Theism's last argument died when they called atheist out for being "science worshippers".
>le trust the science
>science man said so
>the soience is clear
They literally accused them of acting the way they've been acting for the last 10000 years.
They essentially accused them of being religious and not scientific enough.
Pretty sure I haven't been acting for the past 10,000 years. Are all atheists unable to distinguish a set from its members, or are you special?
Except you are part of a collective, so you can be judged by your collective. If you weren't part of any organized religion you'd have a point, but most debates between theists and atheists involve actual doctrine as opposed to "I just feel there's something bigger than me out there" and "well there's no proof that there's anything bigger than you out there."
>Except you are part of a collective, so you can be judged by your collective
Of course, but when you're referencing set members, it's necessary to quantify your references. If OP has done so, his post would say something like "All Christians have faith in unprovable premises. Some Christians argue against scientism on the premise that it rests up on unprovable premises." When quantified this, it loses its zing. Most Christians would then respond something like, "the argument against scientism isn't that it rests up on unprovable premises, it's that in addition to resting upon unprovable premises, it rests upon a rejection of other beliefs for the reason that they also rest upon unprovable premises."
>the premise that it rests up on
*upon
>When quantified this
thus
Most "sciencism" isn't even anything like a religion, it's just deferring to someone with more expertise when you are ignorant about a topic. Calling people who assume that scientists who study particle physics are correct scientists (scientismists?) is like calling people who trust doctors doctorists or trust that engineers designed a ladder for the rated weight engineerists.
>Most "sciencism" isn't even anything like a religion, it's just deferring to someone with more expertise when you are ignorant about a topic.
That "someone" is called a priest, Anon. Scientism also has a doctrine of justification (empiricism) and of salvation (trust the science!)
>Calling people who assume that scientists who study particle physics are correct scientists (scientismists?) is like calling people who trust doctors doctorists or trust that engineers designed a ladder for the rated weight engineerists.
We have malpractice insurance because people's (merited) distrust in doctors is significant enough to profit from, and we have a cultural superstition that walking beneath a ladder causes bad luck because the level of standardization which allows for the concept of "rated weight" to exist is an historically recent phenomenon. I'm not too familiar with the ladder industry, but I would be surprised if there aren't bonds or insurance involved somewhere within the system that certifies these ratings. In both cases, we acknowledge that accepting these evaluations is a gamble, and we hedge our bets accordingly. Trusting the scientist to render unto ye the science is not acknowledging a gamble, and there is no hedging of bets. It's faith.
>We have malpractice insurance because people's (merited) distrust in doctors is significant enough to profit from, and we have a cultural superstition that walking beneath a ladder causes bad luck because the level of standardization which allows for the concept of "rated weight" to exist is an historically recent phenomenon. I'm not too familiar with the ladder industry, but I would be surprised if there aren't bonds or insurance involved somewhere within the system that certifies these ratings. In both cases, we acknowledge that accepting these evaluations is a gamble, and we hedge our bets accordingly. Trusting the scientist to render unto ye the science is not acknowledging a gamble, and there is no hedging of bets. It's faith.
And yet you still go to a doctor, if your doctor says you need a kidney transplant you don't say "that's fake news" you go on dialysis until you get a kidney transplant. Most people's views of science are much the same and they are willing to adapt to changing understanding of science.
Anon, I have spent more time discussing philosophy of medicine with my physician than I have spent discussing my own health. We spent most of my last physical discussing diagnostic logic. He knows me enough that he would have an estimate of relevant misdiagnosis rates and a list of doctors from whom to solicit a second opinion at the ready before offering such a diagnosis and treatment recommendation. Most people do not approach doctors in a similar way, they trust the system to work for them. I think such trust is foolish. Trusting academia is far more foolish, as academics don't carry malpractice insurance.
>malpractice insurance, bonds or insurance
are not belief/validation systems in potential opposition to medicine/engineering, like faith is. They also reflect that the actions of a specific practitioner might diverge from what the profession's best practices would call for. If somebody dies of cancer after treatment, that isn't inherently malpractice.
Evil trips for a moronic post. You should be ashamed of yourself, OP.
The lad is spamming the board.
Comparing
> Science which is, by definition, supposed to follow a set of rigid rules, be repeatable
> People trusting and parroting things not even demonstrated in science as true because they have faith
and
Religion
> Incorporates faith
> Operates more in the realm of history for demonstrating the likelihood/feasibility of things
I don't know? Maybe this seems like a false equivalence?
dear god these negative iq christoid posts
>Theism's last argument died when they pointed out my hypocrisy
Ok buddy.
