Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Atheism is maladaptive

This isn't breaking news, but it could use a little search engine optimization. Find something concise and easily digestible proved difficult, so here it is.

The following table shows, by theistic orientation, the mean number of children non-Hispanic whites, aged at least 40 when the question was asked, have ever had. For contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward (N = 6,693):

Thoughts on GodKids
Atheist/agnostic1.75
Uncertain believer2.02
Firm believer2.38

Relatedly, mean age when the first one was born among those who have ever had a child, because TFR isn't the only thing that matters (N = 5,450; same demographic parameters):

Thoughts on GodAge at first birth
Atheist/agnostic26.7 years
Uncertain believer25.5 years
Firm believer23.4 years

If the religious shall inherit the earth, we're in trouble.

GSS variables used: AGEKDBRN, GOD(1-2)(3-5)(6), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), AGE(40-89), CHILDS

62 comments:

szopen said...

I did my part :D. Two children, first one born when I was 25.

Frankly, I do not care much, as long as I won't be persecuted for being atheist. I live in something like 90% catholic country and I am quite content about that.

I wonder whether GSS would allow to divide futher atheists/agnostics between right-wing and left-wing? Majority are left-wing, then are some moderates, but still there are some rightwingers out there. I would venture a guess that right-wing atheists should have TFR higher than left-wing.

The letter 'E' said...

There is a difference between correlation and causation.

Kipling said...

E's comment is well taken, of course; autism and other mental issues seem to run along in the same pack as atheism. It might well be atheism is a marker of other deeper problems. Exhibit A: Less Wrong.

That being said, the heavy trend of secularization that is also pretty consistent means you're obviously losing Charlotte Simmonses by the bucket at college. The poz is strong; boiling off the non-immune every generation takes a long time before you'd reach a "plainness intensifies" situation like with the Amish. Evolution isn't accelerating *that* much. So maybe the next empire or the one after will solve it but I suspect, as you elude, this one isn't going to fix itself in time.

szopen said...

autism and other mental issues seem to run along in the same pack as atheism
To be sure, there seems to be more aspies amongst the atheists, but there are also more aspies amongst people interested in STEM subjects. Not all STEM people and not all atheists are aspies, though.

DissidentRight said...

To be fair to noble atheists/agnostics, the problem is that your intellectual ancestors either 1) couldn’t tell where the institutional church ended and civilization began or 2) openly wanted to degrade civilization (e.g., the family) to defeat Christianity, or 3) were allied with 1 & 2.

When you poll atheists/agnostics I suspect that the bulk of are still of the ignoble variety, which explains why they’re doing their part to create Idiocracy. But I tend to doubt very many of our pre-Christian forefathers were soycucks extolling the virtues of fat, fornication, and faggotry, so there is no particular reason why post-Christians won’t join us in educating the progressive anti-Christian and anti-Western Left on the exciting details of helicopters and gravity.

Dan said...

"There is a difference between correlation and causation."

In fact atheism almost certainly CAUSES low fertility.

Several things demonstrate that atheism CAUSES low fertility.

(1) Just listen to religious leaders talking about 'pro-life' issues. Having babies is pretty explicitly talked about in religious circles and openly emphasized as a goal. The religiosity level at a pro-life march is exactly 100%.

When it turns out that the religious they do exactly what they are constantly talking about, it takes a lot of effort to reject correlation.

(2) Atheist movements are typically bound up with feminism, LGBTQ and the pro choice movement, all of which reduce fertility.

(3) We get a nice lab experiment between liberal Jews, who are generally atheist or less-believing, and Orthodox Jews and Haredi, who unapologetically believe.

Haredi have a fertility of 6 children per woman and more, while their faithless cousins have a fertility in the neighborhood of 1 child per woman.

A starker fertility gap among closely related groups you will not find and religiosity is the difference.


Dan said...

To me it is extremely obvious why atheists have low fertility as someone who spent much of college telling anyone who would listen that I was an atheist.

Annoying I know.

I've since left that mostly behind, although I have no trouble seeing that perspective.

Under atheism, there is no meaning of life. It's all pointless, and the answer is hedonism. My atheist self was utterly hedonistic and utterly child avoiding.

Hedonism is best practiced childless, obv.

I have a friend, he's in his early sixties. He was an unreligious hedonist, with a stream of girlfriends and childless until about age 40. Then he went all in on fundamental Catholicism to the point of joining Opus Dei. He married after 40 to a wife in her late twenties. They managed to pop out 11 all after he was 40 before things ran dry for them. Beautiful family.

Correlation is not causation in all cases, but with the religiosity--fertility nexus, there is extreme causation.

The example of my friend also shows that Western decline is not inevitable.

szopen said...

Under atheism, there is no meaning of life.
That's not true. I am atheist and I was atheist since I was, I don't know, in my early teens.

Or rather - there is a partial truth to this, as if your logically follow the atheism you have to face a simple dilemma: when you are dead, you are dead, so why care about that? However, the answer is not necessarily hedonism. You realize sooner or later that you have to seek the meaning of life if you want to stay sane and happy. I mean - you just have to understand that hedonistic lifestyle has no rational sense, at least - no more sense that choosing style which cares about your children, your people and the future.

Dan said...

"You realize sooner or later [as an atheist] that you have to seek the meaning of life if you want to stay sane and happy."

Couldn't agree more. Some would say that is what religion is.

