ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 30, 2016

The ignorant atheist

This is why atheists remain so furiously ignorant. Once they are apprised of the relevant history and statistics, their arguments vanish into thin air:
The article, by Phil Zuckerman of Pitzer College, is entitled "Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions" and, unlike Plante's article, it cites detailed studies of the areas in question.
Advertisement

Zuckerman analyzed a wide array of data comparing religious nations to less religious nations and also, interestingly, religious states within the United States (i.e. "Bible-belt" states) to less religious states. While I encourage readers to examine the article directly through the link above, here are just a few of the highlights:
Criminal Behavior:

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in "religious" states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%).

Zuckerman cites a 1999 Barna study that finds that atheists and agnostics actually have lower divorce rates than religious Americans.
I've dealt with most of these in The Irrational Atheist.
  1. The more secular vs more religious nation argument reflects on race, not religion.
  2. The 50 safest cities are also a racial argument, not a religious one.
  3. This is a variant of Sam Harris's Red State argument. It's also wrong at both the city and county level.
  4. Again, a racial argument.
  5. Atheists are actually overrepresented in prison if "No religion" is counted as atheist, as it usually is by atheists when they're not trying to downplay the number of atheists.
  6. It appears Zuckerman failed to correctly understand the relevant data or was not privy to it. While it is true that 3 percent more Baptists - who along with Episcopals have the highest rate of Christian divorce - are divorced than atheists, only 34 percent of atheists are married in the first place. In other words, 26.4 percent of atheist marriages fail compared to 15.7 percent of Baptist marriages, even though a much lower percentage of atheists ever get married.

Labels:

82 Comments:

Anonymous BGKB May 30, 2016 11:11 AM  

The more secular vs more religious nation argument reflects on race, not religion.

"No Violence Day" in 83% Black Detroit Ends With Nine Shot and Two Killed Easily the best story of 2016.
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2016/05/no-violence-day-in-83-black-detroit.html

Blogger Chrom May 30, 2016 11:12 AM  

I blame the dean of Pitzer College for failing him so horribly.

"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

Blogger collisioncat67 May 30, 2016 11:18 AM  

Altho not "murder" in the legal sense of the term; how many atheists promote, encourage, and PERFORM abortions as opposed to Christians?

There is no comparison.

Also something to consider is that most self proclaimed atheists are not the types that would engage in any kind of physical confrontation. A society of pussies is generally a safe society.

Anonymous Eduardo May 30, 2016 11:19 AM  

Former president of American Humanist Association

Well you just to read that really lol.

I find it a bit funny, how smart people can't perpetuate lies...

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 30, 2016 11:36 AM  

It would really be fun to see these atheists scrap with Muslims

Blogger Crude May 30, 2016 11:41 AM  

I remember when Sweden used to be touted as the premiere example of an atheist paradise which our country could be like, if only we shook off the religion. Zuckerman in particular used to do this, I'm pretty sure.

Given what we've seen of Sweden's government and culture re: refugees, etc, I notice many atheists are no longer eager to use it as an example.

Blogger stevo May 30, 2016 11:56 AM  

I agree with your main point, but who among us would feel safe in a society of pussies

Blogger stevo May 30, 2016 11:57 AM  

I agree with your main point, but who among us would feel safe in a society of pussies

Blogger YIH May 30, 2016 11:58 AM  

"And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."
Some facts (yeah, I know, Whackopedia):
LA - Black or African American – 32.5%
AL - Black 26.2%
VT - 94.3% of the population identified as white not of Hispanic or Latino origin in a 2013 US Census estimate.[89] Vermont is the second whitest state in the Union.[90]
OR - In 2010, 78.5% of the population was white alone (meaning of no other race and non-Hispanic), 1.7% was black or African American alone
Gee why would Zuckerman overlook something that took me a few minutes to find? Jew, err, who knows?

Anonymous johnc May 30, 2016 12:00 PM  

@3 Altho not "murder" in the legal sense of the term; how many atheists promote, encourage, and PERFORM abortions as opposed to Christians?

That's one of the problems when you start getting into the "Us atheists can be moral too!" arguments. Atheists have to dramatically lower the standards of moral behavior in order to qualify themselves as "moral people". And the problem is that it pushes the entire social structure of morality downward. Notice how good religions actually try to push humanity to higher and higher standards. Atheist morality is about drawing social standards down to match the behavior of the individual.

BTW many of these "atheist nations" like Japan actually involve themselves in and have great respect for religious ritual.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 May 30, 2016 12:01 PM  

Nothing like watching Atheist utilitarianism on display.

It's the only moral code they have.

Blogger praetorian May 30, 2016 12:06 PM  

It must be so nice to have a deep memory like Vox has.

I can barely remember why I'm not a libertarian anymore, let alone confounding variables in violence analysis.

Blogger Lost Pilgrim May 30, 2016 12:13 PM  

There's more atheists than you think. Or they are only religious in the clink. Religious guys can get special meals, holiday events, services, etc and all those help pass time. Once they are out many just don't care.

Many just go to the religious events to pass contraband or get a quick handy.

Anonymous Ain May 30, 2016 12:14 PM  

@12, he wrote the book on it. Zuckerman's assertions were predictably destroyed by TIA.

Anonymous Eduardo May 30, 2016 12:19 PM  

Actually Crude, they are probably mad because the refugees consider themselves religious. If they were angry secular refugees they would welcome them with open arms!!!!

Anonymous Pax_Romana May 30, 2016 12:21 PM  

So, basically a misunderstanding (by malicious intent or unforgivable ignorance) between correlation and causation? It seems atheists and SJWs make that fallacy quite a bit...must have something to do with SJWAL.

Anonymous Ain May 30, 2016 12:22 PM  

I think it was the rape that changed their minds.

Blogger ZhukovG May 30, 2016 12:27 PM  

@12
I am Libertarian, until libertarian negatively effects my Nation, then I go with what's good for my Nation.

God > Family > Nation > Political Ideology. Which is why I support Donald Trump, even though he isn't my 'ideal' candidate.

Since my ideal candidate would be running for President of the Restored Confederate States of America, I'll just have to hope my ancestors will forgive me for voting for a New York Yankee.

Anonymous Eduardo May 30, 2016 12:35 PM  

Pax_Romana

Actually, he just assumes that atheist must have a statistical impact since they are such bad people.

Since there are no signs that, statisticaly. places with lots of secular people are worse therefore atheists are nice people. It is not so absurd of an idea... But still it is not revealing at all.

