The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Atheists doomed! Religion triumphant!

Atheists doomed! Religion triumphant!

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. All
Let's put together several strands of research.

STRAND 1

There is no "religion gene" any more than there is a single gene that determines eye colour or intelligence. However there is growing evidence that some people have a genetically inherited pre-disposition to become religious. I found several online links to this topic. Here is one.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp806845.pdf

STRAND 2

There is growing evidence that participation in organised religion offers real benefits. Here are two links.

http://spider.mc.yu.edu/news/articles/article.cfm?id=101740

http://journals.lww.com/jaacap/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2002&issue=02000&article=00015&type=abstract

STRAND 3

General "spirituality" may offer even greater benefits than attendance at religious services. Here is one link out of many.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/tu-spa102308.php

STRAND 4

Religious people tend to have more babies. This is well covered in "God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World" by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge.

Here are two online links I found:

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/1/2/6/2/pages312625/p312625-1.php

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/11/breedingforgod/

And here is an article in the Guardian by an atheist pundit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/sep/18/children-philosophy-childless

Quote:

"I have one, and only one, firm and sincere desire about what quality my grandchildren should possess: non-existence…"

The London Times has an article titled:

"A nightmare for Richard Dawkins: statistics show that atheists are a dying breed"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100010450/a-nightmare-for-richard-dawkins-statistics-show-that-atheists-are-a-dying-breed/

Quote:

"Austria is the only country which records the religious belief of parents but their figure, of 0.85 children per atheist woman, is far below replacement rate (2.1) and below even the most barren European country’s average rate, which is about 1.2…"

This is how evolution happens. The human race seems to be splitting into two distinct populations – those that are religious and those that are not.

Since the former have more offspring and since they seem able to PASS ON THEIR PROPENSITY TO RELIGION TO THEIR DESCENDANTS it is they who are likely to dominate.

Why is this happening now?

Probably because until recently having no kids was not a serious option unless you were willing to be celibate.

Do pundits here - especially those belonging to the seemingly doomed atheist sub-species - have any thoughts?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 24 September 2009 10:41:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dont sweat on it stevie
many believers have little faith

and fall for the dorkins evolution spiel

little knowing that nature is god's reflection

they dont know their genous from their genious,thus suck up the dorkinsscience god heads...buy into their eugenics adgendas...are the sheeple...following the new age god free messiah...but in thus failing to see what we collectivly are...is ..but faint reflection of all the greatness god is

we can seek to know him by study of his creation,,,intimatly...see even the beast reflect his love...his mercy..that gives even the least of life... their lives..he dont judge...the vile in this life is from freewill...that good of god wispers our con-science from within...god within...look into someone.. eye ball into eyeball

just as other elites are selling the global warning franchise..so too the dork and his kin's...its all designed to switch us off good/god..chose the clight/love or reject the light love...frewill ...aint it grand
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 24 September 2009 11:03:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your unstated assertion that the offspring of "believers" will grow up to become the same as their parents is false.

50 years ago almost everyone was religious but since then there has been a big fall in church going and godbothering. If godbotherers have, as you put it, an ability to "PASS ON THEIR PROPENSITY TO RELIGION TO THEIR DESCENDANTS" then how come there has been such a falloff of churchgoing etc? Obviously some of them didnt manage to pass on their delusions to their offspring.

Athiests are far from a dying breed and your idiotic reference to evolution just shows how ridiculous and badly thought out your article is. Atheism is driven by knowledge and logic and is far better placed to progress than any superstition or ancient belief in fairy stories.

As for those weird articles you referenced
1. If there is a genetic predisposition to believe then where does that leave your gods notion of free will and choice?
2. Is there no other way to get such benefits other than being a believer? Could it have anything to do with lifestyle and environment? Not dependent on religion are they. There are plenty of communities that live long lives and dont believe. An example look at the so called "Mediterranean diet" and its beneficial health effects. Common to Italians (godbotherers)and the French(hardly godbotherers at all).
3. So any "spirituality" is better for us than atheism? Wickans are pretty spiritual, as are yogis, astrologists and those weird crystal people. Does the religious industry accept these forms of "spirituality"? I think not.
4. It is also a known fact that poor people have more babies. Does this mean that the majority of godbotherers are poor. I could make an inference from that that godbothering makes you poor. Since it is the wealthy that control society it seems that godbotherers are unlikely to hold that much influence no matter how many children they have.

Another delusional post by the forces of ignorance and superstition.
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 24 September 2009 11:42:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your 4th point is particularly apposite, mikk.

Poor, uneducated people of all persuasions have more children than the middle class, and are more susceptible to religion. StevenImeyer would do well to brush up on the difference between correlation and causation.
Posted by Sancho, Thursday, 24 September 2009 12:40:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agreed Sancho.

Steven would (or should) be aware that the better educated a society, the smaller the family unit.

I wonder where this thread is REALLY headed?
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 24 September 2009 12:55:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL mikk

You appear to think I am a "believer". I am not.

To answer the various points raised by mikk, sancho and fractelle.

Religiosity is not the ONLY factor that determines fertility. Good studies correct for other demographic factors such as socio-economic status. Here is a link to one such study.

http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol18/8/18-8.pdf

A religious middle-class woman may have fewer babies than a non-religious poor woman; but she is more likely to marry and likely to have more babies than non-religious women of the same socio-economic class.

The link between socio-economic class and fertility may be more complicated than people think. There is evidence that above a certain level of wealth people have more babies. The "birth dearth" is most pronounced among the middle-classes.

I am aware of the difference between correlation and causation. That is why I referred to "evidence" rather than "proof". What we have is epidemiological studies that point to a heritable link to religiosity. We won’t know for certain whether a propensity for religiosity is heritable until we identify the gene networks that control religiosity – assuming such networks exist.

Why don't we see an uptick in church attendance? That is the weak point in my argument. My guess is that it's because large differentials between the fertility of religious and non-religious people is a relatively recent phenomenon. It hasn't worked its way through the system.

That being said, about 75% of Australians self-identify as "Christians" but most do not attend church. I am told that many self-identified Muslims in Australia do not attend mosque.

It appears that in America quite a few children raised as atheists "defect" to religion. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/opinion/02blow.html?em

Quote:

"…most children raised unaffiliated with a religion later chose to join one. ….only 14 percent of those raised Catholic and 13 percent of those raised Protestant later became unaffiliated."

Note that in the US religious service attendance for all faiths is much higher than in Europe and Australia. In Africa and Asia both Christianity and Islam appear to be growing rapidly.

Fractelle, LOL

Where do you think this thread is REALLY headed?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 24 September 2009 2:31:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy