More children is not necessarily an evolutionary advantage. Again, you fail to understand evolutions' implications. To imply that more children is an evolutionary advantage would mean that we're at a disadvantage to animals such as salmon and frogs and catfish and flies and mosquitos, that have huge numbers of offspring, most of which don't make it.
Except that the overwhelming number of people in the world continue to identify themselves as religious, thus providing further evidence that it provides an evolutionary advantage (or at the very least did so for some 5,000 years).
You also apparently didn't read the linked article in my last post. Which, considering that it costs money for non-subscribers to do so, I take as evidence you never bothered to Google for the original Nature article we discussed earlier, either. (That's what the $32 was all about.) Oh well. :-p
On top of that, I might add that you 1) vastly overstated the case for the "God gene", as the researchers themselves don't claim it has that much to do with religious belief, and 2) even if that were so, who is to say which is the "mutation"? It is equally possible that atheists are the mutants. Given that atheism as a mass phenomenon is quite recent, that even sounds downright likely.
I'm sure you'll report for gene therapy to fix that deficiency of yours when the time comes.
What you utterly fail to understand, both in the case of genetics and anthropology, is that just because there is a possible alternate explanation (like for the burials), doesn't mean it is the most likely one. William of Ockham has a lot to say about that.
You also completely failed to understand what the search for the Higgs boson is about.
As a matter of fact, I do know what the search of the Higgs boson is all about (I have a shelf full of physics books and am friends with a couple of physics researchers here at the University of Hannover), but I wonder what on Earth gives you the idea that we were even remotely talking about it. I certainly didn't bring it up. Methinks you're losing it. Hard.
When in doubt, desperately try to change the subject, huh?
Also, any anthropologist who is not an avowed atheist HAS a bias towards accepting religion, same as anyone who is not an avowed vegan HAS a bias towards accepting the practice of eating meat. Kind of obvious, no?
You really are losing it. Contradicting yourself to boot.
If someone is agnostic, they are by definition non-religious, with no particular feelings for or against. You said it yourself up yonder. That means that they are, by definition, not biased for or against religion and hence are much less likely to prejudice their research either way. Meanwhile, an atheist by definition rejects religion and therefore has a bias against it. Obvious, no? :-p
Even if that were not so, your attempt to portray it otherwise boils down to "my team is not biased, but yours is", which is utterly laughable. FAIL^3.
Reminds me a bit of those atheists bragging about a survey a couple years back claiming that atheists are on average more intelligent than agnostics. They did, however, fail to note that both were outranked by Anglicans. Not to worry, we won't take it out on you.
Cheers,
Ethelred
