So if an atheist is a naturalist and they believe that the primary function of life is to reproduce DNA and the...

So if an atheist is a naturalist and they believe that the primary function of life is to reproduce DNA and the propagation of the species, why is the atheist's birth rate so low?

Shouldn't they be reproducing like rabbits?

Other urls found in this thread:

pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because the objective/mechanical/evolutionary meaning of life does not have to be the same as your personal view on what gives life meaning, to you.

This is not a difficult question, and only an idiot would think that it is.

cause atheists are as boring as cardboard, arguing about shit no one cares about for instance

Because atheists believe in having few children, but also later than their stupid counterparts. See to be economically stable you should have children later and fewer in order to succeed in achieving your live goals. I for one would only think of children at 35+ and would only have 1. That planet has enough shit skins.. no point me adding more beautiful white genes for them to fucking mix with.

this

Interesting.

>does not have to be the same as your personal view

Oh, so you are saying that genetic machines have free will despite these genetic machines being biosacks of chemical reactions?

>and only an idiot would think that it is.

Or would it be the idiot is the one who thinks naturalism can produce genetic machines that can claim free will or even a simple truth?

>There I go, pretending atheism is a bunch of things it isn't again.

Are you compelled by your DNA to respond to his post?

>should have children later and fewer in order to succeed in achieving your live goals

I see. So it is more important to put your personal happiness ahead of the survival of the fittest or the species even?

life goals of an atheist
>have children as ornaments
>have as few as possible for maximum grog, pills and holiday money
>numerous sex partners of both wife and husband as they fuck behind each others backs
>children forgotten, permanently traumatized: become atheists
>the circle of life is complete

aren't there many atheists who are officially still christian, because of the godfather I, II & III?

>>There I go, pretending atheism is a bunch of things it isn't again.

>So if an atheist is a naturalist and they believe...

Do you know what naturalism is? I'm not implying all atheist...just the ones that are naturalist/materialist. Get it?

"Purpose of life" is different than "purpose of an individual". I don't really care if the abstract idea that is "life" fulfills its purpose or not.

Shark pups eat each other in the womb allowing more resources to be dedicated to the strongest one.

It is a survival strategy that we as humans have developed (i.e. fewer babies with more investment in them).

We do not produce litters of offspring at a time, our bodies are not designed to function that way.

I mean duh? Who the fuck cares about the species as a whole, we all fucking hate each other. We kill each other all of the time. The only thing we really care about is being happy, which is basically a chemical reaction. I.E, having lots of sex, eating well, living in a secure location, spending time doing things that improve our situation etc. That's the mechanism for why we reproduce, when we are happy we are doing things that make it successful.

Study after study after study shows correlation between industrialization and intelligence, and birth rates. The more technologically advanced and smart you are, the fewer babies you have.

Something the religiously minded never seem to grasp is that atheism isn't and contains NO prescriptions for living. Just because it's a fact that your whole "purpose" (which is a bad way to describe it, there is no purpose) is to spread your DNA, that doesn't mean you must act on it.

There is no authority figure to punish you. There is no law besides man's law. The only force that has any say in how you live your life is you.

>"Purpose of life" is different than "purpose of an individual". I don't really care if the abstract idea that is "life" fulfills its purpose or not.

Please provide an explanation as to how creatures can have a free will in a naturalist/materialist view?

Earth has got enough brain dead wage slobs on it already

Earth: Fuck off, we're full

Please provide an explanation as to why "free will" is important.

>It is a survival strategy that we as humans have developed (i.e. fewer babies with more investment in them).

I see. Based on the data atheism will become extinct on your model.

>Who the fuck cares about the species as a whole

Isn't that a contrary view of neo-Darwinian evolution? How is it that you could even have a view on it and claim it is reliable? Isn't that view you just spewed supposed to support your survival? And will it? And is it true?

>Based on the data...

What data?

Hominids have been around a few million years already, I do not think we are going extinct soon.

Easy, a lot of atheists are really just edgy teens that haven't actually thought about it.
Edgy=unattractive
This does not mean that the atheists who have thought about it and come to their own conclusions were edgy though, just that atheism can be used to piss off religious dad's so edgy teens use it which brings down their average.
Plus, niggers are black, and that means white people are not black. Black is equal to all pigments, white is lack of pigment. Base word of pigment is pig, pigs reproduce, and so therefore black people reproduce.
Absence of religion (pigment) = lack of pig, lack of reproduce

>trying this hard to find an argument

because they are loser faggots.

