Questions about "Jesus in my heart"

[jcm]

Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.

I don't give candy on valentine's day. I take my wife out to eat and give her flowers. Atheists have a lower birth rate because we know about birth control. you should try it.

[rlrose328]

Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.  

Hey, I'd LOVE candy in a brain-shaped box!  And my hubby know it, too.  LOL!

And atheists have a lower birth rate because we're responsible breeders.  We know that, in this day and age, our planetary resources are being strained and fewer children per family can make a difference.  We aren't out to single-handed repopulate the earth.  The quiverfull people frighten me.

[Voter]

As atheists frequently point out, most people end up with pretty much the same belief system as their parents. By being "responsible" you're dooming yourselves to failure. Seriously, it's happening in Europe now. Some countries have a higher death than birth rate. Population growth comes from immigration, which is largely Muslim.

[SteveS]

Voter, you put such stock in population numbers.  Why?  Is a country that doesn't have increasing population sure to be a failure?  If there are a limited number of natural resources, what is the end achieved by continual population increase?  What will be the end result?

Also, there are a lot of us that really aren't "systemic" atheists.  Whether or not I'm outbred by Muslims hardly makes any difference as to whether or not there is a god.  Granted, the power of a religion appears to be measured in the faith of its followers: more followers, more faith, more powerful religion.  It should be easy to see that atheism is different.  As an atheist, I may have a wish that less people were religious because I feel it would make the world make more sense to me, or because of my social or political philosophies, but in the end I'm hardly worried that the truth will change based on the number of people shouting something different.

I can understand why competing beliefs could be threatening to a religious follower, though.  Afterall, when enough people leave a religion it loses its status as "religion" and becomes "mythology".  Just try to understand that atheism is not a religion, and all this population stuff should make more sense.

[Voter]

Voter, you put such stock in population numbers. Why? Is a country that doesn't have increasing population sure to be a failure?

Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

If there are a limited number of natural resources, what is the end achieved by continual population increase? What will be the end result?

Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

Also, there are a lot of us that really aren't "systemic" atheists. Whether or not I'm outbred by Muslims hardly makes any difference as to whether or not there is a god. Granted, the power of a religion appears to be measured in the faith of its followers: more followers, more faith, more powerful religion. It should be easy to see that atheism is different. As an atheist, I may have a wish that less people were religious because I feel it would make the world make more sense to me, or because of my social or political philosophies, but in the end I'm hardly worried that the truth will change based on the number of people shouting something different.

I guess my point was made to any systemic atheists that might be reading. Not sure why you replied if you don't care, but thanks anyway.

[Msblue]

As atheists frequently point out, most people end up with pretty much the same belief system as their parents. By being "responsible" you're dooming yourselves to failure. Seriously, it's happening in Europe now. Some countries have a higher death than birth rate. Population growth comes from immigration, which is largely Muslim.

Atheism is growing so this is debatable.  Assuming your right, breeding is not the answer. Helping people let go of their superstitious beliefs is a start. Several users here used to be theists.

Effects of overpopulation

Some problems associated with or exacerbated by human overpopulation:

    * Inadequate fresh water[127] for drinking water use as well as sewage treatment and effluent discharge. Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, use energy-expensive desalination to solve the problem of water shortages.[147][148]
    * Depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels[149]
    * Increased levels of air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and noise pollution. Once a country has industrialized and become wealthy, a combination of government regulation and technological innovation causes pollution to decline substantially, even as the population continues to grow.[131]
    * Deforestation and loss of ecosystems[150] that sustain global atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance; about eight million hectares of forest are lost each year.[151]
    * Changes in atmospheric composition and consequent global warming[152] [153]
    * Irreversible loss of arable land and increases in desertification[154] Deforestation and desertification can be reversed by adopting property rights, and this policy is successful even while the human population continues to grow.[155]
    * Mass species extinctions.[156] from reduced habitat in tropical forests due to slash-and-burn techniques that sometimes are practiced by shifting cultivators, especially in countries with rapidly expanding rural populations; present extinction rates may be as high as 140,000 species lost per year.[157] The IUCN Red List lists a total of 698 animal species having gone extinct during recorded human history.[158]
    * High infant and child mortality.[159] High rates of infant mortality are caused by poverty. Rich countries with high population densities have low rates of infant mortality. [6]
    * Increased chance of the emergence of new epidemics and pandemics[160] For many environmental and social reasons, including overcrowded living conditions, malnutrition and inadequate, inaccessible, or non-existent health care, the poor are more likely to be exposed to infectious diseases.[161]
    * Starvation, malnutrition[126] or poor diet with ill health and diet-deficiency diseases (e.g. rickets). Famine is aggravated by poverty. Rich countries with high population densities do not have famine.[162][163]
    * Poverty coupled with inflation in some regions and a resulting low level of capital formation. Poverty and inflation are aggravated by bad government and bad economic policies. Many countries with high population densities have eliminated absolute poverty and keep their inflation rates very low.[97]
    * Low life expectancy in countries with fastest growing populations[164]
    * Unhygienic living conditions for many based upon water resource depletion, discharge of raw sewage[165] and solid waste disposal
    * Elevated crime rate due to drug cartels and increased theft by people stealing resources to survive[166]
    * Conflict over scarce resources and crowding, leading to increased levels of warfare[167]
Full article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

[rlrose328]

As atheists frequently point out, most people end up with pretty much the same belief system as their parents. By being "responsible" you're dooming yourselves to failure. Seriously, it's happening in Europe now. Some countries have a higher death than birth rate. Population growth comes from immigration, which is largely Muslim.

My parents were both conservative Christians... we do not see eye to eye on any religious issue and precious few political ones.  

I've been saying for years now that liberals and atheists are doomed to die out for just that reason.  The people having the huge "Jesus in my heart" families (10+ kids) are evangelical/fundies who homeschool a Christian curriculum and discourage freethought, rational thought and logic that doesn't conform to their religion.  The chances that any of the kids, much less a majority, won't follow in their parents' footsteps are slim, and the chances that they will have huge, homeschooled families themselves is HUGE.  

THe majority of the families in my immediate geographic area (and this is based on the 70 or so families at my son's school and my immediate neighborhood) have 3 or more kids, many more than 5.  This is a mix of evangelical and Mormon families for the most part.

Then there is me and the 3 atheist families with whom I socialize.  I have 1 child, 2 of my friends have 2 kids and one has 3 (all of them born before she became an atheist... she was Mormon and had always planned on having 6 or more kids before finding logic and rational thought).

So yes... I agree with you.  By being responsible, we are dooming our atheist cause to die out in a few generations unless more kids grow up to realize their parents brainwashed them and they can see that reality, while much more grim, is preferable to the life-long fairytale with which they were brainwashed.  It took me 30 years to shake free of it... so I know it can be done.

[SteveS]

Nice post on overpopulation issues, Msblue.

Voter,

Not sure why you replied if you don't care, but thanks anyway.

I do care - I care about whether what I believe or don't believe is correct or not.  I care about what truth is.  I don't care as much about the effects of belief.  It is an interesting topic, but I don't believe things because of the effects that the beliefs have on me.  What I'm getting at is that I've been reading a lot of these comments on the effects of religion on our personal lives, our societies, our nations, etc.  I'm thinking, who cares?  Even if these effects are all beneficial in some way (which I'm really not certain about and given to doubt strongly - there's big correlation/causation fallacy lurking out here somewhere) --- that hardly makes religious beliefs true.  For example, what if I determined that people, predominantly children, who believe that Santa Claus is real turn out to say they are happier, do better in school, and get along better with their parents.  Must Santa be real because of this?  Should we teach in school that Santa is real because of the beneficial effects of such belief?  Of course not.  In fact, I would think everyone was at least a little bummed out when they realized that Santa probably wasn't real after all.  Did we just go back to believing in him anyway?  No.  Of course not.  Why?  Because we don't believe he is real.  No matter if we were happier when we believed.

In short,

The fact that a believer may be happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunk is happier than a sober man.

Would you feel that Christianity, for example, is a worthwhile pursuit, even if it turns out to be false, because of the effects it has on populations and nations?  If the fastest growing religion in the world turns out to be Islam, should Christians convert to Islam because it is more successful?  Because it is experiencing the largest population growth?  Or, somewhere, does the truth matter?

I can only presume that you believe your religion is true, and this is probably the most important reason why you follow it.  If so, would it matter to you if Muslims were having more babies?  Probably not, right?

Will atheists die out?  This one, at least, surely will.  I want my tombstone to read: "Here lies an atheist: all dressed up and no place to go".  

[Tom62]

Uh, have you considered that heart is just a figure of speech in this context? Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.  

Many ancient civilizations regarded the heart as the center of intellect and intuition. From biblical times till the middle ages, people truly believed that the heart was the seat of emotions, particularly love. It was not a figure of speech in those days.

[Asmodean]

Uh, have you considered that heart is just a figure of speech in this context? Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.  :borg: I thought those kind of people went extinct with the industrial revolution. Apparently, I was wrong.

[Voter]

What I'm getting at is that I've been reading a lot of these comments on the effects of religion on our personal lives, our societies, our nations, etc. I'm thinking, who cares?

I'm thinking, then don't bother responding, but I guess that's just me.

[rlrose328]

What I'm getting at is that I've been reading a lot of these comments on the effects of religion on our personal lives, our societies, our nations, etc. I'm thinking, who cares?

I'm thinking, then don't bother responding, but I guess that's just me.

I gave you too much credit earlier on in your responses because you gave intelligent, compassionate and caring answers... then you have to go off with something like this and it's all out the window.

I hope you didn't stop reading there because Steve had a great point.

[Voter]

Sorry, but I get tired of the big post with the embedded But I don't really care. I find it disrespectful. Maybe you could try putting yourself in my shoes before making judgment.

[curiosityandthecat]

Maybe you could try putting yourself in my shoes before making judgment.

Man, I love hearing that aimed at members of the single most hated minority in the country.

[SteveS]

Honestly, Voter, you found my posts disrespectful?  I hardly think that's very fair.  I certainly didn't claim any personal insult at reading comments like "you are dooming yourselves to failure".  I haven't made any personal attacks or disparaging remarks about you --- I've only disagreed with you.

Regardless - I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.  That certainly wasn't my intention.  Regarding the "who cares" phrase, I think you are misinterpreting it.  Allow me to re-phrase?

"I've been reading a lot of these comments of the effects of religion on our personal lives, our societies, our nations, etc.  I'm thinking, is this the relevant issue?"

In other words, atheism is only doomed to failure by being outbred (isn't this just a tad funny?  Come on, isn't there any humor left around here?!?) if atheism embodies a purpose of de-converting religious people around the world until there are more atheists or no theists or whatever.  While this is no doubt a purpose of some atheists, call them activist atheists, it is certainly not a part of atheism as a concept.  I'm disagreeing with your implied statement that atheism contains a purpose to de-convert religious followers and is failing at this purpose by being outbred (A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away ..... Baby Wars ).  This is why I'm responding --- not because I don't care what you wrote.

Hopefully this made some sense and you see where I'm coming from.  What could be more respectful that reading your comments and addressing them?  Surely I don't have to agree to demonstrate respect?

Ignoring, again, the problem with implying causation from correlation (are happy people religious, or are religious people happy?), the reason I'm bothering to respond to you is that I don't think the "beneficial effects" argument is necessarily the most relevant/important/some-adjective-that-isnt-disrespectful issue regarding faith or lack thereof.  I specifically tried to make this point by asking the questions:

Would you feel that Christianity, for example, is a worthwhile pursuit, even if it turns out to be false, because of the effects it has on populations and nations? If the fastest growing religion in the world turns out to be Islam, should Christians convert to Islam because it is more successful? Because it is experiencing the largest population growth? Or, somewhere, does the truth matter?