Anonymous Zhukov G's Ancestors Waiting in a Long Line May 30, 2016 12:39 PM  

You WHAT?!

Come heah, boy, we are gonna have a discussion, a real long and down to earth one, where I slam your face into the dirt....

Blogger LP9 Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra May 30, 2016 1:25 PM  

Cue to 30:17, 30:30 Milo states atheists are fun to wind up because they so thin skinned and names a few other worse personality type casts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM7v94IlHJI

Blogger Guy May 30, 2016 1:34 PM  

Vox, concerning the crime rates by American State, the argument can also be interpreted that criminal activity is caused by political factors, considering 70% of all felons are registered Democrats.

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jail-survey-7-in-10-felons-register-as-democrats/article/2541412

It is also strange that Zuckerman oscillates between utilizing national sample sizes and international studies involving Secularists and Religious groups, but only if it serves to support his viewpoints. For example, Zuckerman references the 1998 Barna Study pertaining to divorce by religious groups, but conveniently ignores international divorce rates that reports the same religious developing countries he demonizes are also the matching nations that report the lowest divorce rates.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography

Blogger Quizzer W May 30, 2016 1:52 PM  

"Zuckerman analyzed a wide array of data comparing religious nations to less religious nations"

No comparison leaving the Islamic-heavy nations out of it? I imagine if you did it that way the conclusion might implicate Islam instead of all religions as the "violent" culprit.

Anonymous Mr. Rational May 30, 2016 2:14 PM  

johnc wrote:Atheists have to dramatically lower the standards of moral behavior in order to qualify themselves as "moral people". And the problem is that it pushes the entire social structure of morality downward.
Whereas fetus-worship and breeding until you've turned the wide-open spaces of America into Calcutta is the absolute height of morality, right?  Right.

Blogger Pinakeli May 30, 2016 3:41 PM  

The American population density is 80 per square mile. Calcutta is 63,000 per square mile. That is almost 3 orders of magnitude greater. It would take a long time to get there, even if you doubled population every generation.

Anonymous Headcannon May 30, 2016 3:59 PM  

"fetus-worship" is not a thing.

Blogger Pinakeli May 30, 2016 4:00 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Crude May 30, 2016 4:07 PM  

Eduardo,

Actually Crude, they are probably mad because the refugees consider themselves religious. If they were angry secular refugees they would welcome them with open arms!!!!

The problem is that they are being welcomed with open arms. It's just that 'atheist' covers a whole lot of SJWs. That, by the way, is something a lot of GG atheists, and New Atheists in general, do their damndest not to notice. That infamous twitter blockbot was, I recall, an explicitly atheist+ project.

Anti-SJW and/or right-wing atheists are one day going to have to come to grips with the fact that atheists, not Christians, are their biggest political and cultural enemies. But to recognize that is to recognize that New Atheism and anti-theism in general was fundamentally mistaken, and needs to be discarded.

Anonymous Eduardo May 30, 2016 4:15 PM  

Well, they can always blame these people atheism on communism's materialism. And say that their views are different!!!!

Alright who the heck I am kidding, I already erased friends from Facebook at first sign of anti-religion. I know they won't change so soon... Yeah I get triggered I suppose.

The problem is that noticing their atheism is admitting atheist are flawed and some of these people can't have that. I mean I understand the whole group identification feeling.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper May 30, 2016 4:34 PM  

Pinakeli wrote:The American population density is 80 per square mile. Calcutta is 63,000 per square mile. That is almost 3 orders of magnitude greater. It would take a long time to get there, even if you doubled population every generation.

True but more is not better. The US reached its peak capability with 200 million people, 85% of them White in it. we don't need more and could do fine with less.

The issue is a eugenic one, simply, more "average" people, under 115 or so for men 110 for women are not an important asset any longer. Highly intelligent people with a strong resistance to "R" selection are

However those are a small minority of people and worse, being smart nearly always suppresses fertility. Its time and resource consuming and typical people that are smart are less interested in family and often these days in faith as well.

On top of that, technology created by those same smart people renders human labor increasingly superfluous.

In essence, computers and automation are dysgenic in the extreme.

The unspoken goal of the religious .alt right is to create a society with enough basis in faith to bolster fertility rates by reducing divorce and changing the social dynamic to one in which fertility is assumed.

This is actually quite smart as the general consensus is "people have children because their neighbors have children"

There is however a big problem, economics. Our host and a few others exempted, too many people on the .alt right can't conceptualize how to deal with the issue of jobs and income in any meaningful way , understand that modernity is urban and in such conditions anywhere, any time children are not an asset .To them anything other than Neo-Liberalism reeks of the Pit.

This is rubbish of course but until some means of dealing with our efficiency trap comes up or we have a truly huge religious revival, a lot of people will have smaller families even if we deal with divorce and feminism


Anonymous dr kill May 30, 2016 4:59 PM  

Who cares? Isn't this one of those areas we agreed that we don't care what anyone else thinks? How is your belief and my lack of belief helping Donald Trump get elected. Help us Ann Coulter.

Anonymous Mr. Rational May 30, 2016 7:05 PM  

Pinakeli wrote:The American population density is 80 per square mile. Calcutta is 63,000 per square mile.
The USA has 35 people per square km; India has 420.  That is less than 4 doublings away.

Headcannon wrote:"fetus-worship" is not a thing.
Then stop holding them up as sacred and innocent, like the left holds Black criminals.

Europeans from the ancient Greeks up through recent Irish practiced infanticide.  As recently as the mid-20th century, Christian countries had a policy of malign neglect for children with major birth defects.  Few were allowed to become a long-term burden because they were deemed not to be worth major therapeutic efforts and typically died in institutions.  One of the effects of "every life is sacred" is a 140% increase in the life expectancy of children with Down's.  They are no more productive and have even poorer prospects in the world we've built than the one we've left, but there you are.

Down's is one of the reasons that abortion will not go away short of universal IVF.

Blogger weka May 30, 2016 7:07 PM  

The end game of such progressive policies is population implosion as in Japan. If your population decreases then a fair amount of manufacturing farming and service jobs die as there is no one to feed, make things for, or doctor.


And the assumption that the average man cannot make a contribution is wrong. We need privates, apprentices and hammer hands.

So yes, patriarchy and fertility are good.

Anonymous johnc May 30, 2016 7:31 PM  

Then stop holding them up as sacred and innocent, like the left holds Black criminals.

