I lost relatives at Auschwitz. I am Ashkenazic as well. Much of my extended family was in Warsaw in 1939, so I do understand why this is an emotional topic. My point is that Hamby was not being anti-Semitic in any way, and it is not acceptable to claim that he was.

trade routes put the most recent common ancetor closer to the modern day. Along those trade routes not just goods were transported but also genetic material. I could very well imagine one of those traders after a long journey having a good time with a farmers daughter in a forein land. The common child (that would be born after the trader is already on the way back home) and its ancestors would have a geneological link to a distant region.

I was very euro-centric when I claimed the MCRA just a few thousand years ago for all people but in Europe - where you had the Greek and the Roman civilisations with very loose moral standards when it comes to sexuality - genetic material should have been interchanged quite quickly between the civilizations.

Is there a word for fear of mirrors? Every time I see my own face I get scared! MOMMY!

You're eisoptrophobic

This would make it even less likely that a common ancestor of all mankind would be born 1,000 years ago. This is a fundamental statistical principle. Processes in which the population amplify always diverge as dictated by the Malthus equation. If I leave a population of bacteria in a supply of abundant food, it is possible to stain the initial colonies and watch them grow. Unless the bacteria are placed in a competitive environment, it is not statistically possible that over generations, the offspring of a single organism in the colony will produce the ancestors of every bacteria an arbitrary n generations later. It would be analogous to all the air particles in an arbitrary equilibrium state suddenly evacuating one side of the room and all moving to the other with the result of double the pressure on one side and zero pressure on the other. During evolutionary processes in which there is  common ancestor of a particular group of organisms undergoing a speciation event, this is only possible because gene flow is shut off. This is what allows for the process of speciation to occur. The existence of massive trade routes and civilizations of hundreds of millions is a situation of open gene flow, making it impossible that a single organism could give birth to every organism in the population approximately 25-30 generations later (1,000 years is about 30 generations).

No he did not. I have heard far more blasphemous things said to Christians, and seen Mary bleeding out of her ass on south park.

The problem is that people automatically assume that when you offend them, that means they hate you.

NO, everyone here in their life has had a friend or co-worker or loved one, who has made a claim(ON ANY SUBJECT) where we have thought, even if only to ourselvs, or vocally to the claimant, "That is bullshit"

No one need fear blasphemy. Everyone should fear taboos.

Part of being human is not only our disire to get along, but the need to bitch. What gets in the way of humanity merely seeing it as bitching, ARE LABELS.

I think it is fine when Christians Muslims or Jews bitch about atheists. WHY? Because I like to bitch too. I don't think that every theist who bitches about me hates me. I think they just want to bitch.

What prevents us from harming each other, are not blasphemy laws, but common laws. Like free speech, and the right to life and liberty.

No, an asshole expects you to blindly follow them without question and bitches a fit when you question them.

I agree Hamby, theism is not atheism. However, theism is not a synonym for religion. Buddhism is an example. Forms of Buddhism are an atheist religion!

Thus, the RRS doesn't need to believe in God to be a religion. Besides, there is a decent about of dogma here on the 'ol RRS. For instance, the dogma of theism as a mind disorder, or the fact that every atheist on this forum thinks that Jesus wasn't a historical figure. The only atheist I've ever seen to come out against Jesus mythicism was booted off the forums.

You forget that during most of its history mankind wasn't in a situation of free growth like a colony of bacteria in food. If you look at the charts of global population you will see that it stayed stable for quite a long time. It was stabilized by famines, pest and to a smaller amount by wars.

Thats also quite natural. Biological systems grow following exponential equations. But they can not grow indefinitly. At some point they meet a border that's usually defined by the natural resources the population dwells upon. For mankind that was for a long time the agricultural output. You need food if you want population growth. If you have several good harvests your population might even grow above numbers your soils may be able to sustain for a longer time, but that just means that you will experience massive famines when harvests drop to normal again.

