Are atheists "Scrooges" by ruining all the fun of religious faith?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Phenotypic variation is a thing, but statistically we're not moving toward greater intelligence.

Yet, observably, we are.

So we must conclude that your analysis is flawed (or that something has changed radically, on a timescale FAR too short for evolution to be relevant at all).

Observation ALWAYS trumps theory.

We're accumulating knowledge, and in that way we're becoming collectively smarter, but cognitively we're not. The only statistical evidence I've seen mentioned that, genetically, we're becoming less intelligent as a whole. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but here's an example of data:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960300103X

The data relies on the use of vocabulary so it is critically important to know the vocabulary they are using to test. I would hope such a vocabulary would include words from many different disciplines. The point is that deciding which is the proper vocabulary to test may in fact decide the outcomes. Persons who are literary academics are going to have a very different vocabulary than persons who are scientists. It may be that the vocabulary being tested for is quite simple, middle school level, and therefore includes words that are deemed part of all disciplines.

Interestingly I was a Literature major in college. As such, and because most freshmen detest having to take Lit classes as part of a core curriculum, many persons would ask me to have a look at their work before submission. Some of those efforts were dismal and some were quite adequate imho. My point is that I wasn't examining work destined for Calculus for Physics or Computer programming. No students were required to complete credits in those areas as part of their requirements though those classes would have satisfied certain more basic requirements.

And the effect of those vocabulary scores was estimated in I.Q. changes over time. Not sure how to process that. Was I.Q. not tested? The estimated I.Q changes were less than one point over many years. The little I know about statistics and "statistically significant" differences tells me there is a lot more information to be gleaned. I'm reminded of my years in manufacturing where persons would proclaim in meetings that this or that changed from last month or last quarter and would never calculate averages over time to see if anything really did change or was trending because they had no statistical training.

One thing is certain in my life, and that is that falling love was not a rational exercise. Getting married and having children was definitely a rational undertaking because those things consume resources unlike falling in love.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You know that guy? He's married?

Was this intended to hurt someone’s feelings, tho?

I think reviewing Unknown Soldier’s thread about online behavior and morality should give you the answer to that.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You know that guy? He's married?

Was this intended to hurt someone’s feelings, tho?

I think reviewing Unknown Soldier’s thread about online behavior and morality should give you the answer to that.

Let's just discuss the topic in the OP, please.

 

[gmbteach]

Hmmm, THEY are attacking you? No one has commented on them being ‘kids who thrive on attention ‘?

Drawing on my experience again, when you post this scenario about a child who doesn’t play well with anyone, it’s not too difficult to realise it’s the one kid not wanted, and not every single other one.

HMM, laughing at you? Why bother?

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it looks like it's supposed to hurt me in some way. So just to make you feel better, let me say that yes, you've succeeded in hurting me. You've ruined my day. I'll be reeling from the beating you just meted out to me.

Why exactly do so many people hurt others over the internet? Is it cathartic in some way?

However, to get back to your OP,

Yes. The topic. let's get back to that. I can't take much more of your lashing out at me.

what a load of bollocks!

That proves your position!

I don’t know of ANY athiest, agnostic or theist who ruins any festive occasion. I have yet to encounter anyone.

Keep looking. It does happen.

Oh, wait a minute! My dad was an itsy bitsy tiny minuscule upset for a nanosecond that I didn’t want a priest at Bilby‘s and my wedding. Does that count as a comment in the other direction?

You know that guy? He's married?

Anyway, yes, Christians can ruin other people's fun.

Ok, no I did NOT set out to hurt you so sorry to burst your bubble!

And if you are referring to Bilby and do I know him? I guess you could say that I know the man I married, not once, but twice, a number of years ago!

 

[gmbteach]

You know that guy? He's married?

Was this intended to hurt someone’s feelings, tho?

Yeah… mine maybe, because he thought I intended to hurt his feelings.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You know that guy? He's married?

Was this intended to hurt someone’s feelings, tho?

I think reviewing Unknown Soldier’s thread about online behavior and morality should give you the answer to that.

Let's just discuss the topic in the OP, please.

You mean whether bilby is married? That guy????

 

[gmbteach]

You know that guy? He's married?

Was this intended to hurt someone’s feelings, tho?

I think reviewing Unknown Soldier’s thread about online behavior and morality should give you the answer to that.

Let's just discuss the topic in the OP, please.

You mean whether bilby is married? That guy????

I can attest to the fact that he is. I was there! Is photographic proof required?

 

[unapologetic]

Should they write a story where Jesus stays dead?

Yes. I'd like to see that.

 

[rousseau]

Phenotypic variation is a thing, but statistically we're not moving toward greater intelligence.

Yet, observably, we are.

So we must conclude that your analysis is flawed (or that something has changed radically, on a timescale FAR too short for evolution to be relevant at all).

Observation ALWAYS trumps theory.