Right, we know how hard you are on hypocrisy
Ultimately, a faith or trust in science is not equivalent in moronation to faith in religion. The problem is when people trust what they believe science is, for them science is "established knowledge". Science isn't established knowledge, science is just expansion of knowledge through an effective and rigorous methodology. Faith should therefore be placed on its effectiveness, which has been proven by human history.
These scientific findings are overblown, and are not in the realm of lifestyles, philosophy, or even most of the conclusions people draw from them.
Also, many peer reviewed journals are a joke. Just a circlejerk of references that are akin to clickbait articles.
Science needs to learn its place in the grand scheme of thingspng4r0
A lot of Christian arguments seem to boil down to “you’re just as dumb as us” while also falling flat.
the Christian does not value "religion" for religion's sake. this is why your argument falls flat. a religion based on "science" is stupid.
Op seems to be mocking the idea that adhering to science is a religion in the first place.
So not only rejecting the premise but also saying it’s a self own on behalf of Christians.
it is only a "self own" if you strawman the Christian position.
the Christian does not value religion for religion's sake, so his criticism of scientism is not a hypocritical statement that religion is stupid, it is an internally consistent statement that worshipping scientists is stupid.
as for whether "adhering to science" is a religion, that depends on the definition of "adhering." some people clearly do treat science as a religion and scientists as the holy priests of the religion. others don't. it depends on the person. the people who do treat science as a religion are stupid, the one's who don't are not subject to the criticism and so are irrelevant.
the OP is not beating the allegations of being a silly person.
>the Christian does not value religion for religion's sake,
Who said this? Someone is strawmanning but it’s not op.
The OP literally said this:
>They essentially accused them of being religious and not scientific enough.
this is more of an argument against organized religion than theism, which you can philosophically reasonably rationalize without said organized religion. But yes, university professors these days are little more than priests.
>But yes, university professors these days are little more than priests.
The professors are the least of anyone's concerns. Science is bought out by corps and politics. And supported by shills and paid studies. And if the vax is any indication, this isn't merely a parallel to any religion. This is Satanic kiddy fricking tier religion.
priests and the medieval and renaissance natural philosophers were also heavily influenced by outside incentives. E.g. geocentrism was pushed to protect catholic teaching is analogous to studies that claim porn is good for you because of the current sex-positive moral paradigm and money from the porn industry. It's all the same shit throughout history.
>science is not supposed to be religion
>people criticize science worshipers
>"OH SO YOU MUST BE THEISTS, RIGHT?"
But anon you literally worship the soiience though. Also
>anyone who criticizes me is instantly the opposition
lol. People make fun of you fedora losers because you engage in worse behavior than the people you criticize and believe in things that are even less true, and you can't even see this because your entire identity involves seething about religious people instead of formulating a coherent worldview. Every fedora tipper I've debated with is on such a bare bones level of thinking as to be ignorant of basic philosophical concepts, to the level of being unable to define morality and formulating conclusions entirely off of irrational speculation. You unironically have to be 14 years old or younger to even consider this moronic materialist worldview as having any validity if you have a functioning brain.
If you're trying to argue that all forms of organized system of belief and worship should be done away with then you run into the problem that Lenin did of not understanding how humanity inherently functions. You can't get rid of religion because you can't kill an idea; you have to replace it with something else. Screaming at people to stop following things at all just doesn't work since humans have an innate desire to worship.
This is the real red/blackpill, but atheists don't want to accept it because it goes against their entire progressive "doing away with silly superstitions" mindset.
In absence of religion, Humans will invent one.
Religion =/= Theism
>You can't get rid of religion because you can't kill an idea; you have to replace it with something else.
Let's replace all religions with atheism then.
Again, that doesn't work because atheism doesn't advocate for anything. Telling people "just don't believe in god anymore" doesn't work because you're not giving them something else to believe in nor are you even arguing for something else to believe in, and this is ultimately why atheism has failed. You need to figure out what you believe in and practice that with coherency before you can try to convince people they're wrong.
>atheism has failed
?????????????????????????????????
And look at the level of birth rates in comparison. Atheists don't care about furthering life. You don't see atheists going off and socializing their worldviews for their children to take up because they don't have children.
Oh so now it's not about an innate attraction towards worship anymore... Interesting.
