원본 게시물 출처:Liberty Hub
Before we get started, please note the title. The issue is with [i]atheists[/i], not atheism. I'm also speaking mainly about American atheists, although I'm sure that the data I present is probably similar to the data that comes out of other Western countries.
You don't necessarily have to watch the linked video to get my argument. I'll explain everything. The video deals with state power as a whole. I'm specifically dealing with entitlements and other child-dependent policies. If you're interested in what I have to say, watch the video. It's only about twenty minutes long.
Okay. First off, atheists (and agnostics) have far fewer children than Christians and Jews. Per pair of atheists, you'll get 1.6 kids. Agnostics will grant you 1.3 kids. A 2.1 birthrate is the baseline for even maintaining a population. Anything below that (looking at you, Western Europe), and your population starts to get a bit... wrinkled.
To be fair, "Mainline Protestants," and Jews are also below the 2.1 mark. The Mainline Protestants rank 1.9, and Jews rank 2.0. They aren't sustainable, but they're still significantly higher than the atheist and agnostic rates.
Contrarily, Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Black Protestants, and Mormons (I live in the Rocky Mountain Mormon Fortress - we call them 'LDS') have enough kids to sustain a population.
Catholics - 2.3
Evangelical Protestants - 2.3
Black Protestants - 2.5
Mormons - [i]wait for it... 3.4[/i]
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/12/charted-the-religions-that-make-the-most-babies/)
[b]"Okay, Stall. Atheists aren't having kids. What's your point?"[/b]
I'm getting there.
In general, atheists and other "unaffiliated" people (agnostics, for example) are leftists. I already have moral and pragmatic objections to leftist economic policies. However, I'm going to put those aside for just a moment. Leftists want to use the state to take wealth from others, and then to distribute the wealth in a more efficient/equitable/"fair" manner. Welfare is leftist. Social Security is leftist. Medicare and Medicaid are leftist. I'm specifically concerned with the entitlements - Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
(http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-social-and-political-views/)
These three entitlements are three spokes of the American mini-welfare state. Again, I'm putting moral and pragmatic objections aside. I'd typically argue against these policies because they are immoral and because they fail spectacularly. Now, these three entitlements are [i]supposed[/i] to be sustainable. To be sustainable, these three things need taxes. Where do taxes come from? Taxpayers! Where do taxpayers come from? Well, I'll tell you one thing: [i]they have to be born first.[/i]
So we come to the trouble with atheists. Atheists, in general, are leftists. Leftists demand lavish entitlements. They want the state to use its magic tax wand (I sometimes call it a 'gun') to shield them during their old age. They want the state to alleviate poverty and to subsidize healthcare. They demand these things, [i]but they contribute so little to the sustainability of these programs.[/i] European welfare states already face immense pressure from inverted demographic pyramids. Greece is a fantastic example. When your dependent class starts to outnumber your taxpayers, it becomes difficult to make ends meet.
[b]"Why atheists, though? Could this not be a leftist problem in general, if it's found that leftists have sub-2.1 birthrates?"[/b]
It's trend-based. Atheists and agnostics don't have sustainable birthrates, yet they tend to be leftists. The fertile and religious among us tend to lean to the right. Not only that, but they also have sustainable birth rates. It would be still be morally impermissible for the fertile and religious to support the welfare state, but at least their actions would lend to its sustainability.
-
작성자: ReignofSpartain 8/18/2016 9:57:03 PMTldr A libertarian telling people what to believe for the sake of the masses -blam!-ing hilarious!
-
[quote]In general, atheists and other "unaffiliated" people (agnostics, for example) are leftists. [/quote] -blam!- you. Im not going to stoop down to sterotyping mormons and libertarians. But go push your daydream cause on to a gaming forum. Reality will slap you in the face every day for the rest of your life.
-
I'd be careful linking atheism to anything but the farthest communist left. Likewise, theism with the political right. As systems of ideas, modern political thought leaves little room for either. Conservatism is not simply traditionalism, although it's often painted into that corner. I see correlation but no causation.
-
Could I have a Cliff note on this? OP, next "Manifesto" you make, have one paragraph at the bottom called "In Conclusion" Atheists and Lower Birthrate? So what? It's like redheaded women have a 2.4% more chance at preferring apples over oranges compare to black teen boys.
-
-
7 답변
-
As interesting as it can be, It's still beyond me why people posts that sort of thing on b.net.
-
작성자: isaac13d 8/11/2016 2:53:16 AMDo you have info on this that is a little newer? Having a survey from when Al Gore was a candidate is a little dated. Also not sure if a sample size of a total of 958 unaffiliated people is really indicative of a nationwide trend. I'd also like to ask who cares? So you think agnostics should contribute to the population if they want to pull retirement or welfare, whatever, cool. But how many of these people actually even use it? TLDR? [spoiler]i don't really care I just want to know how you know that agnostics and atheists are left thinkers from one presidential poll from 2012 that only had a pool of 958 unaffiliated people.[/spoiler] [spoiler]i think I came off kind of prickish there. so uh, sorry.[/spoiler]
-
We should place government enforced birth quotas to ensure our people produce enough children to sustain the nation.
-
3 답변
-
2 답변
-
작성자: Cheesemaster 8/11/2016 2:21:50 AM[quote]Atheists, in general, are leftists[/quote] Lmao I'm an atheist and I'm pretty much the most right wing person I know
-