We're accumulating knowledge, and in that way we're becoming collectively smarter, but cognitively we're not. The only statistical evidence I've seen mentioned that, genetically, we're becoming less intelligent as a whole. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but here's an example of data:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960300103X

It seems very weird that they are coming to massive conclusions about massive populations over a huge amount of time using data surveyed of 1500 people from 1990 to 1996. ... also, it seems at odds with the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect showed over larger time periods than sampled here that the populations purported to lose more IQ by this study actually _gained_ more IQ. No?

Honestly, I'm not that committed to trying to convince anyone here, or analyzing studies, I don't have the time. But I've set the basic framework for my argument, so others can definitely look into it and report back with more detail. I'm happy to be proven wrong, I just haven't seen that argument yet.

Lots of frameworks and analyses are wrong. It probably takes a lot of time to understand theory, variables, and ideas involved. However, there is a very, very simple fact that takes almost no time at all to think about. Don't let the abstract notions obfuscate the reality. Data trumps theory that is built upon many assumptions and inferences. If it were true that whatever was being observed by the studies would result in incremental IQ loss of the human population, then all we have to do is look at IQ over large periods of time to see if they are decreasing. The Flynn Effect shows the opposite--that they were increasing over the same time periods of this analysis.

There are a lot of possible reasons on why the theories, ideas, and assumptions are wrong, but one doesn't need to figure out the why and be a perfect person, spending so much time on it. Data debunks it.

To the interested reader, you can read more about it on Wikipedia:

Preston and Campbell (1993) argued that it is a mathematical fallacy that such differences in fertility would result in a progressive change of IQ, and applies only when looking at closed subpopulations. In their mathematical model, with constant differences in fertility, since children's IQ can be more or less than that of their parents, a steady-state equilibrium is argued to be established between different subpopulations with different IQ. The mean IQ will not change in the absence of a change of the fertility differences. The steady-state IQ distribution will be lower for negative differential fertility than for positive, but these differences are small. For the extreme and unrealistic assumption of endogamous mating in IQ subgroups, a differential fertility change of 2.5/1.5 to 1.5/2.5 (high IQ/low IQ) causes a maximum shift of four IQ points. For random mating, the shift is less than one IQ point.[43] James S. Coleman, however, argues that Preston and Campbell's model depends on assumptions which are unlikely to be true.[44][45]

The general increase in IQ test scores, the Flynn effect, has been argued to be evidence against dysgenic arguments. Geneticist Steve Connor wrote that Lynn, writing in Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, "misunderstood modern ideas of genetics." "A flaw in his argument of genetic deterioration in intelligence was the widely accepted fact that intelligence as measured by IQ tests has actually increased over the past 50 years." If the genes causing IQ have been adversely affected, IQ scores should reasonably be expected to change in the same direction, yet the reverse has occurred.[46]

Some of the studies looking at relation between IQ and fertility cover the fertility of individuals who have attained a particular age, thereby ignoring positive correlation between IQ and survival. To make conclusions about effects on IQ of future populations, such effects would have to be taken into account.[citation needed]

Recent research has shown that education and socioeconomic status are better indicators of fertility and suggests that the relationship between intelligence and number of children may be spurious. When controlling for education and socioeconomic status, the relationship between intelligence and number of children, intelligence and number of siblings, and intelligence and ideal number of children reduces to statistical insignificance. Among women, a post-hoc analysis revealed that the lowest and highest intelligence scores did not differ significantly by number of children.[47]

Other research suggest that siblings born further apart achieve higher educational outcomes. Therefore, sibling density, not number of siblings, may explain the negative association between IQ and number of siblings.[47]

I don't doubt that there are issues with any study trying to measure changes to something like IQ over time. But try not to forget that the original premise I brought up actually has nothing to do with dysgenic fertility.

A quick Google search on 'dysgenic vs Flynn effect' mentions that the Flynn effect actually measures environmental change, but again, I don't have the time or desire to pull together data, and no matter what we look at IQ is likely a tenuous indicator. And you can't really rely on Wikipedia, you'd likely need an actual meta-analysis done in a reputable journal.

But the real premise I'm trying to get across here is that variables other than 'strong reasoning skills' are more primary to human reproduction than a strong reasoning ability. There is plenty of info on this topic out there, but is it easily proven with data? Not really. But it's not hard to see it if you just observe human behavior throughout history, politics, and so on.

 

[unapologetic]

... then evolution is absolutely acting on intelligence.

I disagree.
I think human evolution is effectivly halted at present.
At 8 billion people, I don't see any 'natural selection' going on.
At 8 billion people, I don't see how any mutation has any chance of propagating throughout the gene pool.
At 8 billion people, I don't see any group branching off. (except maybe N Koria)
(but of course, my lifespan is too short to properly judge)
Perhaps you are speaking of the evolution of society.