What do you mean? Those who don't have coherent worldviews don't spread them. You're looking at people who aren't going to continue furthering their own worldviews because they don't believe in anything coherent. Same thing happened in Communist Russia, as well as China, they tried to get rid of their christian and buddhist religions and ultimately people still chose to practice those and continued to do so, while secularism died.
>What do you mean?
*sigh* fine I'll explain what your point was to you.
>humans have an innate desire to worship
Here your point is that humans will always worship because they have an innate desire to do so.
You expand in
saying "atheism has failed" because of that. I proved you wrong, and now you're pivoting. Be a grownup and admit defeat.
>teeheehee it's le fake news... look at my church, it's been packed full lately... heheheh...
>Here your point is that humans will always worship because they have an innate desire to do so.
Yes, and then I expounded on that here:
I drew up a tangible example within recent history of why religion continous to prevail because human beings have an innate desire to worship. You can argue that people may reject this desire, but just as people who reject the desire to eat end up starving to death dying of malnutrition, so do societies collapse by rejecting the innate desire to worship, and ultimately the people who are religious are the ones who inherit them. I have yet to see you bring up any tangible examples that outwardly refute anything that I stated.
>I proved you wrong,
By refusing to tackle most of my statements? If you were an adult you wouldn't be an atheist at all.
No one type of worship is inherently is predominant. Where you are wrong is in applying the logic of innate desire to specific worship practices that will be outdated and there is no way around it. Forms of worship evolve with society. Paganism replaces shamanism, monotheism replaces paganism, reformed religions replace the original religions, ideology/nationalism replaces even them... And so on. So religions (like Christianity) will also be replaced in the future, as will all previous and subsequent practices.
If your graph is true then point to the source you found it. I'll wait.
>inb4 he posts a israelite article
>>inb4 he posts a israelite article
Thanks for admitting you'll reject it no matter what. BTW enjoy hell. God biblically hates antisemites with a burning passion. 🙂
>admits to being israeli
buddy, the only one who has to look forward to Hell is you.
Christianity is from Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef. This israelite observed Hanukkah (John 10:22-23) and came only for israelites (Matthew 15:22-28). He forbid preaching to goyim (Matthew 10:5-6). He told a goya who gave him water that her religion was bullshit and that "salvation is of the israelites" (John 4:22).
All his talmidim were israeli, including Rabbi Shaul haTarsi. He stressed HaShem hasn't forgotten (Romans 11:1) his chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6). He adds that israelites come first and the goyim after (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2). Also, he was a proud Parush (Philippians 3:5). Contrary to what apostate heretics believe, Yeshua loved them (Matthew 23). He only criticized some for teaching traditions as mitzvot while omitting actual mitzvot. Like in Matthew 15:1-20. Read this passage whole for once.
Shaul said the covenant is eternal and that Mashiah will come from Israel, not from the goyim (Romans 9:3-5). The covenant gives Israel the land (Genesis 17:7-8, Jeremiah 7:7) from the Nile to the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18). Arabs and other Semitic people are not included (Genesis 50:24). Jeremiah 31:31-33 does predict a new covenant... with israelites. Not goyim. Yeshua adds he didn't come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17). He came to fulfill... prophecies. "Fulfilling the law" is an apostate's way of saying abolishing without owning it.
Goyim are welcome in the new covenant (they were in the old too, see the Book of Ruth). But HaShem wants them to be watchmen for Israel (Ezekiel 33:7). He will judge them for how they treated israelites (Genesis 12:1-3, Joel 3:1-2). A good talmid of Yeshua must:
1. Pray for peace in Jerusalem (Psalms 122:6-7);
2. Make the israelites jealous, not afraid or angry (Romans 11:11);
3. Comfort israelites (Joshua 40:1-2);
4. Help israelites out with money (Romans 15:26-27).
Bonus:
1. Revelations 12 describes Satan attacking Israel. It reuses the symbols from Yosef's dream (Genesis 37:9).
2. Ezekiel 37 describes the rebirth of Israel as a nation after the Holocaust.
If you don't believe in jesus you go to hell.
If you die at war, you go to Valhalla. If you die at war and don't believe in Jesus, do you go to hell and Valhalla at the same time? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Valhalla doesn't exist though idk how that's relevant.
> look at the level of birth rates in comparison
So the only continent that isn't failed is Africa?
BLACK POWER TO YOU TOO homie
By 2050 Africans will have overrun Europe.
two more weeks, chud
>Muh birfrates
Lmao. Christianity is collapsing in younger generations, and the Christian birthrate in the US is extremely low regardless.
