The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Most Atheists Have No Religious Affiliation But Most of Those with No Affiliation Are Theists
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Mr. Rational notes:

One of the more significant trends of late is the rise of the “nones”, people who aren’t avowedly atheist but have no religious affiliation.

The theistic orientation distribution of those with no religious affiliation among GSS respondents from 2010-2016 for contemporary relevance (subsequent graphs cover the same time period):

Nearly 1-in-4 Americans now report having no religious affiliation and more than 1-in-3 Americans under the age of 30 report the same. And while most atheists and agnostics–72%–have no affiliation, most of those who have no affiliation are theists. Can God live on nomadically in the hearts of those with no home (of worship) to take Him to?

Somewhat relatedly, the meek continue to inherit the earth:

GSS variables used: GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), CHILDS, WORDSUM, RELIG(1-3,5-13)(4)

 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: God, GSS, IQ, Kids, Religion 
Hide 193 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Ha, it brings back the memories about the old discussion with VD about one paper with six studies about trusting atheists 😀 and whether “nones” are “atheists”

  2. Atheists are morons.

    • LOL: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Atheists are morons.
     
    Nah, they do more thinking, just judging by the higher IQ shown at the top of the light-blue bar. What this means is that their doubts come up in response to all things that require faith, a lot more than they do for the folks of the forest-green bar. In ways, it's kind of a curse, as its hard to just relax and let the faith overpower all else.

    Yeah, but some ARE morons, you're right, like the announcers on NPR.
    , @gate666
    they are more intelligent than bible thumping nuts.
    , @advancedatheist
    Atheists in the real world, as opposed to the fantasy atheists as imagined by Christians, have made enormous contributions to civilization:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    The men in this list also show empirically that atheism doesn't lead to "nihilism." They passionately pursued their projects in life, despite their lack of belief in god.

    I suspect that Christians in the 19th Century developed the concept of "nihilism" as the false alternative to their moral theory. Think of nihilism not as an atheist belief, but as a Christian belief about atheism; and notice the difference.
    , @Paul Yarbles
    What do you tell a man who listens to a beautiful symphony being played and cannot hear any music, just random sounds?

    You do not call him a moron. You say he’s tone deaf.
    , @El Dato
    I will not wade into this discussion, little one.
    , @nebulafox
    "You are doing everything to force me to kill you, but I do not slay a barking dog."
    , @MBlanc46
    What an intelligent and insightful comment.
  3. Which happens more – children of firm believers weaken in their convictions over time or children of atheists/agnostics become firm believers?

    • Replies: @Talha

    children of atheists/agnostics become firm believers?
     
    Whoa! They are actually having kids??!!

    Peace.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I suspect in the past, the fundamentalists would drift towards atheism over time. However, recently they realize how depraved the atheistic and material West is. Religion is the way to escape and find meaning in life. It helps that the only people who still practice religion are conservative/orthodox. In Islam, the liberals are still peeling off. Christianity and Judaism now have that solid conservative base.

    From observation, religious people in the 18-24 age group (Christian, Muslim, Jew) have excellent mental health, relative to the majority atheists, who are almost universally depressed and nihilistic. I think we'll see more and more people drift into religion over time.

    It's why I have always said, Christians need to get off their ass and start recruiting, because there is a huge market, the poor atheists just don't realize it yet.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    The former.

    The question yet to be answered: Will the genetic predisposition for religiosity outrun the cultural retreat from religion? For as long as we've had data, the pious have outbred the irreligious, yet the West becomes less and less religious with each passing generation.
  4. Can God live on nomadically in the hearts of those with no home (of worship) to take Him to?

    Sure he can. Listen, I’d read Mr. Rational’s comment back on the last thread. As far as leaving the church due to their being TOO fundamentalist, well, I don’t doubt Mr. Rational’s personal reason for drifting (though “bookburning”? Literally? – as the kids say).

    However, I think its very much more likely that the people and families that left churches of the many demominations you had listed in that last post left for pretty much the opposite reasons: Their church was likely putting up rainbow flags, or that “We welcome everyone”* yard sign (the one in English, Spanish, and Arabic), or promoting feminism and tolerance for genderbending nonsense, or sponsoring immigrants from Somalia with their tithings.

    I don’t think that big mustard-colored sector of the pie chart should even be labelled “Uncertain Believers”, but more like “Believers who are sick and tired of the bullshit going on in modern organized religion” OK, A.E., that won’t fit on that 165-deg mustard sector, so how about “Unorganized Believers”?

    .

    * BTW, it isn’t that almost all church members wouldn’t welcome members from all over the world. Those signs however, are an insidious thing, made right after Trump’s election to really say “we welcome anyone who makes it into our country”.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Sure he can. Listen, I’d read Mr. Rational’s comment back on the last thread. As far as leaving the church due to their being TOO fundamentalist, well, I don’t doubt Mr. Rational’s personal reason for drifting (though “bookburning”? Literally? – as the kids say).

    However, I think its very much more likely that the people and families that left churches of the many demominations you had listed in that last post left for pretty much the opposite reasons: Their church was likely putting up rainbow flags, or that “We welcome everyone”* yard sign (the one in English, Spanish, and Arabic), or promoting feminism and tolerance for genderbending nonsense, or sponsoring immigrants from Somalia with their tithings.
     
    I don't care for either of those extremes, and of course I'm a homeless Christian as a result.
    , @Mr. Rational

    (though “bookburning”? Literally? – as the kids say).
     
    Yes, literally.  We were played a lecture by some guy who said that things like antique books on yoga should be burned.  Not kept as unique artifacts, not set aside for study by advanced religious students—burned.  As if they had some Satanic power to reach out and steal souls.

    I know that the USA has its own Taliban-in-waiting, because I grew up knowing people who'd have blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas if they'd only been in the right place to do it.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Heh, well it's taken from three potential responses--"some higher power", "believe sometimes", and "believe but doubts"--while firm believer is "know God exists".
  5. Yeah, and this was a good chart description!

    Somewhat relatedly, the meek continue to inherit the earth:

  6. @LondonBob
    Atheists are morons.

    Atheists are morons.

    Nah, they do more thinking, just judging by the higher IQ shown at the top of the light-blue bar. What this means is that their doubts come up in response to all things that require faith, a lot more than they do for the folks of the forest-green bar. In ways, it’s kind of a curse, as its hard to just relax and let the faith overpower all else.

    Yeah, but some ARE morons, you’re right, like the announcers on NPR.

  7. @Jason Roberts
    Which happens more - children of firm believers weaken in their convictions over time or children of atheists/agnostics become firm believers?

    children of atheists/agnostics become firm believers?

    Whoa! They are actually having kids??!!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @szopen
    Two kids here. I wanted to have three kids, but my wife, who is ardent Catholic, wanted only two.
  8. Evil globalizer donors in the GOP such as Shelly Adelson and the Koch Boys are deliberately buying policies from corrupt GOP politicians that make it harder for young Whites to enjoy AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION.

    Horrible rats such as Shelly Adelson and the Koch Boys are the ones destroying the ability of young Whites to have big families.

    Shelly Adelson and the Koch Boys push mass legal immigration.

    Mass legal immigration increases housing costs, lowers wages, swamps schools, increases income inequality, overwhelms hospitals, harms the environment and prevents young Whites from enjoying AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION.

    The new White Core American Patriot ruling class will allow both religion and spiritual life to flourish alongside the necessary availability of material goods required to create the atmosphere where young White Core Americans can have big families.

  9. @Talha

    children of atheists/agnostics become firm believers?
     
    Whoa! They are actually having kids??!!

    Peace.

    Two kids here. I wanted to have three kids, but my wife, who is ardent Catholic, wanted only two.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Interesting...and congrats! May God grant them long lives with health and safety.

    Now, among your atheist/agnostic friends, are you an outlier or do most of them also have 2 or 3 kids?

    Because, from my experience with co-workers, that is not common. Many of them who are agnostic/atheist or even not particularly religious seem to have one or no kids - assuming they are married of course.

    But I would imagine that you would have a bigger sample pool among your circles to gauge this from since I hang around mostly with Muslims in my spare time.

    Peace.
    , @Bill
    Uh, if she's ardent, then she knows she owes you the marriage debt and that she may not contracept. How did she limit you to two? By gaining a lot of weight and not bathing?
  10. @LondonBob
    Atheists are morons.

    they are more intelligent than bible thumping nuts.

  11. Here’s the thing about atheists: Their beliefs about divinity are as firmly faith based as the most annoying & proselytizing zealot.

    They believe in no higher power, but they believe. They don’t like being told this. They go through great lengths to conceal their faith based beliefs. They talk about the big bang likes it’s proven fact. But the fact is they cannot prove “God” doesn’t exist, or disprove that he does. Observe:

    dictionary.com:

    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    wikipedoia:

    Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

    /

    Notice the syntax: “denies or disbelieves; absence of belief;” Are definitions of words typically provided with this kind of negative verbing?

    FD – raised RC, not practicing. I consider myself agnostic. Something created the reality in which we exist. I doubt it bears any resemblance to the God spoken of in ancient works of fiction.

    • Replies: @szopen
    Well, I am also a-fairist. Meaning I do not believe in fairies. I guess it really means in fact I believe in non-existence of fairies, which is exactly the same as belief in fairies.

    Usually I do not write in such a tone but I am really iritated by this sanctimonious argument. Ha! You claim you don't believe in God, but in fact you believe in his non-existance!
    , @advancedatheist
    Atheism takes on different implicit meanings in different contexts. I compare the argumentative atheists you find online to radical vegans. Vegans don't just not do something as a matter of personal conviction, namely, they don't use animal products, and then leave it at that. The firebrands among them also criticize everyone else who holds different opinions and engages in different practices regarding the uses of animals; these vegans have an agenda for transforming a fundamental part of our way of life.

    So in practice the analogous sort of atheism doesn't refer to some mysterious void in the universe where you can't find a god - the "absence of belief" definition. It really refers to an agenda for criticizing and discrediting religious beliefs with the goal of replacing these beliefs with something else.
    , @Mr. Rational

    They believe in no higher power, but they believe.
     
    Maybe some do, but most have given up on belief in the BS they've been fed from childhood.

    They don’t like being told this.
     
    The BS-fatigued don't like more BS, true.  Shove more of the same at them and they often get angry and tell you to F the hell off.

    They go through great lengths to conceal their faith based beliefs.
     
    Rejection of faith is not faith, nitwit.

    They talk about the big bang likes it’s proven fact.
     
    What part of "cosmic background radiation" don't you understand?  Without the Big Bang it could not exist, but the Big Bang requires it to exist.  It exists, therefore the Big Bang is true, QED.  Now FTHO.

    But the fact is they cannot prove “God” doesn’t exist, or disprove that he does.
     
    The only way one can prove a negative is by showing that it leads to a contradiction.  You can assert that your "God" exists but that assertion is empty without positive and unambiguous evidence.  That evidence is lacking, and I'm fucking sick of your demands that your evidence-free assertions make you fit to run my life.  GTFO.
    , @MBlanc46
    Mike: Are you a theist or an atheist regarding Krishna? Regarding Zeus? Regarding Baal? Regarding Ku or Lono?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I'm pithier still--by definition we cannot expect to accurately detect the supernatural by natural means. Because we do not possess supernatural means, only natural ones, we are unable to definitively prove or disprove any claims about the supernatural.

    I consider myself an agnostic, naturally.
  12. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Here's the thing about atheists: Their beliefs about divinity are as firmly faith based as the most annoying & proselytizing zealot.

    They believe in no higher power, but they believe. They don't like being told this. They go through great lengths to conceal their faith based beliefs. They talk about the big bang likes it's proven fact. But the fact is they cannot prove "God" doesn't exist, or disprove that he does. Observe:

    dictionary.com:

    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    wikipedoia:

    Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

    /

    Notice the syntax: "denies or disbelieves; absence of belief;" Are definitions of words typically provided with this kind of negative verbing?

    FD - raised RC, not practicing. I consider myself agnostic. Something created the reality in which we exist. I doubt it bears any resemblance to the God spoken of in ancient works of fiction.

    Well, I am also a-fairist. Meaning I do not believe in fairies. I guess it really means in fact I believe in non-existence of fairies, which is exactly the same as belief in fairies.

    Usually I do not write in such a tone but I am really iritated by this sanctimonious argument. Ha! You claim you don’t believe in God, but in fact you believe in his non-existance!

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    (This is not a criticism of the post it replies to, more a general comment on practical epistemology.)
    It is amazing how little is known, and how much has to be simply assumed.

    The entire scientific method requires a belief in reality and in a reality that is, in some sense, unchanging and that can be described by mathematics. The majority of the people in the world, both through time (human history) and space (the world right now) don't believe this. The Left most definitely does not believe this [1].

    For every basic question in philosophy, there are living adherents, many of them, that take both sides. Usually such quesitons are solved by force, both historically and in the present. Enlightenment thought was, actually, adopted as an expedient after the 30 year's war (Treaty of Westphalia, AD 1658) in an attempt by the exhausted survivorss prevent a ruinous pan-European war from re-starting [1]. Enlightenment thought wasn't all that productive in science and engneering until Newton (AD 1700s), although Galileo (AD 1500) had made the crucial connection between physics and reality. That science and mantematics have proven so very productive was a surprise byproduct of Enlightenment thought, not a reason for adopting it.

    So be careful about statements concerning God, or for that matter about blowing off anti-realists. Right now the Enlightenment finds itself in a philosophical war with the Postmodernist Left [4], and a religios war with Islam [3]. Unfortunately, the Enlightenment (yes, you, the reader) doesn't believe in the importance of philosophy or that of religion, and is losing both wars because it can't admit that the wars are being fought. The Enlightenment is discoveing that losing wars (also known as "being massacred") isn't a lot of fun.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] In that sense, Enlightenment thought is not a lot different from the rejection of the very old Right of Conquest as a legitimate claim to territorial control after the WW I / WW II conflicts.

    2] Stephen Hicks.
    _Explaining postmodernism_.

    3] Samuel P. Huntington.
    _The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order_
  13. @szopen
    Two kids here. I wanted to have three kids, but my wife, who is ardent Catholic, wanted only two.

    Interesting…and congrats! May God grant them long lives with health and safety.

    Now, among your atheist/agnostic friends, are you an outlier or do most of them also have 2 or 3 kids?

    Because, from my experience with co-workers, that is not common. Many of them who are agnostic/atheist or even not particularly religious seem to have one or no kids – assuming they are married of course.

    But I would imagine that you would have a bigger sample pool among your circles to gauge this from since I hang around mostly with Muslims in my spare time.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I hang around mostly with Muslims in my spare time
     
    What would you estimate the fertility rate of your Muslim acquaintances vs that of your white ones?


    For my family (aunts uncles parents etc) (my friend group fertility is zero since we're still in school), I calculated the TFR to be 1.33. Shockingly, this low number came out even as the majority of my family has children! 2 children per family really isn't enough for replacement, we require 3+.

    For my white friends, the desired fertility would be around 1.8 I estimated. Only one guy *never* wants kids - the others seem to not have put much thought into it, but they're not against the idea. So I expect a fertility of around 1.3 for my close friends going forward in the future.

    Not looking good. White people must have more children, period. Only myself and a Jew friend seem to have any concept of conservatism, family values and having children for the future. Wake up!

  14. Highly recommended video by Edward Dutton (religious anthropologist):

    Peace.

  15. Is there any data on the number of kids vs IQ. I wonder if the more prolific groups have an inverse relation to IQ due to the parents being otherwise occupied away from educational/intellectual endeavors.

    It would be interesting to see same demographic comparisons between groups (the IQ of childless mature white adult male atheist vs theist, etc, then with groups having one kid, two kids, etc.) to see if the higher IQ in groups is more related to available time vs other factors.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Interesting. Done plenty by IQ, but not sure about theistic orientation and IQ. Worth a look. Thanks.
  16. I’d expect agnostics to be smarter than atheists. While I understand arguments that prefer atheism to theism, I haven’t seen any that are sound and secure atheism above “I don’t know”.

    • Replies: @szopen
    Theoretically yes, but personally for me it's a matter of taste. Agnosticism seems like intellectual cowardice. In fact, I have no real logical reason to believe anyone of you here exist. But saying "I am agnostic whether I'm talking to myself or to Tyrion 2" seems to me unsatisfiable.
    , @RVBlake
    Agnosticism and atheism are different frames of reference...Agnostics profess lack of knowledge of God's existence, atheists asserts lack of belief. Agnostics are usually atheist (unknowing and not believing) or theist (unknowing but believing).
    , @Stan d Mute

    I haven’t seen any that are sound and secure atheism above “I don’t know”.
     
    Yes and no. One can logically prove that JewGod doesn’t exist. That part is laughably easy. But something caused the Universe to happen and it’s unlikely any of us will ever know what that was. Even if the bright boys at CERN manage to recreate the Big Bang, we will all vanish in an instant and the whole thing begin anew without answering our questions. Billions of years hence other sentient (but not quite sentient enough) creatures may repeat and then it’s just Big Bangs all the way down.

    For me, it’s irrelevant. All that matters is my family, my tribe, and my habitat, just like any other mammal. And I don’t care if you believe in Sky Fairies or Easter Bunnies, Holocausts or Exodus’s, it’s only when your irrational beliefs adversely effect my interests that I see a big problem. Worship your toenail clippings for all I care, just don’t import alien sub-species into my habitat and force my family and tribe to deal with the consequences of your delusions. Don’t breed dysgenic freaks and demand I subsidize them.
    , @MBlanc46
    That rather depends on your epistemology.
    , @Kratoklastes
    Agnosticism is gutless - because taken to its logical extension, an agnostic must be agnostic not jsut with respect to the deity associated with the locally-dominant religion, but must be agnostic with respect to all untestable truth claims in order to be consistent.

    So if I say that my cat tells me I am infallible, it does not suffice for an agnostic to assert that there's no evidence for cats talking, or for infallible humans... because of that "logic for retards" claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    'Scientific' Atheists (for want of abetter word) take the 'absence of evidence' trope and incorporate it into a broader methodology:

    • absence of evidence, plus
    • evidence that contradicts the 'default' hypothesis; plus
    • evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis...

    is evidence of absence of an anthropomorphised god.

    .

    Observation of the heavens tells us that another galaxy will, inttime, collide with our own; by that time Earth will be uninhabitable, our sun having already gone supernova.

    So if the stupid primitive nonsense is to be believed, Yahweh will have run a 25-billion year experiment (14billion up till now, and another ~10 before our sun is fucked).

    For the first 13.998 billion years, Yahweh just fucked around - then he tweaked things to result in modern humans, a mere 13.9996 billion years (i.e., ~400k years ago).

    Then he waited another 397,000 years before he kinda revealed his requirements to a bunch of pre-literate tribespeople in a sandy shithole.

    Then 2000 years ago, he put on a meat-suit and had a wander around the aforementioned sandy shithole, talking in riddles to a slightly-different bunch of illiterate primitives. Then he had himself tortured to death to save humans from his wrath (WTF?).

    Is that consistent with an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent deity? Nope... Epicurus put the arrow through that in ~300BCE.

    Is is consistent with "a bunch of shit made up by pre-scientific illiterates"? Yep.


    Here's the thing: if god was anything like what he's claimed to be, the universe would not be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% (by mass) lethally hostile to human life... and everything would be solar-powered (to minimise suffering)

  17. @Talha
    Interesting...and congrats! May God grant them long lives with health and safety.

    Now, among your atheist/agnostic friends, are you an outlier or do most of them also have 2 or 3 kids?

    Because, from my experience with co-workers, that is not common. Many of them who are agnostic/atheist or even not particularly religious seem to have one or no kids - assuming they are married of course.

    But I would imagine that you would have a bigger sample pool among your circles to gauge this from since I hang around mostly with Muslims in my spare time.

    Peace.

    I hang around mostly with Muslims in my spare time

    What would you estimate the fertility rate of your Muslim acquaintances vs that of your white ones?

    For my family (aunts uncles parents etc) (my friend group fertility is zero since we’re still in school), I calculated the TFR to be 1.33. Shockingly, this low number came out even as the majority of my family has children! 2 children per family really isn’t enough for replacement, we require 3+.

    For my white friends, the desired fertility would be around 1.8 I estimated. Only one guy *never* wants kids – the others seem to not have put much thought into it, but they’re not against the idea. So I expect a fertility of around 1.3 for my close friends going forward in the future.

    Not looking good. White people must have more children, period. Only myself and a Jew friend seem to have any concept of conservatism, family values and having children for the future. Wake up!

    • Replies: @Talha

    What would you estimate the fertility rate of your Muslim acquaintances vs that of your white ones?
     
    Massive. But this is a loaded question. I also know many White converts (maybe I am more exposed to White converts than a normal Muslim in my circles because my wife is a White convert) and I cannot think of one that doesn't have 3 to 4 kids unless they converted fairly late in life.

    To give you an example that hits home - my wife and her sister (also a convert) have more kids between them than all the rest of her non-Muslim first cousins and siblings combined - if you toss in extended cousins, then they win by one or two kids. Her non-Muslim side (Swedish if that helps) will be cut in half (at least) within the next generation.

    As far as born-Muslims, around my crew, four kids are normal unless someone has some kind of a fertility problem (we know a few couples that only have one or two due to this). Interestingly, the most fecund around our particular community are the Bosnians.

    Not looking good. White people must have more children, period.
     
    Agreed. For the love of God, please have more children! You do not (hell, I do not) want Pakistanis and Algerians and Colombians or whoever taking over these places via demographics - there is a reason we came here!!! Hint: it wasn't because we were super-happy with how stuff was being run over there...

    Wake up!
     
    Indeed. The tragedy of the West often times seems to me like a man who spent his whole life building up a great business and devoting his time and energy to perfecting it...but, in the mean time, forgot to have kids since he was so busy - so the idiot son of his neighbor simply took it over by default. The future belongs to those that bother to show up...

    Peace.
    , @Talha
    It must be stated, if my co-workers could pass on their genes via the pets they own - they would definitely be giving much more competition.

    Peace.
  18. @Jason Roberts
    Which happens more - children of firm believers weaken in their convictions over time or children of atheists/agnostics become firm believers?

    I suspect in the past, the fundamentalists would drift towards atheism over time. However, recently they realize how depraved the atheistic and material West is. Religion is the way to escape and find meaning in life. It helps that the only people who still practice religion are conservative/orthodox. In Islam, the liberals are still peeling off. Christianity and Judaism now have that solid conservative base.

    From observation, religious people in the 18-24 age group (Christian, Muslim, Jew) have excellent mental health, relative to the majority atheists, who are almost universally depressed and nihilistic. I think we’ll see more and more people drift into religion over time.

    It’s why I have always said, Christians need to get off their ass and start recruiting, because there is a huge market, the poor atheists just don’t realize it yet.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    You’re right there is a huge market. But you’ve got to gave a product that actually satisfies the consumer’s needs.
  19. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I hang around mostly with Muslims in my spare time
     
    What would you estimate the fertility rate of your Muslim acquaintances vs that of your white ones?


    For my family (aunts uncles parents etc) (my friend group fertility is zero since we're still in school), I calculated the TFR to be 1.33. Shockingly, this low number came out even as the majority of my family has children! 2 children per family really isn't enough for replacement, we require 3+.

    For my white friends, the desired fertility would be around 1.8 I estimated. Only one guy *never* wants kids - the others seem to not have put much thought into it, but they're not against the idea. So I expect a fertility of around 1.3 for my close friends going forward in the future.

    Not looking good. White people must have more children, period. Only myself and a Jew friend seem to have any concept of conservatism, family values and having children for the future. Wake up!

    What would you estimate the fertility rate of your Muslim acquaintances vs that of your white ones?

    Massive. But this is a loaded question. I also know many White converts (maybe I am more exposed to White converts than a normal Muslim in my circles because my wife is a White convert) and I cannot think of one that doesn’t have 3 to 4 kids unless they converted fairly late in life.

    To give you an example that hits home – my wife and her sister (also a convert) have more kids between them than all the rest of her non-Muslim first cousins and siblings combined – if you toss in extended cousins, then they win by one or two kids. Her non-Muslim side (Swedish if that helps) will be cut in half (at least) within the next generation.

    As far as born-Muslims, around my crew, four kids are normal unless someone has some kind of a fertility problem (we know a few couples that only have one or two due to this). Interestingly, the most fecund around our particular community are the Bosnians.

    Not looking good. White people must have more children, period.

    Agreed. For the love of God, please have more children! You do not (hell, I do not) want Pakistanis and Algerians and Colombians or whoever taking over these places via demographics – there is a reason we came here!!! Hint: it wasn’t because we were super-happy with how stuff was being run over there…

    Wake up!

    Indeed. The tragedy of the West often times seems to me like a man who spent his whole life building up a great business and devoting his time and energy to perfecting it…but, in the mean time, forgot to have kids since he was so busy – so the idiot son of his neighbor simply took it over by default. The future belongs to those that bother to show up…

    Peace.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I cannot think of one that doesn’t have 3 to 4 kids
     
    Yikes. Talk about a blackpill.

    I was doing some math today. Let's say there's 2 closed groups of 1 million people. Group 1 has a TFR or 1.5. Group 2 has a TFR of 3.5 (this case is your Muslim group).

    Population after 2 generations:
    Group 1: 509,000
    Group 2: 2,780,000

    USA white fertility has traditionally been only slightly below replacement. Since 2009, it has cratered to 1.67 (others are falling as well). Still, this is a good demonstration of the phrase "Demographics are destiny".

    We're at a unique crossroads as white people. White people can only "forget" to have babies living in a liberal white environment. As the areas get less white, it's not even possible to live the lifestyles of low fertility and hookups anymore. Social conservatism will be on the rebound. Becky can't go be a slut in a neighborhood that's only 30% white, unless she wants to get raped, for instance.

    The only race with worse demographics is Chinese and east asian people. Go to Toronto - for every young asian you see at least 10 old ones.
    , @Mr. Rational

    You do not (hell, I do not) want Pakistanis and Algerians and Colombians or whoever taking over these places via demographics – there is a reason we came here!!! Hint: it wasn’t because we were super-happy with how stuff was being run over there…
     
    You invade a nice place with your religion which is responsible in large part for your former home being a lousy place to live, and then you plead with the natives who built your new home to help keep it nice.  Meanwhile you're spreading your nasty religion and driving up housing and schooling costs for those same natives (e.g. taking over their schools and making them hostile to their own children), forcing them to make extreme sacrifices that they should never have had to make in order to do that.

    Insight fail.
    , @Counterinsurgency
    In the Western Enlightenment society, women decide maximum family size. This is the case in several other societies as well, perhaps most, maybe even all societies.

    The standard limiting consideration is workload on the woman. Given complete exhaustion, pregnancy rate is considerably reduced. Not to zero, mind you, or Malthusian societies wouldn't exist [1].

    Another consideration is, of course, hostility of environment.
    Women are also perfectly capable of abandoning children they can't keep alive, but they really don't like to do it. It seriously bothers them. In a hostile environment, women will have fewer children. In the West, women are threatened with complete loss of social status and social isolation if they have children. That's a hostile environment for having families, in the same way that Repressive Tolerance is a police state that encourages mental illness.

    Islam is sort of insulated from Western politics on the family level. If that insulation vanishes (assimilation, say) you'll find that the West is sort of like a Roach Motel.

    Counterinsurgency


    1] Malthusian society: population is limited by the degree of debilitation that produces sickness and death (or actual starvation, but that's ordinarily uncommon as compared to sickness). Contemporary Malthusian societies (e.g. Japan, where mental illness (hikikomori) is the disease, or Egypt, where death is from is actual malnutrition and disease) are ordinarily the result of some past lunatic attempt to increase population so as to have more expendable crunches for the next war (PRC, China) or the next election, or a side effect of Western medical treatment and sanitation that permits immunity to infection at a surprisingly small caloric intake.
  20. +1 here

    So much screaming in the replies, but Mr. Hume has at least tried to insist that morally shaming a non-white is permissible.

    That said, this was a bad take. White male conservatives attacking anyone except a fellow white gentile straight male is “punching down”. Leave the assimilation argument to a Hispanic conservative, and watch them get roasted as a coconut. The Intersectional System takes no prisoners.

    Also, to any browns reading, you have not assimilated until you mirror the voting patterns of whites.

    Don’t like my criticism, start voting GOP and shaming your friends/relatives into it.

    • Replies: @216
    Second thought:

    Brokaw perfectly teed up a DR3 moment.
  21. @Tyrion 2
    I'd expect agnostics to be smarter than atheists. While I understand arguments that prefer atheism to theism, I haven't seen any that are sound and secure atheism above "I don't know".

    Theoretically yes, but personally for me it’s a matter of taste. Agnosticism seems like intellectual cowardice. In fact, I have no real logical reason to believe anyone of you here exist. But saying “I am agnostic whether I’m talking to myself or to Tyrion 2” seems to me unsatisfiable.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I have no real logical reason to believe anyone of you here exist.
     
    I do, and it's pretty simple:  even if I was creative enough, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go around creating a bunch of imaginary correspondents to entertain myself.  Thus founders the ship of solipsism upon the shoal of logic.
  22. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I hang around mostly with Muslims in my spare time
     
    What would you estimate the fertility rate of your Muslim acquaintances vs that of your white ones?


    For my family (aunts uncles parents etc) (my friend group fertility is zero since we're still in school), I calculated the TFR to be 1.33. Shockingly, this low number came out even as the majority of my family has children! 2 children per family really isn't enough for replacement, we require 3+.

    For my white friends, the desired fertility would be around 1.8 I estimated. Only one guy *never* wants kids - the others seem to not have put much thought into it, but they're not against the idea. So I expect a fertility of around 1.3 for my close friends going forward in the future.

    Not looking good. White people must have more children, period. Only myself and a Jew friend seem to have any concept of conservatism, family values and having children for the future. Wake up!