"I mean - you just have to understand that hedonistic lifestyle has no rational sense, at least - no more sense that choosing style which cares about your children, your people and the future."

Of course hedonism makes sense in as much as hedonism is the easy choice. Raising children and worrying about their future is hard.

Indeed you don't even have to 'choose' hedonism as it is pretty much a default option.

And this probably gets to a lot of the fertility difference. In modern life, hedonism and low fertility is a default and it requires some special meaning to rise past that. For most, that meaning is religion.

(Before birth control of course, hedonists were leaving bastards everywhere.)

Dan said...

There is a partial solution to low birth rates in the modern world.

Men should help with housework and kids as much as they can, while the wife is of childbearing age.

MRAs might find this cucky, but it isn't cucky if they are certifiably your kids. It isn't cucky if it helps her keep popping out the fruit of your loins.

Apparently the Japanese fertility is so low in part because Japanese men don't help at home.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf/expert/24/Policy_Briefs/PB_Japan.pdf


Dan said...

One of the worst things about atheism is the fact that atheists usually use their innate religious impulse to glom onto destructive leftism. This isn't new. Throughout the 20th century, Communist regimes worked hard to stamp out religion because they found that people without religion were far more open to Communism.

Unfortunately because of the tendency of atheists to support destructive leftism, atheism is not simply a neutral lack of belief. Usually it comes laden with some very destructive things.

Wency said...

The vast disconnect between our abundant resources and collapsing fertility surely has the full attention of Gnon.

It would take a long time for a TFR differential of 0.5 to work itself out. But there's a lot of slack in that TFR, and the noteworthy thing is the substructure -- there are a number of mothers of 10 out there, and there's a much larger number of mothers of 0-1. It will not take so long for the relative commonality of their cultural/genetic traits to shift substantially.

And there is a lot more to this than just Christianity; I'm aware of two different highly religious, intelligent, attractive women who are rapidly approaching 40 without a husband in sight. There are teachings within modern church culture that are clearly anti-natal, whether by design or accident; those teachings led them to make the perfect the enemy of the good, turning down marriageable men and sabotaging relationships in their youth.

Meanwhile a friend of mine attends a small, family-focused Baptist church down the road from me with about 40 adults and 60 children -- that's 3 children/woman. And a lot of those adults are young couples that aren't close to finished. The whole cultural environment of this church is highly pro-natal, with almost a competition to produce more kids. The pastor has 11 kids himself.

If a woman is surrounded by other women who consider 2 kids a full family, that's how she'll approach matters. But if she's part of a community where people only stop at 10 kids because of menopause and 2 kids is considered borderline-childless, that will influence her thinking heavily.

So the 20 women at that church will easily produce 100+ children between them. How many children will the 500 women in my elite college graduating class produce? 500, at best? Odds are high those churchwomen will have more great-grandchildren than the elite college women that outnumbered them 50:1.

So insofar as the West has a future, that's it right there. Expect these highly pro-natal pockets with a TFR of 5-10 within an overall hedonistic TFR 1-2 civilization. The pro-natal pockets will attract people who already have a genetic inclination to have children while applying cultural pressure on them to have even more children.

DissidentRight said...

Dan,

Then he went all in on fundamental Catholicism to the point of joining Opus Dei. He married after 40 to a wife in her late twenties. They managed to pop out 11 all after he was 40 before things ran dry for them. Beautiful family.

That is inspiring.

Under atheism, there is no meaning of life. It's all pointless, and the answer is hedonism.

There’s no transcendent meaning, but that’s the same as saying “there is no meaning”. People find meaning in their families, and atheists can have families. It’s just hard work. (People also find meaning in work.) On the other hand, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead to make our lives more meaningful or more fulfilled. In fact, I tend to think that people’s sense of meaning and fulfillment comes from living a life that is in harmony with man’s natural purpose, which is to work, love, and build families.

Of course hedonism makes sense in as much as hedonism is the easy choice.

That’s precisely why it’s less fulfilling.

Unfortunately because of the tendency of atheists to support destructive leftism, atheism is not simply a neutral lack of belief. Usually it comes laden with some very destructive things.

Yeah. That’s why it’s so encouraging to see left-liberals like Sargon openly disavowing progressivism, and atheists like Molyneux exited about virtue. The Church’s mission isn’t to save Christendom, or the West, after all. That’s no less a perversion of our mission than the social gospel.

DissidentRight said...

^ Correction: There’s no transcendent meaning, but that’s NOT the same as saying “there is no meaning”.

Audacious Epigone said...

szopen,

Average number of children among white atheists/agnostics aged 40+:

Liberal -- 1.58
Moderate -- 1.80
Conservative -- 2.07

You are quite modal my good man!

E,

Yes, yes, we know.

Kipling/Wency,

Well put. That's my assumption, too, articulated better than I've done in the past.

Dissident Right,

Like to suspect you are correct. The 'secular right' is small, but there are those of us who are doing what they can!

Dan,

He had eleven kids with the same woman all fathered after he was 40?! That's Old Testament stuff right there!

Wrt to purposefulness, as an agnostic my 'epiphany' has been to stop putting consciousness at the center of existence. How do I attain immorality? Well, as close as I'm going to get is by passing along my genetic material to the next generation. Just because I don't exist directly in my son's consciousness does not mean that I am extinguished once I'm six feet under.

Dan said...