Christians and Muslims are the only ones having children.
You live in a weird psychosexual fantasy
>provides a chart that literally confirms my statement
Okay? Also how is the birth rate not a concern to you? Atheism will die out in comparison since atheists are having so little offspring.
1.9 vs. 2.1 while the number of Christians has been dropping for 80 years?
Here’s the problem with talking to Christians, they dont have a college or even 12th grade understanding of science and math but they love to talk about it,
Did you not read your own chart correctly? Lol.
>Atheist/Agnostic 1.88
>Catholic 2.1
>Protestant 2,11
>Orthodox 2.13
And this is a study conducted on groups 35 to 45 years old, which is the oldest that people have children. Atheists are not having even 2 kids on average, and again this is for groups of people who have waited astronomically long to start families. Are you suffering from partial blindness or is it a cognitive issue?
>And this is a study conducted on groups 35 to 45 years
Common practice for fertility rate surveys.
It doesn’t mean they had them at 35 to 45, it means that women at that age have had that many children at the time of the study on average.
So for every 21 children born Christian parents with children, there are 19 children born to secular parents.
The graph was posted in response to
so you and that guy are wrong.
Furthermore, religion of parents isn’t a heritable trait like eye color, many people including me with no religion were born to Christian parents. This is why you have graphs like this.
Christians decline in absolute number every year at an accelerating rate. The old ones (the most Christian group) are dying of old age while the rate of leaving Christianity is far higher than conversion rates or rates of children who remain in their parents religion.
Do you understand? It really can’t be made any simpler for you.
The difference between 1.88 and 2.13 births is basically negligible. The Christian birthrate falls below 2.1 when you factor in young people who aren't identifying as Christian anymore. Religion is not genetic.
Not to mention most secular people are “no religion” “nothing in particular” and don’t identify as atheist, so the real fertility rate for secular people is much closer to the 1.98 AKA 2.
I have bad news for you anon. Not only are Christians declining in absolute number for decades, it’s accelerating. Every year there are fewer Christians in America than the one before.
Statistically Christians aren't. The Christian birthrate is marginally higher than that if atheists or agnostics and their children are likely to apostate anyway.
According to which statistics? And no, your own irrational speculation is not a valid source, I know atheists are keen to use that as opposed to objective reasoning despite their claims to the contrary.
>According to which statistics?
>And no, your own irrational speculation is not a valid source, I know atheists are keen to use that as opposed to objective reasoning despite their claims to the contrary.
You mean your irrational speculation that a line going up now means line goes up forever? You'd fit right in at Oyish. The Mormon birthrates aren't high enough to compensate for apostasy rates, it would take like 500 years for Mormons to be a significant chunk of the US population at this rate. And that's assuming that the next few centuries aren't as devastating as the 20th was.
You fundamentally do not understand how to preform basic math so let me break this down for you.
>Mormons, Muslims, and Christians have more than 2 kids on average
>Atheists have less than 2 kids on average
>even if there are high rates of apostasy, atheists still have the same low birth rates
Atheists who were formerly religious are not having kids. They aren't continuing to reproduce, they are collapsing. Religious groups are the only ones having kids. It is the religious groups that will continue to reproduce and spread because apostates do not feel the need to reproduce. So, despite the rate of apostasy this is still the case, nevermind the fact you used data on the oldest new families as a representation of all these groups birth rates without accounting for data of younger families (20 to 30) and are presenting this data as if it represents the total population.
>Atheists who were formerly religious are not having kids. They aren't continuing to reproduce, they are collapsing. Religious groups are the only ones having kids.
For every 21 children born to Christian parents 20 are born to secular parents. Atheists alone its 19.
You straight up cannot read a bar graph.
So again, the graph you used is data for the oldest new families (35 to 45 years old) and you're preposing that this data represents all demographics of families when it doesn't.
>again, the graph you used is data for the oldest new families (35 to 45 years old)
That’s a standard practice in TFR studies because a lot of people don’t stop or even start having kids until their 30’s.
The youngest people start having kids is early 20's. Also how will you cope with the fact the atheist fertility rate has plummeted into the abyss while the religious fertility rate has not only stabilized but increased?
>The youngest people start having kids is early 20's
With TFR you want the total count of how many total children women have had in their life. You want the time they’re 35 to 45 because it captures the end of fertility in a woman’s lifespan.
If you just counted 20-30 you straight up would not have that answer. Many women have children in their 30’s.