    It must be stated, if my co-workers could pass on their genes via the pets they own – they would definitely be giving much more competition.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Disgusting. The one thing I can't stand about liberal and moderate white people is their love for pets above love for babies.

    I do like dogs myself. I would like a big, intelligent dog, maybe a retriever *to complement* my theoretical family. Man's best friend, after all.

    But the "dog moms" are mentally deranged - they should seek psychological help. At the end of the day, the pets and wiener dogs and useless little kittens are masking something: the lack of purpose and love in their meaningless lives.
  23. @LondonBob
    Atheists are morons.

    Atheists in the real world, as opposed to the fantasy atheists as imagined by Christians, have made enormous contributions to civilization:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    The men in this list also show empirically that atheism doesn’t lead to “nihilism.” They passionately pursued their projects in life, despite their lack of belief in god.

    I suspect that Christians in the 19th Century developed the concept of “nihilism” as the false alternative to their moral theory. Think of nihilism not as an atheist belief, but as a Christian belief about atheism; and notice the difference.

    • Agree: RVBlake, Mr. Rational
  24. @Talha

    What would you estimate the fertility rate of your Muslim acquaintances vs that of your white ones?
     
    Massive. But this is a loaded question. I also know many White converts (maybe I am more exposed to White converts than a normal Muslim in my circles because my wife is a White convert) and I cannot think of one that doesn't have 3 to 4 kids unless they converted fairly late in life.

    To give you an example that hits home - my wife and her sister (also a convert) have more kids between them than all the rest of her non-Muslim first cousins and siblings combined - if you toss in extended cousins, then they win by one or two kids. Her non-Muslim side (Swedish if that helps) will be cut in half (at least) within the next generation.

    As far as born-Muslims, around my crew, four kids are normal unless someone has some kind of a fertility problem (we know a few couples that only have one or two due to this). Interestingly, the most fecund around our particular community are the Bosnians.

    Not looking good. White people must have more children, period.
     
    Agreed. For the love of God, please have more children! You do not (hell, I do not) want Pakistanis and Algerians and Colombians or whoever taking over these places via demographics - there is a reason we came here!!! Hint: it wasn't because we were super-happy with how stuff was being run over there...

    Wake up!
     
    Indeed. The tragedy of the West often times seems to me like a man who spent his whole life building up a great business and devoting his time and energy to perfecting it...but, in the mean time, forgot to have kids since he was so busy - so the idiot son of his neighbor simply took it over by default. The future belongs to those that bother to show up...

    Peace.

    I cannot think of one that doesn’t have 3 to 4 kids

    Yikes. Talk about a blackpill.

    I was doing some math today. Let’s say there’s 2 closed groups of 1 million people. Group 1 has a TFR or 1.5. Group 2 has a TFR of 3.5 (this case is your Muslim group).

    Population after 2 generations:
    Group 1: 509,000
    Group 2: 2,780,000

    USA white fertility has traditionally been only slightly below replacement. Since 2009, it has cratered to 1.67 (others are falling as well). Still, this is a good demonstration of the phrase “Demographics are destiny”.

    We’re at a unique crossroads as white people. White people can only “forget” to have babies living in a liberal white environment. As the areas get less white, it’s not even possible to live the lifestyles of low fertility and hookups anymore. Social conservatism will be on the rebound. Becky can’t go be a slut in a neighborhood that’s only 30% white, unless she wants to get raped, for instance.

    The only race with worse demographics is Chinese and east asian people. Go to Toronto – for every young asian you see at least 10 old ones.

    • Replies: @Talha

    “Demographics are destiny”
     
    Sure thing.

    Social conservatism will be on the rebound.
     
    I think so as well because of the points you made. Keep in mind, "White" is not mutually exclusive from "Muslim". The 3-4 numbers I was giving was for White converts and, as I mentioned, the Bosnians that I know have 4-5.

    Likewise, people ditch Islam also, but the ones that do tend to have horrible reproductive numbers, like homeboy here:
    https://twitter.com/ArminNavabi/status/1039269701648441344

    The only race with worse demographics is Chinese and east asian people.
     
    Yes - among my co-workers, these have the least kids when taken as a whole.

    One thing to keep in mind - people that are concerned about the looming Hindu Indian takeover - their demographics are also not stellar. One of the IT managers I know from an elite/educated Indian immigrant background said that he is one of the rare ones among his many friends that has 2 kids - the rest only have one.

    Peace.
  25. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Here's the thing about atheists: Their beliefs about divinity are as firmly faith based as the most annoying & proselytizing zealot.

    They believe in no higher power, but they believe. They don't like being told this. They go through great lengths to conceal their faith based beliefs. They talk about the big bang likes it's proven fact. But the fact is they cannot prove "God" doesn't exist, or disprove that he does. Observe:

    dictionary.com:

    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    wikipedoia:

    Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

    /

    Notice the syntax: "denies or disbelieves; absence of belief;" Are definitions of words typically provided with this kind of negative verbing?

    FD - raised RC, not practicing. I consider myself agnostic. Something created the reality in which we exist. I doubt it bears any resemblance to the God spoken of in ancient works of fiction.

    Atheism takes on different implicit meanings in different contexts. I compare the argumentative atheists you find online to radical vegans. Vegans don’t just not do something as a matter of personal conviction, namely, they don’t use animal products, and then leave it at that. The firebrands among them also criticize everyone else who holds different opinions and engages in different practices regarding the uses of animals; these vegans have an agenda for transforming a fundamental part of our way of life.

    So in practice the analogous sort of atheism doesn’t refer to some mysterious void in the universe where you can’t find a god – the “absence of belief” definition. It really refers to an agenda for criticizing and discrediting religious beliefs with the goal of replacing these beliefs with something else.

    • Replies: @RVBlake
    Many online atheists whose comments I've read on the web have a distinctly unpleasant, strident Leftist quality. They're arrogantly cocksure to a man, and gleefully abusive of theists.
    , @MBlanc46
    Indeed. There’s atheism as a reasoned conclusion from evidence (or lack thereof) and there’s atheism as religion.
  26. @Talha
    It must be stated, if my co-workers could pass on their genes via the pets they own - they would definitely be giving much more competition.

    Peace.

    Disgusting. The one thing I can’t stand about liberal and moderate white people is their love for pets above love for babies.

    I do like dogs myself. I would like a big, intelligent dog, maybe a retriever *to complement* my theoretical family. Man’s best friend, after all.

    But the “dog moms” are mentally deranged – they should seek psychological help. At the end of the day, the pets and wiener dogs and useless little kittens are masking something: the lack of purpose and love in their meaningless lives.

    • Replies: @Talha
    We have four kids (mashaAllah) and two cats. You can easily use pets to compliment (as you said).

    One of my wife's sisters (non-Muslim one) is a very tragic case. She wanted to have kids, but she was dating (for ten years) and eventually married a guy (also White) that didn't want any kids. Any way, the guy cheated on her within two years and ran off with some other chick. Then she kept trying to find a guy, but this was difficult because she is a highly educated woman so the few guys she was finding would have been "marrying down" so these didn't work out since she didn't find anyone that was a reliable partner. Then she got cancer and eventually beat it after 2 years, but now she is nearing 45 and the process for her to beat cancer basically has wrecked her chances to have kids. Really sad, because she is such a nice lady - a great aunt to all her nieces and nephews for sure.

    “dog moms”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q60wHn1-rgE

    Peace.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The one thing I can’t stand about liberal and moderate white people is their love for pets above love for babies."

    Agreed.
  27. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I cannot think of one that doesn’t have 3 to 4 kids
     
    Yikes. Talk about a blackpill.

    I was doing some math today. Let's say there's 2 closed groups of 1 million people. Group 1 has a TFR or 1.5. Group 2 has a TFR of 3.5 (this case is your Muslim group).

    Population after 2 generations:
    Group 1: 509,000
    Group 2: 2,780,000

    USA white fertility has traditionally been only slightly below replacement. Since 2009, it has cratered to 1.67 (others are falling as well). Still, this is a good demonstration of the phrase "Demographics are destiny".

    We're at a unique crossroads as white people. White people can only "forget" to have babies living in a liberal white environment. As the areas get less white, it's not even possible to live the lifestyles of low fertility and hookups anymore. Social conservatism will be on the rebound. Becky can't go be a slut in a neighborhood that's only 30% white, unless she wants to get raped, for instance.

    The only race with worse demographics is Chinese and east asian people. Go to Toronto - for every young asian you see at least 10 old ones.

    “Demographics are destiny”

    Sure thing.

    Social conservatism will be on the rebound.

    I think so as well because of the points you made. Keep in mind, “White” is not mutually exclusive from “Muslim”. The 3-4 numbers I was giving was for White converts and, as I mentioned, the Bosnians that I know have 4-5.

    Likewise, people ditch Islam also, but the ones that do tend to have horrible reproductive numbers, like homeboy here:

    The only race with worse demographics is Chinese and east asian people.

    Yes – among my co-workers, these have the least kids when taken as a whole.

    One thing to keep in mind – people that are concerned about the looming Hindu Indian takeover – their demographics are also not stellar. One of the IT managers I know from an elite/educated Indian immigrant background said that he is one of the rare ones among his many friends that has 2 kids – the rest only have one.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @216

    Hindu Indian takeover – their demographics are also not stellar.
     
    Don't fool us, we aren't as gullible as you might think.

    India has a population of 1.2 billion

    The per capita income of India is nine times less than the equivalent figure in the US.

    Given the existing chain migration patterns, and the likelihood of a Dem seizure of power in '20, the floodgates are likely to be open, as the intention of the elite is a US population in 2100 of 1 billion. So a Indian-majority US is highly unlikely, but Indians becoming one-sixth to one-fifth of the population is not impossible.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    their demographics are also not stellar.
     
    The fertility in southern India, as well as Punjab, is now well below replacement. In fact in many provinces it's a paltry 1.3 or 1.4, on par with Germany and Japan. Overall, India's total fertility is only 2.2.

    Of course, starting off at over 1 billion - they can easily flood our countries.

    the Bosnians that I know have 4-5.
     
    Interesting. The last time I checked, Bosnia's total fertility was an abysmal 1.2. Similar situation to Poland I guess.

    I actually believe that whites *might* outlast much of the world demographically (assuming we don't genocide ourselves through immigration). White fertility didn't fall below replacement until the 1970s, when they were already extremely wealthy. The rates are actually rebounding slightly worldwide. They are middling (1.5), rather than abysmal (1.2, see E. Asia).

    Non-African 3rd world countries like Bangladesh and India are already below or at replacement, while still having a shocking level of poverty. How low is their fertility going to drop, as the pill and condoms become more and more prevalent? It could get very ugly, as a country undergoes the demographic transition too early- and their best and brightest are in the west.
  28. @216
    +1 here

    https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1089919561951047680

    So much screaming in the replies, but Mr. Hume has at least tried to insist that morally shaming a non-white is permissible.

    That said, this was a bad take. White male conservatives attacking anyone except a fellow white gentile straight male is "punching down". Leave the assimilation argument to a Hispanic conservative, and watch them get roasted as a coconut. The Intersectional System takes no prisoners.

    Also, to any browns reading, you have not assimilated until you mirror the voting patterns of whites.

    Don't like my criticism, start voting GOP and shaming your friends/relatives into it.

    Second thought:

    Brokaw perfectly teed up a DR3 moment.

  29. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Disgusting. The one thing I can't stand about liberal and moderate white people is their love for pets above love for babies.

    I do like dogs myself. I would like a big, intelligent dog, maybe a retriever *to complement* my theoretical family. Man's best friend, after all.

    But the "dog moms" are mentally deranged - they should seek psychological help. At the end of the day, the pets and wiener dogs and useless little kittens are masking something: the lack of purpose and love in their meaningless lives.

    We have four kids (mashaAllah) and two cats. You can easily use pets to compliment (as you said).

    One of my wife’s sisters (non-Muslim one) is a very tragic case. She wanted to have kids, but she was dating (for ten years) and eventually married a guy (also White) that didn’t want any kids. Any way, the guy cheated on her within two years and ran off with some other chick. Then she kept trying to find a guy, but this was difficult because she is a highly educated woman so the few guys she was finding would have been “marrying down” so these didn’t work out since she didn’t find anyone that was a reliable partner. Then she got cancer and eventually beat it after 2 years, but now she is nearing 45 and the process for her to beat cancer basically has wrecked her chances to have kids. Really sad, because she is such a nice lady – a great aunt to all her nieces and nephews for sure.

    “dog moms”

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Then she kept trying to find a guy, but this was difficult because she is a highly educated woman so the few guys she was finding would have been “marrying down” so these didn’t work out since she didn’t find anyone that was a reliable partner.
     
    I'm just curious. Did she rule out a less educated partner, or did she just not have any luck with them?
  30. @Talha

    “Demographics are destiny”
     
    Sure thing.

    Social conservatism will be on the rebound.
     
    I think so as well because of the points you made. Keep in mind, "White" is not mutually exclusive from "Muslim". The 3-4 numbers I was giving was for White converts and, as I mentioned, the Bosnians that I know have 4-5.

    Likewise, people ditch Islam also, but the ones that do tend to have horrible reproductive numbers, like homeboy here:
    https://twitter.com/ArminNavabi/status/1039269701648441344

    The only race with worse demographics is Chinese and east asian people.
     
    Yes - among my co-workers, these have the least kids when taken as a whole.

    One thing to keep in mind - people that are concerned about the looming Hindu Indian takeover - their demographics are also not stellar. One of the IT managers I know from an elite/educated Indian immigrant background said that he is one of the rare ones among his many friends that has 2 kids - the rest only have one.

    Peace.

    Hindu Indian takeover – their demographics are also not stellar.

    Don’t fool us, we aren’t as gullible as you might think.

    India has a population of 1.2 billion

    The per capita income of India is nine times less than the equivalent figure in the US.

    Given the existing chain migration patterns, and the likelihood of a Dem seizure of power in ’20, the floodgates are likely to be open, as the intention of the elite is a US population in 2100 of 1 billion. So a Indian-majority US is highly unlikely, but Indians becoming one-sixth to one-fifth of the population is not impossible.

    • Replies: @Talha
    I was talking about the elite/educated immigrants into the US in particular (because those are the ones I have seen in my line of work and who I have spoken with). I don't know enough about the situation as far as India itself is concerned.

    the intention of the elite is a US population in 2100 of 1 billion
     
    Really? Is that actually a stated goal or just kind of extrapolated with the direction things are going?

    but Indians becoming one-sixth to one-fifth of the population is not impossible.
     
    Agreed if the floodgates are opened to Indian immigration, because (if the pattern of my co-workers is an indication), then they will simply not be keeping their numbers up due to their lack of kids.

    By the way, I'm not trying to fool anyone - if immigration was shut down tomorrow, I wouldn't be advocating for it to be reopened.

    Peace.

  31. @216

    Hindu Indian takeover – their demographics are also not stellar.
     
    Don't fool us, we aren't as gullible as you might think.

    India has a population of 1.2 billion

    The per capita income of India is nine times less than the equivalent figure in the US.

    Given the existing chain migration patterns, and the likelihood of a Dem seizure of power in '20, the floodgates are likely to be open, as the intention of the elite is a US population in 2100 of 1 billion. So a Indian-majority US is highly unlikely, but Indians becoming one-sixth to one-fifth of the population is not impossible.

    I was talking about the elite/educated immigrants into the US in particular (because those are the ones I have seen in my line of work and who I have spoken with). I don’t know enough about the situation as far as India itself is concerned.

    the intention of the elite is a US population in 2100 of 1 billion

    Really? Is that actually a stated goal or just kind of extrapolated with the direction things are going?

    but Indians becoming one-sixth to one-fifth of the population is not impossible.

    Agreed if the floodgates are opened to Indian immigration, because (if the pattern of my co-workers is an indication), then they will simply not be keeping their numbers up due to their lack of kids.

    By the way, I’m not trying to fool anyone – if immigration was shut down tomorrow, I wouldn’t be advocating for it to be reopened.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @216

    By the way, I’m not trying to fool anyone – if immigration was shut down tomorrow, I wouldn’t be advocating for it to be reopened.
     
    Thank you

    Really? Is that actually a stated goal or just kind of extrapolated with the direction things are going?
     
    I don't think it has been inscribed into either law or policy, but presumably most people in the elite are rather favorable to it. The following is linked from a Yale University think tank, and it doesn't get more establishment than that.

    The US now has a population of 316 million – third largest after China, 1.36 billion, and India, 1.28 billion – and could aim for 1.6 billion, simply by opening wide its doors to immigration from across the globe as it did during most of its 237-year history.
    If immigration to America were increased to 10 million immigrants per year throughout the remainder of this century, the demographic result would be a US population of about 940 million by 2060 and 1.60 billion by the close the 21st century (see Figure 1). The world’s second and third largest populations in 2100 are projected to be India, 1.55 billion, and China, 0.94 billion.
     
    The stated total of 10 million per annum is rather high, but a leftist government aware that it would never be voted out would probably remove any green card caps.


    https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/us-could-be-worlds-most-populous-country

    If such insanity is ever enacted, we better get working on the Mars colony.
  32. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Disgusting. The one thing I can't stand about liberal and moderate white people is their love for pets above love for babies.

    I do like dogs myself. I would like a big, intelligent dog, maybe a retriever *to complement* my theoretical family. Man's best friend, after all.

    But the "dog moms" are mentally deranged - they should seek psychological help. At the end of the day, the pets and wiener dogs and useless little kittens are masking something: the lack of purpose and love in their meaningless lives.

    “The one thing I can’t stand about liberal and moderate white people is their love for pets above love for babies.”

    Agreed.

  33. @Tyrion 2
    I'd expect agnostics to be smarter than atheists. While I understand arguments that prefer atheism to theism, I haven't seen any that are sound and secure atheism above "I don't know".

    Agnosticism and atheism are different frames of reference…Agnostics profess lack of knowledge of God’s existence, atheists asserts lack of belief. Agnostics are usually atheist (unknowing and not believing) or theist (unknowing but believing).

  34. @advancedatheist
    Atheism takes on different implicit meanings in different contexts. I compare the argumentative atheists you find online to radical vegans. Vegans don't just not do something as a matter of personal conviction, namely, they don't use animal products, and then leave it at that. The firebrands among them also criticize everyone else who holds different opinions and engages in different practices regarding the uses of animals; these vegans have an agenda for transforming a fundamental part of our way of life.

    So in practice the analogous sort of atheism doesn't refer to some mysterious void in the universe where you can't find a god - the "absence of belief" definition. It really refers to an agenda for criticizing and discrediting religious beliefs with the goal of replacing these beliefs with something else.

    Many online atheists whose comments I’ve read on the web have a distinctly unpleasant, strident Leftist quality. They’re arrogantly cocksure to a man, and gleefully abusive of theists.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @216
    That's an opinion that appears to have been unfrozen from 2005. These days the "New Atheists" are on the pseudo-con "Intellektual Dark Web" grifting train.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    This is my observation as well.
    , @Rex Little

    Many online atheists whose comments I’ve read on the web have a distinctly unpleasant, strident Leftist quality. They’re arrogantly cocksure to a man, and gleefully abusive of theists.
     
    Oh, not just of theists, but of atheists who are conservative or libertarian. They'd make common cause with leftist Christians long before they'd say a kind word about, say, Ayn Rand (who was stridently atheist).
  35. @Talha
    I was talking about the elite/educated immigrants into the US in particular (because those are the ones I have seen in my line of work and who I have spoken with). I don't know enough about the situation as far as India itself is concerned.

    the intention of the elite is a US population in 2100 of 1 billion
     
    Really? Is that actually a stated goal or just kind of extrapolated with the direction things are going?

    but Indians becoming one-sixth to one-fifth of the population is not impossible.
     
    Agreed if the floodgates are opened to Indian immigration, because (if the pattern of my co-workers is an indication), then they will simply not be keeping their numbers up due to their lack of kids.

    By the way, I'm not trying to fool anyone - if immigration was shut down tomorrow, I wouldn't be advocating for it to be reopened.

    Peace.

    By the way, I’m not trying to fool anyone – if immigration was shut down tomorrow, I wouldn’t be advocating for it to be reopened.

    Thank you

    Really? Is that actually a stated goal or just kind of extrapolated with the direction things are going?

    I don’t think it has been inscribed into either law or policy, but presumably most people in the elite are rather favorable to it. The following is linked from a Yale University think tank, and it doesn’t get more establishment than that.

    The US now has a population of 316 million – third largest after China, 1.36 billion, and India, 1.28 billion – and could aim for 1.6 billion, simply by opening wide its doors to immigration from across the globe as it did during most of its 237-year history.
    If immigration to America were increased to 10 million immigrants per year throughout the remainder of this century, the demographic result would be a US population of about 940 million by 2060 and 1.60 billion by the close the 21st century (see Figure 1). The world’s second and third largest populations in 2100 are projected to be India, 1.55 billion, and China, 0.94 billion.

    The stated total of 10 million per annum is rather high, but a leftist government aware that it would never be voted out would probably remove any green card caps.

    https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/us-could-be-worlds-most-populous-country

    If such insanity is ever enacted, we better get working on the Mars colony.

  36. @LondonBob
    Atheists are morons.

    What do you tell a man who listens to a beautiful symphony being played and cannot hear any music, just random sounds?

    You do not call him a moron. You say he’s tone deaf.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    What do you tell a man who listens to a beautiful symphony being played and cannot hear any music, just random sounds?

    You do not call him a moron. You say he’s tone deaf.
     
    A brilliant analogy.
  37. @Talha

    “Demographics are destiny”
     
    Sure thing.

    Social conservatism will be on the rebound.
     
    I think so as well because of the points you made. Keep in mind, "White" is not mutually exclusive from "Muslim". The 3-4 numbers I was giving was for White converts and, as I mentioned, the Bosnians that I know have 4-5.

    Likewise, people ditch Islam also, but the ones that do tend to have horrible reproductive numbers, like homeboy here:
    https://twitter.com/ArminNavabi/status/1039269701648441344

    The only race with worse demographics is Chinese and east asian people.
     
    Yes - among my co-workers, these have the least kids when taken as a whole.

    One thing to keep in mind - people that are concerned about the looming Hindu Indian takeover - their demographics are also not stellar. One of the IT managers I know from an elite/educated Indian immigrant background said that he is one of the rare ones among his many friends that has 2 kids - the rest only have one.

    Peace.

    their demographics are also not stellar.

    The fertility in southern India, as well as Punjab, is now well below replacement. In fact in many provinces it’s a paltry 1.3 or 1.4, on par with Germany and Japan. Overall, India’s total fertility is only 2.2.

    Of course, starting off at over 1 billion – they can easily flood our countries.

    the Bosnians that I know have 4-5.

    Interesting. The last time I checked, Bosnia’s total fertility was an abysmal 1.2. Similar situation to Poland I guess.

    I actually believe that whites *might* outlast much of the world demographically (assuming we don’t genocide ourselves through immigration). White fertility didn’t fall below replacement until the 1970s, when they were already extremely wealthy. The rates are actually rebounding slightly worldwide. They are middling (1.5), rather than abysmal (1.2, see E. Asia).

    Non-African 3rd world countries like Bangladesh and India are already below or at replacement, while still having a shocking level of poverty. How low is their fertility going to drop, as the pill and condoms become more and more prevalent? It could get very ugly, as a country undergoes the demographic transition too early- and their best and brightest are in the west.

    • Replies: @Talha

    The last time I checked, Bosnia’s total fertility was an abysmal 1.2.
     
    It is - remember, I hang around with more traditional-minded Bosnians who are either part of my Sufi order or just religious in general. So they behave differently than your run of the mill Bosnian - besides, Bosnia also has a boatload of Serbs and Croats (they might be taking the numbers down overall).

    I actually believe that whites *might* outlast much of the world demographically
     
    I personally believe Whitey will be fine. God made Whitey, and He'll keep Whitey around. But the Whites that survives are not going to be the same Whites we see today, the society will also be different - as you were mentioning before. I think conservative and traditional society will rebound.

    Peace.

  38. @RVBlake
    Many online atheists whose comments I've read on the web have a distinctly unpleasant, strident Leftist quality. They're arrogantly cocksure to a man, and gleefully abusive of theists.

    That’s an opinion that appears to have been unfrozen from 2005. These days the “New Atheists” are on the pseudo-con “Intellektual Dark Web” grifting train.

  39. @LondonBob
    Atheists are morons.

    I will not wade into this discussion, little one.

  40. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    their demographics are also not stellar.
     
    The fertility in southern India, as well as Punjab, is now well below replacement. In fact in many provinces it's a paltry 1.3 or 1.4, on par with Germany and Japan. Overall, India's total fertility is only 2.2.

    Of course, starting off at over 1 billion - they can easily flood our countries.

    the Bosnians that I know have 4-5.
     
    Interesting. The last time I checked, Bosnia's total fertility was an abysmal 1.2. Similar situation to Poland I guess.

    I actually believe that whites *might* outlast much of the world demographically (assuming we don't genocide ourselves through immigration). White fertility didn't fall below replacement until the 1970s, when they were already extremely wealthy. The rates are actually rebounding slightly worldwide. They are middling (1.5), rather than abysmal (1.2, see E. Asia).

    Non-African 3rd world countries like Bangladesh and India are already below or at replacement, while still having a shocking level of poverty. How low is their fertility going to drop, as the pill and condoms become more and more prevalent? It could get very ugly, as a country undergoes the demographic transition too early- and their best and brightest are in the west.

    The last time I checked, Bosnia’s total fertility was an abysmal 1.2.

    It is – remember, I hang around with more traditional-minded Bosnians who are either part of my Sufi order or just religious in general. So they behave differently than your run of the mill Bosnian – besides, Bosnia also has a boatload of Serbs and Croats (they might be taking the numbers down overall).

    I actually believe that whites *might* outlast much of the world demographically

    I personally believe Whitey will be fine. God made Whitey, and He’ll keep Whitey around. But the Whites that survives are not going to be the same Whites we see today, the society will also be different – as you were mentioning before. I think conservative and traditional society will rebound.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I personally believe Whitey will be fine.
     
    Well... "fine" is subjective.

    But look. You go to any society, and whites do well in them, regardless of the % (sort of like 2nd rate Jews). What happens when the numbers get too low, thought, and the primitive monkeys of South Africa decide to go for the jugular? We'll see.

    What I worry the most about is race-mixing. Sure, pure-whites will be alright, but look at how much the (((media))) is promoting negro men to white women. It's possible that over the generations we'll just slowly bleed out and eventually cease to exist. (Unlikely though - non-whites are increasingly hostile to Beckies - and there's little evidence that Becky actually wants to sleep with an animal).

  41. @RVBlake
    Many online atheists whose comments I've read on the web have a distinctly unpleasant, strident Leftist quality. They're arrogantly cocksure to a man, and gleefully abusive of theists.

    This is my observation as well.

  42. @Talha

    The last time I checked, Bosnia’s total fertility was an abysmal 1.2.
     
    It is - remember, I hang around with more traditional-minded Bosnians who are either part of my Sufi order or just religious in general. So they behave differently than your run of the mill Bosnian - besides, Bosnia also has a boatload of Serbs and Croats (they might be taking the numbers down overall).

    I actually believe that whites *might* outlast much of the world demographically
     
    I personally believe Whitey will be fine. God made Whitey, and He'll keep Whitey around. But the Whites that survives are not going to be the same Whites we see today, the society will also be different - as you were mentioning before. I think conservative and traditional society will rebound.

    Peace.

    I personally believe Whitey will be fine.

    Well… “fine” is subjective.

    But look. You go to any society, and whites do well in them, regardless of the % (sort of like 2nd rate Jews). What happens when the numbers get too low, thought, and the primitive monkeys of South Africa decide to go for the jugular? We’ll see.

    What I worry the most about is race-mixing. Sure, pure-whites will be alright, but look at how much the (((media))) is promoting negro men to white women. It’s possible that over the generations we’ll just slowly bleed out and eventually cease to exist. (Unlikely though – non-whites are increasingly hostile to Beckies – and there’s little evidence that Becky actually wants to sleep with an animal).

    • Replies: @216
    I don't really know why this narrative is still believed in our movements.

    The data shows that mixed pairings are as following, white-hispanic, white-asian, white-multi, white-black. While there is obvious subversive intent in advertising, that is easy to solve: stop watching TV.

    Any complaining about BMWF is an automatic DLV in public. The real edge is to go after the WMAF that is far too common among people in our movements. (By contrast, I encourage AMWF to join).
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The "animal" slur aside, is there not evidence of it? That BM:WF has been 3x as common as WM:BF for (at least) decades now indicates that there is some desire--at least relative to the desire of WM to sleep with BW.
  43. @LondonBob
    Atheists are morons.

    “You are doing everything to force me to kill you, but I do not slay a barking dog.”

  44. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I personally believe Whitey will be fine.
     
    Well... "fine" is subjective.

    But look. You go to any society, and whites do well in them, regardless of the % (sort of like 2nd rate Jews). What happens when the numbers get too low, thought, and the primitive monkeys of South Africa decide to go for the jugular? We'll see.

    What I worry the most about is race-mixing. Sure, pure-whites will be alright, but look at how much the (((media))) is promoting negro men to white women. It's possible that over the generations we'll just slowly bleed out and eventually cease to exist. (Unlikely though - non-whites are increasingly hostile to Beckies - and there's little evidence that Becky actually wants to sleep with an animal).

    I don’t really know why this narrative is still believed in our movements.

    The data shows that mixed pairings are as following, white-hispanic, white-asian, white-multi, white-black. While there is obvious subversive intent in advertising, that is easy to solve: stop watching TV.

    Any complaining about BMWF is an automatic DLV in public. The real edge is to go after the WMAF that is far too common among people in our movements. (By contrast, I encourage AMWF to join).