>Study after study after study shows correlation between industrialization and intelligence, and birth rates. The more technologically advanced and smart you are, the fewer babies you have.

Maybe so, but does this support the naturalist/materialist view of survival of the fittest?

>never seem to grasp is that atheism isn't and contains NO prescriptions for living

Yes. I get that. But we are talking about what is programmed into our DNA for survival.

>The only force that has any say in how you live your life is you.

So explain to me how you can have free will that allow you to make that choice.

>There is no authority figure to punish you.

Can you show me a good argument that supports your claim. I'll take evidence too.

>There is no law besides man's law.

So the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an illusion? Is it ok for me to kill toddlers for fun?

>Please provide an explanation as to why "free will" is important.

It's not me who made the claim. See:
>>"Purpose of life" is different than "purpose of an individual". I don't really care if the abstract idea that is "life" fulfills its purpose or not.

>What data?
pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

>Hominids have been around a few million years already, I do not think we are going extinct soon.

Hominids, yes. Atheists, maybe not. See the data.

LOL the majority of atheists don't believe or don't know science (edgy kids that didn't grow up and never had a responsibility). They just want to fuck all day, drugs, alcohol and anything "sinister" without having to compromise and agree to strict religious or social standards like dignity. It's not a religion thing. More like kids in adult form wanting to play all day without limitations.

Funny.

>>trying this hard to find an argument

It's ok to be dumb and not have good answers. Dumb people are human too.

>Christian parents will always have Christian children
>All kids born to Christian parents will become Christians and none will become (or more accurately; stay) atheists

If you're going to factor reproduction into religious demographics then you've got to consider that far more Christian parents have atheist children than the reverse, so basically, Christians are cucks for raising another (lack of) religion's children. I bet Christianity has by far the highest rate of apostasy of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Most first-world countries are rapidly becoming atheistic, the USA is behind the trend because it's the USA and barely counts as first-world.

>LOL the majority of atheists don't believe or don't know science (edgy kids that didn't grow up and never had a responsibility). They just want to fuck all day, drugs, alcohol and anything "sinister" without having to compromise and agree to strict religious or social standards like dignity. It's not a religion thing. More like kids in adult form wanting to play all day without limitations.

Pretty damn good explanation! Thanks.

I'm not an atheist, but I also don't understand how you can compare the extinction of an idea to a species... Like, do you know that atheists weren't born that way? They had to take in information that said God is a thing in order to decide that they could prove God did not exist. They're still just humans... One or more of those 2.7 babies born to Christians could later decide that they do not believe in God, and actually believe they could disprove God's existence.

Im
It is not "stay atheist". An atheist believes they can disprove God. A baby has no concept of God. One has to be introduced to the concept before one can attempt to disprove it

>Most first-world countries are rapidly becoming atheistic, the USA is behind the trend because it's the USA and barely counts as first-world.

Do you think that is because of school systems failing to teach logic and critical thinking. Do you think it has anything to do with materialism (economic sense). Or something to do with poor parenting? Or something else?

Im drunk. I don't know what's going on. Is this still a roll thread? Checkem regardless, this shits happening

>how you can compare the extinction of an idea to a species

My point is that naturalists believe that procreating DNA is the purpose of life.... Naturalists are atheists. Atheists have low birth rates. See the problem now?

That's why they want abortions. To continue fucking with no drawbacks or weights in their life . They just didn't grow up. That simple.

"Atheism" stops at "lack of belief in a deity".
Anything other than that are beliefs that happen to be held by someone who is also an atheist.

>An atheist believes they can disprove God
that's literally not true
an atheist is just someone who does not believe in a god (or in multiple gods). it's an absence of a belief, not necessarily a belief against something.
inventing a more convenient definition because you struggle with the actual one shows you're being disingenuous.

I can't positively prove there is no god, but I don't have enough of a reason to positively believe that there is one. I doubt there's a god, I'm not 100% certain there isn't, because the common concept of god is pretty unfalsifiable. If there's a god then there's a god, but it really doesn't seem like there is one and there doesn't seem to be much basis in believing in one for most people outside of "yeah my parents taught me their beliefs and so they're my beliefs now". I bet that if your parents weren't Christians, you wouldn't be. If your parents were Muslim, you probably would be. If your parents were druids or scientologists or buddhists or whatever, you probably would be too. That tends to be how it works, it's not any deeper than that for the vast majority of religious people.