AE --

They got profiled in The Post... I don't think I am doxxing my friend if he went public about his life himself :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/big-family-big-challenges/2011/08/10/gIQAX7Rf6I_gallery.html?utm_term=.32813c8496b5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/how-a-dc-area-family-with-11-children-ages-12-through-1-makes-it-work/2011/07/26/gIQAROAk6I_story.html?utm_term=.b8ed15a05bb3

Those stories are from 2011. I wonder if The Post would produce such pro-civilizational stories today...

The only update I'd add is that they are keeping the train nicely on the rails... They are gearing up to celebrate Valentine's Day together, kids are all in elite private Catholic schools, covered because they are teachers at those schools. Ones that are are college age are in college; I feel certain all 11 will get college degrees.

Nothing weird like the Duggar scandal.

Dan said...

Correction, after reading the article:

Larry had his first at age 41, after age 40 like I said. But Jen would have been 33 when their first child was born. I sort of assumed she must've started young. But I was wrong!

That makes it even more impressive.

Tashkent Lutsow said...

AE, the title of your post is incorrect. It's not atheism per se that's maladaptive, but irreligion, which can't be conflated with atheism, as there are religious atheists such as Buddhist and Jains and irreligious theists who are called deists.

I'd like to know if devout Buddhists and Jains have a 2.1+ FTR. Is there any data on that?

Dan said...

Tashkent -- Buddhism and Jainism as practiced natively are usually not atheistic, but polytheistic.

"In Buddhist tradition, it was the deity Brahma Sahampati[5] who appeared before the Buddha and urged him to teach, once the Buddha attained enlightenment but was unsure if he should teach his insights to anyone."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahm%C4%81_(Buddhism)

It is only white California hippies that consider themselves Buddhist atheists.




Dan said...

An interesting look at fertility of different religions including Buddhism.

https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol32/1/32-1.pdf

Islam wins the fertility competition.

Hinduism and Christianity are lower.

And Buddhism is lower still.

Tashkent Lutsow said...

Dan:

Tashkent -- Buddhism and Jainism as practiced natively are usually not atheistic, but polytheistic.

Nope. Buddhism and Jainism posit that there is no god or gods in the sense of a being that created the universe. The universe for both these religions is eternal, self-governing, and uncreated.

Gods in Buddhism are finite beings just as humans, only they're are more powerful and have extreme longevity. And just as humans they're susceptible to karma, experiencing suffering and perpetual rebirth.

Thank you for the research paper. Somewhere else I read that the number of Buddhists in the coming decades won't increase but it won't decrease either.

Dan said...

Tashkent: I was correct and you were incorrect. Buddhism is polytheistic not atheistic. I didnt claim Buddhism has a creator God. They have minor deities, and you calling them atheistic is simply incorrect. I didnt claim that they worship a creator god. Don't take offense at being wrong, happens to the best of us.

Tashkent Lutsow said...

Dan:

I was correct and you were incorrect. Buddhism is polytheistic not atheistic. I didnt claim Buddhism has a creator God. They have minor deities, and you calling them atheistic is simply incorrect. I didnt claim that they worship a creator god. Don't take offense at being wrong, happens to the best of us.

Sorry, but you don't have a faintest clue about Buddhism. Devas aren't your stereotypical gods who create or shape nature and demand worship. They're not part of some divine pantheon that Buddhists adulate. They're only another group of sentient beings, residing in their distinct realm, that is subjected to karma. And being a deva doesn't confer you special status; a deva can be reborn as human in its next life and vice versa.

Dan said...

Tashkent,

With all due respect, you have lost this minor argument. Don't be an SJW and double down on wrong. As I said, it happens to the best of us.

You just admitted there are lesser gods in Buddhism. That isn't atheism. Is this a Monty Python sketch?

I don't doubt you know more about Buddhism than me. I am simply in agreement with your statement that Buddhism has lesser gods.

Maybe we need to stop debating Buddhism and just look up atheism in a dictionary. It means you don't believe in any deities.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Dutton et al 2017: ‘The Mutant Says in His Heart, “There Is No God”: the Rejection of Collective Religiosity Centred Around the Worship of Moral Gods Is Associated with High Mutational Load’

Tashkent Lutsow said...

Dan, explain to me why do you consider devas to be gods? They're:

1. Mortal.
2. Morally fallible.
3. Didn't create the universe.
4. Trapped in the eternal cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.
5. Under control of karma.
6. Can be reborn as mere humans.

How can a being have properties 1-6, yet still be considered a god?

Joshua Sinistar said...

The difference in correlation & causation is Math Skills. You cannot prove ANYTHING causes Human Behavior. Most people are creatures of habit that do the same thing every day. Enjoy your hamster wheel. That Rat Race is a downward spiral as far as the foreseeable can see.
Correlation is what is called Pattern Recognition. Correlation by Statistical Analysis is SCIENCE. Without Math, you may as well be knitting sweaters. That warm fuzzy soft science is the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

No surprise with Belief in God and profundity. People who have no belief in a Meaning to Life have little incentive to Make More of it. Sex, Drugs and Parties are the Lotus Eaters of Today. Tomorrow they will DIE and only their Fleas Will Mourn Them.
These God-haters love them some Superintelligent Aliens though. Show them apemen getting knowledge from a Giant Geometric Object and they all Happy. Tell me. What is the Difference between Superintelligent Alien Assistance and GOD?