  45. Can anybody name an atheist with a religious affiliation?

    I know Malachi Martin said the Roman Catholic church was infested with atheists but he didn’t name names. “Most atheists have no religious affiliation” seems goofy.

    When I was temporarily a closeted atheist as a mixed up teenager whose mom hauled his ass to church every Sunday, I would never have answered a questionnaire with religious affiliation–$Religious_Affiliation .AND. No, I do not believe there is any God or Supreme Being. It would have seemed senseless to do so.

    (Nobody cares but when the roulette wheel ceased spinning I did not emerge as an atheist.)

  46. @Achmed E. Newman

    Can God live on nomadically in the hearts of those with no home (of worship) to take Him to?
     
    Sure he can. Listen, I'd read Mr. Rational's comment back on the last thread. As far as leaving the church due to their being TOO fundamentalist, well, I don't doubt Mr. Rational's personal reason for drifting (though "bookburning"? Literally? - as the kids say).

    However, I think its very much more likely that the people and families that left churches of the many demominations you had listed in that last post left for pretty much the opposite reasons: Their church was likely putting up rainbow flags, or that "We welcome everyone"* yard sign (the one in English, Spanish, and Arabic), or promoting feminism and tolerance for genderbending nonsense, or sponsoring immigrants from Somalia with their tithings.

    I don't think that big mustard-colored sector of the pie chart should even be labelled "Uncertain Believers", but more like "Believers who are sick and tired of the bullshit going on in modern organized religion" OK, A.E., that won't fit on that 165-deg mustard sector, so how about "Unorganized Believers"?

    .

    * BTW, it isn't that almost all church members wouldn't welcome members from all over the world. Those signs however, are an insidious thing, made right after Trump's election to really say "we welcome anyone who makes it into our country".

    Sure he can. Listen, I’d read Mr. Rational’s comment back on the last thread. As far as leaving the church due to their being TOO fundamentalist, well, I don’t doubt Mr. Rational’s personal reason for drifting (though “bookburning”? Literally? – as the kids say).

    However, I think its very much more likely that the people and families that left churches of the many demominations you had listed in that last post left for pretty much the opposite reasons: Their church was likely putting up rainbow flags, or that “We welcome everyone”* yard sign (the one in English, Spanish, and Arabic), or promoting feminism and tolerance for genderbending nonsense, or sponsoring immigrants from Somalia with their tithings.

    I don’t care for either of those extremes, and of course I’m a homeless Christian as a result.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Fair enough, Rosie, but when have you seen a real church that is fundamentalist enough to scare people off lately? I could see it being the case more in the 1930's to 60's. The modern evangelical churches may believe The Bible literally, but they are very touchy-feely otherwise. You won't hear about fire and brimstone, unless they are sending everyone's 10% tithings to the volcano victims of Sumatra or something. Don't get me started on the music they play (got a post coming on that).

    The entire Catholic church would be in the latter situation (too left-wing for one to stand coming in anymore, even on Sundays, or just out of disgust for the so-called Pope - scroll down).
  47. @Tyrion 2
    I'd expect agnostics to be smarter than atheists. While I understand arguments that prefer atheism to theism, I haven't seen any that are sound and secure atheism above "I don't know".

    I haven’t seen any that are sound and secure atheism above “I don’t know”.

    Yes and no. One can logically prove that JewGod doesn’t exist. That part is laughably easy. But something caused the Universe to happen and it’s unlikely any of us will ever know what that was. Even if the bright boys at CERN manage to recreate the Big Bang, we will all vanish in an instant and the whole thing begin anew without answering our questions. Billions of years hence other sentient (but not quite sentient enough) creatures may repeat and then it’s just Big Bangs all the way down.

    For me, it’s irrelevant. All that matters is my family, my tribe, and my habitat, just like any other mammal. And I don’t care if you believe in Sky Fairies or Easter Bunnies, Holocausts or Exodus’s, it’s only when your irrational beliefs adversely effect my interests that I see a big problem. Worship your toenail clippings for all I care, just don’t import alien sub-species into my habitat and force my family and tribe to deal with the consequences of your delusions. Don’t breed dysgenic freaks and demand I subsidize them.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    “Something caused the universe to happen”. I’m not at all sure that’s the case. Or, rather, I’d place my money on that being a category mistake.
  48. @Talha
    We have four kids (mashaAllah) and two cats. You can easily use pets to compliment (as you said).

    One of my wife's sisters (non-Muslim one) is a very tragic case. She wanted to have kids, but she was dating (for ten years) and eventually married a guy (also White) that didn't want any kids. Any way, the guy cheated on her within two years and ran off with some other chick. Then she kept trying to find a guy, but this was difficult because she is a highly educated woman so the few guys she was finding would have been "marrying down" so these didn't work out since she didn't find anyone that was a reliable partner. Then she got cancer and eventually beat it after 2 years, but now she is nearing 45 and the process for her to beat cancer basically has wrecked her chances to have kids. Really sad, because she is such a nice lady - a great aunt to all her nieces and nephews for sure.

    “dog moms”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q60wHn1-rgE

    Peace.

    Then she kept trying to find a guy, but this was difficult because she is a highly educated woman so the few guys she was finding would have been “marrying down” so these didn’t work out since she didn’t find anyone that was a reliable partner.

    I’m just curious. Did she rule out a less educated partner, or did she just not have any luck with them?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Well, she generally discussed details with her sister (my wife) and I don't really go digging deep into things, but from what my wife told me; these guys were generally personable but not really reliable since they couldn't really hold jobs down or weren't very motivated about life even if they had a so-so job. The other thing that seemed like an issue was the different levels of education made it difficult for them to really connect on a deeper level.

    She seems to be resigned now to making paying off her house and doing well in her job - she is a partner in business. No kids to pass it on to though, so...

    She found a good church group to hang out with, so that helped her quite a bit and has kept her busy.

    Peace.
  49. @Paul Yarbles
    What do you tell a man who listens to a beautiful symphony being played and cannot hear any music, just random sounds?

    You do not call him a moron. You say he’s tone deaf.

    What do you tell a man who listens to a beautiful symphony being played and cannot hear any music, just random sounds?

    You do not call him a moron. You say he’s tone deaf.

    A brilliant analogy.

  50. @Rosie

    Then she kept trying to find a guy, but this was difficult because she is a highly educated woman so the few guys she was finding would have been “marrying down” so these didn’t work out since she didn’t find anyone that was a reliable partner.
     
    I'm just curious. Did she rule out a less educated partner, or did she just not have any luck with them?

    Well, she generally discussed details with her sister (my wife) and I don’t really go digging deep into things, but from what my wife told me; these guys were generally personable but not really reliable since they couldn’t really hold jobs down or weren’t very motivated about life even if they had a so-so job. The other thing that seemed like an issue was the different levels of education made it difficult for them to really connect on a deeper level.

    She seems to be resigned now to making paying off her house and doing well in her job – she is a partner in business. No kids to pass it on to though, so…

    She found a good church group to hang out with, so that helped her quite a bit and has kept her busy.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The other thing that seemed like an issue was the different levels of education made it difficult for them to really connect on a deeper level.
     
    Quite right. I think this is much more likely the obstacle to matches between women with more education and men with less than concerns about "marrying down," though I'm sure that's also a factor. I would be very curious to find out how well-read men with little formal education fare with highly educated women. My guess is they would do just fine.
    , @MBlanc46
    They had different levels of education so they couldn’t really connect. That is, the guys weren’t up on the latest developments in queer theory. Or at least the latest developments when she was an undergrad.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey, Mr. Talha, these personal anecdote comments are some of the best. Thanks for that story. I also apologize here for getting into it with you about your Moslemity a long long time ago on iSteve. From what you've written, guys like you should be quite welcome, if I ran things. Again, sorry for the animosity on that or those threads long ago.
  51. @Talha
    Well, she generally discussed details with her sister (my wife) and I don't really go digging deep into things, but from what my wife told me; these guys were generally personable but not really reliable since they couldn't really hold jobs down or weren't very motivated about life even if they had a so-so job. The other thing that seemed like an issue was the different levels of education made it difficult for them to really connect on a deeper level.

    She seems to be resigned now to making paying off her house and doing well in her job - she is a partner in business. No kids to pass it on to though, so...

    She found a good church group to hang out with, so that helped her quite a bit and has kept her busy.

    Peace.

    The other thing that seemed like an issue was the different levels of education made it difficult for them to really connect on a deeper level.

    Quite right. I think this is much more likely the obstacle to matches between women with more education and men with less than concerns about “marrying down,” though I’m sure that’s also a factor. I would be very curious to find out how well-read men with little formal education fare with highly educated women. My guess is they would do just fine.

  52. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Here's the thing about atheists: Their beliefs about divinity are as firmly faith based as the most annoying & proselytizing zealot.

    They believe in no higher power, but they believe. They don't like being told this. They go through great lengths to conceal their faith based beliefs. They talk about the big bang likes it's proven fact. But the fact is they cannot prove "God" doesn't exist, or disprove that he does. Observe:

    dictionary.com:

    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    wikipedoia:

    Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

    /

    Notice the syntax: "denies or disbelieves; absence of belief;" Are definitions of words typically provided with this kind of negative verbing?

    FD - raised RC, not practicing. I consider myself agnostic. Something created the reality in which we exist. I doubt it bears any resemblance to the God spoken of in ancient works of fiction.

    They believe in no higher power, but they believe.

    Maybe some do, but most have given up on belief in the BS they’ve been fed from childhood.

    They don’t like being told this.

    The BS-fatigued don’t like more BS, true.  Shove more of the same at them and they often get angry and tell you to F the hell off.

    They go through great lengths to conceal their faith based beliefs.

    Rejection of faith is not faith, nitwit.

    They talk about the big bang likes it’s proven fact.

    What part of “cosmic background radiation” don’t you understand?  Without the Big Bang it could not exist, but the Big Bang requires it to exist.  It exists, therefore the Big Bang is true, QED.  Now FTHO.

    But the fact is they cannot prove “God” doesn’t exist, or disprove that he does.

    The only way one can prove a negative is by showing that it leads to a contradiction.  You can assert that your “God” exists but that assertion is empty without positive and unambiguous evidence.  That evidence is lacking, and I’m fucking sick of your demands that your evidence-free assertions make you fit to run my life.  GTFO.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Another way to prove a negative is to examine every entity in the relevant space and demonstrate that it fails to match the concept in question. I can prove that there are no legs of lamb in my refrigerator by showing you every object in my refrigerator and pointing out to you that none of them is a leg of lamb.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    LOL - You couldn't have validated my comment any more if you tried. Thanks.
  53. @szopen
    Two kids here. I wanted to have three kids, but my wife, who is ardent Catholic, wanted only two.

    Uh, if she’s ardent, then she knows she owes you the marriage debt and that she may not contracept. How did she limit you to two? By gaining a lot of weight and not bathing?

    • Replies: @szopen
    We are both over the 40. The probability of children being unhealthy at this point is maybe low, but still too high for me (older fathers increase probability of autistic children, while older mothers increase probability of childrne with down). Since she is catholic, she would refuse to abort if the child would have down syndrome. Second thing is the complications during the previous childbirth.

    We waited too long with the second children, because we had no "financial security".

    If the child will happen, it will happen, she says. But there are methods approved by church (for example, not having sex during fertile periods).
  54. @LondonBob
    Atheists are morons.

    What an intelligent and insightful comment.

  55. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Here's the thing about atheists: Their beliefs about divinity are as firmly faith based as the most annoying & proselytizing zealot.

    They believe in no higher power, but they believe. They don't like being told this. They go through great lengths to conceal their faith based beliefs. They talk about the big bang likes it's proven fact. But the fact is they cannot prove "God" doesn't exist, or disprove that he does. Observe:

    dictionary.com:

    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    wikipedoia:

    Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

    /

    Notice the syntax: "denies or disbelieves; absence of belief;" Are definitions of words typically provided with this kind of negative verbing?

    FD - raised RC, not practicing. I consider myself agnostic. Something created the reality in which we exist. I doubt it bears any resemblance to the God spoken of in ancient works of fiction.

    Mike: Are you a theist or an atheist regarding Krishna? Regarding Zeus? Regarding Baal? Regarding Ku or Lono?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    agnostic (ăg-nŏsˈtĭk)►

    n.
    One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
    n.
    One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
    n.
    One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
  56. @Tyrion 2
    I'd expect agnostics to be smarter than atheists. While I understand arguments that prefer atheism to theism, I haven't seen any that are sound and secure atheism above "I don't know".

    That rather depends on your epistemology.

  57. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I suspect in the past, the fundamentalists would drift towards atheism over time. However, recently they realize how depraved the atheistic and material West is. Religion is the way to escape and find meaning in life. It helps that the only people who still practice religion are conservative/orthodox. In Islam, the liberals are still peeling off. Christianity and Judaism now have that solid conservative base.

    From observation, religious people in the 18-24 age group (Christian, Muslim, Jew) have excellent mental health, relative to the majority atheists, who are almost universally depressed and nihilistic. I think we'll see more and more people drift into religion over time.

    It's why I have always said, Christians need to get off their ass and start recruiting, because there is a huge market, the poor atheists just don't realize it yet.

    You’re right there is a huge market. But you’ve got to gave a product that actually satisfies the consumer’s needs.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    Right. Failure to deliver an actual product is of some concern in evangelist organization. I've seen fairly long discussions about that.

    Much of modern Christianity amounts to magic: reading Scripture without understanding is very similar to saying a magic spell in arcane language. Same thing with "personal relation", a term that is never defined.

    Showing that Christianity doesn't exist, another fairly popular topic among Episcopalians, also doesn't deliver Christianity. Who could have guessed that? Not the Episcopalians.

    The one Christian doctrine I've consistently seen is "Shut up and sit down", although the media keeps claiming that it is "Shut up and bend over".

    So: delivery of product is the primary difficulty. Today, you can't even get an injunction for living as a wastrel, or support for having a family.

    Counterinsurgency
  58. @Stan d Mute

    I haven’t seen any that are sound and secure atheism above “I don’t know”.
     
    Yes and no. One can logically prove that JewGod doesn’t exist. That part is laughably easy. But something caused the Universe to happen and it’s unlikely any of us will ever know what that was. Even if the bright boys at CERN manage to recreate the Big Bang, we will all vanish in an instant and the whole thing begin anew without answering our questions. Billions of years hence other sentient (but not quite sentient enough) creatures may repeat and then it’s just Big Bangs all the way down.

    For me, it’s irrelevant. All that matters is my family, my tribe, and my habitat, just like any other mammal. And I don’t care if you believe in Sky Fairies or Easter Bunnies, Holocausts or Exodus’s, it’s only when your irrational beliefs adversely effect my interests that I see a big problem. Worship your toenail clippings for all I care, just don’t import alien sub-species into my habitat and force my family and tribe to deal with the consequences of your delusions. Don’t breed dysgenic freaks and demand I subsidize them.

    “Something caused the universe to happen”. I’m not at all sure that’s the case. Or, rather, I’d place my money on that being a category mistake.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    I’d place my money on that being a category mistake.
     
    Place it wherever you like, I’d suggest not within reach of females, government, or negroes.

    I’m not at all sure that’s the case.
     
    Since you fail to expound, but merely offer a doubting sentiment, I’m not at all sure what your point is.
  59. @Talha
    Well, she generally discussed details with her sister (my wife) and I don't really go digging deep into things, but from what my wife told me; these guys were generally personable but not really reliable since they couldn't really hold jobs down or weren't very motivated about life even if they had a so-so job. The other thing that seemed like an issue was the different levels of education made it difficult for them to really connect on a deeper level.

    She seems to be resigned now to making paying off her house and doing well in her job - she is a partner in business. No kids to pass it on to though, so...

    She found a good church group to hang out with, so that helped her quite a bit and has kept her busy.

    Peace.

    They had different levels of education so they couldn’t really connect. That is, the guys weren’t up on the latest developments in queer theory. Or at least the latest developments when she was an undergrad.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Man, talk about a textbook example of why women should NOT be allowed to pursue higher education...
  60. @advancedatheist
    Atheism takes on different implicit meanings in different contexts. I compare the argumentative atheists you find online to radical vegans. Vegans don't just not do something as a matter of personal conviction, namely, they don't use animal products, and then leave it at that. The firebrands among them also criticize everyone else who holds different opinions and engages in different practices regarding the uses of animals; these vegans have an agenda for transforming a fundamental part of our way of life.

    So in practice the analogous sort of atheism doesn't refer to some mysterious void in the universe where you can't find a god - the "absence of belief" definition. It really refers to an agenda for criticizing and discrediting religious beliefs with the goal of replacing these beliefs with something else.

    Indeed. There’s atheism as a reasoned conclusion from evidence (or lack thereof) and there’s atheism as religion.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  61. @Mr. Rational

    They believe in no higher power, but they believe.
     
    Maybe some do, but most have given up on belief in the BS they've been fed from childhood.

    They don’t like being told this.
     
    The BS-fatigued don't like more BS, true.  Shove more of the same at them and they often get angry and tell you to F the hell off.

    They go through great lengths to conceal their faith based beliefs.
     
    Rejection of faith is not faith, nitwit.

    They talk about the big bang likes it’s proven fact.
     
    What part of "cosmic background radiation" don't you understand?  Without the Big Bang it could not exist, but the Big Bang requires it to exist.  It exists, therefore the Big Bang is true, QED.  Now FTHO.

    But the fact is they cannot prove “God” doesn’t exist, or disprove that he does.
     
    The only way one can prove a negative is by showing that it leads to a contradiction.  You can assert that your "God" exists but that assertion is empty without positive and unambiguous evidence.  That evidence is lacking, and I'm fucking sick of your demands that your evidence-free assertions make you fit to run my life.  GTFO.

    Another way to prove a negative is to examine every entity in the relevant space and demonstrate that it fails to match the concept in question. I can prove that there are no legs of lamb in my refrigerator by showing you every object in my refrigerator and pointing out to you that none of them is a leg of lamb.

  62. @Rosie

    Sure he can. Listen, I’d read Mr. Rational’s comment back on the last thread. As far as leaving the church due to their being TOO fundamentalist, well, I don’t doubt Mr. Rational’s personal reason for drifting (though “bookburning”? Literally? – as the kids say).

    However, I think its very much more likely that the people and families that left churches of the many demominations you had listed in that last post left for pretty much the opposite reasons: Their church was likely putting up rainbow flags, or that “We welcome everyone”* yard sign (the one in English, Spanish, and Arabic), or promoting feminism and tolerance for genderbending nonsense, or sponsoring immigrants from Somalia with their tithings.
     
    I don't care for either of those extremes, and of course I'm a homeless Christian as a result.

    Fair enough, Rosie, but when have you seen a real church that is fundamentalist enough to scare people off lately? I could see it being the case more in the 1930’s to 60’s. The modern evangelical churches may believe The Bible literally, but they are very touchy-feely otherwise. You won’t hear about fire and brimstone, unless they are sending everyone’s 10% tithings to the volcano victims of Sumatra or something. Don’t get me started on the music they play (got a post coming on that).

    The entire Catholic church would be in the latter situation (too left-wing for one to stand coming in anymore, even on Sundays, or just out of disgust for the so-called Pope – scroll down).

  63. @Talha
    Well, she generally discussed details with her sister (my wife) and I don't really go digging deep into things, but from what my wife told me; these guys were generally personable but not really reliable since they couldn't really hold jobs down or weren't very motivated about life even if they had a so-so job. The other thing that seemed like an issue was the different levels of education made it difficult for them to really connect on a deeper level.

    She seems to be resigned now to making paying off her house and doing well in her job - she is a partner in business. No kids to pass it on to though, so...

    She found a good church group to hang out with, so that helped her quite a bit and has kept her busy.

    Peace.

    Hey, Mr. Talha, these personal anecdote comments are some of the best. Thanks for that story. I also apologize here for getting into it with you about your Moslemity a long long time ago on iSteve. From what you’ve written, guys like you should be quite welcome, if I ran things. Again, sorry for the animosity on that or those threads long ago.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Talha
    It’s all good, man - no worries. Thanks for taking the time to read through my comments.

    As a side note for my sister in law. The cancer she beat was a crazy story. She went through chemo and lost her hair like many people do, but there was some other procedure involved using a donor. I’m not a doctor, so I don’t know all the technical details, but she had to have a bunch of her bone marrow replaced using donations from a guy in Germany. It took a long time, but at the end of the ordeal, her blood type is now different than the one she was born with. I had no clue this was even possible!!!

    Peace.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It's easy to get trigger-happy but that doesn't mean it's prudent to do so. The realtalk here is orders of magnitude better than just about anywhere else IRL--remember that!
  64. @Tyrion 2
    I'd expect agnostics to be smarter than atheists. While I understand arguments that prefer atheism to theism, I haven't seen any that are sound and secure atheism above "I don't know".

    Agnosticism is gutless – because taken to its logical extension, an agnostic must be agnostic not jsut with respect to the deity associated with the locally-dominant religion, but must be agnostic with respect to all untestable truth claims in order to be consistent.

    So if I say that my cat tells me I am infallible, it does not suffice for an agnostic to assert that there’s no evidence for cats talking, or for infallible humans… because of that “logic for retards” claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    ‘Scientific’ Atheists (for want of abetter word) take the ‘absence of evidence’ trope and incorporate it into a broader methodology:

    • absence of evidence, plus
    • evidence that contradicts the ‘default’ hypothesis; plus
    • evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis…

    is evidence of absence of an anthropomorphised god.

    .

    Observation of the heavens tells us that another galaxy will, inttime, collide with our own; by that time Earth will be uninhabitable, our sun having already gone supernova.

    So if the stupid primitive nonsense is to be believed, Yahweh will have run a 25-billion year experiment (14billion up till now, and another ~10 before our sun is fucked).

    For the first 13.998 billion years, Yahweh just fucked around – then he tweaked things to result in modern humans, a mere 13.9996 billion years (i.e., ~400k years ago).

    Then he waited another 397,000 years before he kinda revealed his requirements to a bunch of pre-literate tribespeople in a sandy shithole.

    Then 2000 years ago, he put on a meat-suit and had a wander around the aforementioned sandy shithole, talking in riddles to a slightly-different bunch of illiterate primitives. Then he had himself tortured to death to save humans from his wrath (WTF?).

    Is that consistent with an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent deity? Nope… Epicurus put the arrow through that in ~300BCE.

    Is is consistent with “a bunch of shit made up by pre-scientific illiterates”? Yep.

    Here’s the thing: if god was anything like what he’s claimed to be, the universe would not be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% (by mass) lethally hostile to human life… and everything would be solar-powered (to minimise suffering)

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Bliss

    Then 2000 years ago, he put on a meat-suit and had a wander around the aforementioned sandy shithole, talking in riddles to a slightly-different bunch of illiterate primitives. Then he had himself tortured to death to save humans from his wrath (WTF?).
     
    That’s hilarious. 😂

    A great way to highlight how farcical Church dogma really is.
    , @Tyrion 2
    That's a great reply. I don't see how anyone can, in good faith, disagree with it logically.

    Then again, what's the point in "good faith" if there's no God and therefore, except for sophisms and hedonia, life has no meaning?

    Indeed, if cold logic merely leads to emptiness, a recognition of the horror of the void, then how can we expect to face reality in other, less fundamental areas?

    Recent developments seem to say we can't.

    In other words, faith in God is required for logic to have meaning so logic cannot kill God.

    I'll understand if you come back to me about the above and say it is a load of nonsense, but my fundamental problem will remain: reality is too horrifying to look at without some faith, and believe in a distant, impossible to comprehend God is the least reality subverting faith there is.
    , @Rosie

    Agnosticism is gutless – because taken to its logical extension, an agnostic must be agnostic not jsut with respect to the deity associated with the locally-dominant religion, but must be agnostic with respect to all untestable truth claims in order to be consistent.

    So if I say that my cat tells me I am infallible, it does not suffice for an agnostic to assert that there’s no evidence for cats talking, or for infallible humans… because of that “logic for retards” claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
     
    Belief in the existence of a Creator is intuitive in a way that belief in talking cats is not. You can say there is no proof to a Cartesian certainty that God exists, but to say there is no evidence is quite uncharitable to say the least.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fFq_MGf3sbk
  65. @Bill
    Uh, if she's ardent, then she knows she owes you the marriage debt and that she may not contracept. How did she limit you to two? By gaining a lot of weight and not bathing?

    We are both over the 40. The probability of children being unhealthy at this point is maybe low, but still too high for me (older fathers increase probability of autistic children, while older mothers increase probability of childrne with down). Since she is catholic, she would refuse to abort if the child would have down syndrome. Second thing is the complications during the previous childbirth.

    We waited too long with the second children, because we had no “financial security”.

    If the child will happen, it will happen, she says. But there are methods approved by church (for example, not having sex during fertile periods).

  66. @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey, Mr. Talha, these personal anecdote comments are some of the best. Thanks for that story. I also apologize here for getting into it with you about your Moslemity a long long time ago on iSteve. From what you've written, guys like you should be quite welcome, if I ran things. Again, sorry for the animosity on that or those threads long ago.

    It’s all good, man – no worries. Thanks for taking the time to read through my comments.

    As a side note for my sister in law. The cancer she beat was a crazy story. She went through chemo and lost her hair like many people do, but there was some other procedure involved using a donor. I’m not a doctor, so I don’t know all the technical details, but she had to have a bunch of her bone marrow replaced using donations from a guy in Germany. It took a long time, but at the end of the ordeal, her blood type is now different than the one she was born with. I had no clue this was even possible!!!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Me neither (as far as changing one's blood type), but it's been too long since I studied anything about this.
  67. @MBlanc46
    “Something caused the universe to happen”. I’m not at all sure that’s the case. Or, rather, I’d place my money on that being a category mistake.

    I’d place my money on that being a category mistake.

    Place it wherever you like, I’d suggest not within reach of females, government, or negroes.

    I’m not at all sure that’s the case.

    Since you fail to expound, but merely offer a doubting sentiment, I’m not at all sure what your point is.

  68. @szopen
    Theoretically yes, but personally for me it's a matter of taste. Agnosticism seems like intellectual cowardice. In fact, I have no real logical reason to believe anyone of you here exist. But saying "I am agnostic whether I'm talking to myself or to Tyrion 2" seems to me unsatisfiable.

    I have no real logical reason to believe anyone of you here exist.

    I do, and it’s pretty simple:  even if I was creative enough, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go around creating a bunch of imaginary correspondents to entertain myself.  Thus founders the ship of solipsism upon the shoal of logic.

    • Replies: @szopen
    Actually, if you are solipsist, then you have no reasons to believe in material world, which means any restrictions based on you by material world do not exist. You might be creative without even realising that :D
  69. @Talha

    What would you estimate the fertility rate of your Muslim acquaintances vs that of your white ones?
     
    Massive. But this is a loaded question. I also know many White converts (maybe I am more exposed to White converts than a normal Muslim in my circles because my wife is a White convert) and I cannot think of one that doesn't have 3 to 4 kids unless they converted fairly late in life.

    To give you an example that hits home - my wife and her sister (also a convert) have more kids between them than all the rest of her non-Muslim first cousins and siblings combined - if you toss in extended cousins, then they win by one or two kids. Her non-Muslim side (Swedish if that helps) will be cut in half (at least) within the next generation.

    As far as born-Muslims, around my crew, four kids are normal unless someone has some kind of a fertility problem (we know a few couples that only have one or two due to this). Interestingly, the most fecund around our particular community are the Bosnians.

    Not looking good. White people must have more children, period.
     
    Agreed. For the love of God, please have more children! You do not (hell, I do not) want Pakistanis and Algerians and Colombians or whoever taking over these places via demographics - there is a reason we came here!!! Hint: it wasn't because we were super-happy with how stuff was being run over there...

    Wake up!
     
    Indeed. The tragedy of the West often times seems to me like a man who spent his whole life building up a great business and devoting his time and energy to perfecting it...but, in the mean time, forgot to have kids since he was so busy - so the idiot son of his neighbor simply took it over by default. The future belongs to those that bother to show up...

    Peace.

    You do not (hell, I do not) want Pakistanis and Algerians and Colombians or whoever taking over these places via demographics – there is a reason we came here!!! Hint: it wasn’t because we were super-happy with how stuff was being run over there…

    You invade a nice place with your religion which is responsible in large part for your former home being a lousy place to live, and then you plead with the natives who built your new home to help keep it nice.  Meanwhile you’re spreading your nasty religion and driving up housing and schooling costs for those same natives (e.g. taking over their schools and making them hostile to their own children), forcing them to make extreme sacrifices that they should never have had to make in order to do that.

    Insight fail.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Talha

    You invade a nice place with your religion
     
    Nope. An invasion is like what we did to Iraq - you know, Marines with Abrams tanks and A-10 support. That is an invasion.

    I came because I was a 6 year old boy and my dad filled out papers to apply to come to the US and he was accepted as a legal migrant. That is not an invader any more than when Hezbollah captures an Israeli soldier in a disputed area and the Israelis call it "kidnapping" - get your terms right.


    then you plead with the natives who built your new home to help keep it nice
     
    OK - be my guest, don't listen to me and let everyone in just to spite me and see what happens.

    Meanwhile you’re spreading your nasty religion
     
    Well yeah - we will make hay while the sun shines. I mean, you can try to guilt trip me for spreading Islam in the West, but it's likely a waste of your time.

    driving up housing and schooling costs for those same natives (e.g. taking over their schools and making them hostile to their own children), forcing them to make extreme sacrifices that they should never have had to make in order to do that.
     
    I don't know what I'm personally doing to cause this, I'm certainly not teaching my kids hostility, but - as I've said a hundred times before - if you want me gone, you are talking to the wrong guy. Write your Congressman and Senator*. They write the laws, I don’t remember? Tell them we have to ship all non-Whites or Muslims (or whatever that eventually gets worked out to) back to countries of origin. Once I get my federal notice in the mail that my citizenship has been revoked, I will make plans to sell my property and leave since I'm a law-abiding citizen.

