Why Are Some Of Us Atheists?

This is just a quickie post. The other day I caught myself wondering why some of us humans are atheists, and many of humans are not.
OK, I know there have been studies that give atheists a bit of a collective edge over theists when it comes to IQ and education, but still, there are quite a few theists who are pretty dog darn smart. Some are even smarter than me. Did I say that?

Yeah, I realize the common answer is that faith is separate from intelligence. I still don't buy that fully.

Why did I make the leap into realizing that there is no evidence that God exists, and that the world makes perfect sense without even considering a God, when I have siblings who believe in God (though none are religious)?

It brings me to the idea that atheists might have a different prewiring in our brains. Atheism might be predominant for certain personality types as well. Most atheists I know have a tendency to be analytical, and even over-analytical (and I'm not saying this as if it were a bad thing). I remember being on a date in my early twenties, and the girl looked into my eyes and said "you are always thinking, aren't you?" I thought that was odd, but maybe many of us atheists think a lot more than theists do.

Atheism still has to be mostly a product of nurture. Still, I wonder if I was forced to go to Hebrew school and if my parents were deeply religious, would I too be a theist today?

A study done in 2005, seems to indicate that spirituality might be more influenced by genetics. It doesn't explain why I am the only atheist out of 6 (my parents, my two brothers and one sister). In our household we always assumed God existed, and that is how we were brought up.

To atheists like myself, it is almost silly now to consider God as being real. And I'm very content with my world view today. But I wonder still, why me?

A Whale Of A Tale

Great whale evolution video (only 7 minutes long).

The one thing I'm not sure of is the time line. When did the scientist community conclude that whales evolved from land animals. We've known about the vestigial hind limbs for quite some time, I thought. And we also know that all mammals trace back to a nocturnal shrew (weasel) like land animal that co-existed with dinosaurs.
I always thought it was a gimme.

What was really interesting in the following video, is the motion of water mammals versus the motion of fish. I never actually thought about the difference before.

Still, creationists keep denying reality, and will continue to do so, even after viewing documentaries like this. Just amazing.


Famous Catholic scientist Dr. Ken Miller also give creationists a boot in the head in this video:

Make A Monkey Understand Money, Prostitution Becomes Inevitable

This story is too funny to pass up, even though it is three years old, it is new to me.

Seven capuchin lab monkeys at Yale-New Haven Hospital were taught the concept of money (these monkeys lived in a commune of 750 square feet).
The "currency" used was a silver disc, one inch in diameter, with a hole in the middle. It took months for the monkeys to learn that the discs had exchangeable value.

Since capuchins are all about food and sex, but mostly food. The discs were used in exchange for treats.

The capuchins showed that they were risky gamblers, and had no interest in saving disks.

I'll just copy the article for the really good part:

Once, a capuchin in the testing chamber picked up an entire tray of tokens, flung them into the main chamber and then scurried in after them -- a combination jailbreak and bank heist -- which led to a chaotic scene in which the human researchers had to rush into the main chamber and offer food bribes for the tokens, a reinforcement that in effect encouraged more stealing.

Something else happened during that chaotic scene, something that convinced Chen of the monkeys' true grasp of money. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of money, after all, is its fungibility, the fact that it can be used to buy not just food but anything. During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)

I guess it is really just similar to just taking a woman out to real cheap place to eat before doing the nasty, except maybe to make it more similar, you give the date the money to pay for her meal. I know, it is reverse order to what happened in the lab, but it is all the same, when you think about it:)

Sex is worth a grape to female monkeys, but it is at least worth at least a two drink minimum to humans, so how could monkeys and and humans possibly share the same common ancestor?

I wonder how much a monkey charges for a half and half:) I figure it has to be something like two grapes.

Next time I have sex with my wife, I'm going to give her a grape, but I'm not going to explain why.

Note: Monkey branched off from the human evolution tree around 25 million years ago. Chimps and other non human great apes branched off between 5 to 7 million years ago, for those keeping score.

The Creationist's Nightmare: The Frogfish

I watched Nature on PBS yesterday and I saw an animal I don't remember ever seeing before....at least not in the last 15-20 years since I've been interested in evolutionary heritage.

Luckily enough, Youtube's Nature channel had the exact clip I was intrigued by (it is less than 2 minutes long). Besides the more common frogfish, included in the video is the batfish (now that is one weird looking fish):


It is pretty obvious that the frogfish wipes out a few of the old creationist rhetoric like "lets see fins evolve into feet." Another few more evolutionary steps and the frogfish could easily turn into an amphibian. Just give them a few million years and a dried up ocean bottom in their case (unlikely to happen though).

The frogfish really slaughters the micro/macro argument.

It is pretty clear as to why the frogfish have modified their fins in such a way. The purpose of life is to make sure the next generation makes it (tell that to a creationist and watch them turn blue). These fish have evolved to hang by rocks and the ocean floor as they must have an abundant food source there and a lack of predators helped by the fact they have evolved to use camouflage, not only to hide from prey but also to hide from the fish they prey on. And since ocean rocks tend to stay put, the fish don't need to travel much.

Is it me, or doesn't it look like the frogfish has 7 or eight toes on each fin that touches the ground?

And that batfish sure makes it look like God was in one of his comical moods when he created them. Maybe he was in a jolly mood when he decided to flood the earth and killing almost every animal on this planet:

Oh wait, God created batfish when he created every animal on the earth less than 10,000 years ago. It still looks like he has a kinky side. He gave the fish Kim Basinger lips complete with lipstick.

Morgentaler Poll Shows Me A Couple Of Things

Two thirds of Canadians think that abortion doctor Henry Morgentaler has the right to receive the Order of Canada.

The poll results put to rest two myths. One is that Canada is a conservative Christian nation. The other one has to do with morality.

According to Stats Can (2001), almost 73% of Canadians considered themselves to be Christian. Recently a poll estimated that now 21% of Canadians are atheists, so there is no doubt that the 73% number has dropped in the last five years. Lets say it dropped by 5%. OK, now we have 68% of Canadians considering themselves to be Christian.

65% of Canadians were for Morgentaler getting the Order. That means that at least 1/2 of the Christian population of Canada were for Morgentaler getting the Order.

It isn't a far stretch to state that at least one half of Christians are OK with women having the right to choose.

Yet many Canadian (mainly bible thumping Christians) call Morgentaler and murderer and consider abortion to be against the will of God, in other words; immoral.

Here is the thing. This proves that morality is completely subjective. Though many bible thumpers will say that it is 100% objective. The reality is that at least half of those who accept Jesus as their savior, do not believe that abortion is immoral.
In other words, what the bible says is in the eye of the beholder as far as interpretations go.

As an aside, the Morgentaler decision is another great step towards a totally secular Canada. Amen.