You cannot be both pro-Evolution and anti-Religion

[eschemat]

Historical evidence shows I believe that religion was essentially a political tool in the past, similar to dictatorship is now. The reason why it exists is because leaders or figures who would be influential in a church decided that creating a church essentially lends them power, which caused the rise of organized religion. That's why it's survived for such a long time, and that is why Galileo got undermined; because the church wanted to keep their power.

Of course, for it to exist and people to believe, they were required to have a fear of the unknown and to rationalize a God, and that essentially led to political figures taking advantage of that... it's happened in the past 200 years, look at Mormonism and Scientology.

 

[ballin4life]

The point is that standard of living is not selected for, whereas the reproductive fitness is (i.e. “length of time that a culture exists”). The example I gave demonstrated this. One culture can have higher rates of death for children while having the same reproductive fitness of another culture simply by having a higher birthrate. This would mean that they propagate their culture equally well by the “length of time that the culture exists” criteria. However, they would rank differently when considering the standard of living. This shows that the factors that you are using conflict, which only causes confusion. In order to resolve said confusion, specifically state what effect you intend to measure, the data that enables you to make said conclusion, and how this relates to the overall point of the conversation.

I don't see how that ranks differently when you consider standard of living. Anyway, I suppose standard of living matters only to the extent that it promotes the continued existence of the culture.

This could simply be asked as whether extreme positions of xenophobia are reproductively advantageous. I think this is a perfectly acceptable question to ask, but I think you are mistaken to attribute the cause to “culture” because it is not clear that selection pressure occurs at that level. Since you seem to think this is obvious, and are reluctant to explain how selection occurs at the group level, it seems like we are at a standstill.It’s not clear as to what you are after. You asked why religion is prevalent, which simply needs an explanation for why a particular idea can spread and maintain itself within the population. I have presented a mechanism for this, and now you are shifting the goal post for an explanation for that mechanism. I’m not exactly sure what the reason is for why people are so gullible. There could be an evolutionary reason for why gullibility was selected for. If you put gullibility in a social context, you might say that the person is easily trusting. Would this mean that such a characteristic would be sexually selected for? Think about it.

Looks like you're slipping a bit on the enter key.

I explained how selection occurs at the group level. Groups with certain characteristics are more likely to continue to exist. You might think that this all comes from individual characteristics or genetics (I don't), but whatever.

The question isn't "how does religion spread?", it's "how does religion spread given that it is disadvantageous?"

When did I shift goal posts by the way? If you had answered "how does religion spread" by saying "well one person converts another", would it be shifting goal posts if I asked "well why does that happen?" Simply saying "humans are gullible", isn't a good explanation. Anyway, I came to the same conclusion as you apparently, which is that I don't know why humans are gullible. That's why I made this post.

I currently hold two viewpoints: that religion is disadvantageous to the propagation of a culture and that disadvantageous behaviors within a culture should lead to that culture being "outcompeted" by others. These seem contradictory when you look at the prevalence of religion in history.

 

[eschemat]

I already posted but I would just like to say that comparing religion to some evolutionary tool isn't the best way to go about things.... IMO it can be compared to a dictatorship. At this point in time and in the middle ages if you're not religious there are major ramifications. Today you can be ostracized and in the middle ages you could be killed.

 

[rvkevin]

The question isn't "how does religion spread?", it's "how does religion spread given that it is disadvantageous?"

Because when we say that it is a negative influence, we are not talking about how it relates to reproductive fitness or the meme's ability to replicate, we are talking about it as an ethical issue. When we say that a virus is negative, we are talking about its effects on the individual, not its ability to replicate itself and spread throughout cells. Religion is like a virus that bypasses people’s critical thinking immune system; it be be both simultaneously good for the virus and not good for the individual.

I currently hold two viewpoints: that religion is disadvantageous to the propagation of a culture and that disadvantageous behaviors within a culture should lead to that culture being "outcompeted" by others. These seem contradictory when you look at the prevalence of religion in history.

Well, then that’s your problem, but it’s not for anyone who accepts the theory of evolution occurs and that religion is a negative force on individuals.

 

[Dre89]

Rv- Yet again you've dodged the bullet.

Firstly, the only inferences I've made is what the data tells me. If the data tells me irreligious people have higher suicide rates, then that's the only inference I make. It's not as if I'm inferring that God exists or anything that like. So if your contesting my inferences, then you are in fact contesting the data.