    I'm also fine with a partition of the US and secession of a White ethno-nationalist state (Whitekanda) - if you don't want to live around me and other non-Whites, good for you. If it came to a national vote, I would easily support it (as long as you guys make Islam prohibited within its boundaries - which, from your comment, seems highly probable).

    Peace.

    *Note: Assuming you are a US citizen. If you aren't - well, your comments carry as much weight in relevancy as some guy from Botswana or Thailand.

  70. @Mr. Rational

    You do not (hell, I do not) want Pakistanis and Algerians and Colombians or whoever taking over these places via demographics – there is a reason we came here!!! Hint: it wasn’t because we were super-happy with how stuff was being run over there…
     
    You invade a nice place with your religion which is responsible in large part for your former home being a lousy place to live, and then you plead with the natives who built your new home to help keep it nice.  Meanwhile you're spreading your nasty religion and driving up housing and schooling costs for those same natives (e.g. taking over their schools and making them hostile to their own children), forcing them to make extreme sacrifices that they should never have had to make in order to do that.

    Insight fail.

    You invade a nice place with your religion

    Nope. An invasion is like what we did to Iraq – you know, Marines with Abrams tanks and A-10 support. That is an invasion.

    I came because I was a 6 year old boy and my dad filled out papers to apply to come to the US and he was accepted as a legal migrant. That is not an invader any more than when Hezbollah captures an Israeli soldier in a disputed area and the Israelis call it “kidnapping” – get your terms right.

    then you plead with the natives who built your new home to help keep it nice

    OK – be my guest, don’t listen to me and let everyone in just to spite me and see what happens.

    Meanwhile you’re spreading your nasty religion

    Well yeah – we will make hay while the sun shines. I mean, you can try to guilt trip me for spreading Islam in the West, but it’s likely a waste of your time.

    driving up housing and schooling costs for those same natives (e.g. taking over their schools and making them hostile to their own children), forcing them to make extreme sacrifices that they should never have had to make in order to do that.

    I don’t know what I’m personally doing to cause this, I’m certainly not teaching my kids hostility, but – as I’ve said a hundred times before – if you want me gone, you are talking to the wrong guy. Write your Congressman and Senator*. They write the laws, I don’t remember? Tell them we have to ship all non-Whites or Muslims (or whatever that eventually gets worked out to) back to countries of origin. Once I get my federal notice in the mail that my citizenship has been revoked, I will make plans to sell my property and leave since I’m a law-abiding citizen.

    I’m also fine with a partition of the US and secession of a White ethno-nationalist state (Whitekanda) – if you don’t want to live around me and other non-Whites, good for you. If it came to a national vote, I would easily support it (as long as you guys make Islam prohibited within its boundaries – which, from your comment, seems highly probable).

    Peace.

    *Note: Assuming you are a US citizen. If you aren’t – well, your comments carry as much weight in relevancy as some guy from Botswana or Thailand.

  71. @Achmed E. Newman

    Can God live on nomadically in the hearts of those with no home (of worship) to take Him to?
     
    Sure he can. Listen, I'd read Mr. Rational's comment back on the last thread. As far as leaving the church due to their being TOO fundamentalist, well, I don't doubt Mr. Rational's personal reason for drifting (though "bookburning"? Literally? - as the kids say).

    However, I think its very much more likely that the people and families that left churches of the many demominations you had listed in that last post left for pretty much the opposite reasons: Their church was likely putting up rainbow flags, or that "We welcome everyone"* yard sign (the one in English, Spanish, and Arabic), or promoting feminism and tolerance for genderbending nonsense, or sponsoring immigrants from Somalia with their tithings.

    I don't think that big mustard-colored sector of the pie chart should even be labelled "Uncertain Believers", but more like "Believers who are sick and tired of the bullshit going on in modern organized religion" OK, A.E., that won't fit on that 165-deg mustard sector, so how about "Unorganized Believers"?

    .

    * BTW, it isn't that almost all church members wouldn't welcome members from all over the world. Those signs however, are an insidious thing, made right after Trump's election to really say "we welcome anyone who makes it into our country".

    (though “bookburning”? Literally? – as the kids say).

    Yes, literally.  We were played a lecture by some guy who said that things like antique books on yoga should be burned.  Not kept as unique artifacts, not set aside for study by advanced religious students—burned.  As if they had some Satanic power to reach out and steal souls.

    I know that the USA has its own Taliban-in-waiting, because I grew up knowing people who’d have blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas if they’d only been in the right place to do it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, so some guy on cassette tape recommended your church burn yoga books. Haha! I guess he doesn't have the affinity for the hippie chicks (the ones in good shape) that I did. I live in a conservative area, Mr. Rational, and I don't know anybody, and haven't heard in at least 3 decade,s of any religious figure calling for burning books. That's just as long as I can remember, so maybe it's been since, like, forever.

    I remember the lefties during most US Presidential elections, but especially with George W. Bush, warning us all that we would be headed for a theocracy if the R gets in. It was ridiculous then, and it's ridiculous now. I mean, Christian theocracy, that is. Mr. Talha and other small numbers of ASSIMILABLE immigrants aside, I defer to that old Instapundit stand-by, which was itself taken from somewhere else earlier, I believe:

    Re: 3 million Moslems in the US and climbing: "They told me if I voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney, the US would slide into theocracy, and, you know what, they were right!"

    (Before people who've not read my comments chime in, NO, I haven't voted for a R since before GHW Bush, until 2016.)

    The only people who would blow up any buddha statues that I can imagine are either teenage boys who have come across a cache of M-80's or some gun guys on youtube. It would have nothing to do with religion. Blowing stuff up has a quality all its own...
  72. @MBlanc46
    They had different levels of education so they couldn’t really connect. That is, the guys weren’t up on the latest developments in queer theory. Or at least the latest developments when she was an undergrad.

    Man, talk about a textbook example of why women should NOT be allowed to pursue higher education…

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Man, talk about a textbook example of why women should NOT be allowed to pursue higher education…
     
    Here we go again. Jews have taken over and perverted higher ed, therefore women should be excluded. That is profoundly obnoxious and dehumanizing to women.
  73. @Talha
    It’s all good, man - no worries. Thanks for taking the time to read through my comments.

    As a side note for my sister in law. The cancer she beat was a crazy story. She went through chemo and lost her hair like many people do, but there was some other procedure involved using a donor. I’m not a doctor, so I don’t know all the technical details, but she had to have a bunch of her bone marrow replaced using donations from a guy in Germany. It took a long time, but at the end of the ordeal, her blood type is now different than the one she was born with. I had no clue this was even possible!!!

    Peace.

    Me neither (as far as changing one’s blood type), but it’s been too long since I studied anything about this.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    It's really not that complicated.  Blood cells are generally expendable.  There's a population of stem cells in the bone marrow which are always generating new ones.  Some blood cancers come from rogue stem cells and can't be cured without wiping out all those stem cells.  Since this would leave the patient to die of anemia if nothing was done, the next step of the cure is to replace the stem cells using transplanted bone marrow.  The red blood cells this bone marrow generates will have the blood type of the marrow donor.
  74. @Mr. Rational

    (though “bookburning”? Literally? – as the kids say).
     
    Yes, literally.  We were played a lecture by some guy who said that things like antique books on yoga should be burned.  Not kept as unique artifacts, not set aside for study by advanced religious students—burned.  As if they had some Satanic power to reach out and steal souls.

    I know that the USA has its own Taliban-in-waiting, because I grew up knowing people who'd have blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas if they'd only been in the right place to do it.

    OK, so some guy on cassette tape recommended your church burn yoga books. Haha! I guess he doesn’t have the affinity for the hippie chicks (the ones in good shape) that I did. I live in a conservative area, Mr. Rational, and I don’t know anybody, and haven’t heard in at least 3 decade,s of any religious figure calling for burning books. That’s just as long as I can remember, so maybe it’s been since, like, forever.

    I remember the lefties during most US Presidential elections, but especially with George W. Bush, warning us all that we would be headed for a theocracy if the R gets in. It was ridiculous then, and it’s ridiculous now. I mean, Christian theocracy, that is. Mr. Talha and other small numbers of ASSIMILABLE immigrants aside, I defer to that old Instapundit stand-by, which was itself taken from somewhere else earlier, I believe:

    Re: 3 million Moslems in the US and climbing: “They told me if I voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney, the US would slide into theocracy, and, you know what, they were right!”

    (Before people who’ve not read my comments chime in, NO, I haven’t voted for a R since before GHW Bush, until 2016.)

    The only people who would blow up any buddha statues that I can imagine are either teenage boys who have come across a cache of M-80’s or some gun guys on youtube. It would have nothing to do with religion. Blowing stuff up has a quality all its own…

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    so some guy on cassette tape recommended your church burn yoga books.
     
    Note that this lecturer was being held up to us as an authority and role model.
  75. @Achmed E. Newman
    Me neither (as far as changing one's blood type), but it's been too long since I studied anything about this.

    It’s really not that complicated.  Blood cells are generally expendable.  There’s a population of stem cells in the bone marrow which are always generating new ones.  Some blood cancers come from rogue stem cells and can’t be cured without wiping out all those stem cells.  Since this would leave the patient to die of anemia if nothing was done, the next step of the cure is to replace the stem cells using transplanted bone marrow.  The red blood cells this bone marrow generates will have the blood type of the marrow donor.

  76. @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, so some guy on cassette tape recommended your church burn yoga books. Haha! I guess he doesn't have the affinity for the hippie chicks (the ones in good shape) that I did. I live in a conservative area, Mr. Rational, and I don't know anybody, and haven't heard in at least 3 decade,s of any religious figure calling for burning books. That's just as long as I can remember, so maybe it's been since, like, forever.

    I remember the lefties during most US Presidential elections, but especially with George W. Bush, warning us all that we would be headed for a theocracy if the R gets in. It was ridiculous then, and it's ridiculous now. I mean, Christian theocracy, that is. Mr. Talha and other small numbers of ASSIMILABLE immigrants aside, I defer to that old Instapundit stand-by, which was itself taken from somewhere else earlier, I believe:

    Re: 3 million Moslems in the US and climbing: "They told me if I voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney, the US would slide into theocracy, and, you know what, they were right!"

    (Before people who've not read my comments chime in, NO, I haven't voted for a R since before GHW Bush, until 2016.)

    The only people who would blow up any buddha statues that I can imagine are either teenage boys who have come across a cache of M-80's or some gun guys on youtube. It would have nothing to do with religion. Blowing stuff up has a quality all its own...

    so some guy on cassette tape recommended your church burn yoga books.

    Note that this lecturer was being held up to us as an authority and role model.

  77. Some Dems float idea of primary challenge for Ocasio-Cortez

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez

    The stack is already showing strains, and a rarely seen example of why “Hispanic” is not a unifying identifier. Rep. Cuellar, you’ve been promoted to white.

    Smart options for the GOP include doing nothing, and silently encouraging the few thousand registered GOP voters in that Third World district to change registration to Dem, and then voting for the challenger. Recruiting a nominal Puerto Rican/Dominican challenger would also help, I can hear the DR3 wheels already spinning up.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Having "AOC" in office is a great thing for us. Why would we want her primaried?
  78. @RVBlake
    Many online atheists whose comments I've read on the web have a distinctly unpleasant, strident Leftist quality. They're arrogantly cocksure to a man, and gleefully abusive of theists.

    Many online atheists whose comments I’ve read on the web have a distinctly unpleasant, strident Leftist quality. They’re arrogantly cocksure to a man, and gleefully abusive of theists.

    Oh, not just of theists, but of atheists who are conservative or libertarian. They’d make common cause with leftist Christians long before they’d say a kind word about, say, Ayn Rand (who was stridently atheist).

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    I must be one of the real oddballs, then.  I highly recommend reading Rand, both for the worthwhile insights and for the errors, omissions, and object lesson on how the Objectivist system which had such potential has hardened into another dogma like the ones she purported to be fighting.

    That last is really the sad part.  Best example:  decades after Koko (RIP) proved that apes could express themselves in human language, Objectivists are still insisting there's a firm mental dividing line between humans and "animals".  Faced with a choice between objective reconsideration in the face of evidence and St. Rand's holy writ, they chose the latter.
    , @RVBlake
    And homosexuality seems to figure largely in their litany of complaints about Christianity...It's always Christianity. Crusades, Inquisition, and homosexuals. Oh, dear.
  79. @Mr. Rational

    They believe in no higher power, but they believe.
     
    Maybe some do, but most have given up on belief in the BS they've been fed from childhood.

    They don’t like being told this.
     
    The BS-fatigued don't like more BS, true.  Shove more of the same at them and they often get angry and tell you to F the hell off.

    They go through great lengths to conceal their faith based beliefs.
     
    Rejection of faith is not faith, nitwit.

    They talk about the big bang likes it’s proven fact.
     
    What part of "cosmic background radiation" don't you understand?  Without the Big Bang it could not exist, but the Big Bang requires it to exist.  It exists, therefore the Big Bang is true, QED.  Now FTHO.

    But the fact is they cannot prove “God” doesn’t exist, or disprove that he does.
     
    The only way one can prove a negative is by showing that it leads to a contradiction.  You can assert that your "God" exists but that assertion is empty without positive and unambiguous evidence.  That evidence is lacking, and I'm fucking sick of your demands that your evidence-free assertions make you fit to run my life.  GTFO.

    LOL – You couldn’t have validated my comment any more if you tried. Thanks.

  80. @MBlanc46
    Mike: Are you a theist or an atheist regarding Krishna? Regarding Zeus? Regarding Baal? Regarding Ku or Lono?

    agnostic (ăg-nŏsˈtĭk)►

    n.
    One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
    n.
    One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
    n.
    One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

  81. @Rex Little

    Many online atheists whose comments I’ve read on the web have a distinctly unpleasant, strident Leftist quality. They’re arrogantly cocksure to a man, and gleefully abusive of theists.
     
    Oh, not just of theists, but of atheists who are conservative or libertarian. They'd make common cause with leftist Christians long before they'd say a kind word about, say, Ayn Rand (who was stridently atheist).

    I must be one of the real oddballs, then.  I highly recommend reading Rand, both for the worthwhile insights and for the errors, omissions, and object lesson on how the Objectivist system which had such potential has hardened into another dogma like the ones she purported to be fighting.

    That last is really the sad part.  Best example:  decades after Koko (RIP) proved that apes could express themselves in human language, Objectivists are still insisting there’s a firm mental dividing line between humans and “animals”.  Faced with a choice between objective reconsideration in the face of evidence and St. Rand’s holy writ, they chose the latter.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    Rand's philosophy doesn't work for a variety of reasons, but it also falters because Rand promoted through both example and precept hostility towards women's natural function of forming families. Her Kool Aid drinkers have generally followed her model, and that explains why organized Rand cults have to engage in nonstop recruiting of teenagers and college students from normal people's families as the older Rand cultists either die or get bored with Rand stuff and drift away.

    It also says a lot about Rand's deficiencies as a thinker that her own followers admit that her world view appeals strongly to young people who by definition lack life experience, and who therefore don't know important things about life from what they have already done or seen which tend to conflict with Rand's version of how the world allegedly works.
    , @Rex Little

    I must be one of the real oddballs, then.
     
    No, you're just not a leftist. To them, Objectivism has no worthwhile insights or potential--it's anathema to their collectivist worldview.
  82. @Kratoklastes
    Agnosticism is gutless - because taken to its logical extension, an agnostic must be agnostic not jsut with respect to the deity associated with the locally-dominant religion, but must be agnostic with respect to all untestable truth claims in order to be consistent.

    So if I say that my cat tells me I am infallible, it does not suffice for an agnostic to assert that there's no evidence for cats talking, or for infallible humans... because of that "logic for retards" claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    'Scientific' Atheists (for want of abetter word) take the 'absence of evidence' trope and incorporate it into a broader methodology:

    • absence of evidence, plus
    • evidence that contradicts the 'default' hypothesis; plus
    • evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis...

    is evidence of absence of an anthropomorphised god.

    .

    Observation of the heavens tells us that another galaxy will, inttime, collide with our own; by that time Earth will be uninhabitable, our sun having already gone supernova.

    So if the stupid primitive nonsense is to be believed, Yahweh will have run a 25-billion year experiment (14billion up till now, and another ~10 before our sun is fucked).

    For the first 13.998 billion years, Yahweh just fucked around - then he tweaked things to result in modern humans, a mere 13.9996 billion years (i.e., ~400k years ago).

    Then he waited another 397,000 years before he kinda revealed his requirements to a bunch of pre-literate tribespeople in a sandy shithole.

    Then 2000 years ago, he put on a meat-suit and had a wander around the aforementioned sandy shithole, talking in riddles to a slightly-different bunch of illiterate primitives. Then he had himself tortured to death to save humans from his wrath (WTF?).

    Is that consistent with an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent deity? Nope... Epicurus put the arrow through that in ~300BCE.

    Is is consistent with "a bunch of shit made up by pre-scientific illiterates"? Yep.


    Here's the thing: if god was anything like what he's claimed to be, the universe would not be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% (by mass) lethally hostile to human life... and everything would be solar-powered (to minimise suffering)

    Then 2000 years ago, he put on a meat-suit and had a wander around the aforementioned sandy shithole, talking in riddles to a slightly-different bunch of illiterate primitives. Then he had himself tortured to death to save humans from his wrath (WTF?).

    That’s hilarious. 😂

    A great way to highlight how farcical Church dogma really is.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Alternatively, it's a strangely beautiful way to show how human emotion is something the cannot be rationally understood, only experienced--even by the omniscient and omnipotent.
  83. @Kratoklastes
    Agnosticism is gutless - because taken to its logical extension, an agnostic must be agnostic not jsut with respect to the deity associated with the locally-dominant religion, but must be agnostic with respect to all untestable truth claims in order to be consistent.

    So if I say that my cat tells me I am infallible, it does not suffice for an agnostic to assert that there's no evidence for cats talking, or for infallible humans... because of that "logic for retards" claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    'Scientific' Atheists (for want of abetter word) take the 'absence of evidence' trope and incorporate it into a broader methodology:

    • absence of evidence, plus
    • evidence that contradicts the 'default' hypothesis; plus
    • evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis...

    is evidence of absence of an anthropomorphised god.

    .

    Observation of the heavens tells us that another galaxy will, inttime, collide with our own; by that time Earth will be uninhabitable, our sun having already gone supernova.

    So if the stupid primitive nonsense is to be believed, Yahweh will have run a 25-billion year experiment (14billion up till now, and another ~10 before our sun is fucked).

    For the first 13.998 billion years, Yahweh just fucked around - then he tweaked things to result in modern humans, a mere 13.9996 billion years (i.e., ~400k years ago).

    Then he waited another 397,000 years before he kinda revealed his requirements to a bunch of pre-literate tribespeople in a sandy shithole.

    Then 2000 years ago, he put on a meat-suit and had a wander around the aforementioned sandy shithole, talking in riddles to a slightly-different bunch of illiterate primitives. Then he had himself tortured to death to save humans from his wrath (WTF?).

    Is that consistent with an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent deity? Nope... Epicurus put the arrow through that in ~300BCE.

    Is is consistent with "a bunch of shit made up by pre-scientific illiterates"? Yep.


    Here's the thing: if god was anything like what he's claimed to be, the universe would not be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% (by mass) lethally hostile to human life... and everything would be solar-powered (to minimise suffering)

    That’s a great reply. I don’t see how anyone can, in good faith, disagree with it logically.

    Then again, what’s the point in “good faith” if there’s no God and therefore, except for sophisms and hedonia, life has no meaning?

    Indeed, if cold logic merely leads to emptiness, a recognition of the horror of the void, then how can we expect to face reality in other, less fundamental areas?

    Recent developments seem to say we can’t.

    In other words, faith in God is required for logic to have meaning so logic cannot kill God.

    I’ll understand if you come back to me about the above and say it is a load of nonsense, but my fundamental problem will remain: reality is too horrifying to look at without some faith, and believe in a distant, impossible to comprehend God is the least reality subverting faith there is.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    my fundamental problem will remain: reality is too horrifying to look at without some faith, and believe in a distant, impossible to comprehend God is the least reality subverting faith there is.
     
    You Jews and your neuroses. Instead of wasting your time lamenting the meaningless of it all, why not focus on the things within your grasp?

    Having been on a gurney while the nurses were shouting out “Code”, what mattered, all that mattered, was my wife and kids. I didn’t worry about fading into eternal nothingness, didn’t worry about whether I deposited enough tokens into some Sky Fairy turnstile, any more than I worry I won’t awaken tomorrow morning (most days I hope I won’t). I’m biologically programmed to care about my mate and my progeny, to do what I am able to ensure their safety and health. My curiosities and intellectual pursuits are amusements. Nothing more. My work is solely for the benefit of my family and their habitat which includes my tribe. Nothing more.

    Faith? In what? I know how the game ends. It always ends the same. Nobody wins. The universe was here long before me and will continue long after my atoms have been recycled trillions of times. So what? Why is that scary? Get yourself a dog, you could learn much about the “purpose” of life from one.
  84. @Mr. Rational

    I have no real logical reason to believe anyone of you here exist.
     
    I do, and it's pretty simple:  even if I was creative enough, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go around creating a bunch of imaginary correspondents to entertain myself.  Thus founders the ship of solipsism upon the shoal of logic.

    Actually, if you are solipsist, then you have no reasons to believe in material world, which means any restrictions based on you by material world do not exist. You might be creative without even realising that 😀

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    I'm a poet
    And I don't know it
    But my feet show it
    They're Longfellows.
  85. Tribalism for me, but not for thee

    Lawyer | Host #SuitUP Podcast | Sports Legal Contributor @TheAthletic @Forbes | Treasurer @NABJ Sports Task Force | Fortune 500 Speaker | RYT 200 Yoga Teacher

    When 90% of your votes are going one way, you have no room to speak.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Bizarre... especially the notion of "whiteness" in the face of white Latin immigrants.

    They really mean anglo.
    , @Rosie

    When 90% of your votes are going one way, you have no room to speak.
     
    What is the deal with Brit Hume, I wonder. Is he a closet sympathizer or something?
  86. @216
    Tribalism for me, but not for thee

    https://twitter.com/exavierpope/status/1089998996410638336

    Lawyer | Host #SuitUP Podcast | Sports Legal Contributor @TheAthletic @Forbes | Treasurer @NABJ Sports Task Force | Fortune 500 Speaker | RYT 200 Yoga Teacher
     
    When 90% of your votes are going one way, you have no room to speak.

    Bizarre… especially the notion of “whiteness” in the face of white Latin immigrants.

    They really mean anglo.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  87. @Mr. Rational
    Man, talk about a textbook example of why women should NOT be allowed to pursue higher education...

    Man, talk about a textbook example of why women should NOT be allowed to pursue higher education…

    Here we go again. Jews have taken over and perverted higher ed, therefore women should be excluded. That is profoundly obnoxious and dehumanizing to women.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Jews have taken over and perverted higher ed
     
    Here comes the non-sequitur....

    therefore women should be excluded.
     
    No, Rosie.  Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society.  This was well-known and lamented over a century ago.

    That is profoundly obnoxious and dehumanizing to women.
     
    You are probably not old enough to remember the term "coed" as a noun rather than an adjective.  It meant girls who were admitted to formerly all-male institutions.  It was common up through the 1970's, as I recall.  Women were hardly "dehumanized" then.  What's happened is that they've been de-feminized, turning what could have been first-rate women into second-rate men.
  88. @Kratoklastes
    Agnosticism is gutless - because taken to its logical extension, an agnostic must be agnostic not jsut with respect to the deity associated with the locally-dominant religion, but must be agnostic with respect to all untestable truth claims in order to be consistent.

    So if I say that my cat tells me I am infallible, it does not suffice for an agnostic to assert that there's no evidence for cats talking, or for infallible humans... because of that "logic for retards" claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    'Scientific' Atheists (for want of abetter word) take the 'absence of evidence' trope and incorporate it into a broader methodology:

    • absence of evidence, plus
    • evidence that contradicts the 'default' hypothesis; plus
    • evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis...

    is evidence of absence of an anthropomorphised god.

    .

    Observation of the heavens tells us that another galaxy will, inttime, collide with our own; by that time Earth will be uninhabitable, our sun having already gone supernova.

    So if the stupid primitive nonsense is to be believed, Yahweh will have run a 25-billion year experiment (14billion up till now, and another ~10 before our sun is fucked).

    For the first 13.998 billion years, Yahweh just fucked around - then he tweaked things to result in modern humans, a mere 13.9996 billion years (i.e., ~400k years ago).

    Then he waited another 397,000 years before he kinda revealed his requirements to a bunch of pre-literate tribespeople in a sandy shithole.

    Then 2000 years ago, he put on a meat-suit and had a wander around the aforementioned sandy shithole, talking in riddles to a slightly-different bunch of illiterate primitives. Then he had himself tortured to death to save humans from his wrath (WTF?).

    Is that consistent with an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent deity? Nope... Epicurus put the arrow through that in ~300BCE.

    Is is consistent with "a bunch of shit made up by pre-scientific illiterates"? Yep.


    Here's the thing: if god was anything like what he's claimed to be, the universe would not be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% (by mass) lethally hostile to human life... and everything would be solar-powered (to minimise suffering)

    Agnosticism is gutless – because taken to its logical extension, an agnostic must be agnostic not jsut with respect to the deity associated with the locally-dominant religion, but must be agnostic with respect to all untestable truth claims in order to be consistent.

    So if I say that my cat tells me I am infallible, it does not suffice for an agnostic to assert that there’s no evidence for cats talking, or for infallible humans… because of that “logic for retards” claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Belief in the existence of a Creator is intuitive in a way that belief in talking cats is not. You can say there is no proof to a Cartesian certainty that God exists, but to say there is no evidence is quite uncharitable to say the least.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    I don't understand what Intelligent Design theorists accomplish by arguing that life operates just like the machines that men design and build. They concede the materialists' basic insight into how biology works; they just disagree with materialists over how the biological mechanisms came into existence. Where does the spooky supernatural stuff promoted by Christianity come into play here? The people who wrote the bible didn't know about bacteria, much less express a doctrine about the bacterial flagellum's machine-like character.
  89. @Mr. Rational
    I must be one of the real oddballs, then.  I highly recommend reading Rand, both for the worthwhile insights and for the errors, omissions, and object lesson on how the Objectivist system which had such potential has hardened into another dogma like the ones she purported to be fighting.

    That last is really the sad part.  Best example:  decades after Koko (RIP) proved that apes could express themselves in human language, Objectivists are still insisting there's a firm mental dividing line between humans and "animals".  Faced with a choice between objective reconsideration in the face of evidence and St. Rand's holy writ, they chose the latter.

    Rand’s philosophy doesn’t work for a variety of reasons, but it also falters because Rand promoted through both example and precept hostility towards women’s natural function of forming families. Her Kool Aid drinkers have generally followed her model, and that explains why organized Rand cults have to engage in nonstop recruiting of teenagers and college students from normal people’s families as the older Rand cultists either die or get bored with Rand stuff and drift away.

    It also says a lot about Rand’s deficiencies as a thinker that her own followers admit that her world view appeals strongly to young people who by definition lack life experience, and who therefore don’t know important things about life from what they have already done or seen which tend to conflict with Rand’s version of how the world allegedly works.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Yup.  And ALL of that could have been fixed had there been a process of self-examination, testing and improvement built into the philosophy.  Instead... dogma locked it all in.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It's always good to run a quick scan on your proposed formula before running it. If that check reveals that the formula will result in the extinction of the species, it's not a good formula!
  90. @216
    Tribalism for me, but not for thee

    https://twitter.com/exavierpope/status/1089998996410638336

    Lawyer | Host #SuitUP Podcast | Sports Legal Contributor @TheAthletic @Forbes | Treasurer @NABJ Sports Task Force | Fortune 500 Speaker | RYT 200 Yoga Teacher
     
    When 90% of your votes are going one way, you have no room to speak.

    When 90% of your votes are going one way, you have no room to speak.

    What is the deal with Brit Hume, I wonder. Is he a closet sympathizer or something?

    • Replies: @216
    The simple explanation is that Brit Hume is just a journo defending another journo.

    I'd rather that we hang Brokaw out to dry, hard to imagine a better DR3 moment.
  91. @Rex Little

    Many online atheists whose comments I’ve read on the web have a distinctly unpleasant, strident Leftist quality. They’re arrogantly cocksure to a man, and gleefully abusive of theists.
     
    Oh, not just of theists, but of atheists who are conservative or libertarian. They'd make common cause with leftist Christians long before they'd say a kind word about, say, Ayn Rand (who was stridently atheist).

    And homosexuality seems to figure largely in their litany of complaints about Christianity…It’s always Christianity. Crusades, Inquisition, and homosexuals. Oh, dear.

    • Replies: @Ender
    I have not met a single socially conservative athiest online my entire life.
  92. @Rosie

    Agnosticism is gutless – because taken to its logical extension, an agnostic must be agnostic not jsut with respect to the deity associated with the locally-dominant religion, but must be agnostic with respect to all untestable truth claims in order to be consistent.

    So if I say that my cat tells me I am infallible, it does not suffice for an agnostic to assert that there’s no evidence for cats talking, or for infallible humans… because of that “logic for retards” claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
     
    Belief in the existence of a Creator is intuitive in a way that belief in talking cats is not. You can say there is no proof to a Cartesian certainty that God exists, but to say there is no evidence is quite uncharitable to say the least.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fFq_MGf3sbk

    I don’t understand what Intelligent Design theorists accomplish by arguing that life operates just like the machines that men design and build. They concede the materialists’ basic insight into how biology works; they just disagree with materialists over how the biological mechanisms came into existence. Where does the spooky supernatural stuff promoted by Christianity come into play here? The people who wrote the bible didn’t know about bacteria, much less express a doctrine about the bacterial flagellum’s machine-like character.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Where does the spooky supernatural stuff promoted by Christianity come into play here?
     
