Avery

Sure. I mean, other than the phrasing - which is a little clunky.

I don’t think anyone really contests the data. 

Without tribal elements nobody would have any need to help anyone else. So when someone is in hard times, nobody will do anything to help them because they don't see them as a member of any sort of community.

Oh, I wasn’t necessarily putting a stamp of approval on all those pursuits/ideologies. The mention of North Korea and Soviet Union assures you of that, I hope. What I was implying is that in absence of religion, it is by necessity replaced with something, and an individual or society should be very cognizant of what that something is and its ramifications. I’m not saying this so much to you as I am to those who see religion unquestionably as a negative. There are many such people as this very thread shows…

I mean, this whole argument assumes macroevolution is actually real.

The scientists over at scienceagainstevolution.org have some pretty convincing arguments that it isn't. Mainly that the earth cannot possibly be older than 2 billion years [1] [2] due to u238 decay times and the fact that uniformitarian dating methods are significantly flawed and based on a logical fallacy. [3] 

But, assuming the shaky premise that macroevolution exists, the argument is that religion was a mechanism that survived because it made people more altruistic and therefore less likely to kill each other because they feared retribution for their actions.

Look at the world around you for a minute and  ask yourself, do these people seem like kind, altruistic, loving individuals who will have my back and work collaboratively with me to advance the greater good? I'm sure that your answer will undoubtedly be "no effing way."

There is mounds of psychological research that proves that people, even many of those who are "religious," are selfish, pathological liars who cannot engage in basic empathy unless someone in authority forces them to with threat of punishment. 

In fact, the main reason most governments exist is because people got together and determined it was in their selfish best interest to have a third party to govern them because they knew they were completely incapable of governing themselves and being altruistic.

And you think that religion somehow was an evolutionary gene that regulated all this hatred, selfishness, and mass killing? Have you even read the history of the Catholic Church, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, basically any society that worshipped the emperor or ruler as a god or regent of God and therefore just let them do whatever it is they wanted?

IMHO, we are designed to worship because the world runs best when we worship and follow God. Not just some random god that a person made up last week, but The God. The one who actually changes our nature into altruistic, good people by making us new and giving us a new nature filled with love for each other. Man's natural impulses, even including religion, are selfish, hateful, lustful, and violent. Man is in need of a new nature.

Yep… it seems that way.

The important thing to keep in mind is that in the absence of typical, spiritual religion, something MUST take its place lest a nihilistic, purposeless emptiness become all that is left. Societies and individuals replace religion with quasi-religions, either knowingly or unknowingly, such as:

- the state, as in North Korea and former Soviet Union

- fighting climate change/environmentalism

- fighting poverty/humanism

- fighting animal cruelty

- fighting racial discrimination

- scientism

- accumulation of wealth/capitalism

- philanthropy/legacy creation

Of course, except for allegiance to the state and perhaps scientism, none of these preclude religious belief, but they can serve as replacements to religion if people are deciding to reject religion outright.

Remember that Nazi troops had belt buckles that said "God Is With Us".

See:   Morality evolved first, long before Religion

           February 10, 2010

            By John Shook

Yep.

Collectivism is a good species survival strategy.

Ideology is an evolutionary development thereof.

Deism and religious development were an evolutionary inevitability of an intellectual specialist.

See the title of the OP is really  starting to annoy me now. 

Ha, thats good hey ?  Dyslix.  

No but Avery . What do you think the strongest post or point you or someone else has put foward to " oppose " it. ?

Anddddd. 

Can i get your guess on .

Religion,  how much percent good has it done for us  as to not good. 

I was going to be real generous and say . 

Religion has done us at least 75% bad  to  25 % good. 

Thats like MEGA generous from me i feel.

Actually 

78 % bad to 22% 

(1) Why would  qualia be a necessity for an alternative intelligence?

(2) How to program sentience....Download it.

