• Artificial Intelligence Shows Why Atheism Isn't Popular
    53 replies, posted
And it's no surprise: By the time a woman has earned her phd or masters she is already pushing 30 and conception will be very difficult. The only solution to the west's ever declining birth rates is artificial wombs.
I mean you basically sound like you'd fit in, in the 1920's. The single most empowering thing for the US economy in the last 100 years was the liberation of women from house hold chores and duties. The 1940's through to the 1960's saw massive changes to the social fabric of america that created a stronger economy for a number of years by massively increasing who was in the work pool.
You're absolutely correct. Just stating that it's very obvious why education is correlated with low birth rates. Too bad there's no way to encourage smart people to have lots of children. We are entering a period of dysgenics that is going to get worse and ultimately lead to the decline of atheism.
No we're not. Would you care to source that wild claim?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html The negative Flynn Effect The decline of the world's IQ Hope you have an account to read these in their entirety. No I'm not sharing mine.
Religion and faith is so much, much more than just worldly explanation. And I think majority of the faiths that dominate the planet today don't even really push any explanation of the world. The old-school pagan beliefs such as saying thunder was Thor swinging his hammer did, but there are as far as I am aware, no dominating faith on the planet that is like that.
It is my belief that even as world religiosity goes down globally in the grand scheme of things, the thought pattern that one might call that of a religious thinker persists in other, secular equivalents like certain types of ideologies and other appeals to sources of authority for how one and others ought to live. As long as people look for things (and people) wholly outside themselves for guidance in how to exist in the world, the existence or non-existence of a religious framework is absolutely irrelevant, even as these new thought structures are more carefully adapted to modern life than some slightly modified bronze age religion. These "new religions" merely turn their back away on god.
Adding to that https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470 HumanAbyss is correct it's materially empowering in that it helps with GDP growth, but his general rosy picture is wrong. It's much more mixed as usual and the devil is in the details. There is both a long-term sustainability issue in the form of demographic crisis it might be true there's a dysgenic trend. Women who work, especially in white collar jobs, delay maternity which often lowers the birth rate because of decline in fertility. Women also tend to not date or marry those below them in education which is an issue when there's a degree completion gap favoring women. The balance of the sexes has also been altered by the welfare state, which erodes the woman's historical dependence on the family or the father and subsidizes single motherhood, especially among lower classes who sadly hold a disproportionate share of the historical decline in marriage or family integrity. Upper class marriages are intact, but have less children, while lower class communities (young boys in them especially) suffer and children have higher crime rates, less mobility, and lower IQs. There has also been a study showing post-industrial societies have less attractive men. This probably ties to decline in testosterone. There is also a gendered division of labor that grows when given freedom of choice, high HDI, and a welfare state, and this probably further culturally separates men and women that may have an effect on marriage and birth rate. Men are often either going into STEM, which doesn't have many women because they choose not to, and trades which does not appeal to college-educated women. The decline in birth rate you get from the above creates a sustainability issue in demographically supporting the welfare state and long-term growth, which is only going to get more important in a highly competitive, debt-driven global economy. We've turned to immigration as something of a band-aid fix, which is ironic because their less liberal cultures are why they're more fertile, and it has the bonus effect of remittances that support indebted third world countries and keeps what looks like a race to the bottom going. This betting on the future probably has a diminishing return in some shape of fashion, which I think is social in nature. Basically, I'm not sure if there's an unlimited capacity of people to deal with the social liquidity and atomization capitalism demands. At the same time, wealthier groups which are often higher in IQ do not reproduce as much. Despite being the most successful in our meritocratic system, they don't sustain it. There's also an issue about the uneven nature of growth. It's increasingly concentrated, in America anyway, in the cities and the coasts. This disrupts a social balance as it alters balances between cultures, regions, etc. which are basically force multipliers for political divisions. It's really bad. The recovery has also been largely seen in those areas. We're basically looking forward to a future with greater class divisions, greater city-countryside distinctions, atomization and rapid social change fueling lowered social trust and heightened tribalism, probably less for morality and social responsibility ('bourgeois values'), and an overall decline in civics and the health of democracy.
And? I was born to a highly religious family and I'm an agnostic atheist these days. Being born religious in the west doesn't guarantee you remain that way, so the birthrate to atheist couples is kind of irrelevant.
well yeah the vast majority of the world's religious population live in poor, undeveloped countries that have high birth rates.... just look at the birthing grounds for Christianity and Islam, that would be Africa and the Middle East. Those places churn out religious folk by the millions every year, and the religious authorities love that, the Catholic church for example discourages the use of protection in these places.
If religion were genetic, I'd agree. Atheisim hasn't been growing because of prior high birth rates among atheists, it has been growing because people who were raised religious have been changing their minds to decide not to be religious. It doesn't matter how much religious people are reproducing compared to athiests, because atheism doesn't need to rely on indoctrination of your children.
It's funny because a lot of Christians I know find the fifth commandment negotiable.
Not only that but look at all of the scientific discoveries destroyed or suppressed directly because of religion Even today religion is used against scientific fact
Humans beings need patterns to navigate reality, so a world without current religion would still end up with something to fill the pattern. And as we can see from super secular-objective endeavors and organizations, religion has little to do with bias, fabrication or tribal politics except as an amplifier for shit that already exists.
Probably more worst that most them become the so-called "New" Atheists or blatant Atheist "Orthodox"/Fundamentalists ever since then make alot Atheists more shamed to associate them for ruining Atheistic image for some groups.
I am not quite sure if your articles are proof of much. The first one, if I'm reading it correctly, correlates babies born to parents of a specific religion as them becoming members of that religion, which strikes me as kind of a useless metric in terms of growth in religion. And your other article seems rather silly too since I live in a country with a state religion and it isn't really like most people are religious. In fact, in general it seems like most people use religion as a way to see the family, get drunk, or both
Top half of this comment is somewhat misleading, if not a lie. Of course there's top class scientists who are religious. However the statistics clearly show that the more educated a person is, the more likely it is that they are an atheist. The percentage of atheists is much higher in scientists than it is in the general population.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.