    If God exists, and created humanity, it stands to reason that God would have reveal himself to humanity in some way or another. Humans have speculated that God has revealed himself in a number of ways: through Prophets, revealed Scripture, and Incarnation. Obviously, ID doesn't prove the truth of any particular revealed truth claim, it simply opens the door to further theological inquiry.
    , @Rosie

    The people who wrote the bible didn’t know about bacteria, much less express a doctrine about the bacterial flagellum’s machine-like character.
     
    BTW, here you touch on the fundamental problem with the Talking Cat hypothetical. In our experience, cats never talk. Therefore, claims about talking cats run contrary to our experience. OTOH, we know from experience that machines are engineered, i.e. designed.

    Now, I'm not claiming that this is conclusive evidence. I'm simply pointing out that some unverifiable truth claims are more intuitive and compelling than others.
  93. @advancedatheist
    I don't understand what Intelligent Design theorists accomplish by arguing that life operates just like the machines that men design and build. They concede the materialists' basic insight into how biology works; they just disagree with materialists over how the biological mechanisms came into existence. Where does the spooky supernatural stuff promoted by Christianity come into play here? The people who wrote the bible didn't know about bacteria, much less express a doctrine about the bacterial flagellum's machine-like character.

    Where does the spooky supernatural stuff promoted by Christianity come into play here?

    If God exists, and created humanity, it stands to reason that God would have reveal himself to humanity in some way or another. Humans have speculated that God has revealed himself in a number of ways: through Prophets, revealed Scripture, and Incarnation. Obviously, ID doesn’t prove the truth of any particular revealed truth claim, it simply opens the door to further theological inquiry.

  94. @Rosie

    When 90% of your votes are going one way, you have no room to speak.
     
    What is the deal with Brit Hume, I wonder. Is he a closet sympathizer or something?

    The simple explanation is that Brit Hume is just a journo defending another journo.

    I’d rather that we hang Brokaw out to dry, hard to imagine a better DR3 moment.

  95. @advancedatheist
    I don't understand what Intelligent Design theorists accomplish by arguing that life operates just like the machines that men design and build. They concede the materialists' basic insight into how biology works; they just disagree with materialists over how the biological mechanisms came into existence. Where does the spooky supernatural stuff promoted by Christianity come into play here? The people who wrote the bible didn't know about bacteria, much less express a doctrine about the bacterial flagellum's machine-like character.

    The people who wrote the bible didn’t know about bacteria, much less express a doctrine about the bacterial flagellum’s machine-like character.

    BTW, here you touch on the fundamental problem with the Talking Cat hypothetical. In our experience, cats never talk. Therefore, claims about talking cats run contrary to our experience. OTOH, we know from experience that machines are engineered, i.e. designed.

    Now, I’m not claiming that this is conclusive evidence. I’m simply pointing out that some unverifiable truth claims are more intuitive and compelling than others.

  96. @Mr. Rational
    I must be one of the real oddballs, then.  I highly recommend reading Rand, both for the worthwhile insights and for the errors, omissions, and object lesson on how the Objectivist system which had such potential has hardened into another dogma like the ones she purported to be fighting.

    That last is really the sad part.  Best example:  decades after Koko (RIP) proved that apes could express themselves in human language, Objectivists are still insisting there's a firm mental dividing line between humans and "animals".  Faced with a choice between objective reconsideration in the face of evidence and St. Rand's holy writ, they chose the latter.

    I must be one of the real oddballs, then.

    No, you’re just not a leftist. To them, Objectivism has no worthwhile insights or potential–it’s anathema to their collectivist worldview.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  97. Cleanup crew

    Would be nice if center-left whites actually behaved like team players, instead of only displaying this behavior when their own hide is on the line.

  98. @szopen
    Actually, if you are solipsist, then you have no reasons to believe in material world, which means any restrictions based on you by material world do not exist. You might be creative without even realising that :D

    I’m a poet
    And I don’t know it
    But my feet show it
    They’re Longfellows.

  99. @Rosie

    Man, talk about a textbook example of why women should NOT be allowed to pursue higher education…
     
    Here we go again. Jews have taken over and perverted higher ed, therefore women should be excluded. That is profoundly obnoxious and dehumanizing to women.

    Jews have taken over and perverted higher ed

    Here comes the non-sequitur….

    therefore women should be excluded.

    No, Rosie.  Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society.  This was well-known and lamented over a century ago.

    That is profoundly obnoxious and dehumanizing to women.

    You are probably not old enough to remember the term “coed” as a noun rather than an adjective.  It meant girls who were admitted to formerly all-male institutions.  It was common up through the 1970’s, as I recall.  Women were hardly “dehumanized” then.  What’s happened is that they’ve been de-feminized, turning what could have been first-rate women into second-rate men.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    No, Rosie. Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society. This was well-known and lamented over a century ago.
     
    Nope. That's unacceptable. We'll have to figure out a way to reconcile women's interests in higher education with society's interest in fecundity. I see no reason to believe that a simple promotion of racial pride wouldn't do the trick. Israel has above-replacement fertility and equal educational opportunity for women. Why? Because they believe that their people should continue to exist, even the secular ones.

    You are probably not old enough to remember the term “coed” as a noun rather than an adjective. It meant girls who were admitted to formerly all-male institutions. It was common up through the 1970’s, as I recall. Women were hardly “dehumanized” then.
     
    Not so long as they had their own institutions of higher learning. If you're suggesting higher ed should be segregated, that's another matter.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material. Again, that's unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented. Women have always had opportunities for higher learning, if only in a religious order.
    , @Stan d Mute

    Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society.
     
    Perhaps more importantly, it runs against their biological programming. They must be socially conditioned to do it and they pay the ultimate price for that when the conditioning succeeds. If women were naturally inclined to pursue men’s work, there would be no need to subject them to the nonstop propaganda from birth that they’re identical to men except sans penis. Let women be women and see what happens. Oh, that’s right, we already know - like every other mammal they fuck and make babies.

    Feminism is a war on whiteness.
    , @Rosie

    Let women be women and see what happens. Oh, that’s right, we already know – like every other mammal they fuck and make babies.
     
    I rest my case.
  100. @advancedatheist
    Rand's philosophy doesn't work for a variety of reasons, but it also falters because Rand promoted through both example and precept hostility towards women's natural function of forming families. Her Kool Aid drinkers have generally followed her model, and that explains why organized Rand cults have to engage in nonstop recruiting of teenagers and college students from normal people's families as the older Rand cultists either die or get bored with Rand stuff and drift away.

    It also says a lot about Rand's deficiencies as a thinker that her own followers admit that her world view appeals strongly to young people who by definition lack life experience, and who therefore don't know important things about life from what they have already done or seen which tend to conflict with Rand's version of how the world allegedly works.

    Yup.  And ALL of that could have been fixed had there been a process of self-examination, testing and improvement built into the philosophy.  Instead… dogma locked it all in.

  101. @Mr. Rational

    Jews have taken over and perverted higher ed
     
    Here comes the non-sequitur....

    therefore women should be excluded.
     
    No, Rosie.  Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society.  This was well-known and lamented over a century ago.

    That is profoundly obnoxious and dehumanizing to women.
     
    You are probably not old enough to remember the term "coed" as a noun rather than an adjective.  It meant girls who were admitted to formerly all-male institutions.  It was common up through the 1970's, as I recall.  Women were hardly "dehumanized" then.  What's happened is that they've been de-feminized, turning what could have been first-rate women into second-rate men.

    No, Rosie. Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society. This was well-known and lamented over a century ago.

    Nope. That’s unacceptable. We’ll have to figure out a way to reconcile women’s interests in higher education with society’s interest in fecundity. I see no reason to believe that a simple promotion of racial pride wouldn’t do the trick. Israel has above-replacement fertility and equal educational opportunity for women. Why? Because they believe that their people should continue to exist, even the secular ones.

    You are probably not old enough to remember the term “coed” as a noun rather than an adjective. It meant girls who were admitted to formerly all-male institutions. It was common up through the 1970’s, as I recall. Women were hardly “dehumanized” then.

    Not so long as they had their own institutions of higher learning. If you’re suggesting higher ed should be segregated, that’s another matter.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material. Again, that’s unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented. Women have always had opportunities for higher learning, if only in a religious order.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Mr. Rational, consider my guitar-playing teenager hypothetical. Suppose you have a teenage son who picks up the guitar, and as a result starts neglecting his chores. Do you take the guitar away? I suppose, but only as a last resort, and only after you have attempted every other means possible to get him to do his chores. For example, offerig guitar lessons so long as he does his chores as scheduled.

    Moreover, you are still blaming women for low fertility with no evidence that men aren't driving low fertility by insisting on birth control. There's probably a similar correlation between education and low fertility for men. That doesn't prove that it's causal. Women who are educated are more likely to be able to use birth control consistently. Taking educational opportunities away from women won't change that.
    , @Rosie

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material. Again, that’s unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented. Women have always had opportunities for higher learning, if only in a religious order.
     
    Daniel Defoe on why women are dehumanized by exclusion from education:

    The soul is placed in the body like a rough diamond; and must be polished, or the lustre of it will never appear. And ’tis manifest, that as the rational soul distinguishes us from brutes; so education carries on the distinction, and makes some less brutish than others. This is too evident to need any demonstration. But why then should women be denied the benefit of instruction? If knowledge and understanding had been useless additions to the sex, GOD Almighty would never have given them capacities; for he made nothing needless.
     
    , @Mr. Rational

    That’s unacceptable. We’ll have to figure out a way to reconcile women’s interests in higher education with society’s interest in fecundity.
     
    Do those interests include having any institutions of higher education at all?  If they do, you have to get rid of the IQ shredder or they will cease to exist for lack of a critical mass of smart enough people to support them.  If they don't, women's interests are anti-civilization.

    There are exceptions to this, and that is education that is tailored and channeled to put family first.  However, not even those unisex women's colleges aided rather than retarded high-IQ fertility.  I know that requiring 4 offspring from women with IQ over 115 before going on to non-family pursuits would build rather than shred IQ.  There are exceptions; I don't see autistics like Temple Grandin as having a role as good mothers so they should pursue whatever they are good at.

    I see no reason to believe that a simple promotion of racial pride wouldn’t do the trick.
     
    Based on what evidence?  Wishful thinking?  Racial pride doesn't single out intelligence as a trait to be cultivated.  At best it discourages reproduction in low-IQ ethnies without encouraging eugenic reproduction in the majority.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material.
     
    Without reproduction, society dies.  How do you propose to guarantee that this essential job gets done first, before the frivolities?

    Again, that’s unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented.
     
    It was normal for most of the history of higher education.  Harvard was founded in 1636; Oxford goes back as far as 1096.  Oxford didn't admit women as full members until 1920 and Harvard didn't merge with Radcliffe until 1977.

    We got into this mess by ignoring troublesome trends for a century.  Way back in 1927 Henry R. Carey penned an essay subtitled "Are the girls' colleges promoting race suicide among America's most intelligent women by influencing their graduates against marriage and maternity?"  Note that this was well BEFORE most American institutions went co-ed.  This demonstrates that higher education for women is inherently a problem and has long resisted solution.  If we can't control the problem any other way, we need to end it.
  102. @Rosie

    No, Rosie. Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society. This was well-known and lamented over a century ago.
     
    Nope. That's unacceptable. We'll have to figure out a way to reconcile women's interests in higher education with society's interest in fecundity. I see no reason to believe that a simple promotion of racial pride wouldn't do the trick. Israel has above-replacement fertility and equal educational opportunity for women. Why? Because they believe that their people should continue to exist, even the secular ones.

    You are probably not old enough to remember the term “coed” as a noun rather than an adjective. It meant girls who were admitted to formerly all-male institutions. It was common up through the 1970’s, as I recall. Women were hardly “dehumanized” then.
     
    Not so long as they had their own institutions of higher learning. If you're suggesting higher ed should be segregated, that's another matter.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material. Again, that's unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented. Women have always had opportunities for higher learning, if only in a religious order.

    Mr. Rational, consider my guitar-playing teenager hypothetical. Suppose you have a teenage son who picks up the guitar, and as a result starts neglecting his chores. Do you take the guitar away? I suppose, but only as a last resort, and only after you have attempted every other means possible to get him to do his chores. For example, offerig guitar lessons so long as he does his chores as scheduled.

    Moreover, you are still blaming women for low fertility with no evidence that men aren’t driving low fertility by insisting on birth control. There’s probably a similar correlation between education and low fertility for men. That doesn’t prove that it’s causal. Women who are educated are more likely to be able to use birth control consistently. Taking educational opportunities away from women won’t change that.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    you are still blaming women for low fertility with no evidence that men aren’t driving low fertility by insisting on birth control.
     
    Independent women who are only too ready to commit divorce rape on defenseless men are probably the biggest drivers of men's refusal to volunteer to be dads.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I've looked pretty thoroughly at the GSS on this question, and while the trend exists for both men and women, it is definitely more pronounced among women.
  103. @Rosie

    No, Rosie. Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society. This was well-known and lamented over a century ago.
     
    Nope. That's unacceptable. We'll have to figure out a way to reconcile women's interests in higher education with society's interest in fecundity. I see no reason to believe that a simple promotion of racial pride wouldn't do the trick. Israel has above-replacement fertility and equal educational opportunity for women. Why? Because they believe that their people should continue to exist, even the secular ones.

    You are probably not old enough to remember the term “coed” as a noun rather than an adjective. It meant girls who were admitted to formerly all-male institutions. It was common up through the 1970’s, as I recall. Women were hardly “dehumanized” then.
     
    Not so long as they had their own institutions of higher learning. If you're suggesting higher ed should be segregated, that's another matter.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material. Again, that's unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented. Women have always had opportunities for higher learning, if only in a religious order.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material. Again, that’s unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented. Women have always had opportunities for higher learning, if only in a religious order.

    Daniel Defoe on why women are dehumanized by exclusion from education:

    The soul is placed in the body like a rough diamond; and must be polished, or the lustre of it will never appear. And ’tis manifest, that as the rational soul distinguishes us from brutes; so education carries on the distinction, and makes some less brutish than others. This is too evident to need any demonstration. But why then should women be denied the benefit of instruction? If knowledge and understanding had been useless additions to the sex, GOD Almighty would never have given them capacities; for he made nothing needless.

  104. Sounds like a typical American Hamburger Weltanschauung. Either-or, with weak arguments on any side.

    What is typically American, too, is spiritual supermarket mentality with something newagey about it- after all, New Age is eminently American phenomenon with global echoes.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    By the way, some English wit had said, if I remember correctly: Anglo-American philosophical top is only a German theologian's bottom.
  105. @Bardon Kaldian
    Sounds like a typical American Hamburger Weltanschauung. Either-or, with weak arguments on any side.

    What is typically American, too, is spiritual supermarket mentality with something newagey about it- after all, New Age is eminently American phenomenon with global echoes.

    By the way, some English wit had said, if I remember correctly: Anglo-American philosophical top is only a German theologian’s bottom.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, but he probably said it in English to where it made sense.
  106. @Tyrion 2
    That's a great reply. I don't see how anyone can, in good faith, disagree with it logically.

    Then again, what's the point in "good faith" if there's no God and therefore, except for sophisms and hedonia, life has no meaning?

    Indeed, if cold logic merely leads to emptiness, a recognition of the horror of the void, then how can we expect to face reality in other, less fundamental areas?

    Recent developments seem to say we can't.

    In other words, faith in God is required for logic to have meaning so logic cannot kill God.

    I'll understand if you come back to me about the above and say it is a load of nonsense, but my fundamental problem will remain: reality is too horrifying to look at without some faith, and believe in a distant, impossible to comprehend God is the least reality subverting faith there is.

    my fundamental problem will remain: reality is too horrifying to look at without some faith, and believe in a distant, impossible to comprehend God is the least reality subverting faith there is.

    You Jews and your neuroses. Instead of wasting your time lamenting the meaningless of it all, why not focus on the things within your grasp?

    Having been on a gurney while the nurses were shouting out “Code”, what mattered, all that mattered, was my wife and kids. I didn’t worry about fading into eternal nothingness, didn’t worry about whether I deposited enough tokens into some Sky Fairy turnstile, any more than I worry I won’t awaken tomorrow morning (most days I hope I won’t). I’m biologically programmed to care about my mate and my progeny, to do what I am able to ensure their safety and health. My curiosities and intellectual pursuits are amusements. Nothing more. My work is solely for the benefit of my family and their habitat which includes my tribe. Nothing more.

    Faith? In what? I know how the game ends. It always ends the same. Nobody wins. The universe was here long before me and will continue long after my atoms have been recycled trillions of times. So what? Why is that scary? Get yourself a dog, you could learn much about the “purpose” of life from one.

  107. @Mr. Rational

    Jews have taken over and perverted higher ed
     
    Here comes the non-sequitur....

    therefore women should be excluded.
     
    No, Rosie.  Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society.  This was well-known and lamented over a century ago.

    That is profoundly obnoxious and dehumanizing to women.
     
    You are probably not old enough to remember the term "coed" as a noun rather than an adjective.  It meant girls who were admitted to formerly all-male institutions.  It was common up through the 1970's, as I recall.  Women were hardly "dehumanized" then.  What's happened is that they've been de-feminized, turning what could have been first-rate women into second-rate men.

    Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society.

    Perhaps more importantly, it runs against their biological programming. They must be socially conditioned to do it and they pay the ultimate price for that when the conditioning succeeds. If women were naturally inclined to pursue men’s work, there would be no need to subject them to the nonstop propaganda from birth that they’re identical to men except sans penis. Let women be women and see what happens. Oh, that’s right, we already know – like every other mammal they fuck and make babies.

    Feminism is a war on whiteness.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    If women were naturally inclined to pursue men’s work, there would be no need to subject them to the nonstop propaganda from birth that they’re identical to men except sans penis.
     
    I'm sure few around these parts would disagree with you, though you beg the question of what precisely is "men's work"?
    , @Corvinus
    "Feminism is a war on whiteness."

    Who/whom?
  108. @Stan d Mute

    Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society.
     
    Perhaps more importantly, it runs against their biological programming. They must be socially conditioned to do it and they pay the ultimate price for that when the conditioning succeeds. If women were naturally inclined to pursue men’s work, there would be no need to subject them to the nonstop propaganda from birth that they’re identical to men except sans penis. Let women be women and see what happens. Oh, that’s right, we already know - like every other mammal they fuck and make babies.

    Feminism is a war on whiteness.

    If women were naturally inclined to pursue men’s work, there would be no need to subject them to the nonstop propaganda from birth that they’re identical to men except sans penis.

    I’m sure few around these parts would disagree with you, though you beg the question of what precisely is “men’s work”?

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    Killing things to eat. Protecting our women and kids from other things, especially men, who would kill or otherwise harm them. The rest is simply amusement.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    ... though you beg the question of what precisely is “men’s work”?
     
    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won't need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.
    , @Mr. Rational
    Men suffer 97% of workplace fatalities.  If there's no such thing as "men's work", there would be no such dichotomy.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    Remember the shovel analogy I used Rosie?

    Leave the digging to the men.
  109. @Mr. Rational

    Jews have taken over and perverted higher ed
     
    Here comes the non-sequitur....

    therefore women should be excluded.
     
    No, Rosie.  Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society.  This was well-known and lamented over a century ago.

    That is profoundly obnoxious and dehumanizing to women.
     
    You are probably not old enough to remember the term "coed" as a noun rather than an adjective.  It meant girls who were admitted to formerly all-male institutions.  It was common up through the 1970's, as I recall.  Women were hardly "dehumanized" then.  What's happened is that they've been de-feminized, turning what could have been first-rate women into second-rate men.

    Let women be women and see what happens. Oh, that’s right, we already know – like every other mammal they fuck and make babies.

    I rest my case.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    If you can't rest your case without attributing Stan d Mute's words to me, you have a pretty lousy case.
  110. @Rosie

    If women were naturally inclined to pursue men’s work, there would be no need to subject them to the nonstop propaganda from birth that they’re identical to men except sans penis.
     
    I'm sure few around these parts would disagree with you, though you beg the question of what precisely is "men's work"?

    Killing things to eat. Protecting our women and kids from other things, especially men, who would kill or otherwise harm them. The rest is simply amusement.

  111. @Rosie

    If women were naturally inclined to pursue men’s work, there would be no need to subject them to the nonstop propaganda from birth that they’re identical to men except sans penis.
     
    I'm sure few around these parts would disagree with you, though you beg the question of what precisely is "men's work"?

    … though you beg the question of what precisely is “men’s work”?

    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won’t need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won’t need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.
     
    Its pretty insane the lengths we go to get laid and not have to listen to them whining isn’t it? More amazing than that even is that it still isn’t enough..
    , @Rosie

    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won’t need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.
     
    OK, so what does that have to do with higher education?

    True dat. It’ll all change back when things get real, which I think won’t be too long into the future. When the financial stupidity blows, the whole thing blows, and things get real. Peak Stupidity is nigh.
     
    There you go again fantasizing about the collapse of civilization so you can enjoy the satisfaction of watching women brought low!
  112. @Achmed E. Newman

    ... though you beg the question of what precisely is “men’s work”?
     
    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won't need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.

    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won’t need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.

    Its pretty insane the lengths we go to get laid and not have to listen to them whining isn’t it? More amazing than that even is that it still isn’t enough..

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    True dat. It'll all change back when things get real, which I think won't be too long into the future. When the financial stupidity blows, the whole thing blows, and things get real. Peak Stupidity is nigh.
    , @Rosie

    Its pretty insane the lengths we go to get laid and not have to listen to them whining isn’t it? More amazing than that even is that it still isn’t enough..
     
    As I have tried to explain before, women are not animals. Therefore, mere safety and comfort is not and never will be enough to satisfy us.

    I have a little purebred tomcat who is absolutely the sweetest little guy I could ever wish for. I feed him tasty, wholesale food, provide him with warm and comfortable shelter and lots of hugs and kisses. Being a cat, that is all he requires. Humans, on the other hand, have higher needs:

    https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow-5.jpg

    Having suffered and sacrificed right along with men for thousands of years, watching half of our children before their fifth birthday, women are every bit as entitled to the benefits of civilization as you are. Indeed, you are not entitled to withhold from us a full education in our culture and heritage passed down to us from our ancestors
  113. @Stan d Mute

    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won’t need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.
     
    Its pretty insane the lengths we go to get laid and not have to listen to them whining isn’t it? More amazing than that even is that it still isn’t enough..

    True dat. It’ll all change back when things get real, which I think won’t be too long into the future. When the financial stupidity blows, the whole thing blows, and things get real. Peak Stupidity is nigh.

  114. @Bardon Kaldian
    By the way, some English wit had said, if I remember correctly: Anglo-American philosophical top is only a German theologian's bottom.

    Yeah, but he probably said it in English to where it made sense.

    • LOL: Stan d Mute
  115. @Achmed E. Newman

    ... though you beg the question of what precisely is “men’s work”?
     
    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won't need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.

    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won’t need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.

    OK, so what does that have to do with higher education?

    True dat. It’ll all change back when things get real, which I think won’t be too long into the future. When the financial stupidity blows, the whole thing blows, and things get real. Peak Stupidity is nigh.

    There you go again fantasizing about the collapse of civilization so you can enjoy the satisfaction of watching women brought low!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Rosie, higher education is in a big financial bubble due to US Feral Gov't backing of school loans of large amounts for studies of ANY DAMN THING. When that pops, parents (and students) will be wise enough to only send kids (or go) to college for something that pays off. All the BS majors will cease to exist. As far as women go, during hard times everyone will get back to what the point is. (No, I never said some bright women shouldn't go to college, but right now it's been ruining their lives in the long run - along with the men who could have had younger women with less hassle.)

    I don't look forward to what's coming besides the end of the massive Stupidity. As far as the feminism goes, it can't exist without Big Daddy Gov't, which will be in the poorhouse at the time, unless we go to full on Communism. Right now, feminism is in its own bubble, because men have been putting up with it. I'd like to see that stop.
  116. @Stan d Mute

    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won’t need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.
     
    Its pretty insane the lengths we go to get laid and not have to listen to them whining isn’t it? More amazing than that even is that it still isn’t enough..

    Its pretty insane the lengths we go to get laid and not have to listen to them whining isn’t it? More amazing than that even is that it still isn’t enough..

    As I have tried to explain before, women are not animals. Therefore, mere safety and comfort is not and never will be enough to satisfy us.

    I have a little purebred tomcat who is absolutely the sweetest little guy I could ever wish for. I feed him tasty, wholesale food, provide him with warm and comfortable shelter and lots of hugs and kisses. Being a cat, that is all he requires. Humans, on the other hand, have higher needs:

    Having suffered and sacrificed right along with men for thousands of years, watching half of our children before their fifth birthday, women are every bit as entitled to the benefits of civilization as you are. Indeed, you are not entitled to withhold from us a full education in our culture and heritage passed down to us from our ancestors

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Having suffered and sacrificed right along with men for thousands of years
     
    In most cultures outside Africa, men did the heavy work of provisioning the women and children.  They bore almost all the burden of defense.

    watching half of our children before their fifth birthday
     
    Because men had no investment in those children?  Geez, listen to yourself.

    women are every bit as entitled to the benefits of civilization as you are.
     
    Even if their preferences act to tear it down?  Talk about entitlement!

    Indeed, you are not entitled to withhold from us a full education in our culture and heritage passed down to us from our ancestors
     
    One of the elements of that heritage is that there is real, true "women's work" and keeping a home and raising children is THE essential part of it.  Working at a desk in a cubicle hoping to snag some sack time with an alpha male is dys-civilizational.
  117. @Rosie

    No, Rosie. Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society. This was well-known and lamented over a century ago.
     
    Nope. That's unacceptable. We'll have to figure out a way to reconcile women's interests in higher education with society's interest in fecundity. I see no reason to believe that a simple promotion of racial pride wouldn't do the trick. Israel has above-replacement fertility and equal educational opportunity for women. Why? Because they believe that their people should continue to exist, even the secular ones.

    You are probably not old enough to remember the term “coed” as a noun rather than an adjective. It meant girls who were admitted to formerly all-male institutions. It was common up through the 1970’s, as I recall. Women were hardly “dehumanized” then.
     
    Not so long as they had their own institutions of higher learning. If you're suggesting higher ed should be segregated, that's another matter.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material. Again, that's unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented. Women have always had opportunities for higher learning, if only in a religious order.

    That’s unacceptable. We’ll have to figure out a way to reconcile women’s interests in higher education with society’s interest in fecundity.

    Do those interests include having any institutions of higher education at all?  If they do, you have to get rid of the IQ shredder or they will cease to exist for lack of a critical mass of smart enough people to support them.  If they don’t, women’s interests are anti-civilization.

    There are exceptions to this, and that is education that is tailored and channeled to put family first.  However, not even those unisex women’s colleges aided rather than retarded high-IQ fertility.  I know that requiring 4 offspring from women with IQ over 115 before going on to non-family pursuits would build rather than shred IQ.  There are exceptions; I don’t see autistics like Temple Grandin as having a role as good mothers so they should pursue whatever they are good at.

    I see no reason to believe that a simple promotion of racial pride wouldn’t do the trick.

    Based on what evidence?  Wishful thinking?  Racial pride doesn’t single out intelligence as a trait to be cultivated.  At best it discourages reproduction in low-IQ ethnies without encouraging eugenic reproduction in the majority.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material.

    Without reproduction, society dies.  How do you propose to guarantee that this essential job gets done first, before the frivolities?

    Again, that’s unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented.

    It was normal for most of the history of higher education.  Harvard was founded in 1636; Oxford goes back as far as 1096.  Oxford didn’t admit women as full members until 1920 and Harvard didn’t merge with Radcliffe until 1977.

    We got into this mess by ignoring troublesome trends for a century.  Way back in 1927 Henry R. Carey penned an essay subtitled “Are the girls’ colleges promoting race suicide among America’s most intelligent women by influencing their graduates against marriage and maternity?”  Note that this was well BEFORE most American institutions went co-ed.  This demonstrates that higher education for women is inherently a problem and has long resisted solution.  If we can’t control the problem any other way, we need to end it.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    The fact of the matter is that women who attend college are not promoting nor committing race suicide, and assuredly are not anti-civilization. People from around the world are having children with whomever they please, as it is their liberty.

    Are you related to the Big Bad Wolf with all of your huffing and puffing?
    , @Rosie

    I know that requiring 4 offspring from women with IQ over 115 before going on to non-family pursuits would build rather than shred IQ. There are exceptions; I don’t see autistics like Temple Grandin as having a role as good mothers so they should pursue whatever they are good at.
     
    Well, now you're starting to sound somewhat more reasonable, though that's not saying much.

    Based on what evidence? Wishful thinking? Racial pride doesn’t single out intelligence as a trait to be cultivated.
     
    Here is the problem with your thinking. You are the one advocating draconian restrictions on women's rights. Hence, the burden is on you to show that they are necessary. Right now, we have a hostile elite media that constantly tells White women that our race is evil and it i and "reproducing whiteness" is some sort of crime against humanity. The first order of business is to restore sanity in our culture. Then, and only then, should further measures even be considered. As of now, to even discuss excluding women from higher education is so self-destructive that it frankly reeks of sabotage.

    All that said, I do have evidence: Israel.

    Without reproduction, society dies. How do you propose to guarantee that this essential job gets done first, before the frivolities?
     
    Reproduction must get done, but it doesn't need to get done first. There is no need whatsoever for women to start having kids before their brains are fully mature at about 25.

    It was normal for most of the history of higher education.
     
    The old "we've always done it this way" argument.