Europeans from the ancient Greeks up through recent Irish practiced infanticide. As recently as the mid-20th century, Christian countries had a policy of malign neglect for children with major birth defects. Few were allowed to become a long-term burden because they were deemed not to be worth major therapeutic efforts and typically died in institutions. One of the effects of "every life is sacred" is a 140% increase in the life expectancy of children with Down's. They are no more productive and have even poorer prospects in the world we've built than the one we've left, but there you are.

Down's is one of the reasons that abortion will not go away short of universal IVF.


From your comments you seem like somebody of low moral caliber. For the record would you consider yourself more on the religious side or more towards the atheist side?

Blogger George May 30, 2016 7:32 PM  

Atheism brought us the world were in today. The reason western countries worked is because they had Christian values.

Blogger Crude May 30, 2016 8:12 PM  

Europeans from the ancient Greeks up through recent Irish practiced infanticide.

How'd they treat atheists?

Blogger IreneAthena May 30, 2016 8:53 PM  

@32
Mr. Rational wrote:

Headcannon wrote:"fetus-worship" is not a thing.

One of the effects of "every life is sacred" is a 140% increase in the life expectancy of children with Down's.  They are no more productive and have even poorer prospects in the world we've built than the one we've left, but there you are.

Down's is one of the reasons that abortion will not go away short of universal IVF.


Then Yay! for people with Down's Syndrome and the people who care for them. The ones I've known, as neighbors, schoolmates, and in the workworld, have brightened my day. I've been served in restaurants by some pretty surly waitstaff. Never have I encountered anything but cheerfulness in a person with Down's performing the same tasks. Oh, and I prefer waitstaff to automats. I think most of us do.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper May 30, 2016 9:26 PM  

Crude wrote:Europeans from the ancient Greeks up through recent Irish practiced infanticide.

How'd they treat atheists?


Often the Greeks didn't care. We don't know how the Irish felt and the Romans , it depends my understanding is that they mostly only wanted participation in civic rituals. They had little expectation anyone actually believed in the stuff.

I tend to agreed with Mr. Rational on the abortion issue especially since its 100% unwanted, many eugenic and 75% non white.

However the abortion issue is one in which any putative future republic will have to deal. The anti abortion people are driven by religious ideology and won't be willing to compromise if they come out with any political strength.

They seem fairly numerous though so is going to be an ugly political issue the net result being a huge spike in crime ,a less white country and an increase in defective people.

How the Religious Right will deal with the cognitive dissonance much less the actual political issues will be interesting. Most probably by making mouth noise, a lot of social signalling and by imprisonment and execution of "offenders" while complaining about taxes

I suppose offering them free choice to not offend is the moral choice but its not a smart one.

Abortion, which is shrinking anyway, at least since the 90's has done far more good than harm but again i don't see a fetus as a person and there is no grounds for compromise on that issue

Blogger Tom K. May 30, 2016 10:09 PM  

Very true. And they also have a very high suicide rate. Nihilism in Japan is a killer disease.

Blogger Tom K. May 30, 2016 10:20 PM  

And in this corner, weighing in at a pasty 300 pounds of lard infused emotion with a side of irony impairmwntt, the self- identifying Mr. Rational!!

Blogger Tom K. May 30, 2016 10:21 PM  

And in this corner, weighing in at a pasty 300 pounds of lard infused emotion with a side of irony impairmwntt, the self- identifying Mr. Rational!!

Blogger Crude May 30, 2016 10:36 PM  

Often the Greeks didn't care. We don't know how the Irish felt and the Romans , it depends my understanding is that they mostly only wanted participation in civic rituals. They had little expectation anyone actually believed in the stuff.

I'm pretty sure 'death sentence' is the common enough answer. Atheists haven't been looked kindly upon by much of anyone throughout history. So if we're appealing to the norm, hey.

However the abortion issue is one in which any putative future republic will have to deal. The anti abortion people are driven by religious ideology and won't be willing to compromise if they come out with any political strength.

There's also a tremendous amount of secular reasons to oppose it, you know. You'd think at least some atheists would notice that the west is contracepting itself into oblivion, that the immigrants aren't going to become nice little secularists in exchange. It wasn't that long ago that the irreligious murmured 'Hey, just because we don't believe in God doesn't mean we're savages. We oppose abortion and support the family and more.'

Abortion, which is shrinking anyway, at least since the 90's has done far more good than harm but again i don't see a fetus as a person and there is no grounds for compromise on that issue

You're an atheist? Then why do you give two shits one way or the other? Back off, accept restrictions, channel it wisely. Not believing the fetus is a person doesn't mean you have to care. Atheists deciding that atheism is -really important- is inane.

Blogger Rambam May 30, 2016 10:53 PM  

Atheists can rot in hell for all I care.
Isaiah 67:1

Blogger Rambam May 30, 2016 10:54 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper May 30, 2016 11:04 PM  




There's also a tremendous amount of secular reasons to oppose it, you know. You'd think at least some atheists would notice that the west is contracepting itself into oblivion, that the immigrants aren't going to become nice little secularists in exchange. It wasn't that long ago that the irreligious murmured 'Hey, just because we don't believe in God doesn't mean we're savages. We oppose abortion and support the family and more.


I honestly can think of very few secular reasons to oppose abortion other than natalism. But again I have very little concern about how many babies are born or not born, only the ethnic makeup of the country. In the long run ist a self correcting problem so long as immigration is curtailed

Immigration is the problem not so much slightly below replacement fertility rates in a nation with millions of inhabitants. To use an non American example, Germany. It has 80 million people in a nation the size of a smallish US state .

If Germans wanted to get the population density down so they could have more
Lebensraum since conquest of other nations is impracticable, so long as they remained say 99% or more German and White and could maintain their borders, there is nothing wrong with this. Humanity is way over carrying capacity and a natural voluntary reduction is a good thing

There are far too many people in the world now and the last thing the west needs is a breeding race with the rest of mankind. Yes are numbers are no longer 25% of mankind as in the Victorian era. That's our fault. We shared our technology and allowed our Christian good nature to get the better of us

We as a somewhat K selected people can't win a breeding war with them and shouldn't try. We need technology and innovation to hold land and to bloody stop feeding them and helping the. Let nature take its own toll

On top of this we are also way over social carry capacity, our societies can't find a way to provide any means of living for the white people already in them. We have only a narrow range of policy options so graduated reduction is a good thing.