You had massive population growths with the introduction agriculture about 12,000 years ago and then the population growth followed the advances in agriculture. The current world population of 6 billion people would be totally unsustainable without artificial fertilizers.

Lets do a bit math and go back 2500 years (about the time the Thora was codified) That are - taking your numbers - about 75 generations. If a couple at this time would have had on average 2.7 children and this line would have continued up to today, just this couple would nowadays have about 6 billion descendants.

I don't support the Jesus mythicism campaign, and they don't kick me off. Maybe its my Protestant upbringing, but I think that Jesus was a real guy. It's just that after he died people wrote down some mythical stories about him and turned a man who was a political and religious dissisident into a messia that is god in human form. It's not even a big deal to me. I wouldn' be surprised if he was or was not a real man. I suspect he was real, but I'm not about to get banned from the forums for contradicting RRS dogma.

While the majority of atheists on this forum agree that Jesus probibly did not exist, what would it matter if he did?

Does that mean you have evidence that a disimbodied being with no DNA knocked up a girl? Does that mean you have evidence that human flesh survives rigor mortis beyond the mere claim of "poof" "God did it"?

The historians of this site can well verse you on this subject. BUT, even if they were to humor you for argument's sake, based on your claimed model that he did exist. SO WHAT, it still doesn't make Harry Potter litterally fly around on a broom.

But I will suspend judgment and await your AMA peer reviewed study of how spirits fuck girls and zombie gods reconstitute their flesh.

BTW, I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.

WHAT? You say you don't believe me? It is an invisable Lamborghini, you just have to have "faith" that I can do it.

Hey, it's great to know that some atheists on this forum are not mythicists. I gladly admit my error!

Here's the thing Hamby, I disagree with your definition of a religion. My definition of religion is as follows:

1) A discernment of ultimate reality relating to God. This knocks something like nationalism off my list. However, I do definte atheism as a discernment of God in its lack of belief in God.

2) A set of practices that pertain to a discernment (or lack thereof) of God. Therefore, I don't define general atheism as a religion. There are no common practices. However, here on the RRS, there are plenty of common practices. Take for example, the War on Christmas or the War on Easter or just posting thousands of times on the forums!

So based on this, I think you can make the case that the RRS, not atheism, is a religion. All Hail the Goddess of Reason!

From now on, I will not call you Hambydammit, I will sacradly refer to you as "HMBDMT"

Now, since I am respecting you, you must respect me by calling me "I Like Shiney Objects" or "ILSO"

Jews and atheists have something in common.

You are still misunderstanding the primary point. Geneological lineage implies that everyone is directly related to an initial ancestral organism by descent. Of course, we all are, but this person did not exist 1,000 years ago.

Let me try and articulate why this is not possible. An example will suffice. The spread of Y. pestis accross Europe from 1348-1352 would be an example of extreme selection pressure acting upon a very large population with open gene flow. One of the great mysteries of the spread of the plague to Europe was how the Venetian gallies managed to survive the trip from Caffa to Sicily, if they were infected gallies. It is possible that they had a variant of allele CCR5-delta 32, which is known to offer resistance against the plague.

Now, this rapid selection pressure would, by the Darwinian principle of natural selection, certainly increase the frequency of allelle CCR5-delta 32 within the gene pool. But today, it is not universally present, or indeed, present in particularly high frequencies. Why not? The reason is that the action of the pressure was very short lived. It occured in less than the course of a single generation. Once the pressure released, it would have resulted in a process called stabalization, in which the allele frequency dilutes because there is no longer selection process being applied to it. In order for an allele like CCR5 delta-32 to propogate throughout a population of open gene flow would have required a much longer time of selection pressure. The reason is, that the application of this pressure would have increased the probability that lineages with CCR5-delta 32 would have survived. In other words, the increase in frequency of particular lineages over competing lineages in populations of open gene flow requires the constant application of selection pressure in favor of the lineage in question. Otherwise, it becomes statistically impossible for that lineage to propogate massively in favor of other competing lineages. If we take our starting point to be the year 1000, there are many, many competing lineages which are propogating. What you are suggesting is that none of the other lineages survived the 30 generation gap. This is not possible for several reasons. One is because by basic principles of population growth, populations do not converge backwards. The other is that common ancestry of a group of organisms can only occur in the context of a cladogenestic split which isolates gene flow. Otherwise it is not statistically possible for this to occur.