Secondly, your point about most people turning Christian young is irrelevant because that merely explains why religion is so prevalent, not why religion existed in the first place and why our minds even have the ability to conceive of the concepts associated with religion.

It just seems odd to me that humans possess the potential for religion if God doesn't exist, seeing as that would essentially be the natural conceiving of the supernatural, which in this framework doesn't exist.

It also seems odd that religion exists for some evolutionary purpose, seeing as how less intelligent animals have acheived the same evolutionary benefits religion is supposed to achieve, without having to use religion and experience the negatives of it.

 

[rvkevin]

Firstly, the only inferences I've made is what the data tells me.

Let me get this straight. You are NOT saying that religion is beneficial? That's news to me.

 

[_Keno_]

Firstly, the only inferences I've made is what the data tells me. If the data tells me irreligious people have higher suicide rates, then that's the only inference I make.

Ive asked a few time now, but can you provide....anything, I keep looking online but finding nothing of what you say.

I find little correlation between atheism and suicide or religion and suicide. Its almost as if religion itself was nothing to commit suicide over! For some reason, I feel like you are looking for facts to fit your conclusion.

Anyways,

Top 5 by suicide rate then religion
1. Lithuania 85% Christian - highest suicide rate in world
2. South Korea is second and yes, technically atheist. But an entire country indoctrinated into worshiping a man is the beginnings of a new religion. I wouldn't really count it towards either though. It's quite the outlier.
3. Khazakastan ~70% Islamic, ~30% Christian.
4. Belarus ~80% Christian
5. Japan 2% Christian, 40-70% Buddhist? Atheist 12-30%? Other?

Secondly, your point about most people turning Christian young is irrelevant because that merely explains why religion is so prevalent, not why religion existed in the first place and why our minds even have the ability to conceive of the concepts associated with religion.

Can you explain how religions other than Christianity came to be, Dre.? And if you can, how could Christianity not have begun the same way as the other "false" religions?

It just seems odd to me that humans possess the potential for religion if God doesn't exist, seeing as that would essentially be the natural conceiving of the supernatural, which in this framework doesn't exist.

What?

It also seems odd that religion exists for some evolutionary purpose, seeing as how less intelligent animals have achieved the same evolutionary benefits religion is supposed to achieve, without having to use religion and experience the negatives of it.

I agree that religion probably has no evolutionary purpose, the only use I could see for it is uniting people and preventing mass strife in primitive societies.

You obviously haven't watched Christopher Hitchens do an appauling job at debating William Lane Craig and what's Richard Dawkins so busy doing that he doesn't have time to debate him, whoops

While I agree that Alien was being arrogant, you are reacting with even more arrogance.

And not that this is the place for it, but your two comments make you look like an idiot to anyone who actually watched the CH/WLC debate and knows why Dawkins won't debate him. Congratulations. (now I'm arrogant, take that!)

 

[Dre89]

Cheap Peach I cites the Cambridge Conpanion to Atheism for suicide rates and some old scientist who debated WLC on Youtube for better health (can't remember his name but he mentions it very early on in his opening speech).

These are just the atheist sources so you can't play the bias card on me.

Also, I'm not a Christian, so I'm not making any distinction between Chrustianity and other religions.

I'm still yet to hear a reason for why religion exists. Uniting people is fallacious, because animals unite far better than we do with religion, so that doesn't explain why religion exists.

 

[rvkevin]

Dre, can you directly answer my question; based on that data, do you think that religion is beneficial?

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

Religion was/is an excellent excuse to dominate other people because they are non-believers. Which is beneficial.

 

[Dre89]

Dourin- But less intelligent animals have been able to achieve domination without religion, so I don't see how that explains the existence of religion.

Dre, can you directly answer my question; based on that data, do you think that religion is beneficial?

Well I'd say lowered suicide rates, mental health and happiness are beneficial from an evolutionary perspective.

Are you suggesting these are not beneficial from an evolutionary perspective?

To answer your question, I think religion is beneficial because it is intrinsic. However, I don't think it's intrinsic because of evolutionary purposes.

 

[rvkevin]

Well I'd say lowered suicide rates, mental health and happiness are beneficial from an evolutionary perspective.

Perhaps I need to be more specific. Based on that data, do you think that religion causes the following: lowered suicide rates, mental health and happiness.

Are you suggesting these are not beneficial from an evolutionary perspective?