In those conditions trying to push our number up farther is counter productive



You're an atheist? Then why do you give two shits one way or the other? Back off, accept restrictions, channel it wisely. Not believing the fetus is a person doesn't mean you have to care. Atheists deciding that atheism is -really important- is inane.

I or my hypothetical offspring have to deal with the consequences of anti abortion policy choices, pay the taxes, suffer the increased crime and deal with the damaged births and deal with the ethnic dilution.

I'd rather not add an extra half a million poor, ineducable unwanted, criminally inclined, low impulse control non White babies to the US year after year after year thanks.

A couple of decades assuming the rate of unintended pregnancy birth is cut in half gets me an extra 5 million Blacks and Latinos and and extra 1.25 million whites. Its a bad trade off.

Anonymous Eduardo May 30, 2016 11:17 PM  

1 human being standing fits inside a 1 meter by 1 meter square

1 kilo-meter is a 1000 meter per 1000 meter square. Yup, the USA has 35 people in a square that fits 1.000.000 people standing. These 35 people are now constrained to have a 2.500 squared meter terrain... That is 20 times my apartment. I agree not enough space, where am I gonna put my Saturn missile attached to the Death-Laser û_ū

Anonymous A.B. Prosper May 30, 2016 11:35 PM  

Eduardo wrote:1 human being standing fits inside a 1 meter by 1 meter square

1 kilo-meter is a 1000 meter per 1000 meter square. Yup, the USA has 35 people in a square that fits 1.000.000 people standing. These 35 people are now constrained to have a 2.500 squared meter terrain... That is 20 times my apartment. I agree not enough space, where am I gonna put my Saturn missile attached to the Death-Laser û_ū


More people is not better. Also not all land is equal. Much of say California is pleasant, Wyoming less so. Less people means a better standard of living and cheaper access to desirable areas for everyone. I don't owe society any offspring since it isn't paying the bills for me , I might owe God or my ancestors some but that is between them and me

There is a cut off point in which this is less is generally better is no longer true but its highly unlikely we'll reach it.

The US would have to lose 80% of its population to get near there and assuming those remains were White, the economic system would shift and the standard of living would go up enough to increase the fertility rate to above 2 and thus increase the population anyway.

So long as we keep our borders secure, the system will self correct wither by a new economic paradigm , a collapse or some kind of social system insuring people have the access to the income they see fit of they can work for it.

Now as the abortion and other issues. The problem is that there are two value systems in play. The Christians are seeing Good vs. Evil the others, Order vs Chaos.

There is a lot of overlap between Good and Order but they are not the same.

Good
I
Chaos—Order
I
Evil


I suspect I and others like me including most European identity types want a good public order, homogeneous and with good systems . This does not match what the mirror Christians of the Cathedral, the Churchians or the actual Christians want though and there will be strife.

The US may well have a civil war or a collapse/separation which is fine. The paraphrase Woody Allen, I'm not afraid of civil war, I just don't to be bet there when it happens

In any case may the best idea win.

Blogger Crude May 30, 2016 11:42 PM  

I honestly can think of very few secular reasons to oppose abortion other than natalism. But again I have very little concern about how many babies are born or not born, only the ethnic makeup of the country. In the long run ist a self correcting problem so long as immigration is curtailed

'Secular reasons' are abundant. Nor is it a self-correcting problem in and of itself, unless a country shrinking (in some cases, rapidly) into oblivion seems ideal to you. It's pretty easy to imagine the secular desire to see more citizens, more people, doing more productive things, and expanding further in various ways.

Humanity is way over carrying capacity and a natural voluntary reduction is a good thing

Tell that to the japanese, and the Russians, and everyone else in the west. We're not talking about humanity. We're talking about a particular segment of it. If you're going 'We need less Americans because there's too many people in Africa', I think you've got this whole nationalism thing wrong. And there's not even too many people, period.

We as a somewhat K selected people can't win a breeding war with them and shouldn't try.

Why not? Maybe your natural desire to have less children of your own kind is, you know - a flaw. The sort of thing an intelligent gent should look at and go 'I have to work on that'. Worth considering.

I or my hypothetical offspring have to deal with the consequences of anti abortion policy choices, pay the taxes, suffer the increased crime and deal with the damaged births and deal with the ethnic dilution.

Where are these hypothetical white civilizations with the abundant birth rates and the massive crime. Why are you assuming a high birth rate in your civilization will result in more crime? Because other countries have high rates and they're shitholes?

Even if I granted your dubious logic about other races and offspring, you'd end up at the very least with strong arguments to highly discourage abortion - and the choices and preferences that promote abortion - at least among what you regard as your own culture/race.

Anonymous Eduardo May 31, 2016 12:15 AM  

Prosper it is true that more people is not good, but it is not bad too. With a 2 store building you can cut in half the populated area and still give people 2500 sq. Meter. I am just saying that space has not become that much of a problem. And it will take really long to be a problem

Prosper most the World area already belongs to someone man, I don't have access to most areas in the world! Look if someone wants to live far away from everybody, yeah that becomes i bit of a problem if eveybody thinks just like that, but a lot of people are happy to be cramped in cities, it is not all that bad really, for the loners

Blogger IreneAthena May 31, 2016 12:26 AM  

Even though I agree with people who know and care about a person with Alzheimer's or some other cognitive disability, estimating as repugnant Mr. Rational's and A.B.Prosper's utility-based assessment of the worth of the individual, I do find there's irony enough to go around here.

A.B. Prosper wrote:I tend to agreed with Mr. Rational on the abortion issue especially since its 100% unwanted, many eugenic and 75% non white.

However the abortion issue is one in which any putative future republic will have to deal. The anti abortion people are driven by religious ideology and won't be willing to compromise if they come out with any political strength.

They seem fairly numerous though so is going to be an ugly political issue the net result being a huge spike in crime ,a less white country and an increase in defective people.

How the Religious Right will deal with the cognitive dissonance much less the actual political issues will be interesting. Most probably by making mouth noise, a lot of social signalling and by imprisonment and execution of "offenders" while complaining about taxes



It might surprise some to find out how many religious people were driven to atheism (or a more liberal form of the Social Gospel) by the hypocrisy of Religious Right neocon political candidates and their overbearing campaigners sitting next to them in the pews. "We'll overturn Roe v. Wade, if you vote for us and give us a mandate to turn those middle Eastern sands into glass!" This, with no regard to how many babies, born and unborn, would be burnt up in the process. Transpose the neocons' disregard for the loss of Over-There-Istan fetal life to the callous alt-right/pro-life dismissal of the plight of Syrian refugees ("We don't care!") and you'll hear the same discordant song.

