the process of de-evolution has begun

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]

Just to nit it up a bit, but thats still natural selection. Its like saying "I think the next step in evolution will be driven by big strong leg muscles."

[/ QUOTE ]
? I don't see how what I said is anything like that. Strong leg muscles is a trait. I'm talking about evolutionary processes.

[foal]

What I meant is that natural selection is unsupervised/undirected evolution that leads to changes (generally improvements) in the gene pool.

Genetic engineering is something different.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
in the past, poor people needed to have as many kids as possible to survive. they passed these genes onto their poor children. now, in the year 2007, having tons of kids isnt required for survival, but they are doing it anyways. that means for every scientist and doctor couple who have one child, a prison inmate and his baby's mamma have nine kids, some redneck and second cousin have seven kids. That means seven more kids believing in jesus and watching nascar versus one kid studying evolution and watching film noir. this affect will keep multipling until the educated are such a small minority that they are forced with a decision: extinction or mass genocide of the uneducated christian populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, for reminding me why I do not enter this forum.

Everytime I do, I become physically sick because of the ignorance and elitism I encounter.

Has the term coexistence ever entered your mind? Atheists are a small minority of the American population now, yet I have yet to read stories of persecution, at least not in the past ten years. Why would that change as more "rednecks" have more children?

I will say this in defense of the Christians.. I've met far less atheists in my life than Christians, and I can say that, despite that fact, I've met a far higher number of atheists who were arrogant, elitist pricks than I've met arrogant, elitist Christian pricks. And thats keeping in mind that the atheists were probably 25:1 ~ 30:1, that alone tells me something about who I prefer the company of.

I've encountered more than one atheist who decided to drop the arrogance act after discovering the "dumb redneck" had a 4.0 GPA and fluently spoke three languages.

/rant

PS: Embrace the love and acceptance of Paragraphia, Lord and Savior of the Paragraph.

[kurto]

though I agree atheists can be arrogant... I have trouble picturing how you don't see arrogance in the religious nor persecution.

According to recent polling, atheists are worse then just about any other minority group. Christians don't trust them, accuse them of being immoral, etc.

Heck, I've see Christian leaders telling their congregation that they're right because God's on their side and everyone else is going to hell. (I used to hear this from my own mother about OUR FAMILY'S JEWISH FRIENDS.)

No elitism or arrogance there.

My brother is a born again and loves to tell me how gays are abominations and need to be cured.

Sure... atheists can be arrogant. But it my eyes they're far from leaders in that domain.

[DblBarrelJ]

I'm certainly not denying there are arrogant christians, but I would disagree as to atheists not being "leaders" in that department.

Of course I've done no specific studies, only speaking from my own experiences.

[Max Raker]

IQ is pretty unimportant. Any person with a 100 IQ can do almost anything outside of academic research. Our population is more skilled today than it ever was. Compare an average high school kid to one 50 years ago. I think you can make a better argument that people were idiots in the past.

[madnak]

I've seen Christians as far more arrogant than atheists, but some of my normally laid-back atheist friends have become arrogant on encountering a Christian. This leads me to believe it's more a matter of perception than anything. People who agree with us will tend to act less arrogant toward us than people who disagree with us. I think we also tend to perceive those who disagree with us as arrogant in general. This is especially true when we believe our opinions are the "best" ones (most logical, for instance). Because we view our "opponents" as having a flawed perspective, mere confidence can seem like arrogance.

That said, Lebowski is a total troll (he even admitted it), and nobody should let him rile them up. He's like the siegfriedandroy of atheists.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen Christians as far more arrogant than atheists, but some of my normally laid-back atheist friends have become arrogant on encountering a Christian. This leads me to believe it's more a matter of perception than anything. People who agree with us will tend to act less arrogant toward us than people who disagree with us. I think we also tend to perceive those who disagree with us as arrogant in general. This is especially true when we believe our opinions are the "best" ones (most logical, for instance). Because we view our "opponents" as having a flawed perspective, mere confidence can seem like arrogance.

That said, Lebowski is a total troll (he even admitted it), and nobody should let him rile them up. He's like the siegfriedandroy of atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this. My problem is the large number of posters here who are completely willing to question the IQ of a theist.

Regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, you have a right to disagree with me, and I with you. I've seen several posters asking questions regarding poker players who happens to be a theists, concerning understanding of logic, random events, etc.

These posters give me a strong desire to wear a large silver cross during B&M play. I've actually often wondered if this conception was so ingrained into Sklansky's mind that I would gain an advantage by wearing one if I ever had the opportunity to play him face to face.

I'm not defending or mocking anyone's religion, however, I will say anytime you use one lone character trait of a person to assume lower intelligence/understanding, you should look at your own failings as a human being, and that is being said for both the atheists and the theists benefit.

[madnak]

I basically agree. I think Sklansky-style generalizations can be valid when discussing groups or unknowns, but they don't apply to individuals. I believe there's a correlation between atheism and high intelligence, but that's a far cry from believing that "atheists are smarter than Christians." It's even more erroneous to think that you are smart because you're an atheist. And it's just crazy to suggest that you're smarter than another person simply because you're an atheist and they're a Christian.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
What I meant is that natural selection is unsupervised/undirected evolution that leads to changes (generally improvements) in the gene pool.

Genetic engineering is something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of. But not really. Cheetahs direct the natural selection of gazelle, and thus themselves. They do it in a much cruder fashion, to be sure, but it isn't exactly unintentional. They are intentionally trying to eat gazelles, with the inevitable result being slower gazelles get eaten and gazelles get faster. Its still natural selection.

EDIT: what I mean is, of course it IS different, and practically, its VERY different. There are going to be all sorts of peculiarities and unique situations. But its still essentially natural selection. Its just far more potent, sophisticated, RAPID selection. Ultimately its those that reproduce most that will be most represented. It doesnt matter HOW they reproduce or what traits get them reproduced more often. I guess you could argue it isn't natural, and you CERTAINLY could argue that calling it natural selection is stupid and misleading and it should have its own term, so that it implies the difference. But its still essentially the same thing.