From society's experiences with transgenderism (originally another techno-buzzword from the 1980s/1990s), I would suggest that "transhumanism" will simply result in humans who are more dysfunctional and maladjusted than they otherwise would've been. It really takes an impressive person to fundamentally change themselves for the better; most who adopt a superhuman label will just make a fool of themselves.

But as for the distant future, who knows. Perhaps human flaws will be identified as bad code and rewritten with ease. The implications of this are incredibly hard to imagine at present.

Thing about robots taking over humans is I admit humans are smarter than the average human but a guy like me can cuck a robot at certain things, since if you understand how to deliver it false information and take advantage of its predictable pattern recognition exploitation, you end up exploiting its exploits.

I didn't say I was a graduate. I'm literally studying this right now.

Tribes that were indifferent to rape would have a mixbag of genes.

That's a good thing. It's called genetic diversity.

Tribes that were against rape would have women select for favorable genes.

Once again, women don't select for genes, they select for attraction (which can correlate with genetic fitness but not reliably)

Over time, the selection of favorable genes will result in healthier, smarter and genetically fitter people.

Evolution doesn't select (directly) for intelligence or (after reproduction) even health. It selects for having the most offspring survive to have more offspring. That's why only 200 years ago people lived to 40 and had 7 kids on average.

Evolution isn't capable of foresight. It works one generation at a time. So whatever has an evolutionary advantage in one generation will be promoted in the next, regardless of what's best in the long run. So once again, yes, rape has an evolutionary advantage as a reproductive strategy, similar to how to competing reproductive strategies exist for male cuttlefish. [1] And rape exists in other species, not just humans, though scientists like to call is sexual coercion instead. If there were an evolutionary advantage to use a different reproductive strategy, then rape would have ceased to exist.

Once again, anything with an evolutionary disadvantage doesn't stick around. The fact that rape has existed for all of recorded history and is shared by our closest relative, the chimpanzee, indicates that some amount of rape is able to meet a Nash equilibrium on reproductive fitness.

I appreciate your engagement in this thread, as it is finally nice to see someone who understands exactly that which I have been trying to convey without all the nuances of others tunnel vision, one-dimensional thinking, and incorrect interpretation of what was put forth (e.g., the 3% reference being misinterpreted because they didn't comprehend, "A little less than half ..." part of the sentence). In short, everything you've been stating in rebuttal to others has been spot on. Just wish others were so enlightened to the truth instead of being so stubborn in seeing it for what it is. Truth.

No, what will happen is that the tribe is, as a population, bred to be more aggressive and hence be able to survive. This is not simply about the individual survival, it is about how, if enacted, rape furthers the evolutionary success of a population, at least in the instance we are discussing. 

And the biggest issue - even if religion is advantageous, how does this tie to its truth? 

It's not an issue at all for this thread. This thread is specifically about whether religion is evolutionary advantageous, not whether there is any truth to it. I even wrote the opening sentence to address this: "Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face."

It's clearly implied what you are getting at - I would wager that you are religious, are you not? Further, as a society, we ought to pursue truth over falsehood, so I think neglecting the truth element is detrimental. 

What, specifically is the point you’re trying to make. As we’ve discussed before, I don’t think anyone really denies the underlying facts at hand, though there is certainly many people who may debate cause and attribution.

A main point consider, is that tone, and behaviour often guide how information is interpreted.

For example, to broach a sensitive topic, one may chose to be very aware of his your words and behaviour are taken; and take steps that there is no possibility that behaviour or actions can be misconstrued.

If one were to broach a sensitive topic such as racism; by launching into what seem to be abrasively negative tirades that seek to bombard the reader with negative information about black males. Such overtly negative, abrasive and angry approaches to presenting an argument very much gives the impression that your issue is with the people you critique, and not whatever your actual point actually is.

If your concerned about being labelled a racist - perhaps understanding how this abrasive tone and caustically negative bombarding of data, almost exclusively presented as if to antagonize - can colour other individuals perception of your intent is a good starting point.