I'll tell ya. You probably won't figure it out by yourselves.

MORALITY.

Audacious Epigone said...

Tashkent,

Grouped under the heading of "uncertain believers" are "believes but doubts", "believes sometimes", and "some higher power". The latter of those three probably catches 'clock maker' deists.

Buddhist fertility in the US is really low--1.62 children among adults aged 40 and over (though the sample size is only 95). That's lower than Jews and the irreligious (2.03 and 1.94, respectively), and way lower than Protestants and Catholics (2.64, 2.75).

Audacious Epigone said...

Joshua,

So super intelligent that it fails to replicate itself!

Joshua Sinistar said...

Buddhists? In America? In Asia they seem to be half the population. Maybe the Leftie Freaks that collect Buddha statues and know zippidee doo da about Buddhism are dragging that down? These Leftist Fruit Loops seem to have a Chinese Buffet view of Religion.

Audacious Epigone said...

Joshua,

Yes, 77 of the 95 Buddhists in the GSS are white. Of those 77, 40 are politically liberal and only 11 are politically conservative.

Joshua Sinistar said...

These leftie Whites are nuts. Their view of Buddha is so off its pretty obvious their elitist and erudite pretensions are just a pose. Much like their fake "caring" for the underprivileged.

Most people in the West do not understand Buddhism or the Far East. Japan, Korea and China are all the same apparently. Actually they all HATE each other, but love their ancestors. The surname goes first there. That is why all the North Korean Dictators have names that start with Kim. Its their family name, and their ancestral heritage.

The Far East has a fatalistic view of life. They don't expect to be happy. Seeing how everyone in America and the West are Fucking Obsessed with happiness, its probably a good thing. Life is hard, then you die. Reincarnation can keep bringing you back. Buddhism has no God or Heaven. Nirvana is actually dissolution and "joining the Universe". An end to PAIN. No returning to this veil of tears.

Leftists seem to believe that Nirvana is some version of Heaven. I expect their politics is a shallow as their spiritual beliefs. They are spiritual but not religious. That's the kind of crazy that can be dangerous.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

I would think that atheists would have more kids since they realize they're screwed when they die and would like a part of them to live on after they've died.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Atheism is vacuous and often make the people selfish. They pursue pleasure and hedonism. They see no meaning to life, they often do not see any duty to their ancestors to pass their genes on to the future. They live for Today. It reminds me of Blade Runner. Rutger Hauer ad libbed the last scene with his own lines. It made the whole film for me. His fear of death was based on the fear that all his memories and his whole life would perish with him. Wholly ad libbed but it made a rather ordinary film noir into something somewhat philosophical. Everyone has a spiritual need, whether they admit it or not. People who do not believe in God are liable to latch onto anything - often even crazy. That idea of no meaning or purpose in life. Not caring about your family or ancestors. Its shallow. Your ancestors fought, struggled, sweated and died to put you here. You are their future. You have a duty to reproduce and pass their name and genes on to live after you are dead and gone yourself. You will not live forever. Children will remember you and pass your story on even if no one else cares enough to remember.

luke jones said...

@Dan

There is no direct evidence that Atheism leads to hedonism. East Asians, who are the most secular and atheistic, are the least hedonistic race while Blacks (who are the most religious) tend to be the most hedonistic. Even within races, hedonistic behavior seems to be more common among lower-iq, higher-religiosity individuals on average.

@Audacious Epigone

If Atheism/secularism is so maladaptive then there is no way it could have been selected for over the last 1000 years in both Europe and East Asia according to the research of HBDChick, Gregory Clark and EvolutionistX. Apparently in those regions, Atheist had higher fertility than the religious during the middle ages. Its only now-a-days that non-belief is linked to low-fertility.

https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/the-rise-of-atheism/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223980.2013.866929#abstract
https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/tag/atheism/

@Joshua Sinistar

Most religious throughout history had no concept of a value-based afterlife (especially Judaism, see Ecclesiastes). They believed everyone shared the same fate after death (hades, sheol, some generic underworld) yet they had no reproducing and living meaningful lives.

luke jones said...

One thing these studies fail to note is that even though the religious still have higher fertility rates, religiosity continues to decline all over the world (African seems to be the only exception).

https://religionnews.com/2017/09/06/embargoed-christian-america-dwindling-including-white-evangelicals-study-shows/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world/asia/14japan.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/12/christianity-faces-sharp-decline-as-americans-are-becoming-even-less-affiliated-with-religion/
http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Statistical_Decline_of_Buddhism%3F
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-religious-right-to-blame-for-christianitys-decline/


Even Muslim fertility is dropping faster than Western fertility.
https://www.hoover.org/research/fertility-decline-muslim-world
https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/population-growth-census-hindus-muslims-family-planning-contraceptives-fertility-rate
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/muslim-overpopulation-myth/545318/
https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/177850/muslim-fertility-rates-dropping-faster-western-daniel-greenfield

Also, there are more religious folks that later become atheist than the other way around.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Atheism has been around for 100 years? Where is this coming from? Galileo, Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci and other famous scientists were God Fearing Christians. Galileo got in trouble because of Ancient Greek beliefs of the Earth being in the Center of the Universe. Those fools Popes have got to stick to spiritual matters and stay away from these kind of disputes.

East Asia has lots of Religion. Secular isn't even a thing. Its a buzzword.

