Why I'm an Atheist

[Tubby]

Eh. Time to jump ship on this thread. Buh bye.

Bye then, Foc.

It was nice taking with you anyway.

gg good game.

[haunted]

What is the evolutionary definition of "survival of the fittest", tubby?

You have been using it out of context ever since I used this phrase. What do you think fit means... the biggest and the burliest "hunk"? ha ha ha...... Sorry, but the word "fit" from an evolutionary perspective refers to one's ability to produce offspring. It truly pains me to see you continually take this word out of context...(please tell me again how producing the most offspring matters in church or q2 again.... lol)  If natural selection WAS a game, the person who produces the most offspring is the winner; this is what you do not understand. If you think different, than you simply do not understand the concept. The human race as a whole does not play the competitive game of natural selection anymore.

Look at chimpanzees(just like everything else):

The baby is dependent on its mother for at least two years, sometimes still riding on her back for periods at 4 years old. By this time, the mother will have another baby and the elder one has to fend for itself.

You see tubby, ever since the dawn of civilization, we haven't thrown our toddlers into the wilderness like we are training Spartan warriors then immediately start reproducing again cyclically from age 11 until menopause. This is why I said that life expectancy today, and in turn a lengthened reproductive life, is a viable example... but you called it a "moot point" because you don't even understand what natural selection is. Also, ever since the dawn of modern/western medicine no one dies from the simplest of ailments. This means that people with immunities to ailments to not dominate the gene pool like they should in true natural selection. Then, once the world was modernized by today's standards, including things like government and economy, we have steered even FARTHER from natural selection. Today's examples of natural selection are watered down by 1:10,000 in comparison to primitive times.

So "fittest" as we discussed means the most able to adapt to their environment, and in turn produce more offspring. Please stop using the word incorrectly. As I said, you clearly don't have a solid understanding on evolution or natural selection. Your elementary examples that I would expect from well, an elementary student talking about evolution are nothing short of silly when considering the bigger picture that you are seemingly incapable to grasp. The hunk or the sick guy both die in primitive natural selection before they reach puberty. The guy with a basket of berries and roasting antelope on his fire every night, and the guy that is smart enough to copy how he acquired these resources, do not.

So seriously, stop using these whack examples and tying them into the easiest of analogies to make. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE MOST ABLE PERSON IN WHATEVER SITUATION WILL DO THE BEST, and WE ALSO KNOW THAT YOU CAN RELATE THIS CONCEPT TO ALMOST ANYTHING IN LIFE. A POINT SO GENERALIZED MEANS CLOSE TO NOTHING IN REGARD TO PROVING ANYTHING. And for a concept you can relate almost anything to, you sure do pick some really dumb examples. Like the high school bully.. who *COULD* possibly(horrible example because it's not consistent) thrive under the circumstance of being in an immature, pretend reality(high school), yet in no way does this example apply to TRUE reality or especially TRUE natural selection.

You may have fun flaunting and advertising your pseudo-atheism(i say false atheism because any atheist would be embarrassed to have you represent his/her views), but it's simply just not a mutual, enjoyable debate when you keep demonstrating an attitude of narrow-minded ignorance(look at the people who have decided to quit debating with you... it's because you are making it a waste of time for them, because it's not even a debate at all with you. It's just tubby's brilliant ideas v. the truth ). I implore you to read my post 10 times until you absorb these facts, because I have easily disproved everything you have said. If you don't reply with any kind of new information, or a reply that at least attempts to refute all of what I said(can't refute facts but good luck), then allow me to refer you to this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Here, i'll even make a lame analogy to natural selection so you can understand. Lets say we're all cavemen on this thread, and food is the truth. I keep telling you how good my deer is that I've been cooking and eating nightly over my fire. I make it sound very enticing and delicious, and all other cavemen agree. You say yeah that does sound good, but I prefer to eat tree bark. The other cavemen and I waft the smell of delicious meat roasting on the fire towards your direction, yet you still continue your preference of eating tree bark, even while you get sick and weak from it... all the while smelling the delicious food next to you / observing your healthy fellow cavemen. You were the first to die from natural selection, because of your silly narrow-minded "brilliant ideas" that do not take a logical approach to anything. Just like on this thread; your inability to accept that your wrong / learn from others is detrimental to your knowledge on this subject(not to mention your personality). Again, this is why people are giving up on debating with you(because you're wasting everyone's time).

[reaper]

I would consider capatalism 'best by test', but suspect as well.  So you might have to say something like: to make communisms work, x, y and z need to happen.  The problem is that isn't realistic, so it wouldn't be realistic to implement communism.

[haunted]

If tubby used capitalism or a free market economy as an analogy to natural selection, as in the principle of the hardest working people receive the most reward, he at least wouldn't sound like a total idiot. However, he not only chooses examples that do NOT tie into natural selection like above, but extremely stupid ones as well.

[Tubby]

The human race as a whole does not play the competitive game of natural selection anymore.