Lower suicide rates, ceteris paribus, advantageous. Mental health, ceteris paribus, depends on what is being considered, may or may not be advantageous. Happiness, ceteris paribus, most likely not advantageous.

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

Dourin- But less intelligent animals have been able to achieve domination without religion, so I don't see how that explains the existence of religion.

I wasn't trying to explain the origin of religion, I didn't really think of it, so if you interpreted it as that... It's not! It was a void statement in a void discussion which I felt like making.

What I think could be an origin of religion though, is man's drive to find explanations. If you have something inexplicable as luck, tides, and other things we might know now but didn't wayyy back, you start thinking of explanations. A god would be a very logical explanation, which could spawn a religion.

And then you invent stuff around the religion but that's not really the point here.

 

[_Keno_]

Cheap Peach I cites the Cambridge Conpanion to Atheism for suicide rates.

Actually, its just for male suicide rates. And have you realized that *high rates of atheism* is only in comparison with other countries? The top ten countries he mentioned have 7 with populations that are 40-90% or more Christian, with North Korea and Japan having the highest atheism rates.

Also, I'm not a Christian, so I'm not making any distinction between Chrustianity and other religions.

Okay, I'll just rephrase the question. Can you explain how religious beliefs other than your religious beliefs came to be? And if you can, how could your beliefs not have begun the same way as the other "false" beliefs?

I'm still yet to hear a reason for why religion exists.

I pretty sure nobody here was alive when actual religions (not Scientology, etc...) came into existence, which is why we can only make theories. Then you say "well, it doesn't make sense to me" or it does make sense "not enough proof." What do you want us to do, Dre.?

 

[ballin4life]

At this point my best guess is just that back in the day it didn't matter if you explained the sun rising by Apollo riding his chariot across the sky. But once we got to the point where we can challenge those assumptions then the dogmatic aspect of religion (the "I am 100% right no matter what") became a problem. Galileo was the first prominent example.

So I guess I'd say that it's the closed-mindedness that is the negative trait.

 

[Dre89]

Rv- Well the data seems to suggest that religion does cause those things.

Ocean- But why did humans even have the ability to want explanations and forge falsehoods?

Cheap Peach- Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I don't follow any religion. You shouldn't assume someone is religious simply because they're a theist, because that'll make you look like an uneducated person who still thinks all theists believe God is a guy in the clouds with a beard. I'm not saying you're that person, you'll just come across like that to intelligent theists.

Ironically, the fact there are multiple religions is central to my rejection of any particular religion.

 

[ballin4life]

Rv- Well the data seems to suggest that religion does cause those things.

 

[Dre89]

So if multiple sources with conflicting agendas conclude the same things, and you consider it insufficient, then what would it take for statistics to be sufficient?

 

[ciaza]

I believe what people are getting at Dre., is that there is a bit of a leap between correlation and causation. No matter how strong the correlation, there's always a chance it was other factors that influenced the suicide rates, mental health and happiness of people.

This isn't to say that a correlation can't point us in the right direction, but, and it might seem like nitpicking, it would be wrong to say that religion was the cause of aforementioned attributes.

 

[Sucumbio]

So if multiple sources with conflicting agendas conclude the same things, and you consider it insufficient, then what would it take for statistics to be sufficient?

I don't want to nitpick, but isn't your multiple sources like... 2 vague references? A portion of some compendium no one's read and a youtube video no one here has seen or could likely find. Or maybe I missed something.

 

[Theftz22]

Hey, I've read the Cambridge Companion to Atheism...

 

[AltF4]

Humans have many failings of mental faculties. I fail to see how any of them disprove the theory of evolution by natural selection. Being superstitious is one of them. Humans are pattern seeking mammals. We'll see faces in clouds and in dark woods. We hear voices in pure noise. We assert anthropomorphism where there is none.

Humans are innately gullible. We are remarkably bad at math (IE: The millions of people that play the lottery). We are selfish to the detriment of all. Even our physiology has gaping "design flaws". Such as the fact that we both eat and breathe out of the same hole (our mouth). Think of the billions of people throughout human history that have died needlessly to choking. One would expect that a "designed" human would have two different holes to accomplish these two separate tasks, such as whales.

These faults in humans do not disprove evolution. They are evidence in support of it! Highly imperfect creatures barely removed from primate intelligence and social constructs is exactly what we should expect to find in a world with evolution by way of natural selection.