And no, victims of abortion are far from being "100% unwanted." It is often a painful decision made by someone who sees herself caught between a rock and a hard place. I've logged the hours in a crisis Pregnancy center to hear and see it all and cringe when I've heard pro-fetal-life people defending their anti-neonatal-mother stance: "We shouldn't have to be taxed to pay for that slut's mistake."

I understand that the poor we will always have with us and that for security reasons alone, there is a limit to how much help we can give to refugees from ISIS-saturated countries. But to engage rhetoric in which their common humanity is given the back of the hand the way the aforementioned gentlemen are giving the back of the hand to children with Down's, how is that in any way consistent?

Even the pagan Greek philosophers (most of them likely functionally atheistic), upon whose shoulders Western civilization rests, recognized the value of kindness in a society. Rhetoric about "preserving Western civilization" rings hollow in a compassion vacuum.

Blogger Todd Miller May 31, 2016 12:41 AM  

RACE is the big factor in lower crime. Areas with lots of Blacks may register more religiosity, and they obviously have more crime. But it isn't the religion causing it.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper May 31, 2016 1:28 AM  

Two part replay with apologies.

Nor is it a self-correcting problem in and of itself, unless a country shrinking (in some cases, rapidly) into oblivion seems ideal to you. It's pretty easy to imagine the secular desire to see more citizens, more people, doing more productive things, and expanding further in various ways.

No society is fading into oblivion. Nor is it likely we will remain indefinitely at low fertility. Even the worst of societies like Germany in Europe aren't that below replacement. .

Its also only a crisis if you assume growth and activity an some whiggish improvement doing stuff are the be all end all or if you assume that the birth rate will never increase . The first is not all important and the later, I don't know. If its true, we do have a problem. I'll get back to you on that in a few decades.

Tell t Japanese, and the Russians, and everyone else in the west that we are over caring capacity We're not talking about humanity. We're talking about a particular segment of it. If you're going 'We need less Americans because there's too many people in Africa', I think you've got this whole nationalism thing wrong. And there's not even too many people, period.

Japan isn't in the West. I like the Japanese I've met but they aren't us. And yes there are too many people long term anything over a billion, maybe two is over population in that long term.

And there really aren't 350 million Americans since many people living here aren't American in any way shape or form, we have more people than we need or long term have resources for. And of course national leaders push natalism , its more people to rule or misrule.

Maybe your natural desire to have less children of your own kind is, you know - a flaw. The sort of thing an intelligent gent should look at and go 'I have to work on that'. Worth considering.

Its not so much I want less of my own kind but that i see less people on Earth in total as a good thing. Back during peak Europe, the Victorian age , Euro Folk made up like 25% of humanity, I'd like to see this again but I don't see any ethical way to actively make this happen.

I can see ways to passively do this and those I favor,

It just unfortunate that our numbers are somewhat limited by our own social and cultural makeup.

I don't see why people ought to have kids in increasing relative poverty just because 'society" wants more people or some business wants cheap labor or customers or because people did in the past .. You have no duty to modernity and no way to bring back the past.

In no way is the modern capitalist or top a lesser degree social democratic state going to have any obligations to you either thus having children becomes entirely an individual choice based on your own faith . This is the ultimate path of the atomized freedom of the Enlightenment really .

What made this system fall apart is that no one expected the collapse of the Church in Europe and the White world with a lesser amount in the US . The free social capital ran out



Anonymous A.B. Prosper May 31, 2016 1:32 AM  

Part Two.

Where are these hypothetical white civilizations with the abundant birth rates and the massive crime. Why are you assuming a high birth rate in your civilization will result in more crime? Because other countries have high rates and they're shitholes?

The people having children aren't White and even if White birth rates go up, so will non White ones, probably faster and they are a lot more crime and violence prone. Also Russia is pretty damned White, Whiter than the US and its violence and homicide rates are really high although its below replacement. The problem here is not "more Whites, more crime' but more people, mostly non White more problems. Short of removing the other people, any population increase unless its only White simply makes things worse.

We can't automagically assume that White women even kids in modernity . The wisest words I ever read in fertility came from Reason magazine of all places, back in 2008 -- Why are People Having Fewer Kids? Perhaps it's because they don't like them very much.

Anyway, 100% of aborted children are unwanted, 85% to single moms, Does this look like the recipe for anything but crime to you?

Even if I granted your dubious logic about other races and offspring, you'd end up at the very least with strong arguments to highly discourage abortion - and the choices and preferences that promote abortion - at least among what you regard as your own culture/race.

OK I was slightly off on abortion, according to the Guttmacher institute White rates have gone up to around 35% or so, This sucks. Still here but for every White abortion, there are at least 2 non White ones. In any case its not only about "more White people" , yes decent IQ White women having abortions is bad, its not mostly not them but unmarried women, many with personal problems. Few of these kids are going to be anything but trouble. In any case, if abortion was banned one of a few things will happen.

Said woman will not have reproductive sex which is the net identical effect to an abortion (no baby)

She will us better birth control to make up for the contraceptive failures that allegedly make up 44% of abortions. Also the same net effect, no baby.

She will have an illegal abortion or use an illegal abortificant which could result in her death at a higher rate and possible fetal death, also a net similar effect to an abortion with the risk of an added fatality, jail term or death .

Or she will, you hope carry the child to term and have either raise the child as a single mom (which is a disaster to society) put it up for adoption (which is a mixed blessing) or add it to her existing brood (59% of abortion patients already have given birth) .

If she is married and decently above the poverty line with a passable father this is a good outcome but of abortion patients, its only 1 in 4 with a decent income (2x the poverty line) and how many of those are married I do not know.

As of 2012 its about 15% married in all abortion cases. This too assumes the men are suitable fathers,

So of the White Abortions alone, excluding eugenic ones (Downs Syndrome, fetal deformity) and ignoring poverty 10% of people getting abortions who would get a good start in life (married parents, healthy)

The actual improvement to the white race would be around 40,000 people, with luck a bit higher,

By comparison we could add three or more generations worth of that demographic improvement by simply relocating Boers and other White South Africans here.

The real gain from a well enforced effective abortion ban is about 40,000 more quality White children. This isn't zero but we could easily get that many with immigration reform and with less social difficulties.

Anonymous Eduardo May 31, 2016 1:36 AM  

Prosper A.K.A. Mr Automagically

I laughed at that word.

Anonymous john rockwell May 31, 2016 1:36 AM  

The dilemma of whether or not to abort a person with down syndrome and other genetic defects will soon be eliminated by CRISPR and or technologies deprived from it:
https://www.neb.com/tools-and-resources/feature-articles/crispr-cas9-and-targeted-genome-editing-a-new-era-in-molecular-biology

So there will be no excuse other than selfishness. As a Christian I support this technology which not only eliminates the disease but saves lives.

OpenID marsascendant May 31, 2016 1:43 AM  

Im curious VD. What would be your argument for Christianity (of any flavor) over other religions to an agnostic?

Anonymous Mr. Rational May 31, 2016 2:36 AM  

johnc wrote:From your comments you seem like somebody of low moral caliber.
From your moral posturing you seem like someone who refuses to recognize the limits of human ability.  There are things Humans. Cannot. Do.  Fixing all of the mistakes of nature/God [pick one] is one of those things.
For the record would you consider yourself more on the religious side or more towards the atheist side?
Tell me, Mr. C, does your faith give you the ability to give a functional brain to an anencephalic fetus?  To supply an intact anatomy and appealing appearance to one with a severe cleft palate?  Exactly WHAT THE FUCK DOES FAITH OR LACK THEREOF HAVE TO DO WITH IT?!

If you can actually work miracles with your faith, let's see you help the innocents that have been born maimed thanks to acts of your God.  Otherwise have the grace to STFU when the rest of us resolve that the kindest thing we can do for them is not to "save" them from the condition of their birth, or not to let them be born to suffer in the first place.

Jackasses like you cured me of the Christianity in which I was raised.

Crude wrote:Europeans from the ancient Greeks up through recent Irish practiced infanticide.

How'd they treat atheists?

They created a hell of a lot of them.

IreneAthena wrote:I've been served in restaurants by some pretty surly waitstaff. Never have I encountered anything but cheerfulness in a person with Down's performing the same tasks.
I've been served by retards.  They were incompetent at their jobs, and I preferred other waitstaff.  I've not found that IQ correlated with surliness.

Oh, and I prefer waitstaff to automats. I think most of us do.
I wouldn't know.  Where I've chosen self-serve, I've gotten what I paid for.  When I drew retards as waitstaff, I can honestly say I haven't.

Tom K. wrote:
A totally ironic double-post with no dialectical value.  Hilarious.

Crude wrote:There's also a tremendous amount of secular reasons to oppose it, you know. You'd think at least some atheists would notice that the west is contracepting itself into oblivion
You'd think that someone attuned to factual details would notice the distinction between contraceptive dysgenics at the high end, and abortion eugenics at the low end.  Obviously you are not such a person.

Changing the dysgenics of contraception requires changing the incentive structure of society.  It wasn't all that bad in pre-1960 USA, maybe we can go back.
the immigrants aren't going to become nice little secularists in exchange.
I would cheerfully remove the post-1965 immigrants and their progeny BAMN.  I would cheerfully remove illegal immigrants of any date and their progeny ditto.

A.B. Prosper wrote:There are far too many people in the world now and the last thing the west needs is a breeding race with the rest of mankind.
This is too true.  The last thing the cream of humanity needs is a breeding race to the bottom.  Keep Them Out.

Anonymous Mr. Rational May 31, 2016 2:40 AM  

john rockwell wrote:The dilemma of whether or not to abort a person with down syndrome and other genetic defects will soon be eliminated by CRISPR
Right-To-Life defines any refusal to implant a blastocyst as ABORTION!!!!11!1!eleven!

fsck that noise.  A diploid genome is not a human being, and anyone who equates them is too brainwashed to take seriously.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento May 31, 2016 8:15 AM  

Mr. Rational has cured me of what was left of my atheism.

Blogger B.J. May 31, 2016 11:56 AM  

I agree in that there isn't much point to correlating religion to crime. How about:

Amish community: 100% uber religious, zero crime (bonus: Also very poor!)
Soviet Union: Atheist state, murderville.
Middle East: Variously religious, war-apalooza

So pick whichever cherry supports your worldview.

Blogger Quadko May 31, 2016 12:00 PM  

I'm reading "The Triumph of Faith: Why the World Is More Religious than Ever" by Dr. Rodney Stark. It is very interesting. He is refuting the "more secular nations" idea, basically by showing from data that "Church Attendance" is a terrible proxy for distinguishing secular vs. religious populations.

Church non-attenders may or may not be Christian / Hindu / etc., but they are not rational materialists. And aside from the religions themselves growing, there's apparently a growing neopagan spiritualists, especially in Europe.

Anonymous Eduardo May 31, 2016 12:26 PM  

Mr Rational is being too emotional man!!!! Sounds like me after meeting the angry Neo-Atheys.
Theism not equal to pantheism, come on BRO!
Mr Rational what if someone killed you because they want you to suffer? Youuu just justify all killings man.

Mr Rational u_u don't worry man, they are checking your background, now that you replied they will send you off the village... Yeah when you start playing ostracism anyone can do that to you too ;-)

Seriously you people...

-------------------------------

Dear Mister Blow Job

That is a nice one, really good observation. But one needs to find more accurate numbers before we, automagically, conclude something.

Blogger Pinakeli May 31, 2016 12:33 PM  

And now I remember why I never bother to engage "Mr. Rational".

Whereas fetus-worship and breeding until you've turned the wide-open spaces of America into Calcutta is the absolute height of morality, right? Right.

Pinakeli wrote:
The American population density is 80 per square mile. Calcutta is 63,000 per square mile.

The USA has 35 people per square km; India has 420. That is less than 4 doublings away.


Bulldoze the goalposts, load them on a truck and drive them across the subcontinent, and hide them in a warehouse somewhere. Then declare victory!

But what should I expect from someone who thinks that 20 red will ever show up on a roulette wheel. (hint: 20 is black)

Anonymous JP May 31, 2016 12:51 PM  

I've always said the same thing. Transplant the downtown populations of Atlanta, Memphis and New Orleans into Vermont, Oregon and other "safe" states and let's see what happens.

Blogger John Wright May 31, 2016 2:18 PM  

@18
'God > Family > Nation > Political Ideology. Which is why I support Donald Trump, even though he isn't my 'ideal' candidate. Since my ideal candidate would be running for President of the Restored Confederate States of America, I'll just have to hope my ancestors will forgive me for voting for a New York Yankee.'

Amen. My ideal candidate is Cato of Utica, but unfortunately, he was defeated by Caesar.