Maybe you can explain that Century Old Atheism view and where it came from? Who started this Atheism 100 years ago exactly?

luke jones said...

@Joshua Sinistar

Yes those men were religious, but they were LESS so compared to the average believer of their time. That's part of the reason why they were seen as subversive.

The average person in East Asia doesn't identify with any religion, and they have been that way since at least the 1500's.

"I regard religion itself as quite unnecessary for a nation's life; science is far above superstition, and what is religion – Buddhism or Christianity – but superstition, and therefore a possible source of weakness to a nation? I do not regret the tendency to free thought and atheism, which is almost universal in Japan because I do not regard it as a source of danger to the community" - Prince Ito Hirobumi, four-time Prime Minister of Japan.

"The Far East has a fatalistic view of life. They don't expect to be happy. Seeing how everyone in America and the West are Fucking Obsessed with happiness, its probably a good thing. Life is hard, then you die. Reincarnation can keep bringing you back. Buddhism has no God or Heaven. Nirvana is actually dissolution and "joining the Universe". An end to PAIN. No returning to this veil of tears."

That explains much of the reason why their suicide rates have always been much higher than everyone else.


@Audacious Epigone

Most people in this blog seem to be unaware of the level of debauchery that goes on among low-iq and third world populations (which tend to be highly religious), much higher than the level of any Western nation. Islamic extremist like the Saudis for example tend to be notoriously hedonistic, as are Afganis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
http://azdailysun.com/saudi-princes-hit-discos-casinos-mosque-in-hedonistic-marbella/article_bef83dd7-9c9d-57bc-9d47-2eac0b85d4d4.html

Be contrast, the average Swede or Korean (both mostly atheist) tends to be much more prude by comparison, proving that the level of religiousness is NOT connected to the level of hedonism in a population.

luke jones said...

@Joshua Sinistar

Reckless, hedonistic behavior is MUCH more common among lower-IQ, more religious populations than atheistic, higher-IQ ones. All empirical data supports this.

Also, rates of crime and dysfunction of all kinds are higher in more religious nations than atheist ones.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html
https://newrepublic.com/article/117131/religiosity-social-dysfunction-linked-pew-study

Have you ever noticed how the most advanced and stable of nations are all secular, while the most violent, corrupt, dysgenic and impoverished are all highly religious?

Joshua Sinistar said...

Wow, luke. That's some bad rhetoric you got there. Religion has morality built in. Low IQ is always bad. Your science doesn't seem rational to me. That Darwin Cult seems to ignore that all the apes have been ruled out as direct ancestors to Man by DNA analysis of their mitochondrial DNA. That lack of skepticism is now a function of the fake "rationality" that reminds me of a Cult. Your "secular view" now attacks people for DENIAL. There is no DENIAL in science fool. Skepticism and evidence is how this is done. That Big Bang Theory makes no sense. A ball of matter blowing up with nothing else around would just send the pieces flying outward FOREVER by inertia. It would NEVER coalesce into ANYTHING. The Solid State hypothesis is IMPOSSIBLE due to ENTROPY.
God is hardly an Impossible concept. No energy can be created or destroyed. It must always have existed. I have never seen any system that wasn't designed by someone. "Nature" seems to have NOTHING BUT BALANCED SYSTEMS. God is unfalsifiable. It shouldn't even be DISCUSSED by Real Scientists. However, since energy must have always existed, the idea it has a conscious element is a Philosophical and Metaphysical Possibility. Philosophical Discussions like this are unfalsifiable by evidence and NOT THE PURVIEW or INTEREST of Real Scientists.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Communists and Marxists are Atheists and they murdered over 100 Millions in the 20th Century. I notice that all the most peaceful societies are mostly White with only Far Eastern people as similar in law abiding peaceful attitudes. Seems mostly racial to me. Dark skin and appearance are a marker of aggression even in animals. Biologists have already noticed this. They obviously try not to say it, since the "rational" and "secular" people you admire will fire and persecute them for TELLING THE TRUTH.

luke jones said...

@Joshua Sinistar

I never claimed to be a secularist nor have I said anything about the validity of God, you are putting words in my mouth. Just so you know, this is a HBD blog, where Darwinian science is accepted as obvious fact. Nothing you posted refuted anything I've said.

If religion is necessary for morality, why is immoral behavior of all kinds more common among the religious? The truth is that religion and ideologies don't change behavior, they rationalize it.

luke jones said...

@Joshua Sinistar

Steven Pinker has debunked that claim multiple times. People fail to factor in the world population at the time of the slaughters. 100 million people dying in the 20th century is nothing compared to millions dying from wars in ancient and medieval times.
It wasn't until the late 19th century that the world population reached 1 billion. Religious violence was/is easily far worse per capital than atheist violence.

I'm aware of innate racial differences in behavior, as is everyone else in the HBD-sphere. However even within races/enthic groups, the more religious ones tend to be more dysfunctional and lower-iq.

"God is hardly an Impossible concept. No energy can be created or destroyed. It must always have existed. I have never seen any system that wasn't designed by someone. "Nature" seems to have NOTHING BUT BALANCED SYSTEMS."

One just made the case for atheism lmao. If energy always existed then it was never created, which means there wasn't any God to make it.

You are a textbook example of the dysgenic nature of contemporary religious groups.

Audacious Epigone said...

Krusty,

That resonates deeply with me, as it probably does with a lot of us out here in dissident land.