If you subscribe to the "god did it" explanation, then you have all kinds of intractable problems of a clearly incompetent designer.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Alt-F4, don't even bother to go there. If you've read so much as the first three chapters of the Bible, you'd know that Christianity teaches that the problems in the world today are due to sin, with Man being a fallen creation. It's not that the design is bad, it's that the user decided to ignore the owner's manual, damaging the product.

 

[rvkevin]

Dre.,
First of all, thank you for confirming my suspicion regarding your incompetence concerning the topic at hand. I whole heartily stand by what I previously said. Further, I recommend that you educate yourself immediately before you give information that you yourself don’t understand to others. Such behavior tends to spread misinformation that requires correction by those who know better.

Second, I think you need a lesson on critical thinking. Critical thinking does not involve simply swallowing conclusions from authorities or following conclusions mentioned by popular figures. At the very core, critical thinking is anti-authoritarian since it demands that you think for yourself. Therefore, any mention of other people accepting such and such conclusion is completely irrelevant and it is insulting that you would think that such a tactic has even the slightest chance of being persuasive as to use it.

You also need a reminder about fact-checking and the evaluation of those facts. If you don’t understand or don’t know the process that was used to collect the data, then the ability to make conclusions from that data is compromised. This is because small discrepancies in data gathering can lead to large biases when trying to interpret the data. If you know the data was gathered improperly, it can diminish the information that can be gleaned from it and even make the data completely useless. In other words, you should not trust the findings unless you know the process that the people used in determining those findings. Since we are unable to find or verify the methodology or the data of these studies, we are unable to check for ourselves, us critical thinkers, whether they used sound methodology.

This brings us to what is sound methodology. Do you understand what variance is? If so, then you should know what statistical significance is. Concerning these studies, are the differences statistically significant? What is the P-value? Do you understand the relevance variance has here? If so, then you understand the need to replicate the results. Who else has recreated the study to confirm or dis-confirm the finding and where can we find that paper? Also, one must consider alternative hypotheses (e.g., publication, dealing with criticism) that would predict the same data and then eliminate them one by one until the one you want to claim is the only one left that explains the data. Did the researchers do this (we certainly know you did not)? If so, we are unable to verify it, and you have not brought forth any evidence of them doing so. Once these conditions have been satisfied, only then can you be tentatively confident in your conclusion. Those who are used to jumping small hurdles may think that this standard is strict,

Now that everything has been explained to you, you have no excuse of accusing us of special pleading or for unjustly rejecting your claims. If you would be so kind in granting us the evidence needed to satiate our critical minds that would be much appreciated. If not, can you observe quietly until you learn the essential material so that the rest of us can enjoy a flowing conversation without the need to repeatedly educate you about math and science 101. Then again, you are a philosophy major which means that you overvalue your reasoning skills in the face of evidence to the contrary, since apparently philosophy doesn’t cover the evaluation of evidence. As always, feel free to ask questions.

P.S. Does anyone know why in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, the first chapter in the section called "The Case Against Theism" is "Theistic Critiques of Atheism" by William Lane Craig?

 

[_Keno_]

Cheap Peach- Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I don't follow any religion. You shouldn't assume someone is religious simply because they're a theist, because that'll make you look like an uneducated person who still thinks all theists believe God is a guy in the clouds with a beard. I'm not saying you're that person, you'll just come across like that to intelligent theists.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you said you were Catholic, which would contribute to my repetitive mistake.

Sorry

 

[SuperBowser]

I'd daresay there are many many further fundamental questions that need answering before Dre.'s conclusions could even be considered. But yeah... in my experience, most people don't understand statistics or how to interpret the numbers.


On topic: I'm not entirely sure there have ever been civilizations where non-religion was the norm. It's a difficult question because there's not really much to compare to. Every successful civilization in history held religious beliefs! [correct me if I'm wrong]

Why are religious beliefs so common? Another topic. Regardless, religion can and does serve functions that help propagate a civilization. While religions vary a great deal around the world, I think common themes include a religion's ability to form a community, to act as a political tool and to offer hope for the common man. Religion has served a greater political tool than almost anything I can think of. On the individual level, it affects the way people think, their outlooks on life and how they interact and relate with others (I understand this is a double-sided coin). Some would argue cultures could have survived without religion, but perhaps religious beliefs met needs that many humans required to function optimally. Despite its negative traits, organized religion has provided more for mankind than people give it credit for.

