Steven,
An argument should stand on it's own and not include such red herring distractions of name calling . I respect your intellect why not respect mine. Nefarious Zionist plots be damned, just yours.

Observations.
Being an atheist doesn't naturally infer that you're always objective.
You are clearly now as always trying to logically justify the irrational.

So you emotionally support Israel so what! That's your right but as has been well stated, your intellectual gymnastics to hide this fool only those who want to be 'fooled'.

Your obvious agenda by linking all religiosity to increasing birth rates has two fatuous conclusions .

Muslims are out breeding the rest of the world therefore we're in some risk of being taken over.

The other conclusion is that this justifies Israel's need (sic) for its paranoiac need (defence) for more land and belligerent militaristic posture.

BTW I think you'll find that most geneticists would be concerned with the emphasis the emphasis you are placing on the points.

Either way my critique still stand.
if you weren't meaning to place undue emphasis on this possible predisposition (given all other factors trigger that predisposition) then it is simply a wooden paddle to muddy the water.

I too have read those studies and also their criticisms. All I would say is that they are interesting, as all other factors were not eliminated or isolated.

Steven,

I'm confused now whether you want a discussion or to make a forecast?

Well picked up. I used church. God will smite me for that. Oh wait.....I'm doing it again. Jesus !!

I love broad statements that can't be disproven - "none of the points I've made about heritable dispositions to religiosity and propensity to have children are controversial among geneticists and demographers."

Well, all the geneticists and demographers I know........oh never mind.

Perhaps all the geneticists and demographers in the audience can explain to me how it is they seperate the influence of genetics and the influence of environment (in this case, only being offered the same religion as your parents, socialising with people of the same religion, going to church (or other) regularly and hearing the same religious beliefs parroted again and again) when both twins in those studies are exposed to the same genetics and the same environment?

As I said, split them at birth, raise one with religious indoctrination and one with atheism. Or, another idea, avoid any religious input to children until they are 18, not even a mention, then see how genetics sends them rushing to religion in the absence of any environmental influences. Then I'll listen to the results.

I may well be underestimating the power of the church to keep up with modern ethics. But that's my opinion which you asked for discussion on, and as you said, time will tell.

We gerbils ain't as dumb as you think, stevenlmeyer.

Let's try this again, shall we?

>>Consider that religion may have conferred an evolutionary advantage under primitive conditions. After all, who is likely to fight more fiercely for the best hunting grounds? A tribe of atheists? Or a tribe with warriors that believe that when they die they get a reward in the after life?<<

Explain please, on what basis you suspect those who believe in an afterlife have a disposition to fight earthly battles more fiercely, than those who believe that "this is all there is".

Which group is more likely to cling more tightly to life?

Those who are not looking forward to the company of seventy-two virgins when they pop their clogs, or those that are?

Admit it. This example you chose, sucks. Move on.

The New Scientist article is a touch sloppy as well.

"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."

In the scheme of things, this would be a pretty substantial assumption, wouldn't you think?

After all, if you i) first declare that proclaiming religious information is a defining trait, then ii) take as your base assumption that this trait is genetically transmitted, haven't you already precluded any result, other than that religion is inherited?

What other possible outcome could there be?

I can certainly see how this would "simplify matters".

>>However note that a society made up entirely of religios would go extinct. Ancient societies probably needed BOTH.<<

Two utterly disconnected, and equally vague statements.

Who says the "religios" would die out. Why would they? According to your own testimony, "They have tended to fight."

And on what basis is it "probable" that societies need both?

By my gerbilly whiskers, stevenlmeyer, I swear you simply make up this stuff as you go along, don't you.

Steven if you really are an atheist and you fear the godbotherers taking over then i am sure you can come up with better arguments and reasoned debate than you have shown so far in this thread.

I think all atheists will agree that over recent years there has been a resurgence of religiosity mainly in the televangelist mold and also in the muslim world. This does not mean they are taking over or making atheists into a minority.

You only have to look at the majority of peoples actions to see the real truth of their religiosity. Overall church attendance is falling, piousness is virtually unheard of and the world is infested with the sort of selfish and greedy scum that god would smite in a millisecond, if he really existed.

Your fears of godbotherers outbreeding the nonbelievers ignores so many issues I dont know where to start. The simple fact that churches act as parasites taking tithes and other offerings off their followers makes secularists 10% or so better off from the start.

Please use your time and the space provided for us here to fight the ignorance and superstition that you say you dislike and maybe one day you will convince someone that their beliefs are nothing but fantasy and fairy stories. Good luck
Mikk

Under one god
You ask me for proof but you refuse to provide any for your own beliefs. You rant about proving this and that as if it would change your mind if I could provide proof. We all know no amount of "proof" will satisfy you and that runners of this world.

You say we were given a preview of our lives. WTF are you just making this up? No judgement day? The rest of your post is just gobbledygook and I have no answer for your delusions.

I hope the voices in your head keep you company and provide you comfort but to me "faith" is nothing more than a codeword for a closed mind, ignorance, bigotry and elitism.

the simple fact is mikk your believing evolution on faith...there are many holes in your theory...your either smart enough to see that and rejected the con-cept...or taken in by the sharlitans who say its a done deal...

not one of you dorkins followers ...understand the concept or would soon rtealise the facts arnt there..and most have never undertaken..to test the theory...

wheras those with faith in god..clearly have their faith...see thats all you muggins evolutional athiests..have as well..though in your case..clearly there is a huge eliment of fear mixed in with your delusioned faith...in evolution...

a theory..because its not got the science..to validate their theory into fact....you dorkins-ians are just as much decieved as any with blind trust in any of mans theories propounded by men to befuddle mankind...into blind faith in charletans seeking their funds..

each book promising something..but never actually..delivering any real proof...why should the dorkins waste..so much time..rebutting a thing he claims dont egsist...he is a godless nutter..a prophet to the godless

ignorance is not knowledge...you claimed knowledge ...well reveal it