    We got into this mess by ignoring troublesome trends for a century. Way back in 1927 Henry R. Carey penned an essay subtitled “Are the girls’ colleges promoting race suicide among America’s most intelligent women by influencing their graduates against marriage and maternity?”
     
    If so, they were doing it wrong.

    If we can’t control the problem any other way, we need to end it.
     
    You can't possibly know that until other ways have been tried, and you can't try any other ways this side of a White ethnostate.
    , @szopen
    Actually I think about a simple solution which should alleviate, though not solve, the problem. Make school unisex and make girls start school earlier in their life. Even 5 y/o if required, why not. The rationale is that girls _really_ do develop earlier than boys. Boys would go to school at 7 y/o.

    That would create (a) women leaving the high schools two years earlier, which addresses the problem of girls not wanting to get pregnant while in school, because taht would disturb their education (b) female students interacting, per default, with older male students, which also should make schools better for the purpose of "it's not really about education, it's about meeting the intelligent hot guys of your social class".

    Add to this my another idea (making part-time jobs more attractive) and I bet TFR would rise. The point is it does NOT have to be much above 2.1. Heck, it can even be slightly below 2.0. As long as immigration is stopped, illegals are deported, this should do the trick.
  118. @Rosie
    Mr. Rational, consider my guitar-playing teenager hypothetical. Suppose you have a teenage son who picks up the guitar, and as a result starts neglecting his chores. Do you take the guitar away? I suppose, but only as a last resort, and only after you have attempted every other means possible to get him to do his chores. For example, offerig guitar lessons so long as he does his chores as scheduled.

    Moreover, you are still blaming women for low fertility with no evidence that men aren't driving low fertility by insisting on birth control. There's probably a similar correlation between education and low fertility for men. That doesn't prove that it's causal. Women who are educated are more likely to be able to use birth control consistently. Taking educational opportunities away from women won't change that.

    you are still blaming women for low fertility with no evidence that men aren’t driving low fertility by insisting on birth control.

    Independent women who are only too ready to commit divorce rape on defenseless men are probably the biggest drivers of men’s refusal to volunteer to be dads.

  119. @Rosie

    Let women be women and see what happens. Oh, that’s right, we already know – like every other mammal they fuck and make babies.
     
    I rest my case.

    If you can’t rest your case without attributing Stan d Mute’s words to me, you have a pretty lousy case.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If you can’t rest your case without attributing Stan d Mute’s words to me, you have a pretty lousy case.
     
    I didn't attribute his words to you. I merely called your attention to them as an illustration of how the idea of excluding women from higher education dehumanizes us.

    Men suffer 97% of workplace fatalities. If there’s no such thing as “men’s work”, there would be no such dichotomy.
     
    I didn't deny the existence of "men's work." You jump to conclusions. I merely said there is a question as to what that category would include.

    Independent women who are only too ready to commit divorce rape on defenseless men are probably the biggest drivers of men’s refusal to volunteer to be dads.
     
    I don't buy this "divorce rape" narrative. I've seen nothing more than anecdotal evidence for it, and even there, I'm suspicious that crucial facts are being ignored.

    Because men had no investment in those children? Geez, listen to yourself.
     
    Nice straw man. It's true that only men died in combat, but then it's also true that only women died in childbirth.

    Even if their preferences act to tear it down?
     
    Not in evidence.

    Working at a desk in a cubicle hoping to snag some sack time with an alpha male is dys-civilizational.
     
    This is a baseless slander.

    One of the elements of that heritage is that there is real, true “women’s work” and keeping a home and raising children is THE essential part of it.
     
    If you want women to do this, men are going to have to be willing to take on the responsibility of having a family. That includes an enforceable marriage covenant with the right to alimony, child support, and an equal share in the marital property in case of dissolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you call this "divorce rape."
  120. @Rosie

    If women were naturally inclined to pursue men’s work, there would be no need to subject them to the nonstop propaganda from birth that they’re identical to men except sans penis.
     
    I'm sure few around these parts would disagree with you, though you beg the question of what precisely is "men's work"?

    Men suffer 97% of workplace fatalities.  If there’s no such thing as “men’s work”, there would be no such dichotomy.

  121. @Mr. Rational

    That’s unacceptable. We’ll have to figure out a way to reconcile women’s interests in higher education with society’s interest in fecundity.
     
    Do those interests include having any institutions of higher education at all?  If they do, you have to get rid of the IQ shredder or they will cease to exist for lack of a critical mass of smart enough people to support them.  If they don't, women's interests are anti-civilization.

    There are exceptions to this, and that is education that is tailored and channeled to put family first.  However, not even those unisex women's colleges aided rather than retarded high-IQ fertility.  I know that requiring 4 offspring from women with IQ over 115 before going on to non-family pursuits would build rather than shred IQ.  There are exceptions; I don't see autistics like Temple Grandin as having a role as good mothers so they should pursue whatever they are good at.

    I see no reason to believe that a simple promotion of racial pride wouldn’t do the trick.
     
    Based on what evidence?  Wishful thinking?  Racial pride doesn't single out intelligence as a trait to be cultivated.  At best it discourages reproduction in low-IQ ethnies without encouraging eugenic reproduction in the majority.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material.
     
    Without reproduction, society dies.  How do you propose to guarantee that this essential job gets done first, before the frivolities?

    Again, that’s unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented.
     
    It was normal for most of the history of higher education.  Harvard was founded in 1636; Oxford goes back as far as 1096.  Oxford didn't admit women as full members until 1920 and Harvard didn't merge with Radcliffe until 1977.

    We got into this mess by ignoring troublesome trends for a century.  Way back in 1927 Henry R. Carey penned an essay subtitled "Are the girls' colleges promoting race suicide among America's most intelligent women by influencing their graduates against marriage and maternity?"  Note that this was well BEFORE most American institutions went co-ed.  This demonstrates that higher education for women is inherently a problem and has long resisted solution.  If we can't control the problem any other way, we need to end it.

    The fact of the matter is that women who attend college are not promoting nor committing race suicide, and assuredly are not anti-civilization. People from around the world are having children with whomever they please, as it is their liberty.

    Are you related to the Big Bad Wolf with all of your huffing and puffing?

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
  122. @Rosie

    Its pretty insane the lengths we go to get laid and not have to listen to them whining isn’t it? More amazing than that even is that it still isn’t enough..
     
    As I have tried to explain before, women are not animals. Therefore, mere safety and comfort is not and never will be enough to satisfy us.

    I have a little purebred tomcat who is absolutely the sweetest little guy I could ever wish for. I feed him tasty, wholesale food, provide him with warm and comfortable shelter and lots of hugs and kisses. Being a cat, that is all he requires. Humans, on the other hand, have higher needs:

    https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow-5.jpg

    Having suffered and sacrificed right along with men for thousands of years, watching half of our children before their fifth birthday, women are every bit as entitled to the benefits of civilization as you are. Indeed, you are not entitled to withhold from us a full education in our culture and heritage passed down to us from our ancestors

    Having suffered and sacrificed right along with men for thousands of years

    In most cultures outside Africa, men did the heavy work of provisioning the women and children.  They bore almost all the burden of defense.

    watching half of our children before their fifth birthday

    Because men had no investment in those children?  Geez, listen to yourself.

    women are every bit as entitled to the benefits of civilization as you are.

    Even if their preferences act to tear it down?  Talk about entitlement!

    Indeed, you are not entitled to withhold from us a full education in our culture and heritage passed down to us from our ancestors

    One of the elements of that heritage is that there is real, true “women’s work” and keeping a home and raising children is THE essential part of it.  Working at a desk in a cubicle hoping to snag some sack time with an alpha male is dys-civilizational.

    • Replies: @szopen

    In most cultures outside Africa, men did the heavy work of provisioning the women and children
     
    I don't know about most countries, but when reading aout my own country, I was under the impression that most of people worked hard, including children. The only women who could be described as not working were from the middle class and nobility, which was a minority (even if substantial).

    Heck, just think how the life looked before central heating, running water in taps and washing machines. Every morning you went to bring water, you had to clean the heating place and throw away kilograms of soot, washing was extremely hard jobs plus, of course, the whole families had to go to field to work in their own fields and their masters.

    Past, in general, was quite a shitty place. Especially for non-wealthy women.
  123. @Stan d Mute

    Women should be excluded because higher ed renders them almost sterile in practice, which is grossly dysgenic and destructive to society.
     
    Perhaps more importantly, it runs against their biological programming. They must be socially conditioned to do it and they pay the ultimate price for that when the conditioning succeeds. If women were naturally inclined to pursue men’s work, there would be no need to subject them to the nonstop propaganda from birth that they’re identical to men except sans penis. Let women be women and see what happens. Oh, that’s right, we already know - like every other mammal they fuck and make babies.

    Feminism is a war on whiteness.

    “Feminism is a war on whiteness.”

    Who/whom?

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
  124. @Mr. Rational

    That’s unacceptable. We’ll have to figure out a way to reconcile women’s interests in higher education with society’s interest in fecundity.
     
    Do those interests include having any institutions of higher education at all?  If they do, you have to get rid of the IQ shredder or they will cease to exist for lack of a critical mass of smart enough people to support them.  If they don't, women's interests are anti-civilization.

    There are exceptions to this, and that is education that is tailored and channeled to put family first.  However, not even those unisex women's colleges aided rather than retarded high-IQ fertility.  I know that requiring 4 offspring from women with IQ over 115 before going on to non-family pursuits would build rather than shred IQ.  There are exceptions; I don't see autistics like Temple Grandin as having a role as good mothers so they should pursue whatever they are good at.

    I see no reason to believe that a simple promotion of racial pride wouldn’t do the trick.
     
    Based on what evidence?  Wishful thinking?  Racial pride doesn't single out intelligence as a trait to be cultivated.  At best it discourages reproduction in low-IQ ethnies without encouraging eugenic reproduction in the majority.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material.
     
    Without reproduction, society dies.  How do you propose to guarantee that this essential job gets done first, before the frivolities?

    Again, that’s unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented.
     
    It was normal for most of the history of higher education.  Harvard was founded in 1636; Oxford goes back as far as 1096.  Oxford didn't admit women as full members until 1920 and Harvard didn't merge with Radcliffe until 1977.

    We got into this mess by ignoring troublesome trends for a century.  Way back in 1927 Henry R. Carey penned an essay subtitled "Are the girls' colleges promoting race suicide among America's most intelligent women by influencing their graduates against marriage and maternity?"  Note that this was well BEFORE most American institutions went co-ed.  This demonstrates that higher education for women is inherently a problem and has long resisted solution.  If we can't control the problem any other way, we need to end it.

    I know that requiring 4 offspring from women with IQ over 115 before going on to non-family pursuits would build rather than shred IQ. There are exceptions; I don’t see autistics like Temple Grandin as having a role as good mothers so they should pursue whatever they are good at.

    Well, now you’re starting to sound somewhat more reasonable, though that’s not saying much.

    Based on what evidence? Wishful thinking? Racial pride doesn’t single out intelligence as a trait to be cultivated.

    Here is the problem with your thinking. You are the one advocating draconian restrictions on women’s rights. Hence, the burden is on you to show that they are necessary. Right now, we have a hostile elite media that constantly tells White women that our race is evil and it i and “reproducing whiteness” is some sort of crime against humanity. The first order of business is to restore sanity in our culture. Then, and only then, should further measures even be considered. As of now, to even discuss excluding women from higher education is so self-destructive that it frankly reeks of sabotage.

    All that said, I do have evidence: Israel.

    Without reproduction, society dies. How do you propose to guarantee that this essential job gets done first, before the frivolities?

    Reproduction must get done, but it doesn’t need to get done first. There is no need whatsoever for women to start having kids before their brains are fully mature at about 25.

    It was normal for most of the history of higher education.

    The old “we’ve always done it this way” argument.

    We got into this mess by ignoring troublesome trends for a century. Way back in 1927 Henry R. Carey penned an essay subtitled “Are the girls’ colleges promoting race suicide among America’s most intelligent women by influencing their graduates against marriage and maternity?”

    If so, they were doing it wrong.

    If we can’t control the problem any other way, we need to end it.

    You can’t possibly know that until other ways have been tried, and you can’t try any other ways this side of a White ethnostate.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    Rosie (and all). You should consider that higher education ended in the late 1960s, but nobody admitted it. The courses taken today, outside science and engineering, are not higher education except, in some cases, initiation into a specific social group with all the intellectual content of a fraternity hazing. Wanting higher education is all to the good, but pretending it's still available is not.

    Counterinsurgency
  125. Hey athiests, what if your have a transexual nulatto grandkid who marries a transgendered male, how are you going to say this is a bad idea, at least for a theist, he can refer to the dues vult argument, what do you have to refer to, its icky, ok so the dues vult argument is unlikely to work, but in the current year, the its icky and yucky or Thomasian natural law argument is even more unlikely to work.

    • Replies: @szopen
    Absurd question. Morality is inherently irrational, and demanding any rationale for something which cannot be rational is stupid.
  126. @RVBlake
    And homosexuality seems to figure largely in their litany of complaints about Christianity...It's always Christianity. Crusades, Inquisition, and homosexuals. Oh, dear.

    I have not met a single socially conservative athiest online my entire life.

    • Agree: RVBlake
    • Replies: @Rosie

    I have not met a single socially conservative athiest online my entire life.
     
    Me neither, though I understand that Derb is one.
    , @szopen
    Well, hello there. I am atheist and I am socially conservative, at least by Polish standards.
    , @Stan d Mute
    How do you define “social conservatism”? About the only plank of the platform (as I understand it) that I do not support is the anti-abortion bit. I am a strong supporter of abortion for eugenic reasons. But I oppose the promotion of abortion used as a feminist weapon against whiteness in general.
  127. @Mr. Rational
    If you can't rest your case without attributing Stan d Mute's words to me, you have a pretty lousy case.

    If you can’t rest your case without attributing Stan d Mute’s words to me, you have a pretty lousy case.

    I didn’t attribute his words to you. I merely called your attention to them as an illustration of how the idea of excluding women from higher education dehumanizes us.

    Men suffer 97% of workplace fatalities. If there’s no such thing as “men’s work”, there would be no such dichotomy.

    I didn’t deny the existence of “men’s work.” You jump to conclusions. I merely said there is a question as to what that category would include.

    Independent women who are only too ready to commit divorce rape on defenseless men are probably the biggest drivers of men’s refusal to volunteer to be dads.

    I don’t buy this “divorce rape” narrative. I’ve seen nothing more than anecdotal evidence for it, and even there, I’m suspicious that crucial facts are being ignored.

    Because men had no investment in those children? Geez, listen to yourself.

    Nice straw man. It’s true that only men died in combat, but then it’s also true that only women died in childbirth.

    Even if their preferences act to tear it down?

    Not in evidence.

    Working at a desk in a cubicle hoping to snag some sack time with an alpha male is dys-civilizational.

    This is a baseless slander.

    One of the elements of that heritage is that there is real, true “women’s work” and keeping a home and raising children is THE essential part of it.

    If you want women to do this, men are going to have to be willing to take on the responsibility of having a family. That includes an enforceable marriage covenant with the right to alimony, child support, and an equal share in the marital property in case of dissolution. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you call this “divorce rape.”

    • Replies: @szopen

    That includes an enforceable marriage covenant with the right to alimony, child support, and an equal share in the marital property in case of dissolution
     
    But divorces should be discouraged as much as possible, because they both threaten social stability, family formation and are contributing to dysgenic trends (per the latest discussion about dysgenics in Norway, when IIRC dr THompson showed that divorced females then have second and third children with lower quality males). Divorces hurt children.

    Marriage is not about love, hence divorces should really only happen in case of domestic violence, in childless marriages etc.
  128. @Ender
    I have not met a single socially conservative athiest online my entire life.

    I have not met a single socially conservative athiest online my entire life.

    Me neither, though I understand that Derb is one.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed he is. They're hard to detect because 1) They don't broadcast their atheism, and 2) They respect religion for its social adhesive characteristics.
  129. @Mr. Rational

    That’s unacceptable. We’ll have to figure out a way to reconcile women’s interests in higher education with society’s interest in fecundity.
     
    Do those interests include having any institutions of higher education at all?  If they do, you have to get rid of the IQ shredder or they will cease to exist for lack of a critical mass of smart enough people to support them.  If they don't, women's interests are anti-civilization.

    There are exceptions to this, and that is education that is tailored and channeled to put family first.  However, not even those unisex women's colleges aided rather than retarded high-IQ fertility.  I know that requiring 4 offspring from women with IQ over 115 before going on to non-family pursuits would build rather than shred IQ.  There are exceptions; I don't see autistics like Temple Grandin as having a role as good mothers so they should pursue whatever they are good at.

    I see no reason to believe that a simple promotion of racial pride wouldn’t do the trick.
     
    Based on what evidence?  Wishful thinking?  Racial pride doesn't single out intelligence as a trait to be cultivated.  At best it discourages reproduction in low-IQ ethnies without encouraging eugenic reproduction in the majority.

    Excluding women from higher ed on the grounds that our only purpose is baby-making is indeed dehumanizing insofar as you reduce our existence to the strictly instrumental and material.
     
    Without reproduction, society dies.  How do you propose to guarantee that this essential job gets done first, before the frivolities?

    Again, that’s unacceptable, and indeed unprecedented.
     
    It was normal for most of the history of higher education.  Harvard was founded in 1636; Oxford goes back as far as 1096.  Oxford didn't admit women as full members until 1920 and Harvard didn't merge with Radcliffe until 1977.

    We got into this mess by ignoring troublesome trends for a century.  Way back in 1927 Henry R. Carey penned an essay subtitled "Are the girls' colleges promoting race suicide among America's most intelligent women by influencing their graduates against marriage and maternity?"  Note that this was well BEFORE most American institutions went co-ed.  This demonstrates that higher education for women is inherently a problem and has long resisted solution.  If we can't control the problem any other way, we need to end it.

    Actually I think about a simple solution which should alleviate, though not solve, the problem. Make school unisex and make girls start school earlier in their life. Even 5 y/o if required, why not. The rationale is that girls _really_ do develop earlier than boys. Boys would go to school at 7 y/o.

    That would create (a) women leaving the high schools two years earlier, which addresses the problem of girls not wanting to get pregnant while in school, because taht would disturb their education (b) female students interacting, per default, with older male students, which also should make schools better for the purpose of “it’s not really about education, it’s about meeting the intelligent hot guys of your social class”.

    Add to this my another idea (making part-time jobs more attractive) and I bet TFR would rise. The point is it does NOT have to be much above 2.1. Heck, it can even be slightly below 2.0. As long as immigration is stopped, illegals are deported, this should do the trick.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    “it’s not really about education, it’s about meeting the intelligent hot guys of your social class”.
     
    It's both!
  130. @Mr. Rational

    Having suffered and sacrificed right along with men for thousands of years
     
    In most cultures outside Africa, men did the heavy work of provisioning the women and children.  They bore almost all the burden of defense.

    watching half of our children before their fifth birthday
     
    Because men had no investment in those children?  Geez, listen to yourself.

    women are every bit as entitled to the benefits of civilization as you are.
     
    Even if their preferences act to tear it down?  Talk about entitlement!

    Indeed, you are not entitled to withhold from us a full education in our culture and heritage passed down to us from our ancestors
     
    One of the elements of that heritage is that there is real, true "women's work" and keeping a home and raising children is THE essential part of it.  Working at a desk in a cubicle hoping to snag some sack time with an alpha male is dys-civilizational.

    In most cultures outside Africa, men did the heavy work of provisioning the women and children

    I don’t know about most countries, but when reading aout my own country, I was under the impression that most of people worked hard, including children. The only women who could be described as not working were from the middle class and nobility, which was a minority (even if substantial).

    Heck, just think how the life looked before central heating, running water in taps and washing machines. Every morning you went to bring water, you had to clean the heating place and throw away kilograms of soot, washing was extremely hard jobs plus, of course, the whole families had to go to field to work in their own fields and their masters.

    Past, in general, was quite a shitty place. Especially for non-wealthy women.

  131. @Ender
    Hey athiests, what if your have a transexual nulatto grandkid who marries a transgendered male, how are you going to say this is a bad idea, at least for a theist, he can refer to the dues vult argument, what do you have to refer to, its icky, ok so the dues vult argument is unlikely to work, but in the current year, the its icky and yucky or Thomasian natural law argument is even more unlikely to work.

    Absurd question. Morality is inherently irrational, and demanding any rationale for something which cannot be rational is stupid.

  132. @Ender
    I have not met a single socially conservative athiest online my entire life.

    Well, hello there. I am atheist and I am socially conservative, at least by Polish standards.

    • Replies: @Ender
    In my defense, I do not interact generally online with the over 35 crowd, and I cannot remember meeting online an athiest who was not some flavor of libertarian or a liberal.
    , @Ender
    In my defense, I do not interact generally online with the over 35 crowd, and I cannot remember meeting online an athiest who was not some flavor of libertarian or a liberal.
  133. @Rosie

    If you can’t rest your case without attributing Stan d Mute’s words to me, you have a pretty lousy case.
     
    I didn't attribute his words to you. I merely called your attention to them as an illustration of how the idea of excluding women from higher education dehumanizes us.

    Men suffer 97% of workplace fatalities. If there’s no such thing as “men’s work”, there would be no such dichotomy.
     
    I didn't deny the existence of "men's work." You jump to conclusions. I merely said there is a question as to what that category would include.

    Independent women who are only too ready to commit divorce rape on defenseless men are probably the biggest drivers of men’s refusal to volunteer to be dads.
     
    I don't buy this "divorce rape" narrative. I've seen nothing more than anecdotal evidence for it, and even there, I'm suspicious that crucial facts are being ignored.

    Because men had no investment in those children? Geez, listen to yourself.
     
    Nice straw man. It's true that only men died in combat, but then it's also true that only women died in childbirth.

    Even if their preferences act to tear it down?
     
    Not in evidence.

    Working at a desk in a cubicle hoping to snag some sack time with an alpha male is dys-civilizational.
     
    This is a baseless slander.

    One of the elements of that heritage is that there is real, true “women’s work” and keeping a home and raising children is THE essential part of it.
     
    If you want women to do this, men are going to have to be willing to take on the responsibility of having a family. That includes an enforceable marriage covenant with the right to alimony, child support, and an equal share in the marital property in case of dissolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you call this "divorce rape."

    That includes an enforceable marriage covenant with the right to alimony, child support, and an equal share in the marital property in case of dissolution

    But divorces should be discouraged as much as possible, because they both threaten social stability, family formation and are contributing to dysgenic trends (per the latest discussion about dysgenics in Norway, when IIRC dr THompson showed that divorced females then have second and third children with lower quality males). Divorces hurt children.

    Marriage is not about love, hence divorces should really only happen in case of domestic violence, in childless marriages etc.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Marriage is not about love, hence divorces should really only happen in case of domestic violence, in childless marriages etc.
     
    Hmmm. I think it is about love. It is the bond you form in the courtship and early years of marriage that prepare you for the challenges of raising children. I certainly agree with you that divorce should be discouraged, but at what cost?

    Domestic violence is certainly an easy case, but there are others. Substance abuse and gambling are also good cause for divorce IMO.

    The harder cases are verbal mistreatment and/or infidelity. All spouses say harsh things to one another from time to time. That's why you have to be able to say you're sorry. (I'm looking at you, Mark Collett. While I'm at it, perhaps you shouldn't give out marriage advice till you're, you know, married.). That said, there is a point where it crosses the line.

    I don't think infidelity should necessarily lead to divorce in every case. It's better to try and patch things up. Habitual infidelity, OTOH, is not something anyone should have to tolerate.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Slight edit--it is about love, but it is about the love of parents for their children over love for themselves or their own pursuits.
  134. @szopen
    Actually I think about a simple solution which should alleviate, though not solve, the problem. Make school unisex and make girls start school earlier in their life. Even 5 y/o if required, why not. The rationale is that girls _really_ do develop earlier than boys. Boys would go to school at 7 y/o.

    That would create (a) women leaving the high schools two years earlier, which addresses the problem of girls not wanting to get pregnant while in school, because taht would disturb their education (b) female students interacting, per default, with older male students, which also should make schools better for the purpose of "it's not really about education, it's about meeting the intelligent hot guys of your social class".

    Add to this my another idea (making part-time jobs more attractive) and I bet TFR would rise. The point is it does NOT have to be much above 2.1. Heck, it can even be slightly below 2.0. As long as immigration is stopped, illegals are deported, this should do the trick.

    “it’s not really about education, it’s about meeting the intelligent hot guys of your social class”.

    It’s both!

  135. @szopen

    That includes an enforceable marriage covenant with the right to alimony, child support, and an equal share in the marital property in case of dissolution
     
    But divorces should be discouraged as much as possible, because they both threaten social stability, family formation and are contributing to dysgenic trends (per the latest discussion about dysgenics in Norway, when IIRC dr THompson showed that divorced females then have second and third children with lower quality males). Divorces hurt children.

    Marriage is not about love, hence divorces should really only happen in case of domestic violence, in childless marriages etc.

    Marriage is not about love, hence divorces should really only happen in case of domestic violence, in childless marriages etc.

    Hmmm. I think it is about love. It is the bond you form in the courtship and early years of marriage that prepare you for the challenges of raising children. I certainly agree with you that divorce should be discouraged, but at what cost?

    Domestic violence is certainly an easy case, but there are others. Substance abuse and gambling are also good cause for divorce IMO.

    The harder cases are verbal mistreatment and/or infidelity. All spouses say harsh things to one another from time to time. That’s why you have to be able to say you’re sorry. (I’m looking at you, Mark Collett. While I’m at it, perhaps you shouldn’t give out marriage advice till you’re, you know, married.). That said, there is a point where it crosses the line.

    I don’t think infidelity should necessarily lead to divorce in every case. It’s better to try and patch things up. Habitual infidelity, OTOH, is not something anyone should have to tolerate.

    • Replies: @szopen

    I think it is about love.
     
    Is marriage necessary for two people to love each other? No.
    Is love necessary for marriage to be made? No?

    Over the course of ages, marriage was a social contract. Nowadays, if you love someone, you can live with her (or with him, in case of females) until the death without much condemnation of legal consequences. Marriage cannot be then be seen as confirmation of a love. It's simply a declaration that you want to live with someone, raise children together, face the hardship of the daily life together, that you are willing to support her/him, that you won't abandon her/him etc. Love surely helps you in keeping those duties, but marriage is definetely not about love.

    Hence, for example, "incompatibility" or "I stopped loving her" should not be ever a basis for a divorce - with exceptions maybe to childless pairs, or to pairs where the children are already adults and need no support. Also, in divorces granted in such cases there should not be any alimony given, to discourage such divorces. Infidelity, sure, another good case.

    Of course, Christians may have different opinion, because love in marriage is a duty imposed by St Paul. But I'm not Christian.

    The more you support something, the more you get that something. The more support you are giving to spouses wanting to leave their wives/husbands, the more divorces you will get.
  136. @szopen
    Well, I am also a-fairist. Meaning I do not believe in fairies. I guess it really means in fact I believe in non-existence of fairies, which is exactly the same as belief in fairies.

    Usually I do not write in such a tone but I am really iritated by this sanctimonious argument. Ha! You claim you don't believe in God, but in fact you believe in his non-existance!

    (This is not a criticism of the post it replies to, more a general comment on practical epistemology.)
    It is amazing how little is known, and how much has to be simply assumed.

    The entire scientific method requires a belief in reality and in a reality that is, in some sense, unchanging and that can be described by mathematics. The majority of the people in the world, both through time (human history) and space (the world right now) don’t believe this. The Left most definitely does not believe this [1].

    For every basic question in philosophy, there are living adherents, many of them, that take both sides. Usually such quesitons are solved by force, both historically and in the present. Enlightenment thought was, actually, adopted as an expedient after the 30 year’s war (Treaty of Westphalia, AD 1658) in an attempt by the exhausted survivorss prevent a ruinous pan-European war from re-starting [1]. Enlightenment thought wasn’t all that productive in science and engneering until Newton (AD 1700s), although Galileo (AD 1500) had made the crucial connection between physics and reality. That science and mantematics have proven so very productive was a surprise byproduct of Enlightenment thought, not a reason for adopting it.

    So be careful about statements concerning God, or for that matter about blowing off anti-realists. Right now the Enlightenment finds itself in a philosophical war with the Postmodernist Left [4], and a religios war with Islam [3]. Unfortunately, the Enlightenment (yes, you, the reader) doesn’t believe in the importance of philosophy or that of religion, and is losing both wars because it can’t admit that the wars are being fought. The Enlightenment is discoveing that losing wars (also known as “being massacred”) isn’t a lot of fun.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] In that sense, Enlightenment thought is not a lot different from the rejection of the very old Right of Conquest as a legitimate claim to territorial control after the WW I / WW II conflicts.

    2] Stephen Hicks.
    _Explaining postmodernism_.

    3] Samuel P. Huntington.
    _The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order_

  137. @Rosie

    I know that requiring 4 offspring from women with IQ over 115 before going on to non-family pursuits would build rather than shred IQ. There are exceptions; I don’t see autistics like Temple Grandin as having a role as good mothers so they should pursue whatever they are good at.
     
    Well, now you're starting to sound somewhat more reasonable, though that's not saying much.

    Based on what evidence? Wishful thinking? Racial pride doesn’t single out intelligence as a trait to be cultivated.
     
    Here is the problem with your thinking. You are the one advocating draconian restrictions on women's rights. Hence, the burden is on you to show that they are necessary. Right now, we have a hostile elite media that constantly tells White women that our race is evil and it i and "reproducing whiteness" is some sort of crime against humanity. The first order of business is to restore sanity in our culture. Then, and only then, should further measures even be considered. As of now, to even discuss excluding women from higher education is so self-destructive that it frankly reeks of sabotage.

    All that said, I do have evidence: Israel.