I'm referring specifically to this blog: https://samflynn0514.wixsite.com/americaindenial/post/black-men-not-whites-are-the-tried-and-true-violent-criminals-in-the-usa (if you're looking at another post or link please share it because we're probably not looking at the same thing)

He specifically says this: "A little less than half of the 6% black male population (3%) commit over 50% of the entire nation's #murders and non-negligent manslaughters."

What he is saying is that  6% of the US population is black men (which is correct: The current population of the US is 329.5 million. 6% of 329.5 million is 19.91 million which is how many black men there are in America), he says that a little less than half of that population commits over 50% of the nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters which would be about 3%. So, if there are 19.91 million black men in America, 3% of that would be 600,000. But there are not 600,000 black men being arrested for murder/non-negligent manslaughter, based on data he shared, there's less than 5,000. So, it's a lot less than 3% of black men who are committing those crimes, it's actually more like 0.03% of black men. It's was either a little math mistake or he's purposely presenting data in a misleading way.

This was his citation: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43

There are three tables: total arrests, arrests under 18, and arrests over 18. Nothing that specifies 18-25.

So, what were you looking at where it says 18-25?

Science makes you understand death so you don’t have to fear it.

Medical science and medication can drag you out of dark worlds.

Science can teach you how complex life  is and help you to respect life.

Science reduces the reliance on mythical gods and puts you in the hands of professional and qualified doctors and shrinks.

The mere fact that it is illegal to rape someone and it comes with decades of incarceration could infact change things. 

And how is it evolutionarily disadvantageous? 

Do you understand how evolution via natural selection works? Those who are aggressive survive, and as rape is by nature a violating disposition upon a seperate agent which also increases the gene pool and thus allows for mutation, a male who constantly rapes other are better equipped to pass their offspring on, when compared to a morally sane person. 

And the biggest issue - even if religion is advantageous, how does this tie to its truth? 

You've just equivocated rape being evolutionary disadvantageous with it being disgusting. These two things not contingent upon each other. 

How does it not increase the gene pool? Evolution via natural selection is process which results in the adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype, or genetic constitution. A population which constantly rapes their kind will increase their gene pool exponentially, hence increasing the possibility for a desirable mutation. If we look purely evolutionarily, which is what you seem to be doing, the population with 100 people (90 percent of whom were conceived through rape) would be at a higher advantage than the population with 10 people (who committed no rape). 

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

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

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

Science is replacing religion in almost every aspect.

Feeding millions.

Curing millions.

Giving hope to millions.

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

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

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

Correct.  That checks out. 

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

It should be left at that hey. 

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

I think thats because 

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

Now to The broardness of it. 

It is pretty broard. 

--> @Deb-8-a-bull

Instead of  Religion is a ( evolutionary advantage )  

Can you perhaps reword it ?  

Dumb it down for me.

Religion helps people to survive.

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

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

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

Can be dismissed as irrelevant then.

Instead of  Religion is a ( evolutionary advantage )  

Can you perhaps reword it ?  

Dumb it down for me.

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

These sources aren't terribly convincing. The last one is from literal white supremacist organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foundation), and the Unz Review is considered a white nationalist publication. 

The American Journal of Sociology would be an interesting read but it is over 30 years old and is behind a paywall so alas...if you could quote from it that would be cool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You make a good point here. This is actually why Ii support the legalization of victimless crimes, like rape. 

"and not once have you argued against it in fact you’ve agreed to the self-refuting illogical nature of it"

Okay, but what’s your retort? Because being redundant in your position after I already countered it isn’t really advancing anything.

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

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

I know your argument, question is have you been paying attention to mine?

But perhaps the transference of intellectual responsibility to devices (Alternative Intelligence) is more probable and more practical.

Nowhere is it written that the evolution of matter peaks with organic intelligence.

The reality is, poverty is more of the greater indicator toward violent crime than race.

Well said!