I assume the lack of fertility or general concern for posterity among atheists relative to theists to be a consequence of nihilism. Being atheist doesn't necessitate being nihilistic--I'm agnostic and filled with a sense of purposefulness--but a lot of them are. It's hard to see how the genuinely pious ever could be, in contrast.

Joshua,

2/10 1:55pm comment is pure gold, thanks.

Luke,

Yes, worth pointing out explicitly that atheism appears to be maladaptive in societies with access to modern contraception. It'd only be my speculation to assert anything prior to it.

Disaggregating religiosity and IQ is tough. The two are inversely correlated, but are life outcomes better for theists with IQs of 130 or atheists with IQs of 130? Conversely, are atheists with IQs of 85 better behaved than theists with IQs of 85?

Joshua Sinistar said...

luke, its sad that people like you claim to be rational. We are MATTER not energy. Matter being created is something we cannot do with our science. Some of your "rational" friends are now saying that the Universe is a Hologram. WTF? That would require a mechanism, but still no belief in designers are to be seen.
You belong to a cult dude. I see NO EVIDENCE for Darwin's claims at all. I see no "Transitional Fossils" between any two creatures in the Whole Fossil Record. Evidence. Data. That is how science is done son.

Steven Pinker may be a best selling author, but he's also a liar and a fraud. This clown claimed that early pioneers in America did not own guns because they didn't leave them in wills. What wills? Are you dumb enough to believe that Pilgrims and Puritans had to have a will in a frontier to leave things to their families? OMG.

luke jones said...

@Audacious Epigone

The higher fertility to the religious nowadays seem to boil down to religious populations displaying more "r-selected" behaviors and being more likely to breed recklessly (see Sub-Saharan Africa of the most obvious case of this). I don't think this has much to do with religiousness itself, I think its just that higher-iq and more contentious populations (which secular groups tend to be compared to religious ones) are more likely to effectively use birth-control and to wait before reproducing.

I also don't necessarily buy that there's any strong link between atheism and depressive nihilism. SouthEast Asians are much more religious than their NorthEast counterparts yet are equally prone to neuroticism and suicide. Hunter-Gatherers are universally highly religious, yet have much higher levels of depression, anxiety and suicide than farmer peoples from the same region (more evidence against the myth of the noble savage lmao).

And yes, even when controlled for iq, religious populations still tend to have somewhat worse life-outcomes than secular ones.

@Tashkent Lutsow

If you define atheism as the non-belief in the existence of supernatural/transcendent beings of any sort then no, Buddhism and Jainism are NOT atheistic. Deva is the Dharmic term for deity, the particular nature of said deities matters little. The only way Buddhist and Jains can be called atheistic is that they don't actually worship or pray to anyone. However, all religious are traditionally polytheistic as they all historically believed in the existence of multiple supernatural/transcendent beings of any kind, like spirits, angels, demons, lesser gods, mythical beings, etc.

Joshua Sinistar said...

luke, you are trying to avoid arguing with me, but your argument sucks to much to let that last comment go unanswered. Japan supposedly has one of the highest IQs in the Whole World. Their demographics look pretty lousy. Their median age is going up way too fast. Their men are playing video games and watching Hentai porn. That stuff is nasty. Its dirtier than real porn with monster gangbangs and oversized penis rapine.
Its all a crisis of Faith. They lost their Mojo with their Shinto. Their women now displace them and their massive debts make it Impossible for Men to get a wife and family. Honoring their ancestors is what Japan is all about. Honor used to be THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. Losing their Shinto made them lose their urge to reproduce. Its bad. That feminist poison makes it worse. The whole of Japan is aging out to extinction.

ITS A CRISIS OF FAITH. NOT LOW IQ.

luke jones said...

@Joshua Sinistar

The Japanese stopped being Shintoist when they converted to Buddhism in 500AD, and they stopped believing in that since the 1500s. Yet Japanese fertility was at its highest ever during the Meiji era, an Atheistic pro-West era.

Feminism has no popularity nor any major influence in East Asia. Its has nothing to do with what's going on in Japan right now. Idiotic beliefs like sex differences are social constructs and the myth of an oppressive patriarchy are absent in that part of the world. People need to stop projecting western politics into everything.

Blaming pornography doesn't make much sense, since many African nations like Nigeria and Ghana make and consume around as make porn as Japan, yet their fertility rates are some of the highest in the world.

Joshua Sinistar said...

luke, are you living in a strange alternate universe? There are Shinto shrines all over Japan Today. Women in Japan work at the same rates as they do here. They had a totally male dominated society before they surrendered in WWII. What do you consider to be feminism?
In black Africa, rape is practically a national sport. I don't think they even get arrested since even the police rape women. The effect of porn on black behavior is almost as negligible as "education".

luke jones said...

@Joshua Sinistar

There are still plenty of Christian churches in Europe as well, that doesn't mean Christianity is still a relevant belief system. Same with Shintoism in Japan
https://www.salon.com/2015/08/17/the_8_most_atheist_friendly_countries_in_the_world/

Women working outside of home has little to do with Feminism, especially in non-Western countries. In fact in most cultures for the majority of human history, most women took jobs to support their families, typically on the same farm as her husband or as an artisan. Being a stay-at-home mother was actually considered a privilege that only the wealthiest of couples could pull off. It was never the norm of the majority of women anywhere.

