Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
rms
Active Member
Context of the test..never used different flags, and who thinks a flag is a good strainer? Especially a miniature..
Dak
mentat
Dak
mentat
I didn't double check this, but given how far back GHWB was working in government administration, it sounds legit:
Einherjar86
Active Member
I may be misunderstanding, but it sounds like the test was trying to demonstrate that a strong sense of value can override practical application, thereby inhibiting survival.
I mean, if you have nothing else, then a flag would be a good strainer - any kind of sewn fabric like that is porous, thus allowing liquid to pass through while larger particles will sit on top. I doubt they told the participants they could choose any object whatsoever, because then everyone would have simply chosen a strainer...
A model citizen? I haven't seen episode nine yet...
rms
Active Member
I definitely see that perspective and that premise has a possibility, but there were other objects. I remember a cloth with a rubberband was used first (video had like 3 examples?) and it didn't hold up. I would agree with the study if people used the flag of say, Iraq, but they wouldn't use the American flag. The table had several things on it, I wish I could remember more, but it wasn't like just a flag and people were confused on how to do it.
Dak
mentat
I've recently been exploring the idea of the necessity of religion in terms of an anthropocentric(at least) or possibly more a more specific culturalcentric value system. Reading Schopenhauer's "Religion: A Dialogue" and it seems to capture the basis for much of the affirmative sentiment to such an idea.
There are much better writers than Land in the greater NRx sphere, and this seems to be a theme running through a lot of writing, at least indirectly as it relates to the promotion of demographic hegemon. Religion = procreation, while philosophy or nothing at all is sterile in the most fleshly sense of the word.
There are much better writers than Land in the greater NRx sphere, and this seems to be a theme running through a lot of writing, at least indirectly as it relates to the promotion of demographic hegemon. Religion = procreation, while philosophy or nothing at all is sterile in the most fleshly sense of the word.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
That post included the elaboration. Not sure really what I can say otherwise that wouldn't be mostly redundant.
Einherjar86
Active Member
So if you were asked to turn in a paper on the "necessity of religion" from an anthropocentric or "cultural-centric" perspective, that's all you would say? Okay then.
I watched it. A model of what, exactly?
Dak
mentat
Well I could write a lot, but it wouldn't exactly be "new material", and including stats and research in philosophy papers is always walking a tightrope, but stuff like this supports the view:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
Land's headlines or one-liners are usually better than his tangent laden writings, and "Demography is Destiny" pretty much captures the whole thing. The litmus test is really whether the first 5 minutes of Idiocracy is offensive or alarming, specifically if you could substitute any subgroup of any sort for the educated/rednecks and get the same response.
I'd have to watch it again now to remember exactly what I was referring to. Probably something to do with the talk with the pill seller.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I see that religious belief seems to be growing (according to this study, at least; I've seen others that say the opposite); but I'm curious about your comment regarding the "necessity of religion." That's what I wanted you to explain. Nothing in that graph, or that article, tells me why religion is necessary for human existence, nor why "religion = procreation" and irreligious tendencies or atheism does not.
You have graphs. You don't have an argument.
You have graphs. You don't have an argument.
Dak
mentat
It isn't that religious belief is growing necessarily, in the sense of conversions (evangelicalism is a generally Christian idea anyway). These projections can be derived from fertility rates. Fertility rates are low and dropping across the globe (a quick google will confirm this). However, exceptions remain in two places, in general: Extremely poor places and amongst religious groups which prioritize reproduction.
On the other hand, where data is available, atheism is removing itself fairly quickly from the gene pool in comparison. Increasing living standards also generally correlates with reduction of fertility rates to replacement or subreplacement levels, but not necessarily, as strong religious subcultures have shown (Muslim, Amish, Orthodox Jews, etc.) The fertility rates in the US isn't dire quite yet, but it seems this is due to Muslims and mestizos - much more religious subgroups, than the WASP/C majority, soon to be minority.
Unless the goal is the death of genes and of ideas, it appears that enlightened atheistic western liberalism is quite the ultimate failure. Of course, it isn't a clear tenet of liberalism or atheism to not procreate, but if these are the comparative effects, it cannot be ignored.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Actually, atheism has increased over the past several centuries, although this has been primarily isolated to specific regions.
