Religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers

[ubs]

Findings from a computer program, called EvoGod, built to predict under what conditions religion would flourish, suggests that religion could only take hold with the help of non believers (you god damn traitors).

From New Science,

Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests

To simplify matters, Dow picked a defining trait of religion: the desire to proclaim religious information to others, such as a belief in the afterlife. He assumed that this trait was genetic.

The model assumes, in other words, that a small number of people have a genetic predisposition to communicate unverifiable information to others. They passed on that trait to their children, but they also interacted with people who didn't spread unreal information.


The model looks at the reproductive success of the two sorts of people – those who pass on real information, and those who pass on unreal information.


Under most scenarios, "believers in the unreal" went extinct. But when Dow included the assumption that non-believers would be attracted to religious people because of some clear, but arbitrary, signal, religion flourished.

[Barney]

So if the people who beleive in something die and theres no replacements, the idea dies?

Hmm. Did they make much money from this programme? Even my old ZX81 computer could have handled that concept and it had 1 Kilobyte of RAM.

[ubs]

Barney wrote

So if the people who beleive in something die and theres no replacements, the idea dies?

Not the idea - the capacity for religion.

The presumption was that believing without proof was genetic and the program found that people with that genetic trait died out quickly unless the program was altered so that non-believers found believers attractive.

In short, if religion bothers you, quit humping believers.

It is obvious that people who get into power through intelligence must be intelligent enough to know religion is bullshit.

Napoleon once said about religion:

The poor regard it as holy.
The wise regard it as false.
The powerful regard it as useful.

He, for a while, contemplated integrating Islam in order to raise militarism, to aid him in his conquests.

[Barney]

Hanevet wrote

It is obvious that people who get into power through intelligence must be intelligent enough to know religion is bullshit.

Napoleon once said about religion:

The poor regard it as holy.
The wise regard it as false.
The powerful regard it as useful.

He, for a while, contemplated integrating Islam in order to raise militarism, to aid him in his conquests.

Wrote a nice letter to the Eygyptians under Marmaluke control announcing Allah had sent him.
The brits sent him back and it diddnt wash with the Marmys either.

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

In short, if religion bothers you, quit humping believers.

When I'm finished humping them, they will be believers!

ubs wrote

In short, if religion bothers you, quit humping believers.

Can't help it.

That was Lucius Annaeus Seneca, not Napoleon. Napoleon however, said something along the lines of "If I was to choose a religion, the sun would be my god".

[ubs]

ghoulslime wrote

When I'm finished humping them, they will be believers!

sparhawk13 wrote

Can't help it.

Alright you guys look. We can eliminate religion simply by exercising a little self control.............




Never mind.

[Erik]

I'm not so sure this focuses on the right thing. In my view, participation in a religion is a powerful way for an individual to tell a group of people that: "I am willing to live by your rules; I can be trusted to conform and help out in need; therefore, you will not be wasting time and resources if you help me with food, clothing, shelter, water, defense, rearing children, etc." There will always be the need to project this idea, whether it is through the clothes you wear or conspicuous charitable donations. So it seems to me that the way to really eradicate religion is to figure out a way to satisfy basic needs without the requirement of conformity.

[Kate]

[ubs]

Hanevet wrote

It is obvious that people who get into power through intelligence must be intelligent enough to know religion is bullshit.

Yes, and I used to think that the guys at the top - who obviously know that they are selling crap - were the ultimate evil - but my ideas on that have changed.

When you outsource a task you have to pay. No one is going to scrub your toilet for free. Why should outsourcing your thinking be any different? Tithing is probably too cheap.

Erik wrote

I'm not so sure this focuses on the right thing.

I agree. The flaw in the model is the premise that 1. theism is one charactueristic rather than the manifestation of many wants, needs and desires and 2. that it is genetic.

But I liked the conclusion - that atheists are aiding and abetting - because that implies we have some control over the situation. That we could fix it, with just a little self control.

I'm like the cat who knows world domination is within her grasp the minute she masters the can openner.

[Smellyoldgit]

Atheism will only ever overtake theism in popularity when some smart-arse demonstrates how to make more money out of it.

[Erik]

Kate, thanks for not inflaming my insatiable desire...

[ILOVEJESUS]

Erik wrote

I'm not so sure this focuses on the right thing. In my view, participation in a religion is a powerful way for an individual to tell a group of people that: "I am willing to live by your rules; I can be trusted to conform and help out in need; therefore, you will not be wasting time and resources if you help me with food, clothing, shelter, water, defense, rearing children, etc." There will always be the need to project this idea, whether it is through the clothes you wear or conspicuous charitable donations. So it seems to me that the way to really eradicate religion is to figure out a way to satisfy basic needs without the requirement of conformity.

a notion that more and more intelligent atheists are beginning to see from what i see in the media.