    Without reproduction, society dies. How do you propose to guarantee that this essential job gets done first, before the frivolities?
     
    Reproduction must get done, but it doesn't need to get done first. There is no need whatsoever for women to start having kids before their brains are fully mature at about 25.

    It was normal for most of the history of higher education.
     
    The old "we've always done it this way" argument.

    We got into this mess by ignoring troublesome trends for a century. Way back in 1927 Henry R. Carey penned an essay subtitled “Are the girls’ colleges promoting race suicide among America’s most intelligent women by influencing their graduates against marriage and maternity?”
     
    If so, they were doing it wrong.

    If we can’t control the problem any other way, we need to end it.
     
    You can't possibly know that until other ways have been tried, and you can't try any other ways this side of a White ethnostate.

    Rosie (and all). You should consider that higher education ended in the late 1960s, but nobody admitted it. The courses taken today, outside science and engineering, are not higher education except, in some cases, initiation into a specific social group with all the intellectual content of a fraternity hazing. Wanting higher education is all to the good, but pretending it’s still available is not.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Rosie

    You should consider that higher education ended in the late 1960s, but nobody admitted it.
     
    There is a good deal of truth in what you say here. It seems to me that a proper liberal arts education that celebrates a people's cultural heritage would promote fertility, insofar as an educated woman would have a sense of pride and ownership of the tradition whose heirs she will produce.

    Of course, what we know as "education" today has the opposite effect and is intended to.
  138. @szopen
    Well, hello there. I am atheist and I am socially conservative, at least by Polish standards.

    In my defense, I do not interact generally online with the over 35 crowd, and I cannot remember meeting online an athiest who was not some flavor of libertarian or a liberal.

    • Replies: @Rex Little

    I do not interact generally online with the over 35 crowd, and I cannot remember meeting online an athiest who was not some flavor of libertarian or a liberal.
     
    If you want to correct that, hang around here and read John Derbyshire. He's an atheist, not a libertarian, definitely not a liberal (by today's meaning of the word), and well over 35 (more than double).
  139. @szopen
    Well, hello there. I am atheist and I am socially conservative, at least by Polish standards.

    In my defense, I do not interact generally online with the over 35 crowd, and I cannot remember meeting online an athiest who was not some flavor of libertarian or a liberal.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    In my defense, I do not interact generally online with the over 35 crowd, and I cannot remember meeting online an athiest who was not some flavor of libertarian or a liberal.
     
    Sounds to me like evidence that kids today are FAR too sheltered from nature and reality in general.

    I cannot believe I am going to write this, but perhaps kids should be forced into attending “integrated” schools. The surest cure to negro worship is exposure to and submersion in negro culture. A week should permanently convince bright kids, a month should suffice for duller kids, and after that any who choose to remain ought to be considered as donated to the cause of improving the negro gene pool and denied readmittance to ours.
  140. @Rosie

    Building and maintaining the world you live in, so you won’t need to live in a cave or lean-to with a 30-year average lifespan.
     
    OK, so what does that have to do with higher education?

    True dat. It’ll all change back when things get real, which I think won’t be too long into the future. When the financial stupidity blows, the whole thing blows, and things get real. Peak Stupidity is nigh.
     
    There you go again fantasizing about the collapse of civilization so you can enjoy the satisfaction of watching women brought low!

    Rosie, higher education is in a big financial bubble due to US Feral Gov’t backing of school loans of large amounts for studies of ANY DAMN THING. When that pops, parents (and students) will be wise enough to only send kids (or go) to college for something that pays off. All the BS majors will cease to exist. As far as women go, during hard times everyone will get back to what the point is. (No, I never said some bright women shouldn’t go to college, but right now it’s been ruining their lives in the long run – along with the men who could have had younger women with less hassle.)

    I don’t look forward to what’s coming besides the end of the massive Stupidity. As far as the feminism goes, it can’t exist without Big Daddy Gov’t, which will be in the poorhouse at the time, unless we go to full on Communism. Right now, feminism is in its own bubble, because men have been putting up with it. I’d like to see that stop.

  141. For those interested in deeper & readable religions stuff, I’d recommend proven vintage classics..
    (also 2& 3)

    ….

    Psychologically, this is probably the best:

    A compendium of atheist critique is presented here:
    Personally, I still haven’t formed a definitive opinion on the value of following videos.

    And, by the way: Rosie is mostly right & you guys are, with a few exceptions, hicks & bozos……

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    And, by the way: Rosie is mostly right & you guys are, with a few exceptions, hicks & bozos……
     
    Thanks for the critique, Bardon. Yes, I am the exception that proves the rule. ;-}
  142. @Rosie

    Marriage is not about love, hence divorces should really only happen in case of domestic violence, in childless marriages etc.
     
    Hmmm. I think it is about love. It is the bond you form in the courtship and early years of marriage that prepare you for the challenges of raising children. I certainly agree with you that divorce should be discouraged, but at what cost?

    Domestic violence is certainly an easy case, but there are others. Substance abuse and gambling are also good cause for divorce IMO.

    The harder cases are verbal mistreatment and/or infidelity. All spouses say harsh things to one another from time to time. That's why you have to be able to say you're sorry. (I'm looking at you, Mark Collett. While I'm at it, perhaps you shouldn't give out marriage advice till you're, you know, married.). That said, there is a point where it crosses the line.

    I don't think infidelity should necessarily lead to divorce in every case. It's better to try and patch things up. Habitual infidelity, OTOH, is not something anyone should have to tolerate.

    I think it is about love.

    Is marriage necessary for two people to love each other? No.
    Is love necessary for marriage to be made? No?

    Over the course of ages, marriage was a social contract. Nowadays, if you love someone, you can live with her (or with him, in case of females) until the death without much condemnation of legal consequences. Marriage cannot be then be seen as confirmation of a love. It’s simply a declaration that you want to live with someone, raise children together, face the hardship of the daily life together, that you are willing to support her/him, that you won’t abandon her/him etc. Love surely helps you in keeping those duties, but marriage is definetely not about love.

    Hence, for example, “incompatibility” or “I stopped loving her” should not be ever a basis for a divorce – with exceptions maybe to childless pairs, or to pairs where the children are already adults and need no support. Also, in divorces granted in such cases there should not be any alimony given, to discourage such divorces. Infidelity, sure, another good case.

    Of course, Christians may have different opinion, because love in marriage is a duty imposed by St Paul. But I’m not Christian.

    The more you support something, the more you get that something. The more support you are giving to spouses wanting to leave their wives/husbands, the more divorces you will get.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Love surely helps you in keeping those duties, but marriage is definetely not about love.
     
    But you contradict yourself.

    Hence, for example, “incompatibility” or “I stopped loving her” should not be ever a basis for a divorce – with exceptions maybe to childless pairs, or to pairs where the children are already adults and need no support.
     
    Agree.

    Also, in divorces granted in such cases there should not be any alimony given, to discourage such divorces.
     
    Nonsense. Alimony deters unilateral divorce by a wealthier spouse.

    (Edit: Perhaps I'm being uncharitable and you meant only that spouses who abandon their marriage without cause should not receive alimony? If so, I agree.)

    , @Audacious Epigone
    It sounds cringeworthingly-cliched, but the adage that "love is a verb, not a noun" is one with a lot of utility.
  143. @Ender
    I have not met a single socially conservative athiest online my entire life.

    How do you define “social conservatism”? About the only plank of the platform (as I understand it) that I do not support is the anti-abortion bit. I am a strong supporter of abortion for eugenic reasons. But I oppose the promotion of abortion used as a feminist weapon against whiteness in general.

  144. A few other good titles worth reading..

    For literary types

    For Christians

    For Jews

    For Hellenists

    For Muslims

    For atheist bozos

    For serious atheists

    For New Agers

    • Replies: @szopen
    Great set of books, but could you please use "MORE" tag in future?
  145. @Ender
    In my defense, I do not interact generally online with the over 35 crowd, and I cannot remember meeting online an athiest who was not some flavor of libertarian or a liberal.

    In my defense, I do not interact generally online with the over 35 crowd, and I cannot remember meeting online an athiest who was not some flavor of libertarian or a liberal.

    Sounds to me like evidence that kids today are FAR too sheltered from nature and reality in general.

    I cannot believe I am going to write this, but perhaps kids should be forced into attending “integrated” schools. The surest cure to negro worship is exposure to and submersion in negro culture. A week should permanently convince bright kids, a month should suffice for duller kids, and after that any who choose to remain ought to be considered as donated to the cause of improving the negro gene pool and denied readmittance to ours.

  146. @szopen

    I think it is about love.
     
    Is marriage necessary for two people to love each other? No.
    Is love necessary for marriage to be made? No?

    Over the course of ages, marriage was a social contract. Nowadays, if you love someone, you can live with her (or with him, in case of females) until the death without much condemnation of legal consequences. Marriage cannot be then be seen as confirmation of a love. It's simply a declaration that you want to live with someone, raise children together, face the hardship of the daily life together, that you are willing to support her/him, that you won't abandon her/him etc. Love surely helps you in keeping those duties, but marriage is definetely not about love.

    Hence, for example, "incompatibility" or "I stopped loving her" should not be ever a basis for a divorce - with exceptions maybe to childless pairs, or to pairs where the children are already adults and need no support. Also, in divorces granted in such cases there should not be any alimony given, to discourage such divorces. Infidelity, sure, another good case.

    Of course, Christians may have different opinion, because love in marriage is a duty imposed by St Paul. But I'm not Christian.

    The more you support something, the more you get that something. The more support you are giving to spouses wanting to leave their wives/husbands, the more divorces you will get.

    Love surely helps you in keeping those duties, but marriage is definetely not about love.

    But you contradict yourself.

    Hence, for example, “incompatibility” or “I stopped loving her” should not be ever a basis for a divorce – with exceptions maybe to childless pairs, or to pairs where the children are already adults and need no support.

    Agree.

    Also, in divorces granted in such cases there should not be any alimony given, to discourage such divorces.

    Nonsense. Alimony deters unilateral divorce by a wealthier spouse.

    (Edit: Perhaps I’m being uncharitable and you meant only that spouses who abandon their marriage without cause should not receive alimony? If so, I agree.)

    • Replies: @szopen

    Perhaps I’m being uncharitable and you meant only that spouses who abandon their marriage without cause should not receive alimony?
     
    Actually that's not an easy question to answer.

    I would say no alimony in any case for childless, young marriages. If a spouse in an older marriage would want to abandon the marriage, then yes, probably he/she should pay some alimony.

    But you contradict yourself. [about love]
     
    How?
  147. @Rosie

    If women were naturally inclined to pursue men’s work, there would be no need to subject them to the nonstop propaganda from birth that they’re identical to men except sans penis.
     
    I'm sure few around these parts would disagree with you, though you beg the question of what precisely is "men's work"?

    Remember the shovel analogy I used Rosie?

    Leave the digging to the men.

  148. @Rosie

    Love surely helps you in keeping those duties, but marriage is definetely not about love.
     
    But you contradict yourself.

    Hence, for example, “incompatibility” or “I stopped loving her” should not be ever a basis for a divorce – with exceptions maybe to childless pairs, or to pairs where the children are already adults and need no support.
     
    Agree.

    Also, in divorces granted in such cases there should not be any alimony given, to discourage such divorces.
     
    Nonsense. Alimony deters unilateral divorce by a wealthier spouse.

    (Edit: Perhaps I'm being uncharitable and you meant only that spouses who abandon their marriage without cause should not receive alimony? If so, I agree.)

    Perhaps I’m being uncharitable and you meant only that spouses who abandon their marriage without cause should not receive alimony?

    Actually that’s not an easy question to answer.

    I would say no alimony in any case for childless, young marriages. If a spouse in an older marriage would want to abandon the marriage, then yes, probably he/she should pay some alimony.

    But you contradict yourself. [about love]

    How?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    How?
     
    Here is a better formulation:

    You believe that love is ideally but not necessarily connected to marriage.

    O believe that love is necessarily connected to marriage insofar as it is, as you say, a Christian duty.

    Is that fair?

  149. @Bardon Kaldian
    A few other good titles worth reading..

    For literary types

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51m5b1vPS1L._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61Z1s1tk3zL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31a7limyymL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51oUTkRguWL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    For Christians

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51GC4YXRF6L._SX368_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/513kY1Jmj9L.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51OZmXeEDvL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51JOT2xcjEL._SX320_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61gwUEhc1nL._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    For Jews

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/510wOY1z8UL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41HmdKhFzDL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31GXE79TYVL._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    For Hellenists

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51CH9pEf5EL._SX335_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41AsoVqt2pL._SX338_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/519HGXM6XNL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    For Muslims

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51JD-fJ3dJL._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/518HbvN1jZL._SX382_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    For atheist bozos

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/4116f7PEq8L.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41bLwpXe%2BlL._SX295_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    For serious atheists

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/5110W2XSZQL._SX345_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


    For New Agers

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41OZDW1VfLL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/410PHSASYBL._SX312_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51jh8IY3Y1L._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51xtXFXCjKL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Great set of books, but could you please use “MORE” tag in future?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    You're, of course, right. Sometimes I just get carried away with images & videos, for instance ...



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-bao9fg6Yc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87UXIH8Lzo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dKpHtc9F9M

    https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4brzkc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88ZRQ9K4Yo
    ....
  150. @szopen
    Great set of books, but could you please use "MORE" tag in future?

    You’re, of course, right. Sometimes I just get carried away with images & videos, for instance …

  151. @szopen

    Perhaps I’m being uncharitable and you meant only that spouses who abandon their marriage without cause should not receive alimony?
     
    Actually that's not an easy question to answer.

    I would say no alimony in any case for childless, young marriages. If a spouse in an older marriage would want to abandon the marriage, then yes, probably he/she should pay some alimony.

    But you contradict yourself. [about love]
     
    How?

    How?

    Here is a better formulation:

    You believe that love is ideally but not necessarily connected to marriage.

    O believe that love is necessarily connected to marriage insofar as it is, as you say, a Christian duty.

    Is that fair?

    • Replies: @szopen
    Remember that I am no Christian. So, I admit that for Christians love might be necessarily connected to marriage, but for me it clearly is not.
  152. @Counterinsurgency
    Rosie (and all). You should consider that higher education ended in the late 1960s, but nobody admitted it. The courses taken today, outside science and engineering, are not higher education except, in some cases, initiation into a specific social group with all the intellectual content of a fraternity hazing. Wanting higher education is all to the good, but pretending it's still available is not.

    Counterinsurgency

    You should consider that higher education ended in the late 1960s, but nobody admitted it.

    There is a good deal of truth in what you say here. It seems to me that a proper liberal arts education that celebrates a people’s cultural heritage would promote fertility, insofar as an educated woman would have a sense of pride and ownership of the tradition whose heirs she will produce.

    Of course, what we know as “education” today has the opposite effect and is intended to.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    It seems to me that a proper liberal arts education that celebrates a people’s cultural heritage would promote fertility, insofar as an educated woman would have a sense of pride and ownership of the tradition whose heirs she will produce.
     
    Agree. At least some high prestige women need to have that. Women's clubs used to run day to day society, ensuring that things remained tolerable for the average citizen. They had their problems (what doesn't) their replacement by welfare bureaucracies, which are actively destructive, has made thing almost intolerable.

    In my humble opinion, there are some parts of society that only women can run, and those are the parts that make it possible to have families. That is no trivial task, nobody else can do it (e.g. male run politically influenced bureaucracies), and they are just as essential to survival as what men do. Ownership of the tradition is an essential part of this task. There are apparently schools of anthropology that claim the real society is women's society (because women hold and propagate the lore and rules of the society) and men are just froth.

    Seriously, one of the tragedies of (very many) men is that they want families, but have no ability to make them -- only to support them and play a part as an authority figure / occasional coach. If society is restructured to prevent that, then much of the meaning of life vanishes for those men.

    Counterinsurgency

    Counterinsurgency.
  153. @Rosie

    How?
     
    Here is a better formulation:

    You believe that love is ideally but not necessarily connected to marriage.

    O believe that love is necessarily connected to marriage insofar as it is, as you say, a Christian duty.

    Is that fair?

    Remember that I am no Christian. So, I admit that for Christians love might be necessarily connected to marriage, but for me it clearly is not.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Marriage is a contractual affair. You can have a successful one with or without love - love helps a lot to get through the tough times. However, many marriages of convenience can be successful if both sides keep up their end of the bargain.

    Nietzsche thought romantic love was a horrible foundation to build a marriage upon.

    Peace.

  154. @Bardon Kaldian
    For those interested in deeper & readable religions stuff, I'd recommend proven vintage classics..

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51-t1m2zfkL._SX348_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51DKRS5NMVL._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41o2CEDd--L._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (also 2& 3)

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51RmgcnqF5L.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51AkpGi3WuL._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    ....

    Psychologically, this is probably the best:

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31LkRCtgoVL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/4191xfcN4xL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


    A compendium of atheist critique is presented here:
    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41m4fLiwJ1L.jpg

    Personally, I still haven't formed a definitive opinion on the value of following videos.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

    https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight

    And, by the way: Rosie is mostly right & you guys are, with a few exceptions, hicks & bozos......

    And, by the way: Rosie is mostly right & you guys are, with a few exceptions, hicks & bozos……

    Thanks for the critique, Bardon. Yes, I am the exception that proves the rule. ;-}

  155. @szopen
    Remember that I am no Christian. So, I admit that for Christians love might be necessarily connected to marriage, but for me it clearly is not.

    Marriage is a contractual affair. You can have a successful one with or without love – love helps a lot to get through the tough times. However, many marriages of convenience can be successful if both sides keep up their end of the bargain.

    Nietzsche thought romantic love was a horrible foundation to build a marriage upon.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Nietzsche was a 'confirmed masturbator' and an atheist. Some said that he was gay. Related anyhow.
  156. @Jason Roberts
    Which happens more - children of firm believers weaken in their convictions over time or children of atheists/agnostics become firm believers?

    The former.

    The question yet to be answered: Will the genetic predisposition for religiosity outrun the cultural retreat from religion? For as long as we’ve had data, the pious have outbred the irreligious, yet the West becomes less and less religious with each passing generation.

  157. @Achmed E. Newman

    Can God live on nomadically in the hearts of those with no home (of worship) to take Him to?
     
    Sure he can. Listen, I'd read Mr. Rational's comment back on the last thread. As far as leaving the church due to their being TOO fundamentalist, well, I don't doubt Mr. Rational's personal reason for drifting (though "bookburning"? Literally? - as the kids say).

    However, I think its very much more likely that the people and families that left churches of the many demominations you had listed in that last post left for pretty much the opposite reasons: Their church was likely putting up rainbow flags, or that "We welcome everyone"* yard sign (the one in English, Spanish, and Arabic), or promoting feminism and tolerance for genderbending nonsense, or sponsoring immigrants from Somalia with their tithings.

    I don't think that big mustard-colored sector of the pie chart should even be labelled "Uncertain Believers", but more like "Believers who are sick and tired of the bullshit going on in modern organized religion" OK, A.E., that won't fit on that 165-deg mustard sector, so how about "Unorganized Believers"?

    .

    * BTW, it isn't that almost all church members wouldn't welcome members from all over the world. Those signs however, are an insidious thing, made right after Trump's election to really say "we welcome anyone who makes it into our country".

    Heh, well it’s taken from three potential responses–“some higher power”, “believe sometimes”, and “believe but doubts”–while firm believer is “know God exists”.

  158. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Here's the thing about atheists: Their beliefs about divinity are as firmly faith based as the most annoying & proselytizing zealot.

    They believe in no higher power, but they believe. They don't like being told this. They go through great lengths to conceal their faith based beliefs. They talk about the big bang likes it's proven fact. But the fact is they cannot prove "God" doesn't exist, or disprove that he does. Observe:

    dictionary.com:

    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    wikipedoia:

    Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

    /

    Notice the syntax: "denies or disbelieves; absence of belief;" Are definitions of words typically provided with this kind of negative verbing?

    FD - raised RC, not practicing. I consider myself agnostic. Something created the reality in which we exist. I doubt it bears any resemblance to the God spoken of in ancient works of fiction.

    I’m pithier still–by definition we cannot expect to accurately detect the supernatural by natural means. Because we do not possess supernatural means, only natural ones, we are unable to definitively prove or disprove any claims about the supernatural.

    I consider myself an agnostic, naturally.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Because we do not possess supernatural means, only natural ones, we are unable to definitively prove or disprove any claims about the supernatural.
     
    If the position is "cannot be tested or examined" then that's outside of science by definition.

    I'd also say that such a thing is indistinguishable from non-existent.  I find the Christian version to be particularly nasty.  Threatening eternal punishment for failing to believe in something which has exactly as much empirical support as the ravings of a lunatic (not to mention every other theology out there) is not the act of a loving deity; it's the act of a cruel psychopath.

    Worst, if the ruler of the universe is a cruel psychopath there is exactly nothing I can do about it.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    The interesting thing, as demonstrated in some of these comments, is how atheists conclude that the agnostics are the cowards, when in fact it is the agnostics who are honest enough to admit they don't know one way or the other. Atheists claim they know, but they don't. That is why their beliefs are faith based and are a mirrored reflection of the theists they consider themselves so much better than.

    It's like watching a person shout into the mirror "I'm not stupid, you're stupid."
  159. @Kaosweaver
    @Audacious Epigone

    Is there any data on the number of kids vs IQ. I wonder if the more prolific groups have an inverse relation to IQ due to the parents being otherwise occupied away from educational/intellectual endeavors.

    It would be interesting to see same demographic comparisons between groups (the IQ of childless mature white adult male atheist vs theist, etc, then with groups having one kid, two kids, etc.) to see if the higher IQ in groups is more related to available time vs other factors.

    Interesting. Done plenty by IQ, but not sure about theistic orientation and IQ. Worth a look. Thanks.

  160. On surveys I answer none for religion because I am not religious. My genetics are Ashkenazi but I don’t practice Judaism at all. Even if I am not religious I am not an atheist. I believe there was some type of creator but it’s probably beyond the understanding of the human brain. My guess (and everyone is guessing) is that whatever the truth is it will not be found in the Bible.

  161. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I personally believe Whitey will be fine.
     
    Well... "fine" is subjective.

    But look. You go to any society, and whites do well in them, regardless of the % (sort of like 2nd rate Jews). What happens when the numbers get too low, thought, and the primitive monkeys of South Africa decide to go for the jugular? We'll see.

    What I worry the most about is race-mixing. Sure, pure-whites will be alright, but look at how much the (((media))) is promoting negro men to white women. It's possible that over the generations we'll just slowly bleed out and eventually cease to exist. (Unlikely though - non-whites are increasingly hostile to Beckies - and there's little evidence that Becky actually wants to sleep with an animal).

    The “animal” slur aside, is there not evidence of it? That BM:WF has been 3x as common as WM:BF for (at least) decades now indicates that there is some desire–at least relative to the desire of WM to sleep with BW.

  162. @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey, Mr. Talha, these personal anecdote comments are some of the best. Thanks for that story. I also apologize here for getting into it with you about your Moslemity a long long time ago on iSteve. From what you've written, guys like you should be quite welcome, if I ran things. Again, sorry for the animosity on that or those threads long ago.

    It’s easy to get trigger-happy but that doesn’t mean it’s prudent to do so. The realtalk here is orders of magnitude better than just about anywhere else IRL–remember that!

  163. @Ender
    In my defense, I do not interact generally online with the over 35 crowd, and I cannot remember meeting online an athiest who was not some flavor of libertarian or a liberal.

    I do not interact generally online with the over 35 crowd, and I cannot remember meeting online an athiest who was not some flavor of libertarian or a liberal.

    If you want to correct that, hang around here and read John Derbyshire. He’s an atheist, not a libertarian, definitely not a liberal (by today’s meaning of the word), and well over 35 (more than double).

  164. @216

    Some Dems float idea of primary challenge for Ocasio-Cortez

     

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez

    The stack is already showing strains, and a rarely seen example of why "Hispanic" is not a unifying identifier. Rep. Cuellar, you've been promoted to white.

    Smart options for the GOP include doing nothing, and silently encouraging the few thousand registered GOP voters in that Third World district to change registration to Dem, and then voting for the challenger. Recruiting a nominal Puerto Rican/Dominican challenger would also help, I can hear the DR3 wheels already spinning up.

    Having “AOC” in office is a great thing for us. Why would we want her primaried?

  165. @Bliss

    Then 2000 years ago, he put on a meat-suit and had a wander around the aforementioned sandy shithole, talking in riddles to a slightly-different bunch of illiterate primitives. Then he had himself tortured to death to save humans from his wrath (WTF?).
     
    That’s hilarious. 😂

    A great way to highlight how farcical Church dogma really is.

    Alternatively, it’s a strangely beautiful way to show how human emotion is something the cannot be rationally understood, only experienced–even by the omniscient and omnipotent.

  166. @advancedatheist
    Rand's philosophy doesn't work for a variety of reasons, but it also falters because Rand promoted through both example and precept hostility towards women's natural function of forming families. Her Kool Aid drinkers have generally followed her model, and that explains why organized Rand cults have to engage in nonstop recruiting of teenagers and college students from normal people's families as the older Rand cultists either die or get bored with Rand stuff and drift away.

    It also says a lot about Rand's deficiencies as a thinker that her own followers admit that her world view appeals strongly to young people who by definition lack life experience, and who therefore don't know important things about life from what they have already done or seen which tend to conflict with Rand's version of how the world allegedly works.

    It’s always good to run a quick scan on your proposed formula before running it. If that check reveals that the formula will result in the extinction of the species, it’s not a good formula!

  167. @Rosie
    Mr. Rational, consider my guitar-playing teenager hypothetical. Suppose you have a teenage son who picks up the guitar, and as a result starts neglecting his chores. Do you take the guitar away? I suppose, but only as a last resort, and only after you have attempted every other means possible to get him to do his chores. For example, offerig guitar lessons so long as he does his chores as scheduled.

    Moreover, you are still blaming women for low fertility with no evidence that men aren't driving low fertility by insisting on birth control. There's probably a similar correlation between education and low fertility for men. That doesn't prove that it's causal. Women who are educated are more likely to be able to use birth control consistently. Taking educational opportunities away from women won't change that.

    I’ve looked pretty thoroughly at the GSS on this question, and while the trend exists for both men and women, it is definitely more pronounced among women.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I’ve looked pretty thoroughly at the GSS on this question, and while the trend exists for both men and women, it is definitely more pronounced among women.
     
    What about desired fertility? Does that change with educational attainment for either sex? If not, then the challenge is to close the gap between desired and actual fertility. If so, thenthere is something wrong with the "education" being provided. If a liberal arts education doesn't impress upon a woman the importance and necessity of "paying life forward" (as you call it), then it has utterly failed.

    Of course, as it stands, the whole point of higher ed is precisely to critique, tear down, humiliate. That is not normal.

  168. @Rosie

    I have not met a single socially conservative athiest online my entire life.
     
    Me neither, though I understand that Derb is one.

    Indeed he is. They’re hard to detect because 1) They don’t broadcast their atheism, and 2) They respect religion for its social adhesive characteristics.

  169. @szopen

    That includes an enforceable marriage covenant with the right to alimony, child support, and an equal share in the marital property in case of dissolution
     
    But divorces should be discouraged as much as possible, because they both threaten social stability, family formation and are contributing to dysgenic trends (per the latest discussion about dysgenics in Norway, when IIRC dr THompson showed that divorced females then have second and third children with lower quality males). Divorces hurt children.

    Marriage is not about love, hence divorces should really only happen in case of domestic violence, in childless marriages etc.

    Slight edit–it is about love, but it is about the love of parents for their children over love for themselves or their own pursuits.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Slight edit–it is about love, but it is about the love of parents for their children over love for themselves or their own pursuits.
     
    And so long as a couple has this, their love will endure, though it will certainly change over the years.
  170. @szopen

    I think it is about love.
     
    Is marriage necessary for two people to love each other? No.
    Is love necessary for marriage to be made? No?

    Over the course of ages, marriage was a social contract. Nowadays, if you love someone, you can live with her (or with him, in case of females) until the death without much condemnation of legal consequences. Marriage cannot be then be seen as confirmation of a love. It's simply a declaration that you want to live with someone, raise children together, face the hardship of the daily life together, that you are willing to support her/him, that you won't abandon her/him etc. Love surely helps you in keeping those duties, but marriage is definetely not about love.

    Hence, for example, "incompatibility" or "I stopped loving her" should not be ever a basis for a divorce - with exceptions maybe to childless pairs, or to pairs where the children are already adults and need no support. Also, in divorces granted in such cases there should not be any alimony given, to discourage such divorces. Infidelity, sure, another good case.

    Of course, Christians may have different opinion, because love in marriage is a duty imposed by St Paul. But I'm not Christian.

    The more you support something, the more you get that something. The more support you are giving to spouses wanting to leave their wives/husbands, the more divorces you will get.

    It sounds cringeworthingly-cliched, but the adage that “love is a verb, not a noun” is one with a lot of utility.

    • Agree: Rosie
  171. @Talha
    Marriage is a contractual affair. You can have a successful one with or without love - love helps a lot to get through the tough times. However, many marriages of convenience can be successful if both sides keep up their end of the bargain.

    Nietzsche thought romantic love was a horrible foundation to build a marriage upon.

    Peace.

    Nietzsche was a ‘confirmed masturbator’ and an atheist. Some said that he was gay. Related anyhow.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    Nietzsche was a ‘confirmed masturbator’ and an atheist. Some said that he was gay. Related anyhow.
     
    Monty Python - Bruce's Philosophers Song (Bruce's Song) {Official Lyric Video]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SqQNgDrgg
  172. @Rosie

    You should consider that higher education ended in the late 1960s, but nobody admitted it.
     