Joshua Sinistar said...

luke, why do you give opinions on Japan at all? Women working outside the home was not something common in Japan before. Not ever. Women working in the home and having kids was standard just about everywhere before feminism. Japan and the Far East had some of the most male dominated societies in the History of the World.

Tashkent Lutsow said...

Luke Jones:

If Atheism/secularism is so maladaptive then there is no way it could have been selected for over the last 1000 years in both Europe and East Asia according to the research of HBDChick, Gregory Clark and EvolutionistX. Apparently in those regions, Atheist had higher fertility than the religious during the middle ages.

Atheists (I hold that you mean naturalists, not Buddhists) were a minuscule minority in the Middle Ages. How were they able to have that status while being more fecund than the religious people? Where is the evidence they had a higher birth rate? Those three links you put after this paragraph have nothing to do with your claim.

luke jones said...

@Tashkent Lutsow

This should explain much:

https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/has-christianity-selected-for-an-atheistic-upper-class/

A similar process must have happened with Buddhism in East Asia.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Luke, are you actually claiming that atheists have higher IQs? That's so stupid. Christianity doesn't have an Atheist upper class leading it. These are Freemasons that have gone Babylon with Jahbulon. Its all one big club, and you ain't in it. Like George Carlin said before he "mysteriously" died. Yeah there are actually conspiracies. Its not theory or theoretical. When you see W's Daddy talking about the nWo, its not the WCW club with Hulk Hogan, Nash and Hall. Its the Bilderbergers hosted by the Rothschild Family and the Rockefellers who bankroll the RINOs AKA Rockefeller Republicans.

The faux "elite" are members of the Club. Used to be called Freemasonry. Now its branches or tentacles flow freely. Skull and Bones fancies themselves to be buccaneers or something. Buccaneers hear the "call of the sea". They say women are bad luck on boats. If you're a woman you'll have bad luck on boats. Women make men seeking a seamen's life nervous. I spend a lot of time on land. Unless its a yacht party with no tan line Swedish girls. Only Beer Commercials have Swedish girls with bikinis. Pretty sure they ain't Swedish. Citizen Trump is Club of Rome I hear. He's either Dionysus or Bacchus. Bongo Bongo Party Berlusconi is the other one. Depends on which is Greek. Not really sure. Lots of tentacles.
The Illuminati were posers. That dude Johann Adam Weishaupt was a little too impatient. These things take time. He was arrested and executed. Rosicrucians. Witches covens. Satanists. Not that cheap imitation "Church of Satan" started by Anton Levay. He's what they call a disinfo operator. Satanists do not want you to take them seriously. The CIA and FBI set up Levay to be a disinfo operator and recruit fruit loops that were in NO WAY POWERFUL to make Satanism seem harmless.
The Top of the Pyramid is called The Shrine. These are the Party Dudes with those funny hats called fezzes. Those are some fun parties, man. People who make the 33rd Degree of Fremasonry, can be called up to The Shrine. These are the Big Boys. Some people believe there are only 3 degrees. This is the bottom or basic freemasons. In the Inner Circle it goes to 33. The Shrine is said to go to 666. 666 is Number One. Six of One, Half a Dozen of the Other. Its all fuzzy in The Shrine. You hear something and talk, you disappear completely.

People say, its not what you know, its who you know. That's the Truth.

CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH, boy? You will never sleep soundly ever again.

Tashkent Lutsow said...

Luke Jones:

This should explain much:

https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/has-christianity-selected-for-an-atheistic-upper-class/

A similar process must have happened with Buddhism in East Asia


That blog post, which has massive problems of its own but which are neither here nor there for this discussion, doesn't corroborate your claim. Nowhere does it say that atheists had a higher birth rate than religious believers during the Middle ages. Actually, it suggests otherwise when it says that, "religiosity may have increased reproductive success for the lower classes, where it could have inspired family-friendly values like honesty, hard work, fidelity, not being a drunkard, etc. A hard-working, moderately devout young man or woman may have been seen as a better potential spouse by the folks arranging marriages than a non-devout person".

The suggestion that atheists can have a reproductive advantage over religious people is simply ridiculous. Maybe in a highly repressive, controlled, and artificial environment, but when people are left to their own devices, religionists beat irreligionists on any day of the week, and for a good reason. Religion with its notions that distinguish it from other institutions (God, heaven, hell, karma, sin, etc.) motivates people to action in a way that no secular system could accomplish.



luke jones said...

@Tashkent Lutsow

Then explain why atheism has increased these past centuries. In the middle ages, the average European was as religious as your average Arab today. This obviously can't be said about the majority of today's Whites. What you are forgetting is that up until the industrial revolution, the upper classes consistently out-breaded the lower classes in nearly society throughout history. Since people who were simultaneously both high-iq and highly religious were the most likely to join a monastery (and not reproduce) in Medieval Europe and East Asia, the remaining upper classes (who were higher-iq but less religious) ended up having the most surviving children on average from about 500AD to 1700AD. This is why the Enlightenment happened, and all the secular movements it spawned. It is only somewhat recently (since the mid 1800s) that it is now the lower-iq, lower classed and more religious folks that have more children on average.

Audacious Epigone said...

Luke,

The celibate priests theory has some problems being applied more generally, because rabbis have historically been very fecund and yet (ethnic) Jews are among the least religious groups in the world.

Atheists do have tend to have poor mental health, both interracially and interracially (lots of depression in East Asians and Scandinavians, very little in sub-Saharan Africans). That's not necessarily causal, of course.