This thread is full of so much fail from all sides, I don't even know where to begin.

First, I've seen plenty of people here re-define religion for convience.

That's a good question.  I checked a couple of common potential screwups, and it didn't help.  I'm afraid to delete the post because that will potentially delete replies.

I don't know what to tell you.

Pineapple, cite your sources.  Which atheist here has redefined religion to try to make a fallacious argument?  (And by who here, I mean which regular poster who wasn't then chided by another member for making a fallacious argument?)  Put up or take it back.

Well, first off, constant references to Japan as a non-religious society.

Japan is predominatly Shinto/Buddist, while they don't believe in God, that would make them atheist, not non-religious.

and then there's calling any dogma religions

Not knowing where to begin is also a form of fail.

As I think back on all my references to Japan, I can't think of an argument that wouldn't hold up if I used the word non-theist in place of non-religious or atheist.  It may be sloppy, but it's not redefining to make a bad argument work.  While most of the Japanese population are members of a religion, they are almost entirely a secular society -- i.e. they don't have religious government or laws to any substantial degree.  My argument (the only one I can think of) that uses Japan is that secular societies are healthier than religious societies.  Japan counts.

Dogma has a very religious element to it.  Again, the word "religious" is not necessary to make the argument work.  We could say, "Dogma has many, most or all the same dangerous qualities as religion," and we wouldn't be calling dogma religion, but the point of the argument would still stand.

So, again, I'll ask, have any of us tried to make fallacious arguments by redefining religion into something else?

Once again, I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum from Alison.

This thread is brimming-over with win. Was that Hammer guy even for real?

YOU CANT USE MY MAGIC WORD YOU SONS OF BITCHES!!!

This thread has completely brightened my evening. I've never laughed so hard in weeks.

But Japan has religion in it's society. Even if the government doesn't force a religion, the society is still steeped in it. Hence it's still a religious society.

But even then the comparisons are iffy

For example, a religion usually involves worshiping a God

Now, the argument is that the leader of the dogma was worshiped as a God, but the problem is none of them are portrayed as creators of the universe or even remotely analogous a God in that sense.

Take a look at the accepted definitions for 'God', Alison.

Only a few are so specific as to refer to the creator of the universe. It is hardly a stretch to say that Joseph Stalin was worshipped (by law) as a supreme being, which fits definitions 4 and 7 perfectly fine without anyone changing the definition to suit their own interests.

I never claimed that one traders genetic lineage would overtake an entire population. At no point.

Lets go back to the European trader in China. When he injects his genes into the Chinese genepool the gene frequency of his will stay constant over generation just as long as their overall effect is neutral. Those genes of his, that give his offspring an advantage would increase in frequency within the Chinese gene pool over time, while on the other hand those genes of his that are disadvantagous would decrease in frequency.

One exampe: The Chinese society has other ideals of beauty than the European. So over time those of his offspring would propagate more who conform to the Chinese ideals of beauty - and therefore - would look very Chinese over a couple of generations.

To look at your example, if you carry the CCR5 delta 32 allelle you have to be related to someone who also carried it around the 14th century.

The inversion of argument that not carrying the CCR5 delta 32 allelle proves that you are not related to someone who carried it around that 14th century is on the other hand faulty.

As long as the effect of a mutation is neutral the frequency within the genepool stays the same. If a man carrying this gene has children with a woman who does not carry it the probability for each of his children to carry the gene is 50%.

Therefor you can't conclude that the amount of people carrying the CCR5 delta 32 allelle equals the number of people that are related to those who carried the genes in the 14th century.

Hello?