 

[Reaver197]

Is the first post a genuine position being proffered, or is this more of a devil's advocate sort of discussion?

 

[Dre89]

Suc- I had more sources than those two, those two just came from athiest sources.

Rv- Firstly, chillax. There's no need to get so aggressive. Secondly, I can't
seem to do anything right by you. I use philosophy and you criticise me, I use empirical data and you still criticise me.

The thing is the reason why you're so anal about these statistics is because they give a conclusion you don't like. I've seen you reference statistics multiple times, yet never do I see you write a thourough justification for them.

The thing is, you haven't just criticised the legitimacy of statistics in general (despite the fact you yourself use them),you've automatically assumed my statistics are wrong, without demonstrating why.

There's plenty of statistics cited on the DH, yet you never contest them as fiercely as these.

 

[Theftz22]

P.S. Does anyone know why in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, the first chapter in the section called "The Case Against Theism" is "Theistic Critiques of Atheism" by William Lane Craig?

I suspect to function as a basic presentation of the arguments before other chapters critiqued them so readers would know what the other chapters are talking about.

Btw, Patrick Grimm's chapter on impossibility arguments is absolutely top notch and even made up for some of the weaker chapters.

 

[ballin4life]

Is the first post a genuine position being proffered, or is this more of a devil's advocate sort of discussion?

1) Why does it matter?

2) Read the thread and maybe you'll find out.

Humans are innately gullible. We are remarkably bad at math (IE: The millions of people that play the lottery).

That's not people being bad at math; that's people not bothering with or caring about the math.

We are selfish to the detriment of all.

speak for yourself

Suc- I had more sources than those two, those two just came from athiest sources.

Rv- Firstly, chillax. There's no need to get so aggressive. Secondly, I can't
seem to do anything right by you. I use philosophy and you criticise me, I use empirical data and you still criticise me.

The thing is the reason why you're so anal about these statistics is because they give a conclusion you don't like. I've seen you reference statistics multiple times, yet never do I see you write a thourough justification for them.

The thing is, you haven't just criticised the legitimacy of statistics in general (despite the fact you yourself use them),you've automatically assumed my statistics are wrong, without demonstrating why.

There's plenty of statistics cited on the DH, yet you never contest them as fiercely as these.

Conveniently you ignore the correlation causation criticism again. It may be 100% true that religious people are less likely to commit suicide, but that DOES NOT mean that religion makes people less likely to commit suicide.

It IS 100% true that times with more pirates have a lower average global temperature, but that DOES NOT mean that more pirates means less global warming.

 

[SuperBowser]

The thing is, you haven't just criticised the legitimacy of statistics in general (despite the fact you yourself use them),you've automatically assumed my statistics are wrong, without demonstrating why.

There's plenty of statistics cited on the DH, yet you never contest them as fiercely as these.

Firstly, you should provide a direct link to the studies your statistics are from. Most people do and they should be available online. At least the abstract!

Secondly, it's fairly obvious (even if not to you) why the conclusions you draw are not necessarily the same as the studies' you quote. I'd like to read the studies' conclusions instead of your conclusions based on two numbers you heard about. You don't understand statistics well enough to do a researcher's job for them. This is what Rv means.

Thirdly, Cheap Peach already alluded to why the statistics you quote may be interpreted poorly on your behalf. One of the studies you quoted examined different countries' suicide rates. One of the atheist countries was Japan; do you really think there is no other explanation apart from religious behaviour for a higher than normal suicide rate in Japan?! Do you really think examining suicide rates at the level of countries rather than the level of the individual in one country is the most appropriate method?! This is basic correlation/causation stuff here and I'm willing to bet the study itself will acknowledge these issues. The problem is that nobody here has read the study!

Fourthly, nothing has prevented you challenging previous statistics presented in the Debate Hall. If it was so easy to do so, you should have. It doesn't change the criticisms here.

 

[Dre89]

Cheap Peach- I don't have an issue with other statistics, I'm not the one going around challenging only those I don't like.

And I'm not making up my own opinions on the statistics. The CC to Atheism itself says that irreligious countries have higher suicide rates. I'm just going off what they tell me.

If you have an issue with the statistics, fair enough, but criticising my debating for it is out of line, since I've done the right thing- which is get multiple sources, which have conficting agendas.


And in fact all I did was say that religious countries have lower suicide rates, and that religious people were healthier and happier. That's exactly what the statistics concluded, I didn't make any further inferences.

Just a side note: Gathering suicide rates amongst religious vs irreligious individuals within one country probably isn't very reliable because a large portion of a country's population is usually either religious or irreligious, so that that portion will usually have higher rates simply because of their sheer numbers.

 

[Reaver197]

1) Why does it matter?

2) Read the thread and maybe you'll find out.

Work forces me to be more judicious with my time. I'd rather not involve myself heavily if it's a position no one actually believes in.

Not that I'm trying to be dismissive of it, it's simply the kind of argument that I feel would take quite a bit of explanation to dismantle.

I've skimmed through some posts, which makes me asks the question. Though, if you insist, I'll try to take the time to read the whole thing through.

 

[ciaza]

Reaver - read post #32.

 

[Reaver197]

Ok, cool. Thank you, Ciaza. In that light, I'll throw out some of my ideas and see if I'm able to contribute to the discussion at hand.

 

[rvkevin]

Reaver, this is the short and sweet version of what the thread's original intent was:

I currently hold two viewpoints: that religion is disadvantageous to the propagation of a culture and that disadvantageous behaviors within a culture should lead to that culture being "outcompeted" by others. These seem contradictory when you look at the prevalence of religion in history.

Dre, you clearly don't have a handle on the concepts involved, if you would like to discuss them in further detail, create a new thread or bring it to the social.

 

[ballin4life]

Work forces me to be more judicious with my time. I'd rather not involve myself heavily if it's a position no one actually believes in.

Not that I'm trying to be dismissive of it, it's simply the kind of argument that I feel would take quite a bit of explanation to dismantle.

I've skimmed through some posts, which makes me asks the question. Though, if you insist, I'll try to take the time to read the whole thing through.

Ok, that's fine and all, but IMO the point of the Debate hall shouldn't just be to try to show how right you are. If you're not having fun debating and you have other things to do then by all means ignore the debate.

 

[SuperBowser]

And in fact all I did was say that religious countries have lower suicide rates, and that religious people were healthier and happier. That's exactly what the statistics concluded, I didn't make any further inferences.

That isn't "exactly what the statistics concluded". That's what you concluded based on two numbers. Your original post made a huge inference. I don't mean this rudely, but you don't seem to have a grasp on statistics, nor do you understand the difference between correlation and causation. It doesn't help your knowledge comes from two second-hand sources that present two numbers and their own interpretation.

Nobody knows what the actual studies said. The study itself may not attribute religious belief to a lower suicide rate. I'm skeptical it would. It might note a correlation, but this is different.

Just a side note: Gathering suicide rates amongst religious vs irreligious individuals within one country probably isn't very reliable because a large portion of a country's population is usually either religious or irreligious, so that that portion will usually have higher rates simply because of their sheer numbers.

Um. You should probably look up the mathematical definition of "rates". There's certainly advantages and disadvantages though.

 

[Dre89]

I'm confused as to how I've misinterpretted the statistics.

The CC to Atheism didn't just present the numbers, it acknowledged that religous countries have higher suicide rates, as if to infer there is a connection between being irreligious and suicide rates.

The athiest on Youtube himself said "religious people are healthier".

Also, I said this before, but I have more than two sources, these are just the athiest ones.

 

[Sucumbio]

Also, I said this before, but I have more than two sources, these are just the athiest ones.

Right but weren't you saying something about "different agendas?" If they're both atheist then where's the meaningful difference (as in meaningful to your position). Or are you saying that those two have different agendas from the theistic sources that also correlate their findings? And if THAT's the case, then... I'd suggest seeing one of those sources also so that we can concur your findings that indeed atheists and non-atheists alike agree that suicide rates are lower among religious peoples.

religion is disadvantageous to the propagation of a culture

Religion unifies people. Unified people are capable of more than people who work alone; the old adage "there is strength in numbers."

disadvantageous behaviors within a culture should lead to that culture being "outcompeted" by others. These seem contradictory when you look at the prevalence of religion in history.

Actually it is true that bad behavior leads to failure. It'd be hard to prove otherwise, we can see how bad habits and trends have resulted in hardship and a tendency to lessen the overall "good" in a thing. Honestly the reason why your perceived contradiction is difficult to comprehend is because they aren't contradictory. Religion is not disadvantageous, it seems. We'll first have to prove that it is, and then go from there. But even the simple fact that most people are religious tends to weigh itself as evidence that religion is beneficial (i.e. why else would the majority of the total populous endorse it).