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.