It's basic etymology. Atheists are just people who simply don't believe, not people who go out of their way to hate you or try to aggressively disprove the shit that you believe. Stop being such a dishonest, dogmatic, victim-complex-having dumb faggot.

>"Atheism" stops at "lack of belief in a deity".
>Anything other than that are beliefs that happen to be held by someone who is also an atheist.

Right. My questions are for atheists who are naturalist. Most atheists fall into this category, no? Can you provide some info on what else atheists believe?

Still, no. You've explained more though for sure. You've defined why a naturalist should reproduce like rabbits, and told me that naturalists are atheists. You have not explained that atheists are all naturalists though. If you can prove that all atheists believe that our purpose is to reproduce, I'll accept your assertion that all atheists should act as though they believe that reality. I do agree that most atheists are half educated faggots though.

No.

>atheists are all naturalists though
Not all atheists are naturalists... This is true. Some are Buddhists.

>assertion that all atheists should act as though

My assertion is the data on the chart. The rest are questions.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
Lemme guess, Stanford doesn't understand the concepts it teaches either?
A baby isn't on these spectrums. I don't believe in God man, not as a thing that created me anyway. I'm just telling you the facts. Your emotional reaction is ridiculous here, I'm not telling you to believe anything except the true definitions of what we're talking about in a formal setting. To be atheist, you do not have to preach atheism, but you do have to believe there is proof that God does not exist.

OP here. Good one. I dig what you are saying.

Well, perhaps there are so many atheists that are not naturalists that it skews what could be known about naturalists reproductive behavior

>but you do have to believe there is proof that God does not exist
I believe there's *evidence* that god does not exist, I don't think there's "proof".
Humans aren't in a good enough position in any sense to fully and objectively understand existence or the divine to be making bold claims like that.
I don't think we can be certain, I just think we can make a pretty reasonable deduction from the limited sense-data that we have in our lives.
Even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to be certain on the issue (he has a scale of atheism from 1 to 7, i think, and he places himself at 6) because he understands the logic of what I've just said, and you apparently don't.

>Well, perhaps there are so many atheists that are not naturalists that it skews what could be known about naturalists reproductive behavior

This is true. Maybe naturalists are reproducing at higher rates than Muslims or Christians. The probability is not high for that claim though. I'd say that it is more likely that most atheists are naturalists/materialists who believe as I have stated. But technically, you have a very good point.

What are you trying to show with this link? Other than muslims are moving to locations that we are not actively bombing.

>>Hominids, yes. Atheists, maybe not. See the data.

Who cares what religion/shit you claim to be. If a jewish person wants to identify as a their own race and religion fine, what do I care what you want to call yourself? It doesn't effect me.

Show me the data. Genetically we are all homo sapiens.

Different "flavours" of people (Arab, Asian, African, etc.) are like different breeds of dogs. Each are suited for their purpose.

>I believe there's *evidence* that god does not exist, I don't think there's "proof".

Can you share your evidence?

>Humans aren't in a good enough position in any sense to fully and objectively

Do we have the ability to reason with logic? If we do, then, can't we reasonably answer the question?

Can you explain the origin of logic?

You can end every post with an insult if you like, but all it tells me is that you let your ego win more than your self.
If you're going to have this discussion, you should understand metaphysics at least on a basic level. I'm pretty bad at it, not as smart as guys like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, but you have to understand the difference between
>the proof is right here
And
>the proof exists although it may not be known right now
Richard Dawkins is another guy I won't claim to be equal to in philosophical understanding, not even close. Fucking titans of these ideas these men are.
What I do know, I didn't claim your logic was retarded. I claimed that your definitions were because they are. Fact remains, a baby cannot be atheist.

^Do you trust the mind of a monkey?

I trust it more than my fucking dog to bring in my mail.

>Richard Dawkins is another guy I won't claim to be equal to in philosophical understanding

That's a shame. Dawkins is a poor philosopher.

>guys like Sam Harris

You mean the guy who thinks it's ok to kill people for what they believe?

truth

I didn't say I didn't disagree with either. I said they were titans of philosophy. Give me a panel with them, and they'll tear me to shreds. I say this because God has humbled me. Do you think you could compete with them in a 1 on 1 debate? Because if so, there's a lot of money in it, stop doing whatever else it is you're doing and get that job

And if they're not a naturalist? (btw kid, the more universal and clearer name is materialist for the view you're clearly trying to push on another unrelated view)

Why do you think function needs to be served?

Why do you think a naturalist (or more accurately a materialist) must think that
a) there is a primary function to life?
b) there is any function to life?
c) even if there is a primary function, that it must be the propagation of the species? (Being a naturalist (lol) doesn't in any way imply that life's purpose is to continue life. You can't logically derive an "ought" value from an "is" value. That's a basic fallacy. Just because something is natural, it in no way implies that you should do it)

>titans of philosophy.
Dawkins -- not.

Harris... Smart but wrong.

Dawkins. Yes.
Harris probably not.

You're wrong, atheists believe that everything came out of nowhere and is going nowhere. It's all making sense.

>a baby cannot be atheist
This is literally just an issue of semantics. You can be as long-winded as you want, and you're still just arguing over distorted definitions. A baby does not believe in god. An atheist in its most simple and pure definition is someone who does not believe in god. That's as far as that goes.
This is like those Marxists who try to warp the definition of "racism" into something more convenient to their agenda.

I didn't end my post with an insult, I said something plain and factual about your apparent understanding of something and you personally felt insulted by it, those are two different things.
Perhaps you shouldn't be on Sup Forums of all places, trying to argue with people about religion of all things, if you're this remarkably sensitive to the things that they might say to you while you're here. I thought I was being quite toned down and sincere compared to what I easily could have been given how silly and pointless this whole thing is.

I have things to do now so I'm not going to respond.

Athiest is a virus.
It doesn't need to have its hosts thrive if it can just spread and infect new hosts.

While I agree that Harris is leagues above Dawkins, I'd still love to see some fuck off Sup Forums like you try to compete with him. Honestly, I'll give you that Dawkins isn't a "titan" but he is way better than I.

...

>(btw kid, the more universal and clearer name is materialist for the view you're clearly trying to push on another unrelated view)

Dr. Alvin Platinga would disagree with you, kid.

>a)
>b)
>c)

Well, a materialist would by definition believe that life came about by random mutation and chance and other blind causations. The materialist is alive, therefore they came about by such means.

See Darwin's Theory of Evolution for more precise discussion.

>You can't logically derive an "ought" value from an "is" value. That's a basic fallacy.

Can you explain the origin of logic?

>not going to respond
Who's sensitive? Anyway, but I'm not, and my first and only criticism of you was the semantics. I'm not the one that got angry about being wrong, I told you I don't believe in God as a creator. Gave common ground. Told you your definition is academically wrong. All you've done is stamp your feet like a child and reclaim you were right after I showed you that an ivy league college defines it differently from you. And sure, you didn't call me a fag, but everyone here can see your passive aggressive mentality. It's again, another sign that you let your ego control your actions even here, on an anonymous image board. Pretty sure I met one of the weakest souls I ever will tonight.

On an entirely unrelated note, I wonder what happens if you graph fertility to education level.

...

Oh shit, oh shit.... Oh shit... There's a meme calling him stupid! I must be wrong!

Actually I'll just say one thing before I go.

I don't want or feel the need to 'convert' you into being an atheist. If you're happy and satisfied being a Christian or whatever you are, then that's fine. I'm not going to try to disprove your god because I don't need or want to, I just simply, personally, don't share your apparent beliefs. You shouldn't be so threatened by that.

Inventing convenient definitions to pigeonhole the strawman boogeyman "Atheists" is a separate issue entirely, and that's why you're being dumb, not because of what you might believe religiously.

>Who's sensitive?
You, apparently?
As I said in quite plain English, I'm going because I have more relevant things to do beyond arguing about religion on Sup Forums in 2018 with a person who gets offended this easily, not because I'm intellectually threatened by you or your MUH IVY LEAGUE COLLEGE. I literally do have to go now so if you want to get in another smug and bitchy little comment about my "soul", go ahead.

>On an entirely unrelated note, I wonder what happens if you graph fertility to education level.

It would be interesting.

>Oh shit, oh shit.... Oh shit...

I'll be happy to show why Dawkins is a poor philosopher, blow by blow. If you doubt it. Want to? Let's go to another forum where true discussion is easier.

Let me know.

Great, Muslims have the highest rate...

Holy shit hahahaha, for the 3rd fucking time, I don't believe God exists! I'm not feeling threatened! Why would you think I was? I opened up this discussion to let you know that atheists are people that believe that God can be disproved. I never said that that means you want to spread that proof! I'm not calling you a priest, I'm just telling you the definition of a word. I still have no idea why you think I'm offended either because I'm laughing my ass off at this point. I'm not attached to any of these ideas, I'm telling you a simple fucking definition haha.

>Great, Muslims have the highest rate...
I know. Sucks right.

Grand survival plan there, it really worked out...

>I still have no idea why you think I'm offended either because I'm laughing my ass off at this point
People who feel the need to say this generally are pretty mad m8

I don't want to know that badly. He's barely on my radar. I'm mostly a fan of Jordan Peterson... Possibly because I'm mostly interested in the individual. Religion doesn't really matter to me much.

religion is not genetic.

>I'm mostly a fan of Jordan Peterson...
Oh cool. I'm a fan too.

But religion is very important to Peterson.

Low birth rate is not an atheist thing, it's a smart people thing. It's no coincidence poor, dumb, uneducated people love fucking like rabbits and having far too many children they can care for, meanwhile educated people in general don't have that many. Just look at the countries and populations.
Also, whether or not atheists tend to give birth less, has literally zero bearings on if there's a god or not.

I agree, most. Just read through what happened. All I did was tell him a definition.

This

Everything is nature and natural. People making shit up and pretending is irrelevant.

That's an interesting conclusion from the data. So only 16% of the population is educated enough to have fewer children?

I agree while disagreeing if that's possible haha. He seems to be mostly about the individual. Even if we assume that Christians are retarded, the Bible holds 1000s of years of knowledge. Seems worth investigating to me. I like that idea. I really wish I could truly believe in God as a creator, but I still can't. I'm looking for it though man, and my man jp gets me closer every video

>Just read through what happened. All I did was tell him a definition.
from what i can see the other person could say this exact same thing

there are more than enough people. no need. To do so would be just for self satisfaction, and very few people actually want kids.

I imagine religious types just do what they want and trust god to sort it all out as a part of his divine plan. If this is true than you could say that atheists don't breed as much because they feel more responsible.

>People making shit up and pretending is irrelevant.
So what is not irrelevant?

Hello same person!

I hope you're joking

all of you are retardes..

1. Atheism is wide spread amongs educated people.
2. Educated people usually live in urban environment of high developed postindustrial societies
>see 2009 Gregory Paul research on the subject
3. High developed urban societies tend to show lower birth rates
>see stats for Japan, European countries

you may also read these papers
>Changing fertility rates in developed countries.The impact of labor market institutions
>FERTILITY AND WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT IN INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS
>The world turned upside down: below replacement fertility, changing preferences and family-friendly public policy in 21 OECD countries

Religious people on the other hand are usually live in agrarian or undeveloped societies, where contaceptives are hard to get and high number of children may be crucial to your own survival.

I hope I managed to explain the whole thing to you guys.

It's not about being educated enough, it's mostly about them being dumb enough. It's not only a meme that poor blacks love making children they can't properly take care of and that Muslims from shitty countries love fucking so much that they're taking over EU. Smart people with a wide variety of interests and can plan their lives don't have 6 kids at 30. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

Conservation status: Least Concern

...

...

>I agree while disagreeing if that's possible haha.
No it is not possible. But I get your meaning.

>He seems to be mostly about the individual.
As your belief is about the individual. Your relation with God or lack of is on you.

>Even if we assume that Christians are retarded,

Christians being retarded has nothing to with whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate and brought the truth.

>Seems worth investigating to me.
Seems to me that Peterson is very clearly teaching New Testament theology with his OT discussion. Might should check that out.

>I really wish I could truly believe in God as a creator, but I still can't.

Good luck to you. First you have to answer your intellectual questions. Once you over come that, then the social "stigma" that "educated liberals" try to put on you, then it's easy if you can understand the metaphysical nature of the universe.

...

...