I have to say that this is one of stevenlmeyer's funniest threads yet.

Keep 'em coming, steven :D

Mikk

I made a forecast. I was hoping for a discussion.

OVERSIMPLIFIED explanation of twin studies within 350 word limit.

Compare adult MZ (identical) twins with adult DZ (fraternal) twins. MZ twins are almost genetically identical. DZ twins are similar but not identical. It is found that on average DZ adult twins' scores on various personality tests are more closely related than those of MZ twins. Among the personality traits for which this is true is religiosity. This points to a genetic component of religiosity. Usually there is a detailed analysis of results using statistical techniques such as principal components analysis. For more detailed information consult any introductory textbook on experimental design.

These support earlier studies of twins separated at birth

As pointed out in OP such studies are indicative. We shall not know for certain until we identify the gene networks, if any, that bring about a propensity to religiosity.

Pericles,

The question of the evolutionary role of religion is not something I made up. In any case I do note have the power to get New Scientist to put articles on their website retrospectively.

My reference to a tribe run by religios dying out was a reference to the article I linked.

The early religions would not have been anything like the major religions we see in the world today. They would have been more like the tribal religions I learned about in my youth in South Africa. These often promised brave warriors and hunters a place in a post-life paradise like the "happy hunting grounds" of the Native American religions.

Your attempt to equate Islam with early religions is ridiculous.

One theory is that religions fostered a spirit of cooperation and self-sacrifice among primitive tribes who had to defend their territory against other tribes. That could have been the evolutionary advantage religions conferred.

CJ Morgan,

Glad you are enjoying the thread.

What evolutionary role do you think religion played? And if your answer is none why did it evolve? Evidence rather than a regurgitation of conventional thinking would be welcome.

If atheism is doomed because they don't have as many children, then why are there so many of them in the first place?

The answer is blindingly obvious, religion is not genetic. It's a lifestyle choice. Perhaps the American Psychological Association could issue a statement like:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or Hindu orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on religious orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that religious orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their religious orientation."

While there may be genetic predispositions in the amplitude of certain emotions, and that there may be correlations with how people respond to questionnaires on how they feel about certain topics, religion may have been invented as crappy way of explaining (and exploiting) those feelings.

The funny thing is of course is that while arguing that religion would outlast the alternatives better because it makes people more aggressive (or defensive depending on one's viewpoint), it's supposed to have 'evolved' because it fosters a spirit of cooperation that offers a survival advantage? These contradictory arguments just show this farce of an idea for what it is.

stevenlmeyer,

I am not sure what this thread is really about, but I'll address it as if the question you posed is the one you actually want to discuss.

I have travelled over the same ground as you, and agree all your supporting points are sound. However, this conclusion, doesn't follow:

"the seemingly doomed atheist sub-species"

The current conditions (unlimited food, working medicine, unlimited energy), have been in place for about 4 generations (a human generation is 25..30 years). 4 generations in evolutionary terms is a very short time - almost insignificant.

Yes, if these conditions continued forever we atheists would be in real trouble. But they won't. They will end in a generation or so. When it ends, it will happen the same way it does for every other species on the planet that has undergone exponential growth. We will go into exponential overshoot, followed by population collapse.

It isn't at all obvious who will come out of that worst, or what the atheist population will look like after the dust settles. The only thing I am sure of is that is someone says know what the outcome will be - they are either lying or delusional.

Rstuart

I think you are probably right. My own feeling is that the human ecological niche is headed for a systems crash within a century. How the world will look after that is anybody's guess.

All religions teach good things. But the problems of the world remains!Why? Because the people who practice the religions do not adhere to the tenets of the religions properly.It is as simple as that.If people follow the religious dictums then there can be no war on religious grounds. But what is the reality? Perpetual wars are being fought between Jews and Christians, Hindus and Muslims! and between many other religious groups.This happens in spite of the fact that those religions preach "love".If a religion cannot persuade people to behave then what is its role?
Let us have only one religion for all-"Humanism"