    There is a good deal of truth in what you say here. It seems to me that a proper liberal arts education that celebrates a people's cultural heritage would promote fertility, insofar as an educated woman would have a sense of pride and ownership of the tradition whose heirs she will produce.

    Of course, what we know as "education" today has the opposite effect and is intended to.

    It seems to me that a proper liberal arts education that celebrates a people’s cultural heritage would promote fertility, insofar as an educated woman would have a sense of pride and ownership of the tradition whose heirs she will produce.

    Agree. At least some high prestige women need to have that. Women’s clubs used to run day to day society, ensuring that things remained tolerable for the average citizen. They had their problems (what doesn’t) their replacement by welfare bureaucracies, which are actively destructive, has made thing almost intolerable.

    In my humble opinion, there are some parts of society that only women can run, and those are the parts that make it possible to have families. That is no trivial task, nobody else can do it (e.g. male run politically influenced bureaucracies), and they are just as essential to survival as what men do. Ownership of the tradition is an essential part of this task. There are apparently schools of anthropology that claim the real society is women’s society (because women hold and propagate the lore and rules of the society) and men are just froth.

    Seriously, one of the tragedies of (very many) men is that they want families, but have no ability to make them — only to support them and play a part as an authority figure / occasional coach. If society is restructured to prevent that, then much of the meaning of life vanishes for those men.

    Counterinsurgency

    Counterinsurgency.

  173. @Seraphim
    Nietzsche was a 'confirmed masturbator' and an atheist. Some said that he was gay. Related anyhow.

    Nietzsche was a ‘confirmed masturbator’ and an atheist. Some said that he was gay. Related anyhow.

    Monty Python – Bruce’s Philosophers Song (Bruce’s Song) {Official Lyric Video]

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Well, Nietzsche hated alcohol as much as he hated Christianity. ‘There have been two great narcotics in European civilisation: Christianity and alcohol.’ And he wanted that everybody do likewise.
    Long live Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. You can forgive even Kant, or Descartes.
  174. @Talha

    What would you estimate the fertility rate of your Muslim acquaintances vs that of your white ones?
     
    Massive. But this is a loaded question. I also know many White converts (maybe I am more exposed to White converts than a normal Muslim in my circles because my wife is a White convert) and I cannot think of one that doesn't have 3 to 4 kids unless they converted fairly late in life.

    To give you an example that hits home - my wife and her sister (also a convert) have more kids between them than all the rest of her non-Muslim first cousins and siblings combined - if you toss in extended cousins, then they win by one or two kids. Her non-Muslim side (Swedish if that helps) will be cut in half (at least) within the next generation.

    As far as born-Muslims, around my crew, four kids are normal unless someone has some kind of a fertility problem (we know a few couples that only have one or two due to this). Interestingly, the most fecund around our particular community are the Bosnians.

    Not looking good. White people must have more children, period.
     
    Agreed. For the love of God, please have more children! You do not (hell, I do not) want Pakistanis and Algerians and Colombians or whoever taking over these places via demographics - there is a reason we came here!!! Hint: it wasn't because we were super-happy with how stuff was being run over there...

    Wake up!
     
    Indeed. The tragedy of the West often times seems to me like a man who spent his whole life building up a great business and devoting his time and energy to perfecting it...but, in the mean time, forgot to have kids since he was so busy - so the idiot son of his neighbor simply took it over by default. The future belongs to those that bother to show up...

    Peace.

    In the Western Enlightenment society, women decide maximum family size. This is the case in several other societies as well, perhaps most, maybe even all societies.

    The standard limiting consideration is workload on the woman. Given complete exhaustion, pregnancy rate is considerably reduced. Not to zero, mind you, or Malthusian societies wouldn’t exist [1].

    Another consideration is, of course, hostility of environment.
    Women are also perfectly capable of abandoning children they can’t keep alive, but they really don’t like to do it. It seriously bothers them. In a hostile environment, women will have fewer children. In the West, women are threatened with complete loss of social status and social isolation if they have children. That’s a hostile environment for having families, in the same way that Repressive Tolerance is a police state that encourages mental illness.

    Islam is sort of insulated from Western politics on the family level. If that insulation vanishes (assimilation, say) you’ll find that the West is sort of like a Roach Motel.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Malthusian society: population is limited by the degree of debilitation that produces sickness and death (or actual starvation, but that’s ordinarily uncommon as compared to sickness). Contemporary Malthusian societies (e.g. Japan, where mental illness (hikikomori) is the disease, or Egypt, where death is from is actual malnutrition and disease) are ordinarily the result of some past lunatic attempt to increase population so as to have more expendable crunches for the next war (PRC, China) or the next election, or a side effect of Western medical treatment and sanitation that permits immunity to infection at a surprisingly small caloric intake.

    • Replies: @Talha

    In the Western Enlightenment society, women decide maximum family size.
     
    Indeed, one needs to - if they are a father - be a good friend to one’s daughter and make sure she has traditional values growing up. This is very difficult and takes a lot of effort. You are going against society.

    In the West, women are threatened with complete loss of social status and social isolation if they have children.
     
    Don’t know if I would take it this far, but there is a kind of ambivalence - which might be even worse since it is teaching women that there is something more important or noble in life than being a good mother. The word “mother” should be sacred, it should have a reverence about it that is deeply felt.

    This is one of my favorite scenes from the Turkish series “Ertugrul”, where the lead character Ertugrul and his brother, Gondogu, bring back their eldest brother, wounded, back to the tribe to the hands of their mother, the tribe’s matriarch who hasn’t seen him for nearly a decade:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tEi7ZmQX8h4

    They way she strokes his face as if he is still her little boy looking for her reassurance after falling is just beautiful.

    Islam is sort of insulated from Western politics on the family level.
     
    And hopefully we can keep it this way.

    If that insulation vanishes (assimilation, say) you’ll find that the West is sort of like a Roach Motel.
     
    Agreed - I can easily see these Muslims out-competing non-Muslims in the worst of habits.

    Good insights by the way, thanks!

    Peace.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    This is a really important point. American mobility--down from a couple of decades ago, but still quite high from an international perspective--means many a would-be mother (or mother of a single child who might want more if having the one wasn't so isolating) really does feel like she's been cutoff from the world when they she has her baby. Her parents are two states over, her best friend takes a week to fly in when the baby is born but then she has to get back to her new adopted city to work, etc.

    I've not seen data on it, but I wonder if people who leave the metro areas they grew up in tend to have fewer children than people who do not. I suspect it would be the case.
  175. @MBlanc46
    You’re right there is a huge market. But you’ve got to gave a product that actually satisfies the consumer’s needs.

    Right. Failure to deliver an actual product is of some concern in evangelist organization. I’ve seen fairly long discussions about that.

    Much of modern Christianity amounts to magic: reading Scripture without understanding is very similar to saying a magic spell in arcane language. Same thing with “personal relation”, a term that is never defined.

    Showing that Christianity doesn’t exist, another fairly popular topic among Episcopalians, also doesn’t deliver Christianity. Who could have guessed that? Not the Episcopalians.

    The one Christian doctrine I’ve consistently seen is “Shut up and sit down”, although the media keeps claiming that it is “Shut up and bend over”.

    So: delivery of product is the primary difficulty. Today, you can’t even get an injunction for living as a wastrel, or support for having a family.

    Counterinsurgency

  176. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm pithier still--by definition we cannot expect to accurately detect the supernatural by natural means. Because we do not possess supernatural means, only natural ones, we are unable to definitively prove or disprove any claims about the supernatural.

    I consider myself an agnostic, naturally.

    Because we do not possess supernatural means, only natural ones, we are unable to definitively prove or disprove any claims about the supernatural.

    If the position is “cannot be tested or examined” then that’s outside of science by definition.

    I’d also say that such a thing is indistinguishable from non-existent.  I find the Christian version to be particularly nasty.  Threatening eternal punishment for failing to believe in something which has exactly as much empirical support as the ravings of a lunatic (not to mention every other theology out there) is not the act of a loving deity; it’s the act of a cruel psychopath.

    Worst, if the ruler of the universe is a cruel psychopath there is exactly nothing I can do about it.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    if the ruler of the universe is a cruel psychopath there is exactly nothing I can do about it.

    There is always stoicism!
  177. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm pithier still--by definition we cannot expect to accurately detect the supernatural by natural means. Because we do not possess supernatural means, only natural ones, we are unable to definitively prove or disprove any claims about the supernatural.

    I consider myself an agnostic, naturally.

    The interesting thing, as demonstrated in some of these comments, is how atheists conclude that the agnostics are the cowards, when in fact it is the agnostics who are honest enough to admit they don’t know one way or the other. Atheists claim they know, but they don’t. That is why their beliefs are faith based and are a mirrored reflection of the theists they consider themselves so much better than.

    It’s like watching a person shout into the mirror “I’m not stupid, you’re stupid.”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Athens accused Socrates of atheism, but they got it wrong--he was an agnostic!
  178. @Audacious Epigone
    I've looked pretty thoroughly at the GSS on this question, and while the trend exists for both men and women, it is definitely more pronounced among women.

    I’ve looked pretty thoroughly at the GSS on this question, and while the trend exists for both men and women, it is definitely more pronounced among women.

    What about desired fertility? Does that change with educational attainment for either sex? If not, then the challenge is to close the gap between desired and actual fertility. If so, thenthere is something wrong with the “education” being provided. If a liberal arts education doesn’t impress upon a woman the importance and necessity of “paying life forward” (as you call it), then it has utterly failed.

    Of course, as it stands, the whole point of higher ed is precisely to critique, tear down, humiliate. That is not normal.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I... haven't looked. Thanks!
    , @Counterinsurgency
    The desire to tear down is the result in the liberal arts of a change from conserving knowledge to research. That change doesn't sound bad, necessarily, and was not resisted by liberal arts faculty when first introduced by (please pardon the word) administrators.
    However, "research"quickly came to mean "deconstruction", which is the easiest form of research. ("I have just discovered that X was a 3 and a 7!") and we were in the present milieu.

    Counterinsurgency
  179. @Audacious Epigone
    Slight edit--it is about love, but it is about the love of parents for their children over love for themselves or their own pursuits.

    Slight edit–it is about love, but it is about the love of parents for their children over love for themselves or their own pursuits.

    And so long as a couple has this, their love will endure, though it will certainly change over the years.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  180. @Counterinsurgency
    In the Western Enlightenment society, women decide maximum family size. This is the case in several other societies as well, perhaps most, maybe even all societies.

    The standard limiting consideration is workload on the woman. Given complete exhaustion, pregnancy rate is considerably reduced. Not to zero, mind you, or Malthusian societies wouldn't exist [1].

    Another consideration is, of course, hostility of environment.
    Women are also perfectly capable of abandoning children they can't keep alive, but they really don't like to do it. It seriously bothers them. In a hostile environment, women will have fewer children. In the West, women are threatened with complete loss of social status and social isolation if they have children. That's a hostile environment for having families, in the same way that Repressive Tolerance is a police state that encourages mental illness.

    Islam is sort of insulated from Western politics on the family level. If that insulation vanishes (assimilation, say) you'll find that the West is sort of like a Roach Motel.

    Counterinsurgency


    1] Malthusian society: population is limited by the degree of debilitation that produces sickness and death (or actual starvation, but that's ordinarily uncommon as compared to sickness). Contemporary Malthusian societies (e.g. Japan, where mental illness (hikikomori) is the disease, or Egypt, where death is from is actual malnutrition and disease) are ordinarily the result of some past lunatic attempt to increase population so as to have more expendable crunches for the next war (PRC, China) or the next election, or a side effect of Western medical treatment and sanitation that permits immunity to infection at a surprisingly small caloric intake.

    In the Western Enlightenment society, women decide maximum family size.

    Indeed, one needs to – if they are a father – be a good friend to one’s daughter and make sure she has traditional values growing up. This is very difficult and takes a lot of effort. You are going against society.

    In the West, women are threatened with complete loss of social status and social isolation if they have children.

    Don’t know if I would take it this far, but there is a kind of ambivalence – which might be even worse since it is teaching women that there is something more important or noble in life than being a good mother. The word “mother” should be sacred, it should have a reverence about it that is deeply felt.

    This is one of my favorite scenes from the Turkish series “Ertugrul”, where the lead character Ertugrul and his brother, Gondogu, bring back their eldest brother, wounded, back to the tribe to the hands of their mother, the tribe’s matriarch who hasn’t seen him for nearly a decade:

    They way she strokes his face as if he is still her little boy looking for her reassurance after falling is just beautiful.

    Islam is sort of insulated from Western politics on the family level.

    And hopefully we can keep it this way.

    If that insulation vanishes (assimilation, say) you’ll find that the West is sort of like a Roach Motel.

    Agreed – I can easily see these Muslims out-competing non-Muslims in the worst of habits.

    Good insights by the way, thanks!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    This is very difficult and takes a lot of effort. You are going against society.

    Indeed. Three cheers for this training ground.
    , @Counterinsurgency

    Don’t know if I would take it this far, but there is a kind of ambivalence
     
    Would that it were only ambiance!

    I have a daughter who attended a high prestige university in Manhattan, NYC. She was pretty definite that women who (a) attended a professional school and then (b) married and had children _and took care of them_ were universally regarded by women at her school as social lepers. No joke.

    That particular daughter attended school on an NSF grant, full scholarship. Now, if you consider a woman who has a large debt, and add the social stigma to the necessity of having an income to repay the debt, you get some serious compulsion.

    I mean, they're not down to death squads for mothers yet, but that's only because death squads would be too subtle.

    Counterinsurgency
  181. @Counterinsurgency

    Nietzsche was a ‘confirmed masturbator’ and an atheist. Some said that he was gay. Related anyhow.
     
    Monty Python - Bruce's Philosophers Song (Bruce's Song) {Official Lyric Video]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SqQNgDrgg

    Well, Nietzsche hated alcohol as much as he hated Christianity. ‘There have been two great narcotics in European civilisation: Christianity and alcohol.’ And he wanted that everybody do likewise.
    Long live Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. You can forgive even Kant, or Descartes.

  182. @Counterinsurgency
    In the Western Enlightenment society, women decide maximum family size. This is the case in several other societies as well, perhaps most, maybe even all societies.

    The standard limiting consideration is workload on the woman. Given complete exhaustion, pregnancy rate is considerably reduced. Not to zero, mind you, or Malthusian societies wouldn't exist [1].

    Another consideration is, of course, hostility of environment.
    Women are also perfectly capable of abandoning children they can't keep alive, but they really don't like to do it. It seriously bothers them. In a hostile environment, women will have fewer children. In the West, women are threatened with complete loss of social status and social isolation if they have children. That's a hostile environment for having families, in the same way that Repressive Tolerance is a police state that encourages mental illness.

    Islam is sort of insulated from Western politics on the family level. If that insulation vanishes (assimilation, say) you'll find that the West is sort of like a Roach Motel.

    Counterinsurgency


    1] Malthusian society: population is limited by the degree of debilitation that produces sickness and death (or actual starvation, but that's ordinarily uncommon as compared to sickness). Contemporary Malthusian societies (e.g. Japan, where mental illness (hikikomori) is the disease, or Egypt, where death is from is actual malnutrition and disease) are ordinarily the result of some past lunatic attempt to increase population so as to have more expendable crunches for the next war (PRC, China) or the next election, or a side effect of Western medical treatment and sanitation that permits immunity to infection at a surprisingly small caloric intake.

    This is a really important point. American mobility–down from a couple of decades ago, but still quite high from an international perspective–means many a would-be mother (or mother of a single child who might want more if having the one wasn’t so isolating) really does feel like she’s been cutoff from the world when they she has her baby. Her parents are two states over, her best friend takes a week to fly in when the baby is born but then she has to get back to her new adopted city to work, etc.

    I’ve not seen data on it, but I wonder if people who leave the metro areas they grew up in tend to have fewer children than people who do not. I suspect it would be the case.

  183. @Mr. Rational

    Because we do not possess supernatural means, only natural ones, we are unable to definitively prove or disprove any claims about the supernatural.
     
    If the position is "cannot be tested or examined" then that's outside of science by definition.

    I'd also say that such a thing is indistinguishable from non-existent.  I find the Christian version to be particularly nasty.  Threatening eternal punishment for failing to believe in something which has exactly as much empirical support as the ravings of a lunatic (not to mention every other theology out there) is not the act of a loving deity; it's the act of a cruel psychopath.

    Worst, if the ruler of the universe is a cruel psychopath there is exactly nothing I can do about it.

    if the ruler of the universe is a cruel psychopath there is exactly nothing I can do about it.

    There is always stoicism!

  184. @MikeatMikedotMike
    The interesting thing, as demonstrated in some of these comments, is how atheists conclude that the agnostics are the cowards, when in fact it is the agnostics who are honest enough to admit they don't know one way or the other. Atheists claim they know, but they don't. That is why their beliefs are faith based and are a mirrored reflection of the theists they consider themselves so much better than.

    It's like watching a person shout into the mirror "I'm not stupid, you're stupid."

    Athens accused Socrates of atheism, but they got it wrong–he was an agnostic!

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    About Socrates 'atheism':

    "Men of Athens, I have the highest regard and affection for you, but I will obey the god rather than you"(29d)
    “I believe that this service of mine to the god is the most valuable asset you in this city have ever yet possessed” (30b).

    But if he was an agnostic, why did he and his disciples wasted so much time trying to know the true nature of things, establish the conditions of a 'true belief' and finally to reach absolute certainty?
  185. @Rosie

    I’ve looked pretty thoroughly at the GSS on this question, and while the trend exists for both men and women, it is definitely more pronounced among women.
     
    What about desired fertility? Does that change with educational attainment for either sex? If not, then the challenge is to close the gap between desired and actual fertility. If so, thenthere is something wrong with the "education" being provided. If a liberal arts education doesn't impress upon a woman the importance and necessity of "paying life forward" (as you call it), then it has utterly failed.

    Of course, as it stands, the whole point of higher ed is precisely to critique, tear down, humiliate. That is not normal.

    I… haven’t looked. Thanks!

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Damn, I thought there'd really be something to that, but ideal family size doesn't vary much by educational attainment. It varies less than realized family size by educational attainment does... *light bulb*

    See you soon!
  186. @Talha

    In the Western Enlightenment society, women decide maximum family size.
     
    Indeed, one needs to - if they are a father - be a good friend to one’s daughter and make sure she has traditional values growing up. This is very difficult and takes a lot of effort. You are going against society.

    In the West, women are threatened with complete loss of social status and social isolation if they have children.
     
    Don’t know if I would take it this far, but there is a kind of ambivalence - which might be even worse since it is teaching women that there is something more important or noble in life than being a good mother. The word “mother” should be sacred, it should have a reverence about it that is deeply felt.

    This is one of my favorite scenes from the Turkish series “Ertugrul”, where the lead character Ertugrul and his brother, Gondogu, bring back their eldest brother, wounded, back to the tribe to the hands of their mother, the tribe’s matriarch who hasn’t seen him for nearly a decade:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tEi7ZmQX8h4

    They way she strokes his face as if he is still her little boy looking for her reassurance after falling is just beautiful.

    Islam is sort of insulated from Western politics on the family level.
     
    And hopefully we can keep it this way.

    If that insulation vanishes (assimilation, say) you’ll find that the West is sort of like a Roach Motel.
     
    Agreed - I can easily see these Muslims out-competing non-Muslims in the worst of habits.

    Good insights by the way, thanks!

    Peace.

    This is very difficult and takes a lot of effort. You are going against society.

    Indeed. Three cheers for this training ground.

    • Agree: Talha
  187. @Audacious Epigone
    I... haven't looked. Thanks!

    Damn, I thought there’d really be something to that, but ideal family size doesn’t vary much by educational attainment. It varies less than realized family size by educational attainment does… *light bulb*

    See you soon!

  188. @Audacious Epigone
    Athens accused Socrates of atheism, but they got it wrong--he was an agnostic!

    About Socrates ‘atheism’:

    “Men of Athens, I have the highest regard and affection for you, but I will obey the god rather than you”(29d)
    “I believe that this service of mine to the god is the most valuable asset you in this city have ever yet possessed” (30b).

    But if he was an agnostic, why did he and his disciples wasted so much time trying to know the true nature of things, establish the conditions of a ‘true belief’ and finally to reach absolute certainty?

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    Has to do with the nature of the old "gods".

    Quite a few of the old Classical beliefs had solid evidence backing them up. There was an area that was said to be an old battleground involving giants, at least one of which was a cyclops -- a gigantic man with only one eye. This could be proved - they had the skull of the cyclops, and the soil of the battle site had clearly been stained with blood, as it was red. There were quite a few sites with similar evidence.
    As was shown about two thousand years later, the red was from iron oxide and the skull was of a Pleistocene elephant. The "one eye" was where the elephant's trunk had been. The evidence had been conclusive in Classical times, but concepts and measuring devices that Classical people lacked showed that it had been misinterpreted.

    Quite a few of the old gods represented what we would call "psychological phenomena", a fancy way of saying that we don't understand them either. The most obvious one was panic, which could take a well formed phalanx and change it into a mob of running men very quickly and for no obvious reason. Panic was, of course, attributed to Pan. What today we would call "creativity" was attributed to the Muses, one for each of the arts.

    So when Socrates talked of his "god", he was (I think) talking about what we would call a "strong compulsion" to find the truth of things. I have one of those myself, BTW, so I can sympathize.

    A (very) little research shows that Socrates claimed to "know nothing", which would have made him an agnostic. OTH, Kant would have pointed out that for a man who knows nothing, Socrates knew altogether too much about asking questions. Obvious "nothing" meant that Socrates questioned existing tradition and beliefs, which could be interpreted as Socrates being an atheist, the gods being a substantial part of tradition and beliefs. OTH, Socrates did believe in his personal god, but perhaps in the way that the Classical people believed in the bloody battlefield with a Cyclops.

    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
    excerpt "Song of Myself"
    Whitman
    http://www.english.illinois.edu/MAPS/poets/s_z/whitman/song.htm

    Counterinsurgency
  189. @Talha

    In the Western Enlightenment society, women decide maximum family size.
     
    Indeed, one needs to - if they are a father - be a good friend to one’s daughter and make sure she has traditional values growing up. This is very difficult and takes a lot of effort. You are going against society.

    In the West, women are threatened with complete loss of social status and social isolation if they have children.
     
    Don’t know if I would take it this far, but there is a kind of ambivalence - which might be even worse since it is teaching women that there is something more important or noble in life than being a good mother. The word “mother” should be sacred, it should have a reverence about it that is deeply felt.

    This is one of my favorite scenes from the Turkish series “Ertugrul”, where the lead character Ertugrul and his brother, Gondogu, bring back their eldest brother, wounded, back to the tribe to the hands of their mother, the tribe’s matriarch who hasn’t seen him for nearly a decade:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tEi7ZmQX8h4

    They way she strokes his face as if he is still her little boy looking for her reassurance after falling is just beautiful.

    Islam is sort of insulated from Western politics on the family level.
     
    And hopefully we can keep it this way.

    If that insulation vanishes (assimilation, say) you’ll find that the West is sort of like a Roach Motel.
     
    Agreed - I can easily see these Muslims out-competing non-Muslims in the worst of habits.

    Good insights by the way, thanks!

    Peace.

    Don’t know if I would take it this far, but there is a kind of ambivalence

    Would that it were only ambiance!

    I have a daughter who attended a high prestige university in Manhattan, NYC. She was pretty definite that women who (a) attended a professional school and then (b) married and had children _and took care of them_ were universally regarded by women at her school as social lepers. No joke.

    That particular daughter attended school on an NSF grant, full scholarship. Now, if you consider a woman who has a large debt, and add the social stigma to the necessity of having an income to repay the debt, you get some serious compulsion.

    I mean, they’re not down to death squads for mothers yet, but that’s only because death squads would be too subtle.

    Counterinsurgency

  190. @Rosie

    I’ve looked pretty thoroughly at the GSS on this question, and while the trend exists for both men and women, it is definitely more pronounced among women.
     
    What about desired fertility? Does that change with educational attainment for either sex? If not, then the challenge is to close the gap between desired and actual fertility. If so, thenthere is something wrong with the "education" being provided. If a liberal arts education doesn't impress upon a woman the importance and necessity of "paying life forward" (as you call it), then it has utterly failed.

    Of course, as it stands, the whole point of higher ed is precisely to critique, tear down, humiliate. That is not normal.

    The desire to tear down is the result in the liberal arts of a change from conserving knowledge to research. That change doesn’t sound bad, necessarily, and was not resisted by liberal arts faculty when first introduced by (please pardon the word) administrators.
    However, “research”quickly came to mean “deconstruction”, which is the easiest form of research. (“I have just discovered that X was a 3 and a 7!”) and we were in the present milieu.

    Counterinsurgency

  191. @Seraphim
    About Socrates 'atheism':

    "Men of Athens, I have the highest regard and affection for you, but I will obey the god rather than you"(29d)
    “I believe that this service of mine to the god is the most valuable asset you in this city have ever yet possessed” (30b).

    But if he was an agnostic, why did he and his disciples wasted so much time trying to know the true nature of things, establish the conditions of a 'true belief' and finally to reach absolute certainty?

    Has to do with the nature of the old “gods”.

    Quite a few of the old Classical beliefs had solid evidence backing them up. There was an area that was said to be an old battleground involving giants, at least one of which was a cyclops — a gigantic man with only one eye. This could be proved – they had the skull of the cyclops, and the soil of the battle site had clearly been stained with blood, as it was red. There were quite a few sites with similar evidence.
    As was shown about two thousand years later, the red was from iron oxide and the skull was of a Pleistocene elephant. The “one eye” was where the elephant’s trunk had been. The evidence had been conclusive in Classical times, but concepts and measuring devices that Classical people lacked showed that it had been misinterpreted.

    Quite a few of the old gods represented what we would call “psychological phenomena”, a fancy way of saying that we don’t understand them either. The most obvious one was panic, which could take a well formed phalanx and change it into a mob of running men very quickly and for no obvious reason. Panic was, of course, attributed to Pan. What today we would call “creativity” was attributed to the Muses, one for each of the arts.

    So when Socrates talked of his “god”, he was (I think) talking about what we would call a “strong compulsion” to find the truth of things. I have one of those myself, BTW, so I can sympathize.

    A (very) little research shows that Socrates claimed to “know nothing”, which would have made him an agnostic. OTH, Kant would have pointed out that for a man who knows nothing, Socrates knew altogether too much about asking questions. Obvious “nothing” meant that Socrates questioned existing tradition and beliefs, which could be interpreted as Socrates being an atheist, the gods being a substantial part of tradition and beliefs. OTH, Socrates did believe in his personal god, but perhaps in the way that the Classical people believed in the bloody battlefield with a Cyclops.

    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
    excerpt “Song of Myself”
    Whitman
    http://www.english.illinois.edu/MAPS/poets/s_z/whitman/song.htm

    Counterinsurgency

  192. Well, the truth is that Socrates was not accused of ‘atheism’, but of ‘asebeia’, impiety against Athen’s gods and their cult reflecting the glory of Athens, and introducing foreign ‘new gods’. Refusal to honor the gods of the city (by sacrifices) was a civil offense and if it was accompanied by sacrilegious acts, a criminal one. Worshiping foreign gods could paint someone as agent of a foreign power. It was the same charge brought against Christians by Roman authorities.
    The charge was political. It certainly had nothing to do with the fact that Socrates did not believe (like Xenophanes) that the gods have horns and hoofs. The problem was not whether he believe or not in the ‘supernatural’. It actually was a show-trial accompanied by a campaign of defamation and character assassination, carried on through the theater (the Clouds of Aristophanes) and certainly gossip. Socrates was ‘endangering democracy’, restored after the regime of the Thirty Tirants with whom he was associated. Socrates continued to ridicule the sacred cow of Athenian democracy as the selection of leaders by majority vote, condemning the demagogues and the sophistes who trained them in the art of flattering the ‘people’ to gain votes and making false promises.

    “Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own ; he is further guilty of corrupting the young.”, reports Xenophon. Xenophon shows also the real motive of the accusations:

    “At one time Socrates was a member of the Council [boule], he had taken the senatorial oath, and sworn ‘as a member of that house to act in conformity with the laws.’ It was thus he chanced to be President of the Popular Assembly [ekklesia], when that body was seized with a desire to put the nine generals, Thrasyllus, Erasinides, and the rest, to death by a single inclusive vote. Whereupon, in spite of the bitter resentment of the people, and the menaces of several influential citizens, he refused to put the question, esteeming it of greater importance faithfully to abide by the oath which he had taken, than to gratify the people wrongfully, or to screen himself from the menaces of the mighty. The fact being, that with regard to the care bestowed by the gods upon men, his belief differed widely from that of the multitude. Whereas most people seem to imagine that the gods know in part, and are ignorant in part, Socrates believed firmly that the gods know all things—both the things that are said and the things that are done, and the things that are counselled in the silent chambers of the heart. Moreover, they are present everywhere, and bestow signs upon man concerning all the things of man.”
    “Socrates cause[d] his associates to despise the established laws when he dwelt on the folly of appointing state officers by ballot? a principle which, he said, no one would care to apply in selecting a pilot or a flute- player or in any similar case, where a mistake would be far less disastrous than in matters political. Words like these, according to the accuser, tended to incite the young to contemn the established constitution, rendering them violent and headstrong. ”

    Socrates’ defense was that the accusations were false, not true. He did worship the gods of the city, his accusers were lying through their teeth. He was educating the youth not to fall for the false science of the sophistes, who were the real ones who ‘knew nothing’, while pretending to teach all sciences (charging hefty fees) to the would be politicians.
    His message to the ‘politicians’ (democrats, communists, fascists) was, to paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, ‘Live not by lies’. That was the ‘offense’ of Solzhenitsyn that irked the Soviet leadership and its sycophantic ideologists.
    But our modern ‘world’ living by lies and make beliefs has a serious problem with Truth.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS