The Great Filter
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2016, 09:50 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 10:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 09:59 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  THAT'S your takeaway from what I posted?

Even if I were to grant everything you said about a link between secularism and a decline in birth rates, and even if we were to assume it would continue well into a problematic territory... even if I were to grant the entirety of your argument here (and there's no justification for doing so)...

THAT'S STILL BETTER BY FAR THAN WHAT RELIGION DOES.

Reading comprehension. Get it. Use it.

I think you're one of the good ones and my only real complaint about you is that you are much too verbose. I try to be concise and as such I usually just pick one paragraph and address that point. I don't think people like reading walls of text, I certainly don't. I figure that in a vigorous discussion, every point and counter point is going to get talked about eventually.

While you may find atheism/secularism more conducive to the survival of the species there is a good argument to made that it isn't. As an atheist, you should appreciate the fact that nature doesn't care about right or wrong. If it cares at all, it only cares about what works. If a gazelle flees a lion because it thinks the lion is playing a game of tag it and it should win that game at all cost, it survives just as well as the gazelle which flees the lion to avoid being eaten. It doesn't matter that the gazelle had an incorrect world view. All that mattered was the gazelle acted in a way that enhanced its survival.

Atheism might be right. Maybe there is no God. But even if that were true, it says nothing about whether or not humanity is better off over the long run by following the command to go forth and multiply.

You want terse? Have my Chas imitation.

The choice isn't secularism or not-secularism. It's secularism or religion. Either make the case that the lower birth rate of secularism is WORSE than the atrocities of religion, or stop wasting time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
16-07-2016, 10:00 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(16-07-2016 04:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Atheist don't feel the need to follow the command, "go forth an multiply". Devoutly religious people on the other hand often do take that command seriously. Because devoutly religious people are more likely to take that command seriously, a devoutly religious world view is more conducive to the long term survival of the species.

Laughable.

Non-Abrahamic religions do not necessarily contain this commandment. Even the devoutly religious members of Abrahamic communities do not necessarily take it particularly seriously. And even the most idiotically short-sighted would recognize that producing as many humans as possible, regardless of all other considerations, is not in any way conducive to long-term species health.

You really don't seem to understand literally any part of the issue. I would suggest that you do some basic research into things like population limits as relate to available resources before commenting again.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
16-07-2016, 10:01 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 10:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 09:58 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You have no evidence for this.

Well there is that pesky Pew Research that concludes non religious people have a lower fertility rate that was posted......but don't let that stand in the way of incredulity.

Are you implying that atheists have lower fertility rates meaning atheist men have a lower sperm count and women have troubles conceiving or staying pregnant?

Because those are fertility issues.

Low birth rate is something else.

If you want to be taken seriously, you've got to first know what the hell you're talking about, otherwise you're just spewing thought vomit.

In other words, If you cannot say what you mean, you will never mean what you say.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
16-07-2016, 12:06 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2016 12:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Great Filter
(16-07-2016 10:00 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 04:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Atheist don't feel the need to follow the command, "go forth an multiply". Devoutly religious people on the other hand often do take that command seriously. Because devoutly religious people are more likely to take that command seriously, a devoutly religious world view is more conducive to the long term survival of the species.

Oh really ?
Like the "devoutly religious" Islamic terrorist who kills more than he/she could ever reproduce ?
Like the Christians who (like St. Paul) avoid marriage as the end times are immanent ?
It's the OT anyway. Whatever happened to the New Covenant ?
Jebus didn't seem to feel the need to multiply, now did he ?
In the Ca Church, the (very) devoutly religious are not allowed to multiply.

Facepalm

Actually this thread proves how hypocritical and out of touch Blowjob actually is with real communities of faith.
Every major set of congregations these days have planetary "stewardship" statements
which they have hammered out at their meetings.
the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Jews ... all have environmental stewardship papers, which include statements about population control.
So today, (gramps Blowme wouldn't know this), actually religious groups could be seen to favor the exact opposite from what Blowme is claiming would be their likely attitude.

https://www.livinglutheran.org/2015/04/r...ion-faith/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
16-07-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(16-07-2016 12:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 10:00 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  

Oh really ?
Like the "devoutly religious" Islamic terrorist who kills more than he/she could ever reproduce ?
Like the Christians who (like St. Paul) avoid marriage as the end times are immanent ?
It's the OT anyway. Whatever happened to the New Covenant ?
Jebus didn't seem to feel the need to multiply, now did he ?
In the Ca Church, the (very) devoutly religious are not allowed to multiply.

Facepalm

Actually this thread proves how hypocritical and out of touch Blowjob actually is with real communities of faith.
Every major set of congregations these days have planetary "stewardship" statements
which they have hammered out at their meetings.
the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Jews ... all have environmental stewardship papers, which include statements about population control.
So today, (gramps Blowme wouldn't know this), actually religious groups could be seen to favor the exact opposite from what Blowme is claiming would be their likely attitude.

https://www.livinglutheran.org/2015/04/r...ion-faith/

But bucky those people aren't REAL Christians there compromised by evil secularism all real christian fuck like rabbits overpopulate the planet but that's fine if millions need to languish in squealer and pain that's just peachy all for the greater good after all (sarcasm)

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 12:47 PM
RE: The Great Filter
Another interesting thought it amazes me that fundies has such a rosy outlook of there own populous .After all were always hearing about the fact the evil secularists control everything and the Christian holocaust is just around the corner because reasons .....

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 01:19 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(16-07-2016 09:50 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  You want terse? Have my Chas imitation.

The choice isn't secularism or not-secularism. It's secularism or religion. Either make the case that the lower birth rate of secularism is WORSE than the atrocities of religion, or stop wasting time.

You being terse is better than Chas being terse because you can actually make a point.

I agree it is secularism/religion comparison and not so much an atheism/religion comparison. The lower fertility rate of secularism is worse than the atrocities of religion because the lower fertility rate of secularism puts at risk the survival of human species. None of the atrocities of religion ever put humanity at risk. Humanity will cease to exist if the global fertility rate is below 2 over a long enough period. The math does not lie about this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 01:20 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(16-07-2016 10:01 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 10:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Well there is that pesky Pew Research that concludes non religious people have a lower fertility rate that was posted......but don't let that stand in the way of incredulity.

Are you implying that atheists have lower fertility rates meaning atheist men have a lower sperm count and women have troubles conceiving or staying pregnant?

Because those are fertility issues.

Low birth rate is something else.

If you want to be taken seriously, you've got to first know what the hell you're talking about, otherwise you're just spewing thought vomit.

In other words, If you cannot say what you mean, you will never mean what you say.

I talked about sperm counts a few post back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 01:34 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(16-07-2016 05:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Why do you think that's a relevant point? Are you trying to say that you believe the number of devout Christians in Poland (94%+ Christian) to be lower than the number of devout Christians in the Czech Republic (23%+ Christian)?

All we have is a measure of what people profess. We don't have data on how devout they are. I just know from my life experience that people were a lot more devout in the past than they are now.


(16-07-2016 05:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Can you provide us with any statistics that support your hypothesis that this Biblical command is the reason why religious people have more children than their non-religious counterparts?

Its an assumption I make. But it isn't an important one because we have data that tells us unaffiliated fertility rates are much lower than affiliated with a religion fertility rates. My argument stands just assuming that data is true.


(16-07-2016 05:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I for one think that people in this thread have made a convincing case that the underlying issue is not a philosophical, but a cultural and economic one. Unbeliever's explanation of the circumstances surrounding Japan's low birthrate in particular was excellent.

Unbeliever argued well, but I still find him unconvincing. Answer this question please. If Japan suddenly abandoned their work comes first culture and adopted say the Czech republics culture on work....do you think Japan's fertility rate would rise above 2.0? I asked myself that question and I answered it honestly. There is no reason to believe that if we changed the things Unbeliever claims are the cause of Japan's low fertility rate, that there fertility rate would increase. The more secular a society becomes the lower the fertility rate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 02:14 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(17-07-2016 01:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its an assumption I make.

An unwarranted one, yes.

(17-07-2016 01:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  But it isn't an important one because we have data that tells us unaffiliated fertility rates are much lower than affiliated with a religion fertility rates. My argument stands just assuming that data is true.

No, it doesn't. Your argument is that religion (or lack of it) is the cause of those birth rates - which, as you have admitted above, is ultimately just an assumption. It is not, in any way, supported by the data.

(17-07-2016 01:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Unbeliever argued well, but I still find him unconvincing. Answer this question please. If Japan suddenly abandoned their work comes first culture and adopted say the Czech republics culture on work....do you think Japan's fertility rate would rise above 2.0?

It would certainly rise. Above 2.0, possibly, but there are other factors, a few of which I have already mentioned here, which are also keeping Japan's birth rate low. Overcentralization and high housing costs are two that leap to mind.

Assuming that all of the socioeconomic barriers were suddenly erased - Japan's population miraculously found itself less hyperconcentrated in its cities, Japanese work culture suddenly vanished, et cetera - then yes, I think it can be quite definitely said that it would.

(17-07-2016 01:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There is no reason to believe that if we changed the things Unbeliever claims are the cause of Japan's low fertility rate, that there fertility rate would increase.

...Except that they are demonstrably the cause of it, you mean.

(17-07-2016 01:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The more secular a society becomes the lower the fertility rate.

You still have yet to provide any evidence that this is the case. Meanwhile, I have pointed out many, many reasons why secularism is not behind either Japan's or China's low birth rates (China, for those who feel too lazy to look it up, essentially suffers from the same issues that Japan does, but on steroids, and with more than a handful of unique ones added on due to China's political and environmental status - Beijing's monstrous pollution problem, for example).

There is no evidence supporting your position, and mountains of it supporting the contrary.

I understand that you dislike atheism for a number of reasons, but really, suggesting that it would cause the human race to die out from insufficient breeding is just silly.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: