Dawkins Admits that Muslims are More Advanced than Atheists

[Glacier]

Richard Dawkins Admits that Muslims are the more evolutionary advanced religious group on earth while atheists are one of the least.

[youjustcomplain]

Who is the guy who made this video? I'd suggest he's trying very hard to justify his faith. I heard all but the last minute before I was interupted.

If the conclusion drawn here is that atheists are less evolutionarily advanced than Muslims, then you don't understand evolution. Atheists and Muslims are both humans and therefor equally advanced. Though I suspect your comment was tongue in cheek.

I do find myself agreeing with Dawkins. Not because he's an atheist, but it seems to me that our species becomes extinct almost immediately if we stop reproducing. So, it stands to reason that reproduction is required to keep our species alive. It's no wonder we've evolved in such a way that makes the initial phase of reproduction so much fun. It's also not surprising that our arms have evolved to be just long enough to allow our hands to make like we're engaged in reproduction.

There is no dilemma. imo

[Glacier]

Our sole purpose is to reproduce, but atheists aren't reproducing. Their population is declining as a share of global population because of this; therefore, atheists are horrible at undertaking our sole evolutionary purpose of reproducing. It could be that atheists aren't having a lot of sex these days. Maybe they just don't know how to have sex (that could explain why they feel like they didn't get enough sex ed). Who knows really. All we do know is that Muslims are the best at evolutionarily advancing our species forward.

Allahu Akbar!

[demetrice]

i don;t think it's accurate to say that "athesits aren't reproducing"

more accurate would be to say that atheists are reproducing at a lower rate. besides, uncontrolled rate of reproduction is non-sustainable (think cancer cells)

[Glacier]

Anything under 2.3 children per woman isn't reproducing. It eventually leads to extinction.

[Farmmaa]

Atheists are not bound by archaic religious doctrine regarding birth control. Bravo to them for not allowing a church dictate what they do with their own bodies.

[demetrice]

Anything under 2.3 children per woman isn't reproducing. It eventually leads to extinction.

while this might be statistically true, it's also unnecessarily ominous/fatalistic. The biggest flaw with your statement is that it blindly ignores the problem of overpopulation due to centuries of excessive/uncontrolled population growth. We need to trim the weeds a bit, because things are not looking good for humans on this rock

Can you imagine how more people there would be living in China, Europe, and India ( ) alone if humans (not just athesists) reproduced over 2 childr/women

[my5cents]

Just an observation....

Our politicians, who have done little to help parents with daycare and education, have created a society where it is financially difficult to raise children could be said to be even less advanced than Atheists.

However,,,, since atheism isn't an actual religion the entire concept is ridiculous.

New people (children and immigrants) are additional tax payers. Governments are giant money businesses with politicians trying to have as much of that money "stick" to their, and their friend's grubby little paws.

I guess they've decided it's more profitable to import people who are already of a tax paying age, vs growing them.

[youjustcomplain]

Our sole purpose is to reproduce, but atheists aren't reproducing. Their population is declining as a share of global population because of this; therefore, atheists are horrible at undertaking our sole evolutionary purpose of reproducing. It could be that atheists aren't having a lot of sex these days. Maybe they just don't know how to have sex (that could explain why they feel like they didn't get enough sex ed). Who knows really. All we do know is that Muslims are the best at evolutionarily advancing our species forward.

Allahu Akbar!

So, if your measurement of human success and progress is the rate at which different religious groups reproduce, then you've made a big mistake.
Humans are struggling to make do on our planet with 7 billion of us here. Food and water become big problems for us. It is therefor, not to the advantage of our species that some religious groups are reproducing rapidly; it's to our detriment. Whether or not 2.3 kids per woman is the magic number to determine the fate of our species, it doesn't mean it's true. We could do 1.5 kids per woman for a VERY long time before our species ran into a problem. At which time, the species could increase it's birthrate and carry on without all of the problems that come with over population.

[Glacier]

Well according to Dawkins our sole purpose is to reproduce. Muslims are just a lot better at fulfilling our sole purpose than others. Personally, I disagree with Dawkins.

[youjustcomplain]

Well according to Dawkins our sole purpose is to reproduce. Muslims are just a lot better at fulfilling our sole purpose than others. Personally, I disagree with Dawkins.

Ok. what other purpose have we been bestowed with?

What makes Muslims better at fulfilling our sole purpose? I mean, my car needs one big jug of oil. If I put in one big jug of oil after draining it, the oil has served its purpose exactly. So, I can buy a muslim jug that is bigger than required. If I pour that jug in, I may end up with engine troubles down the road. Great metaphor? Nope. I'm really quite bad at those. lol. :)

[Glacier]

Muslims are our future. The Liberal government in Ottawa is today mulling over the idea of increasing immigration by 50% because we need more immigrants to keep our country strong. Almost all increases in immigration will be Muslim. Without the Muslims pounding out babies and sending them west Europe and Canada would be facing some serious problems.

[Poindexter]

I knew an old German woman who used to laugh when she said her mother told when it comes to making babies what's good for the country trumps what the woman wants. The advice her mother gave her was to just lay on your back and think of the flag. Muslims also don't give thier wives a choice, obey your husband and just lay on your back and think of Allah.

So I vehemently disagree with Dawkins, giving women control of thier reproductive system is evolution.

Besides, currently humans and the domestic animals we eat make up 95% of all mammalian life on the planet. This is staggering and unsustainable for a healthy ecosystem. Out of control birth rates are not a sign evolution, it's a path to extinction.

[Glacier]

I think that the video has a satirical tone to it. I think it's supposed to be taken light-heartedly. It's hard to know Dawkin's complete views on reproduction and evolution from the clip. Plus, his views have probably evolved since then.

[Nomaster]

Our sole purpose is to reproduce, but atheists aren't reproducing. Their population is declining as a share of global population because of this; therefore, atheists are horrible at undertaking our sole evolutionary purpose of reproducing. It could be that atheists aren't having a lot of sex these days. Maybe they just don't know how to have sex (that could explain why they feel like they didn't get enough sex ed). Who knows really. All we do know is that Muslims are the best at evolutionarily advancing our species forward.

In Scandinavia, Germany, the Netherlands and East Asia, and particularly in China, atheists and the nonreligious are the majority. ~SOURCE: Wikipedia. Demographics of Atheists

I smell your bull defecation.