Blogger John Wright May 31, 2016 2:29 PM  

@32
"Europeans from the ancient Greeks up through recent Irish practiced infanticide."

Somehow proffering the nausiating, self-destructive and dyscivic practices of our benighted pagan ancestors is hardly going to convince civilized Christian gentlemen to adopt the habit as their own.
Go find a braindead Leftist to whom to peddle your neologisms, nonsense words, savgery, and snake oil. They hated women and children. We protect them.
They can be scared by your economically illiterate tales of overpopulation. We can colonize the solar system.
Leftists concerve. Conservatives open new frontiers.

If you want to practice eugenics, start with yourself.

Blogger John Wright May 31, 2016 2:42 PM  

"I honestly can think of very few secular reasons to oppose abortion other than natalism."

Are there any secular reasons to oppose infanticide up to age seven? Are there any secular reasons to oppose the genocide of any elements of society found inconvenient to the ruling class? Are there any secular reasons for those irrational and impractical superstition that makes men keep their word or obey the law?

In fact, is there any secular reason WHATSOEVER to oppose the practices of the Chinese Cultural Revolution? If a person's life has no intrinsic value in his own mother's womb, for what secular reason can he be said to have intrinsic value out of it?

For that matter, why should you have life? What secular reason has anyone to maintain a social contract with you? You are dangerous to the young of the tribe, and seek to impede our population growth.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper May 31, 2016 2:45 PM  

Pinakeli wrote:

The American population density is 80 per square mile. Calcutta is 63,000 per square mile.

The USA has 35 people per square km; India has 420. That is less than 4 doublings away.

Bulldoze the goalposts, load them on a truck and drive them across the subcontinent, and hide them in a warehouse somewhere. Then declare victory!

Pinkelli,

Its not that difficult to double a population. The US managed it with periods of fertility decline in a few decades. We went from a healthy 150 million in 1950 to 350 million by around 2005 with a long period (post baby boom) of low fertility.

Stopping immigration would slow the result but the US population grew 20% in a single decade , from 1950 to 1960 and it was 90% White at the time with little immigration.

Let me show some math, feel free to correct my mistakes if I make any

The New Republic of the US has do to people leaving and the takeover a population of 300 million. This is a near 20% growth rate, unlikely but not impossible as its already happened once

10 years 360
20 years 412
30 years 500 million
40 years 600 million
50 years 720 million
60 years 864 million
70 years 1036 million.

So from the time of World War One to Reagan's second term at baby Boom growth levels the US alone has the population of the entire planet in 1840 or so.

Now at current demography this will be 130 million or so Blacks, 400 Million Mexicans and 400 million Whites with an assortment of others. Does this sound like a pleasant or stable model for a country? Your cities won't be Calcutta I suppose but a poorer version of Rio, open sewers, decaying infrastructure, favellas, little to no public health, the works

Now lets say, that the hypothetical new Republic engages in ethnic cleansing and makes the country 80% White 20% other. I don't know precisely how one would do this but you'd than have 200 million Black an other people and 800 Million whites , again its an unstable unsupportable model. We don't have the resources or society to provide work for that many people.

Blogger John Wright May 31, 2016 2:48 PM  

It is so freakish hearing yammerheads go on about overpopulation when the main problem in the civilized West is underpopulation.

Do you non science fiction writers not understand that we science fiction writers MADE THE PROBLEM UP to sell books like 'Stand on Zanzabar' and films like 'Soylent Green'? It is no more real than the Men from Mars we made up. .

How can you take this make believe pulp fic scifi seriously?

Anonymous A.B. Prosper May 31, 2016 4:52 PM  

John Wright wrote:It is so freakish hearing yammerheads go on about overpopulation when the main problem in the civilized West is underpopulation.

Do you non science fiction writers not understand that we science fiction writers MADE THE PROBLEM UP to sell books like 'Stand on Zanzabar' and films like 'Soylent Green'? It is no more real than the Men from Mars we made up. .

How can you take this make believe pulp fic scifi seriously?


Because its not pulp Sci-Fi. Its a real problem with two components, physical and social carrying capacity.

lets start with physical

Yes we did get lucky with Norman Borlaug and with cheap energy but we can't count on another lucky break and energy while temporarily cheaper do to what is essentially a global depression, it will go up.

We may well be at peak for many resources, especially oil and its all downhill from there, Long term thinking suggests its much easier to sustain a smaller population in comfort.

The West will collapse sooner than later and as =Greer likes to say Collapse now and avoid the rush

Now to social carrying capacity. Even if somehow the magic progress fairy gets us past peak everything that, our social fabric doesn't support massive populations.

1st we do not have work for most young people that pays well enough to support a family at the level people expect. Underemployment and unemployment in Europe is around 50% and its probably 25% in the US. Its part of though not all of the lower fertility rates among Whites. Our people don't want to live in slums and the Arabs and Africans seeing an actual increase in quality of life and being low IQ and driven by impulse don't mine. Hi IQ, Low time preference people , educated are expensive and we don't want to pay the bills

Those same people live mostly in cities where children are a liability not an asset are not going to raise children in slums for the church or the state or the elite . The world produces more stuff and more opportunity and smart people want more of it and are entitled to make the choices that get them some. if this means smaller families, so be it.

You and the church and the state are not entitled to my offspring or to my hard work raising them. I owe you and them nothing other than what they compel.


2nd Just because the West is smart enough to dodge the overpopulation bullet doesn't mean the rest of the world is. If Africa and The Middle east were not overpopulated for the type of society they live in they would not be migrating in near as many numbers.

3rd Less people up to a certain point always means a higher standard of living. I live in California which is not terribly dense with a population just under 40 million. Can you tell me that, baring Chinese oligarchs and banks owning everything that my quality of life might would not be higher. At say 10 million people, working stiffs could live on the beach, cheap.

More people makes everything worse . and yes there is a point in which development becomes impaired. We aren't anywhere close to that. For the US we'd have to hit 60 million or so, less probably and there is no chance of that for many decades baring a disaster


Blogger Aeoli Pera June 01, 2016 2:50 AM  

Vox making it look easy.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento June 01, 2016 8:59 AM  

Population density is an issue, not over-population.
Even in India and China ( I Just got back a couple of months ago).

Anonymous A.B. Prosper June 01, 2016 2:18 PM  

Paul Sacramento wrote:Population density is an issue, not over-population.

Even in India and China ( I Just got back a couple of months ago).