Atheism isn't removing itself from the gene pool because atheism isn't a genetic predisposition. Atheists might be removing themselves, but atheism will stick around as long as certain environmental/cultural conditions foster it. It might be decreasing currently, and it might swell in coming decades. Atheistic liberalism is neither a success nor a failure - it's merely an effect of social conditions.
Atheism isn't removing itself from the gene pool because atheism isn't a genetic predisposition. Atheists might be removing themselves, but atheism will stick around as long as certain environmental/cultural conditions foster it. It might be decreasing currently, and it might swell in coming decades. Atheistic liberalism is neither a success nor a failure - it's merely an effect of social conditions.
Dak
mentat
Atheism might be reactive, I am not so sure about liberalism. Of course, something has to increase to a point to be spoken of in terms of decline. But if we look at the atheistic or liberal "memes" as it were, especially in terms of a virus, they are killing the host and if projections are correct, reducing the number of prospective hosts. In other words, these aren't symbiotic relationships.
A good liberal/atheist would most likely deny/ignore this. A bad one would be scared. I don't have either of these reactions.
A good liberal/atheist would most likely deny/ignore this. A bad one would be scared. I don't have either of these reactions.
Einherjar86
Active Member
The virus metaphor works just as easily for religious belief/fanaticism.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by denying/ignoring, or feeling anxiety. I consider myself neither an atheist nor a theist, and I don't think I'm ignoring you, but I don't think I feel anxiety either... overall, I guess I'm just confused about what the polemic against atheism is.
What "host" are atheists killing, exactly...?
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by denying/ignoring, or feeling anxiety. I consider myself neither an atheist nor a theist, and I don't think I'm ignoring you, but I don't think I feel anxiety either... overall, I guess I'm just confused about what the polemic against atheism is.
What "host" are atheists killing, exactly...?
Dak
mentat
Of course it does. It even seems more prima facie applicable. Only when atheism is accurately understood as a different sort of religion does it come more clearly into focus.
It isn't just atheism, some religions have a similar problem (progressive strains of Christianity for example). A culture, philosophy, or orthodoxy which encourages either directly or indirectly the cessation of propagation is self-defeating. Unless defeat of the self is the ultimate goal, which makes it sound more like a tool for something else than an end in itself.
I'm an agnostic sympathetic to the possibility of ah, to use Berkleyian terms, a "super mind", but the concern here complete ignores whether or not such a super mind exists. Whether there is a god or not does not have any bearing on whether or not gods (of course not just any god) are necessary for continued propagation.
Einherjar86
Active Member
This is where I'm not making the connection. How does atheism discourage reproduction?
Dak
mentat
Well we could speculate as to why for days, but the limited data available shows that declines correlated with atheistic belief outpaces general declines within the otherwise same culture. We have to acknowledge it is the case before asking how, and it seems you might be putting the proverbial cart first.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/09/why-do-atheists-have-fewer-kids.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/06/will-religious-inherit-earth.html
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, I'm not sure I acknowledge it is the case. I'm not sure I acknowledge that atheism discourages reproduction; that is, I'm not sure that it is atheism that discourages reproduction. I seem to recall something like 95% of Catholics practice birth control, so it certainly isn't limited to atheists.
My skepticism isn't putting the cart first so much as it's asking what exactly is pulling the cart. Why are those performing the tests aligning the statistical analysis with atheism per se? The first article you linked tells us very little, if not nothing, and is entirely condescending to atheists. Why can't atheists be committed individuals? Why does one need religion in order to evince honesty or integrity? The idea that religion is the only source of honest behavior is a load of bullshit.
My skepticism isn't putting the cart first so much as it's asking what exactly is pulling the cart. Why are those performing the tests aligning the statistical analysis with atheism per se? The first article you linked tells us very little, if not nothing, and is entirely condescending to atheists. Why can't atheists be committed individuals? Why does one need religion in order to evince honesty or integrity? The idea that religion is the only source of honest behavior is a load of bullshit.
