Loudmouth:

Why is a drop in birthrates a problem that needs to be solved? If we have the capacity to chose whether or not to breed then how can it be a bad thing if we decide not to do so? Surely it is a part of nature that we have a choice to extinguish ourselves.

Who is going to suffer if there is no one around to suffer? There was a time when there was only a handful of human beings. I doubt that they saw that as a problem that needed to be solved but just the outcome of evolution. Why should it be any different if we dwindle down to just a handful again and eventually become extinct?

OzSpen,

I read the article by that Andy Bannister, but I don't see how it proves that atheism is a belief system. The article switches between the different forms of atheism (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#/media/File%3AAtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg) willy nilly and is riddled with non sequiturs.

A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs, and atheism has but one tenet: disbelief. Thus, while there can be atheistic belief systems, atheism in itself is not and cannot be a belief system, as there is nothing within atheism to necessitate any other belief. Atheism is a response to a proposition, there is nothing within atheism to dictate what must or should follow from there.

George,

I never said that you claimed such an equivalence.

<<I never claimed such equivalence…>>

But your insistence that I must be mistaken does imply that.

I do agree that dictionaries are about the usage of words, which is why I haven’t argued that the definition should be removed, only qualified further.

<<Nevertheless, let me repeat, we should leave it to specialists to decide how to compose an authoritative dictionary.>>

Not necessarily. If, for example, someone like your good self comes out in support of a misleading and derogatory use of a term without any acknowledgment of such fundamental differences in formality and validity, then that suggests that a greater emphasis on the third definition's informality may be required.

Again though, Oxford appear to agree with me, but apparently their numbering system and layout isn’t clear enough. So I’m confident they’d be open to my suggestion.

<<Also, if somebody who admits adhering to a religion claims you also adhere to some religion he/she might be wrong but it would hardly be derogatory since he/she himself/herself is happy to apply it to himself/herself.>>

You would think so, wouldn’t you. But this is not the case in my experience, and runner would be a prime example. I never tire of pointing out the irony of the religious calling atheism a religion in order to insult it.

Hi Phanto,

Because it would be a horrific pathway between now and the oblivion that you seek. Think about it for a second, extend yourself:

* given that there has been an abrupt decline in birth-rates, especially in developed countries but also in the Middle East, one fairly numerous generation (A) will be followed by a much smaller one (B), which in turn will be followed by an even smaller one (C). By the time Generation A reaches middle- to old-age, it will have a much smaller generation (B) to support it. In turn, after having been burdened with subsidising Generation (A), Generation (B) will have an even smaller generation (C) to support IT. And so on, either until we come down to the last younger person supporting the last older person, OR we find ways around that problem.

Alternatively, we could try to manage the decline in such a way that one generation is not heavily burdened by the one earlier, and in turn doesn't burden its own children. For that to happen, population reduction would have to be of the order of hundreds of years, not decades or generations. Can you see that ?

As it happens, speaking of apocalypses, Pascal Bruckner has a new book, The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse, reviewed here:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2013/06/13/book-review-the-fanaticism-of-the-apocalypse/

in which he canvasses religious and pseudo-religious theories of 'the end of days'. It should be required reading on the pseudo-Left.

Joe

Dear George,

Falsifying the census is in fact a criminal offence which currently carries a fine of $1800. Not being detected doesn't make anything legal, nor moral. What I referred to was the legal right not to respond to questions of religion (section 14(3) of the Census and Statistics Act, 1905). There are also legal loopholes (which I intend to use) that allow you to avoid filling out the census altogether.

While I am a Hindu, I strongly oppose any government-money handed for Hindu temples and educational institutes. It is short-sighted to accept such tainted monies, it will reduce the incentive of your own religious community to tithe and support itself and once you lose your independence, anti-religious legislation will surely follow. They already have laws that severely restrict the presence of cows in temples; the rights of Sikhs to carry their kirpan; the ability of Jews to bring home and keep their imported Etrog (citron fruit); and the ability of Muslims to conduct religious weddings with more than one person - so don't be surprised when the state also prohibits Christian communion on the excuse of "cannibalism" (initially for minors, eventually for the rest).

Loudmouth:

"Because it would be a horrific pathway between now and the oblivion that you seek. Think about it for a second, extend yourself:"

I never said I wanted oblivion. I'm hardly in any position to make it happen anyway. There is also no need to patronise me. You want me to 'extend myself' to your superior level presumably.

None of what you said is an argument for any couple to decide to have a child. People should have a child because they want a close relationship with a child of their own creation. Who would want to be brought into the world in order to keep the species going?

Do you think it would be appropriate to force people to have children?

Dear Yuyutsu,

So you believe that Australia is a Continent.... but not a Nation ?

If this is a clue to the drivel being displayed with your Gods' Religion..... I feel sorry for you !