Thanks, Haunted. I've absorbed all that, digested it, and excreted it. 

I'd just like to focus on one statement that you made (quoted above) which probably sums up everything you're trying to say.

First, I'm not trying to say that being 'physically' fit is the be all and end all of evolution. As I said in an earlier post, being intellectually 'fit' is also a great evolutionary advantage. But either way, it's still all about 'fitness' and about the ability of one member of a species to be better than another member of that species in order to propogate and evolve that species.

Which leads on to your quote; "the human race as a whole does not play the competitive game of natural selection anymore". Well, you and I are playing the game of natural selection right now by debating this issue: The people who read and contribute to this thread will 'naturally select' who of us 'wins', and who 'loses'. They will base their selection on who of us has the 'stronger' and 'fitter' argument.

This will be an example of natural selection based on intellectual - as opposed to physical - fitness. But it will be natural selection nonetheless, and you're a part of it right here and right now.

[Arm0r]

. Well, you and I are playing the game of natural selection right now by debating this issue: The people who read and contribute to this thread will 'naturally select' who of us 'wins', and who 'loses'.

well when you're right you're right. (you lost btw)

[haunted]

Tubby: All you did was take the term Natural Selection out of context, as if it has ANYTHING to do with making a selection between two options... It's completely laughable that you do this.

Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers.

THAT is natural selection. I reapeat: It has nothing to do with someone's decision to "select" my posts over yours. It is a VERY easy distinction to make being that the context you use it in has NOTHING to do with the definition. I expect my 5 year old cousin could.

The process of someone reading my post with facts, then reading posts like your recent one that are completely false, not sensible whatsoever, and contribute absolutely nothing to the debate is called common sense. They call it "common" sense because it's such a basic judgment call that it is assumed that anyone can make it.

Thank you for at least trying something new though.

[Tubby]

Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers.

Yes, and my offspring will take my ideas and beliefs into the next generation, and your offspring will take yours. I have one child (so far), how many do you have?

Haunted, you're constantly denigrating me by saying that my arguments are 'laughable, and that I'm 'stupid', and a 'total idiot'.

You know, using such terms to belittle people is a classic tactic of the schoolyard bully.... when he can't think of anything better to say.

[Tubby]

. Well, you and I are playing the game of natural selection right now by debating this issue: The people who read and contribute to this thread will 'naturally select' who of us 'wins', and who 'loses'.

well when you're right you're right. (you lost btw)

Care to explain that a bit further ArmOr? Or are you just going to put it down to divine inspiration?

[haunted]

Tubby I get very blunt with my words because you show signs of not being able to communicate properly and logically.. If I'm not like this, I feel like you're just going to troll me and take something I say out of context when it does not pertain to my point whatsoever. You may call it bullying, but at least I am communicating effectively opposed to you. I am sorry if you took offense.

Additionally, my offspring will be capable of making an informed decision on their own; especially one that requires nothing more than common sense. If you want to brainwash your offspring into thinking otherwise, that is your decision. The decision of a forum poster between our two "sides" still has nothing to do with natural selection, no matter how much you want it to.

[Tubby]

If you want to brainwash your offspring into thinking otherwise, that is your decision.

LMAO, like raising your child in the Christian / Jewish / Muslim or whatever faith isn't 'brainwashing'???!!!

Oh my God! (pardon the pun)

[haunted]

If you want to brainwash your offspring into thinking otherwise, that is your decision.

LMAO, like raising your child in the Christian / Jewish / Muslim or whatever faith isn't 'brainwashing'!!!

Oh my God! (pardon the pun)

That's your excuse for brainwashing your own children.. because other people do it too?

What a classic tubby post

[quadz]

Yes, and my offspring will take my ideas and beliefs into the next generation, and your offspring will take yours.

 

This would only make sense in an evolutionary context if your own particular set of genes made you inherently predisposed toward your set of ideas and beliefs.

[Arm0r]

. Well, you and I are playing the game of natural selection right now by debating this issue: The people who read and contribute to this thread will 'naturally select' who of us 'wins', and who 'loses'.

well when you're right you're right. (you lost btw)

Care to explain that a bit further ArmOr? Or are you just going to put it down to divine inspiration?

Why would I grace you with an argument when you have yet to give me a viable argument?  God bless you.

[Tubby]

Yes, and my offspring will take my ideas and beliefs into the next generation, and your offspring will take yours.

 

This would only make sense in an evolutionary context if your own particular set of genes made you inherently predisposed toward your set of ideas and beliefs.

Quadz, I think our 'ideas & beliefs' are more a product of our social environment than they are of our genes. Vis; my children would be raised in a social environment that favours atheism, wheras Haunted's children would supposedly (soz if i'm wrong haunted) be raised in an environment that favours belief in god.

For example, I don't take my child to church / synagogue / mosque, etc., therefore she is unlikely to be exposed to the concept of god (brainwashed) by people like Haunted - at least not until they use their purse strings to force her school to start teaching 'creationism' and 'intelligent design'...