 

[unapologetic]

Vocal atheists provide an opportunity for the religious to promote their views

As if the sheeple even wait for opportunities.
Preachers wind them up and send them out every sunday.
They (and you) see promoting their views, as their mission. The 'vocal atheists' are our defense, and in some sense retaliation.

 

[Jarhyn]

When I was religious, the religious faith was pretty universally the "damper" on fun.

Everything from sex to drugs to rock and roll, religion hates all the fun stuff.

All I ever got from religion on Christmas was forced participation in Christmas pageants at church, and a suspicious interest in how melted candle wax feels on bare skin.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When I was religious, the religious faith was pretty universally the "damper" on fun.

Everything from sex to drugs to rock and roll, religion hates all the fun stuff.

Sex shouldn't be included in your claim.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... then evolution is absolutely acting on intelligence.

I disagree.
I think human evolution is effectivly halted at present.
At 8 billion people, I don't see any 'natural selection' going on.
At 8 billion people, I don't see how any mutation has any chance of propagating throughout the gene pool.
At 8 billion people, I don't see any group branching off. (except maybe N Koria)
(but of course, my lifespan is too short to properly judge)
Perhaps you are speaking of the evolution of society.

If old Ben had known at the time I'm sure he would have added evolution to his quip about death and taxes.

 

[rousseau]

... then evolution is absolutely acting on intelligence.

I disagree.
I think human evolution is effectivly halted at present.
At 8 billion people, I don't see any 'natural selection' going on.
At 8 billion people, I don't see how any mutation has any chance of propagating throughout the gene pool.
At 8 billion people, I don't see any group branching off. (except maybe N Koria)
(but of course, my lifespan is too short to properly judge)
Perhaps you are speaking of the evolution of society.

I wasn't suggesting that intelligence levels were changing, I was suggesting that if person [A] has an inclination to do behavior [X] because of trait [Y], and [X] leads to reproduction, then trait [Y] is being passed to the next generation because of behavior [X].

Statistically, we can see no difference at the population level, but some traits will still be more predominant in subsequent generations because of the behaviors that underlie them.

IOW, you can't totally unlink behavior from genetics. Behavior is a phenotype, DNA is the genotype.

 

[TomC]

I think modern conditions are accelerating changes, just like we did with domestic animals.

There's a reason modern horses are bigger and stronger than horses a mere 5000 years ago. Modern cattle, chickens, dogs and coyote and elk. We humans select for things that aren't the same things as natural selection would.

Back for most of human history, having traits like strength and endurance and intelligence would generally result in higher reproductive success. Today they don't. Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits. Being sturdy and smart means you have access to birth control and you use it.

Lets face it. Who has more reproductive success? The Duggars or the Clintons? That's just famous people .
The USA has millions of kids produced by parents who don't plan on taking care of their kids, they just don't see why it's not a good idea to have babies they can't take care of properly.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

When I was religious, the religious faith was pretty universally the "damper" on fun.

Everything from sex to drugs to rock and roll, religion hates all the fun stuff.

All I ever got from religion on Christmas was forced participation in Christmas pageants at church, and a suspicious interest in how melted candle wax feels on bare skin.

It is odd how religions forbid the strangest things. I sin all the time, and I've yet to be punished by some spirit in the sky.

 

[gmbteach]

When I was religious, the religious faith was pretty universally the "damper" on fun.

Everything from sex to drugs to rock and roll, religion hates all the fun stuff.

All I ever got from religion on Christmas was forced participation in Christmas pageants at church, and a suspicious interest in how melted candle wax feels on bare skin.

It is odd how religions forbid the strangest things. I sin all the time, and I've yet to be punished by some spirit in the sky.

Define ’sin’.

 

[Shadowy Man]

When I was religious, the religious faith was pretty universally the "damper" on fun.

Everything from sex to drugs to rock and roll, religion hates all the fun stuff.

All I ever got from religion on Christmas was forced participation in Christmas pageants at church, and a suspicious interest in how melted candle wax feels on bare skin.

It is odd how religions forbid the strangest things. I sin all the time, and I've yet to be punished by some spirit in the sky.

You haven’t died yet. Perhaps eternal punishment awaits you in the afterlife.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think modern conditions are accelerating changes, just like we did with domestic animals.

There's a reason modern horses are bigger and stronger than horses a mere 5000 years ago. Modern cattle, chickens, dogs and coyote and elk. We humans select for things that aren't the same things as natural selection would.

Back for most of human history, having traits like strength and endurance and intelligence would generally result in higher reproductive success. Today they don't. Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits. Being sturdy and smart means you have access to birth control and you use it.

Lets face it. Who has more reproductive success? The Duggars or the Clintons? That's just famous people .
The USA has millions of kids produced by parents who don't plan on taking care of their kids, they just don't see why it's not a good idea to have babies they can't take care of properly.
Tom

So now we're advocating the policies of the eugenics movement. If you don't want a lot of dumb and weak and sickly people in the world, and if euthanasia doesn't cut it, then try forced sterilization.