonably and within their means.

Let's get our views straight here: Though there might be wars/disputes between religious factions, secular atheism is responsible for millions of murders every year. There are millions of abortions every year - and it's continuing. Atheists are killing millions a year. If you want to argue that "it's not a human" or "it's not alive", then one has to ask "Why do you have to kill it then"?

The word "fertile" is used in the wrong context here. Almost as silly as the use of "religiosity gene" which gets mysteriously suppressed when people leave their cultures. Please.

Atheists are killing millions a year.

From the "Center for BioEthical Reform":

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

lol.

I'm not arguing pro or con, note. But, from these figures, doesn't quite look like this is anything strictly related to belief or not on the sky fairy, now, does it?

Let's get our views straight here: Though there might be wars/disputes between religious factions, secular atheism is responsible for millions of murders every year. There are millions of abortions every year - and it's continuing. Atheists are killing millions a year.

Subsaharan Africa is on the phone. They're wondering if it's ok for the people with AIDS to use condoms or medicine yet.

If you want to argue that "it's not a human" or "it's not alive", then one has to ask "Why do you have to kill it then"?

Actually, one would argue why do you think it is killing? I don't think abortion is murder, unless done after week 22 or so depending on neurological development.

How about the fact of periods? Isn't that the same egg that can be fertilized and so isn't that the begginnings of a child. and every woman on earth "destroys" one almost monthly.

Hello Kevin
What does your book say about conversing with the devil? I'll answer you, but it will be at your own peril.

secular atheism is responsible for millions of murders every year. There are millions of abortions every year - and it's continuing

As I've explained before, it's you religionists who make abortion necessary.

You all propagate like the Amish above, with no regard for how you will be providing for these children, because your books all tell you that god will provide as long as you all remain faithful. This inevitably makes large regions of the world horrendously overcrowded and will result in miserable deprivation, famine, insurrection, war, ecological ruin, etc.

The world has had to do something that you selfish religionists cannot, and reduce overpop by enacting prenatal infanticide. This is YOUR fault. Stop overpropagating and abortion will end, along with war, famine, plague, pestilence, etc.

ONE BILLION abortions worldwide since the beginning of the 1900s and it is BECAUSE of religion. You will note on the following website that in those countries that were able to throw off the yoke of religion and adopt western culture, which enabled family planning programs to proceed, the people now live in peace and harmony where before there was endemic war and hardship.
http
://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html

You will also note that in those countries where religions still control culture, there is still widespread unrest, hunger, misery, and atrocity. We see it on tv every day. Why do you think this is Kevin? Are the people better off with or without religion? And before you answer let me ask you what makes you think your religion is any better than theirs? Yours requires the faithful to fill up the earth at the expense of theirs, and vice versa.

Religions perpetuate misery and pointless death. All must end.

How about the fact of periods? Isn't that the same egg that can be fertilized and so isn't that the begginnings of a child. and every woman on earth "destroys" one almost monthly.

People like Kevin would tell you that a womans monthly shame, along with the agony of childbirth, are the result of Eves original sin and fall from grace in Eden, and that all women need to bear the burden of guilt for this. And to try to atone for it by being pregnant as often as possible.

A deliberate degradation-How do you permit ???

the Godless liberals

Obviously we are all going to hell in a hand basket!

Whoa.
Is there a gay gene? Probably not. Is homosexuality a matter of choice? Generally no.
Again, let's be reasonable and avoid silly arguments with unnecessary hyperbole and semantic quibbling.

Sorry to blow your bubble but yes, "homosexuality" IS a matter of choice. You have no idea the number of former husbands and wives whom I now count among my gay and lesbian friends.

ProfAnn,

Actions (behaviors) are always choices.

How about the fact of periods? Isn't that the same egg that can be fertilized and so isn't that the begginnings of a child. and every woman on earth "destroys" one almost monthly.

That just shows you how out of date the fundamentalist view is. It's still based off of the ancient notion that a man ejaculates an immature fully formed human being into the woman where her womb protects them until maturity. They also used to think that if the child was born female that the woman did something to it while it was in there. Rather hilarious actually.

Sorry to blow your bubble but yes, "homosexuality" IS a matter of choice. You have no idea the number of former husbands and wives whom I now count among my gay and lesbian friends.

Peoples brains are wired at birth or through conditioning to be either heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. Choice will not change that, only conditioning or rewiring.

ProfAnn,

Actions (behaviors) are always choices.

Smells like that 'free will' philo bullshit.

Sorry to blow your bubble but yes, "homosexuality" IS a matter of choice. You have no idea the number of former husbands and wives whom I now count among my gay and lesbian friends.

Peoples brains are wired at birth or through conditioning to be either heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. Choice will not change that, only conditioning or rewiring.

No, that's not accurate either. Sexual attraction isn't wired in purely through genetic or environmental means. How you act socially will be based on your genetic tendency and how that tendency has been rewarded or punished in society as a whole. Sexual attraction may be genetic, but the expression of such attraction will be shaped by societal values and most notably via group acceptance.