Interesting. More population isn't going to make anything better, for anybody though and comes at a hefty ecological cost.

If anyone things we don't have too many people on Earth read up on the oceans, soil, drinking water, arable land , farming practices and deforestation.

You'll see the physical carrying capacity of the planet has been exceeded.

On top of that, study the various political systems and social models and you'l see very few of them are smart, honest and flexible enough to support a higher level of population. Most political systems are more akin to Venezuela than Iceland

Logically than a graduated reduction in population to prevent mass famine and die back is a good thing and even if somehow we get past the current problems which is theoretically possible if another Normal Borlaug or actual fusion power comes about less people still means cheaper housing in better areas and thus a higher standard of living

In case anyone asks, the ideal long term number would be around 2 billion or so, 25% or more in the West. This is not a huge decline from where we are in the Euro-Sphere and I suspect its fairly sustainable while providing the population density we need to support higher technology and innovation.

The best thing is, we are getting there naturally and ethically and if the West keeps its lands free of Others, we'll be fine.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 01, 2016 2:47 PM  

Pinakeli wrote:And now I remember why I never bother to engage "Mr. Rational".
Can't handle the cold equations, can you?

But what should I expect from someone who thinks that 20 red will ever show up on a roulette wheel. (hint: 20 is black)
See, this is why you'd lose.  Not only can't you handle arithmetic, I don't use roulette analogies.  Ever.  The only appearance of that phrase on this blog is by you.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 01, 2016 2:51 PM  

John Wright wrote:Somehow proffering the nausiating, self-destructive and dyscivic practices of our benighted pagan ancestors is hardly going to convince civilized Christian gentlemen to adopt the habit as their own.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings would like a word with you.  We are slowly re-learning why "our benighted pagan ancestors" did these things:  having too many unproductive mouths to feed is dyscivic and self-destructive.  When you overwhelm the natural capital which provides everything down to basics like potable water, you go into collapse of both civilization and population.

I like my civilization.  I want to keep it for myself and my posterity.  If I was still a believer I would take the examples of e.g. Down syndrome and anencephaly and say "God screwed 'em up, let him have 'em back".  I'd rather prevent those things than abort them, so I am pro-PIGD.  I am well aware that better mental function is generally pro-civic, so I am also pro-embryo genetic selection for higher IQ and against mental disorders as well as general health.

Perhaps 30% of all fertilized human ova naturally proceed to live birth.  There is a lot of natural weeding going on, and obviously there is no holy value that is suddenly acquired when gametes unite; you can't jibe that with 70% losses.

We can colonize the solar system.
This is not going to be done by the 85-IQ undertow.  The burden of pulling them along has prevented the United States from doing anything along those lines for the better part of 50 years now.  The part of humanity that goes to the stars will stop breeding such themselves (or they won't be able to go), and leave the rest behind just like Homo sap left the chimpanzees.

is there any secular reason WHATSOEVER to oppose the practices of the Chinese Cultural Revolution?
Absolutely; look at the damage it did, and how long it took to overcome.

If a person's life has no intrinsic value in his own mother's womb, for what secular reason can he be said to have intrinsic value out of it?
Beings with thoughts and feelings have intrinsic value, if only that they be spared what pain we can.  The millions of "potential children" I have swimming around right now?  No thoughts or feelings, and the only value they have is for the handful that can become children growing into intelligent, productive adults in their own right.  Most MUST be discarded along the way; it is the way we are built, and guilting people over it is lunacy.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 01, 2016 2:54 PM  

John Wright wrote:It is so freakish hearing yammerheads go on about overpopulation when the main problem in the civilized West is underpopulation.
So this justifies forcing women to give birth to babies with neural-tube defects, severe cleft palates requiring years of surgeries just to give them more or less normal function, and Down and other forms of retardation?  One of the reasons older women don't have children is because of Down's and the stigma of abortion.

Do you non science fiction writers not understand that we science fiction writers MADE THE PROBLEM UP
The chronic famines of China and India (and even Europe, pre-bubonic plague) weren't fiction, and if we screw up by over-stretching our resources and capabilities they'll be our future.

Blogger Pinakeli June 01, 2016 3:50 PM  

Mr. Rational June 01, 2016 2:47 PM
Pinakeli wrote:
And now I remember why I never bother to engage "Mr. Rational".

Can't handle the cold equations, can you?


You left them out again. You stated Calcutta, then changed it to India. You are a liar!

But what should I expect from someone who thinks that 20 red will ever show up on a roulette wheel. (hint: 20 is black)

See, this is why you'd lose. Not only can't you handle arithmetic, I don't use roulette analogies. Ever. The only appearance of that phrase on this blog is by you.


I bring you the quote:

Mr. Rational April 15, 2016 2:49 AM
...

You have no idea what the Law of large numbers is. It is about averages. A self-replicator is an extreme possibility, but it only has to arise once because it then takes over by self-replication. The more events you have, the greater the likelihood that one of them will be at a particular extreme. Take the roulette wheel; if you spin it an infinite number of times, the odds of having any finite number of sequential hits on 20 red is unity.


Again, you are a liar!

Blogger Pinakeli June 01, 2016 4:15 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Pinakeli June 01, 2016 4:17 PM  

OK, don't click the back button after submitting a comment. It will submit it again!

Anonymous Eduardo June 01, 2016 9:19 PM  

Ouch at that last comment.

God never loses anything, how could we give back anything to Him.

Seriously, every atheist has a personalistic view of God, every single one of them.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 02, 2016 2:06 PM  

Pinakeli sperged:You stated Calcutta, then changed it to India.
Hey, spergatroid, Calcutta doesn't grow food.  India has to cram people into Calcutta to keep them OUT of where food is grown.  Put that sperg tendency to use and try THINKING about things logically instead of spazzing out.

But what should I expect from someone who thinks that 20 red will ever show up on a roulette wheel. (hint: 20 is black)
Okay, I admit it:  I've never seen a roulette wheel outside of movies.  Happy?  Go rock yourself in happiness in your corner now.

Now, if you're all so high and mighty as a mathematician, explain how a law related to averages of distributions has anything to do with outliers, or even the specific shape of the distribution.  Answer:  YOU CAN'T, because it has no relevance.  It was a lie by misdirection when it was brought up, and everyone knew it.

Blogger Scott Birch June 06, 2016 1:11 PM  

Umm, what do _I_ do? I don't believe in the existence of God, but am convinced that mankind is fucked without religion. We wouldn't be anywhere good without it.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts