Atheism: An Evolutionary Disaster

By -


Here:

“It is a great irony but evolution appears to discriminate against atheists and favour those with religious beliefs,” said Michael Blume, a researcher at the University of Jena in Germany who carried out the study. “Most societies or communities that have espoused atheistic beliefs have not survived more than a century.”

Comments

  1. Matt2:45 AM

    Many of the hardcore atheists I know would not mourn the end of most human societies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Prateek4:01 AM

    I went searching for sources, and found this page of Michael Blume: http://www.scilogs.com/nature-of-faith/may-atheism-succeed-demographically/

    I still can not find any real life example mentioned of an atheist society that did not last more than a century.

    What I do find is a mention that atheists are having fewer children. Which is a real issue.

    Israel initially was a largely secular country with a very small minority of strong religious believers. The Orthodox Jews, however, demographically bloomed until secular Israelis were a much smaller percentage than before. Same thing happened in the state of Kerala in India.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Samson Corwell10:42 AM

    Not something I would hold against them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. kevin quinn4:24 PM

    Careful, Gene: You of all people know that this is no argument against atheism - I mean the identification of "true" with "evolutionarily successful."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:55 PM

      You are absolutely correct, Kevin: I am just noting that by the standard many (not all!) atheists themselves profess, atheism is a failure.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more