The Problem with Atheism: by Sam Harris

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To decide to procreate is possibly the highest expression of looking forward, at least looking forward with optomism. To avoid this biological prime directive is inward looking, selfish.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good to know that third world countries and poor people are waiting to lead the world forward with responsibility and integrity.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's about choice. The secular are choosing to extinguish themselves. The third world simply screws.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you can soon expect Mohamed to be the most popular newborn boy's name.

[/ QUOTE ]

You pretty much ruined your integrity there, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you simply another troll or have you investigated the subject? I'm guessing troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is you who suggested that a majority of boys named mohammed was a bad outcome, so no, not a troll.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be an entirely different matter if the secular world were holding their own, with replacement levels of reproduction, but that turns out not to be the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the moment. Most trends are not linear, and involve feedback mechanisms. In other words, if there are too many people, it's best to be below replacement levels. If there are too few, it's best to be above replacement levels. Until an equilibrium is reached, it's impossible to determine the health of a given reproductive strategy. You can't just assume that the current fertility rates will remain constant.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's too radical to judge the health of a culture/country/philosophy/species by it's reproductive success. By that metric, the secular post-Christian West is in huge trouble. Look at the lowest birthrates. Russia might be #1 on the list and that's because it's a secular shithole of a country. Nobody sees a future. Nobody has babies. Spain and Italy are in much better economic shape but selfishness it the national passtime and the native population is being cut in half every generation. That's it. You're culturally extinct. To me, that's failure on a grand scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Reproductive success" is not just about the number of children an organism has. It's also about the viability of those offspring. Having a small number of successful offspring is often much better in evolutionary terms than having a large number of unsuccessful offspring.

Your claim that the health of a country is positively correlated with its population rate is patently absurd. It's the other way around. Most countries with low fertility rates have high standards of living and good health. All countries with high standards of living have low fertility rates, sub-replacement with the exceptions of the US and Israel.

Furthermore, population growth isn't purely a function of fertility.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
It's about choice. The secular are choosing to extinguish themselves. The third world simply screws.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people of the third world are choosing to "screw," to have sex irresponsibly with no concern for the terrible conditions their children will face.

[Subfallen]

InTheDark -

Ok, we get it, you read Mark Steyn, and his hilariously alarmist, unabashed racism and xenophobia strike a chord with you.

But nobody here cares if the racial composition of Europe changes in favor of Arabic descent, and nobody here expects the world will ever be largely secular. People like/need religion, don't worry about it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't breed you are sure to be no more than a footnote in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this comment deserves extra attention. Its such a fantastic point! I mean, who remembers George Washington, Harriet Tubman, Joan of Arc, Mother Theresa, Immanuel Kant, Louis Armstrong, Francis Bacon, Beethoven, Copernicus, Leonardo Da Vinci, Rene Descartes, Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, Plato, Rosa Parks, Nietzche, and of course, Jesus Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this and shake my head.

Are you simply contrary by nature and thus blinded to previous content and context? I'm reasonably sure you're not stupid. I can't rule out stoned.

More likely insecure in your poorly founded philosophy and a desperate defender. You're well represented here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I followed the context. I made more serious points about that a few posts up. Why don't you respond to them?

I do like the amateur psychologist bit, though. Not sure where you got any idea what my philosophy is, much less how strong its foundations are, but perhaps you've been post-stalking me. It should go without saying that atheism is not a philosophy.

You do realize you made an absurd claim, that only those who breed have any chance at "being more than a footnote in history," right? I figured it was at least POSSIBLE you just didn't realize how inane that comment was, so I figured I'd educate you about it a little.

Jesus Christ has done more to propagate Christianity than Mike from Chicago, father of 5. This almost single-handedly refutes your point. Maybe it was too subtle?

Since this is a gambling forum, who do you think is a favorite to create more atheists/theists, me or you? You can have all the kids you want. I'll stick to my own methods (although I also plan on having kids, who knows if they will be atheists). You like your chances? You think you are a favorite?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're free to assume I'm a theist but that would simply add to your errors so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where in my post do I assume you are a theist? I might have, by mistake or something, but I didn't intentionally. I said atheist/theist because I didn't know or really care. Its irrelevant to my argument.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've a keen eye for the outliers. Nice job isolating the right hand tail of both groups,.

If you're secure in your philosopy why must you resort to such techniques?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think these are the outliers. I think atheists are much more likely to be responsible and caring than theists. However, in the absence of any evidence to support such a claim, personal experience is all I can point to. Where is your evidence, by the way? Or any kind of support or basis for your claims at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Find this recent survey for some enlightenment. It involved measuring the relative charity of liberals VS conservatives. Liberals were way behind. Not a perfect analog but it's a start.

To decide to procreate is possibly the highest expression of looking forward, at least looking forward with optomism. To avoid this biological prime directive is inward looking, selfish.

I understand that uncomfortable ideas such as these are difficult to accept. I can't help you, only you can do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I hold down and impregnate every woman I see. I wouldn't want to be selfish and ignore my biological directives. That IS what they tell me to do, after all.

I actually find the phrase "ignoring biological directives" to be pretty hilarious on its own. How exactly do you do that? What directives are you following, then? Where do your preferences and desires and motivations come from, if not your biology? Conscience, personality, social awareness, all of these are ultimately biological in the way they motivate us. My thoughts all come from my brain, all of which is biological, except the big plate.

[Lestat]

I think it's an evolutionary trait that the human mind must make sense of things. The answer "I don't know" rarely does much good when it comes to survival.

So lacking any possible physical considtion which might have caused such a cataclymic event like a tsunami, it seems reasonable to me to look towards the super-natural. That's all I'm saying. As evidence mounts for other physical reasons, the super-natural prospects should drop. But there still is much we don't know. I just think we know enough now to pretty much discount gods altogether. But when talking about things we can't say for sure how or why they happened, you never know...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To decide to procreate is possibly the highest expression of looking forward, at least looking forward with optomism. To avoid this biological prime directive is inward looking, selfish.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, looking forward with optimism and hoping for the best, instead of carefully planning and thinking. If we don't regulate the population level ourselves it will get regulated by wars, genocide and plagues. You are looking forward to such regulations with optimism?

Check the Malthusian catastrophe for a more detailed view on this subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

I'd choose reason and planning over unfounded optimism.

[/ QUOTE ]

In France you are cutting your native population in half every +/- 1.3 generations. This is not 'reason and planning' but cultural suicide and at its root is a wholly secular culture that tends toward selfishness. You're not making enough new taxpayers to support your lazy, aging population in the socialist style to which it has become accustomed. Like other European countries, you can soon expect Mohamed to be the most popular newborn boy's name.

Malthus has many critics and few cases of correct prediction to which one might point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just realized who you used to be, in a prior incarnation.

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you can soon expect Mohamed to be the most popular newborn boy's name.

[/ QUOTE ]

You pretty much ruined your integrity there, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you simply another troll or have you investigated the subject? I'm guessing troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is you who suggested that a majority of boys named mohammed was a bad outcome, so no, not a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only a bad outcome if you have any fondness for the soon to be extinct native culture. It's a wonderful outcome if you're the soon to be majority culture in Europe.

Me personally, I'd like to see a few more signs that an Islamic Europe will be a step forward before I break out the champagne, err, grape juice. No more champagne under sharia, baby.