Joshua Sinistar said...

The priesthood is where the Aristocrats used to dump their strange little boys that might have brought shame to the family. They went to the "Monastery", but as their numbers grew over the years, they took control of the Priesthood and mad up that "celibate" rule to hide their homosexuality.
Celibate just means not married, but since the Roman Church did not approve of sex outside of marriage, its the perfect cover for the homosexuals that took over. This celibacy is not something that was always done. Over time the "Monastery" was overflowing and they seeped into the Church in great enough numbers to take it over.

None of the societal changes lately are accidental. The government has set up a breeding program to breed low IQ easy to manipulate imbeciles to take and seize power. Womens' rights and suffrage was essential to this plan. Women are damn conformist. Their buying a whole new wardrobe based on"Fashion" shows how conformist they are due to being highly irrational and emotional. Low IQ people are similarly easily misled by appealing to base emotions. The lower the IQ, the less resistance to emotional appeals and manipulation.

Due to the Upper Class no longer being selected for ability or skill, but for corruption, it seems the plan is to lower the median IQ by introducing dullards from Third World Countries. This was a BAD IDEA as these fools do not have the ABILITY or IQ to even MAINTAIN WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

Luke has apparently bought into the lies being told by the Media, Academic, Government Apparatniks or MAGA if you prefer. Telling high IQ people that Atheism is a sign of intelligence has obviously LOWERED the procreative urges in these problematic populations that are NOT AS EASY TO CONTROL.

luke jones said...

@Audacious Epigone

1) Judaism itself is relatively secular, here-and-now based religion compared to the other 8 major faiths. Most Jews themselves whether Orthodox of Liberal don't believe in any form of an afterlife (The Old Testament/Torah itself says little-to-nothing about it until the Book of Daniel).

2) Depression, despite popular belief, is NOT a mental disorder (In fact most alleged "disorders" aren't either https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/features-and-bugs/ ) . Its just an emotion. There is nothing actually wrong with the brains of depressed and suicidal people. There is no replicated evidence that either happiness or depression is strongly linked with physical and mental health and fertility. Nature doesn't seem to care if any of its species are happy or not.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-dogs-go-heaven/201801/new-look-animal-suicide
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/C_A_Soper/publication/319403722_Towards_solving_the_evolutionary_puzzle_of_suicide/links/59a838a40f7e9b2790091f4e/Towards-solving-the-evolutionary-puzzle-of-suicide.pdf
http://www.neoeugenics.net/Hate.htm
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-015-9713-y

Speaking of depression, the research of Jayman and Greg Cochran suggest that the further away from the Equator an ethno-racial group's origins are, the higher levels of neuroticism and suicide they tend to have, especially if they're hunter-gatherers. That should explain the racial differences.

Tashkent Lutsow said...

Luke Jones:

Then explain why atheism has increased these past centuries.

Increased, not "has increased". Globally, the number of atheists has been dwindling since the 1970s. As for the rise of irreligion, I can't give you the correct answer as I'm not a sociologist of religion, but according to them secularization is a process that is moved by several factors: urbanization, industrialization, relativism, protestant pietism, and some other. To this, I'd add the emergence of the welfare state, which has stripped religion of some if its functions, and the toxic, anti-religious culture that the Left has unleashed upon the West.

What you are forgetting is that up until the industrial revolution, the upper classes consistently out-breaded the lower classes in nearly society throughout history. Since people who were simultaneously both high-iq and highly religious were the most likely to join a monastery (and not reproduce) in Medieval Europe and East Asia, the remaining upper classes (who were higher-iq but less religious) ended up having the most surviving children on average from about 500AD to 1700AD.

That's what the author of that godawful blog post said, and he admits it's his speculation. Not everyone highly religious becomes a priest. People in general were highly religious back then. Not going for a priesthood isn't an indicator that you don't take your religion seriously. And I want to see some data that "upper class" people (whoever they are) had higher fertility rate than "lower class" people (whoever they are). This is a vague assertion.

Audacious Epigone:

Atheists do have tend to have poor mental health, both interracially and interracially (lots of depression in East Asians and Scandinavians, very little in sub-Saharan Africans). That's not necessarily causal, of course.

It could be causal. Some researchers explain comparatively low levels of depression among religious people by pointing out that they form a strong supporting social network. An atheist, even when he has friends, doesn't have such strong social support group. When you compound this with living in a city, where social bonds are weaker than in rural areas, and not having a spouse, you have a state of relative loneliness that can make people depressed.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Religious people have more chances of having family ties. Friends are fun to have around, but family is more likely to actually support you when you need it. Blood is stronger than ideas or common activities.

"Diversity" is making people miserable. The unsafe feeling of having hostile groups living and roaming freely amongst you. The horrible threat of perpetually angry savages rapine and looting.

The overly emotional attitudes are also a problem. They take the rational thoughts away and make you constantly uneasy. Happiness and mood are nonsense for responsible adults. Moods are now being used to DRUG YOU into submission. The specious claims that your sadness is some sort of "disease". In Truth, you should be sad. Your country and neighborhoods are OVERRUN with Invaders that are harmful alien invaders that DO NOT BELONG THERE AND HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH YOU AND YOURS.

Audacious Epigone said...

Luke,

There is nothing actually wrong with the brains of ... suicidal people.

That doesn't sit right (for obvious reasons).