If you include women in their 20’s when comparing groups you would skew the results for certain groups, say the poor and less educated who start having kids younger.
>If you include women in their 20’s when comparing groups you would skew the results for certain groups, say the poor and less educated who start having kids younger.
So then TFR isn't an accurate way of measuring how many kids people are having on average because you're not accounting for how many kids people are having on average.
Anon you really don’t seem to grasp that women have kids into their 30’s and even 40’s.
>study surveys the oldest new families
>this data applies for all demographics
Cognitive dissonance.
You’re fundamentally not understanding that to measure how many kids women have in any given group, you have to wait until she’s 35 to 45 to measure.
Why? Because they’re not done having kids.
You fundamentally do not comprehend that the data you have used cannot be applied to any point being made in this conversation because it does not account for accurate measures of birth rates.
It is accurate, that’s what TFR is for. The problem is you want numbers on the fertility rate of groups of women who are 18 to 27 as if they’re done having kids.
So, we just went over how TFR doesn't account for every group and now you're trying to claim this assessment accurately covers everything?
TFR is the way to measure fertility, and 35 to 45 is a standard range because women stop having kids then, allowing you to count the, wait for it.
Total. Fertility. Rate, of populations.
See
It covers Total fertility rate, which means the amount of kids women in a given population have in their lifetime.
And again, this rate doesn't account for the amount of kids people are currently having in the present, this is a survey of older women who have already given birth.
Yeah that’s how you measure how many kids groups of women have. You wait until they’re done having kids and then you count, because you don’t know how many kids a group of women will have until they’re done having kids.
And for the last time, this means this data can't be used because it's not relevant to what's occurring in reality.
It literally is the only way to get an accurate measure of how many kids groups of women end up having.
Okay and? Doesn't change the fact it fails to survey the amount of kids people are having on average in the present day among people starting families.
That number wouldn’t be an accurate measure of how many kids different religious groups end up having.
So, you enjoy arguing against semantics then? Are you taking things in a very literal fashion?
? Zoomy is just explaining to you that you can’t measure the actual fertility of different religious groups until the women stop being fertile.
answer the questions
You just don’t get it. I don’t know what happened to zoomers but you really have difficulty grasping even slightly abstract and complex concepts.
If you want to measure the amount of kids any religious group will leave you need to wait until the women stop making eggs that can be fertilized and stop having kids.
I've already explained myself and reexplained myself numerous times itt. Yes, I understand the prospect that a woman has to stop having kids in order to measure how many kids she's had in total, that information however isn't relevant to measuring the birth rates of groups that are just starting families. A woman who is 35-45 years old was born at the earliest of 1988 (presuming this is a study made in 2023) and latest of 1978 (again, presuming the study was made in 23). You're not surveying information that's relevant to the modern day and you're drawing on statics of families that had circumstances that aren't relevant to the state of religion going on currently.
>that information however isn't relevant to measuring the birth rates of groups that are just starting families.
And that number wouldn’t tell you how many kids different religious groups contribute to the population. It would just tell you who gets pregnant young.
So do I legitimately have to spell it out as "groups of religious people who are starting families compared to non-religious people" for you to remotely comprehend what I'm even discussing? See:
>groups of religious people who are starting families compared to non-religious people"
Which is not the same as measuring how many kids women from each religious group have before they stop having kids.
And how is that measurement relevant to what is going on in the modern day when it concerns data that has no relevancy? Are you daft?
So for example the data from here
Can't be used to measure the amount of these people are starting families or not because the dates of 89 onward can't be measured until decades from now.
That’s the number of Christians declining over several generations at an accelerating rate.
What you also don’t seem to understand is that child born to Christian parents =/= lifelong Christian.
I was born to Christian parents, I am not Christian anymore. That’s one example of how that works.
The kid grows up, and then leaves the religion. That happens at a much much higher rate than the less than a quarter of a child fertility rate disparity between Christians and atheists.
>Christian parents =/= lifelong Christian.
Irrelevant because we're discussing birth rates of particular groups and as we already mentioned, apostates have the same rate of birth that atheists who aren't part of any religion have, and why should whether or not some christians stay in the faith be a point of contention when atheists aren't having kids at all that can adopt their worldviews?
Anon the original thread here was that Christianity is declining, which it is. And you not understanding how to measure birth rates between groups doesn’t change that.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Because the counter to “Christianity is declining” was the assertion that atheists aren’t having kids, which is both not true and doesn’t take into account the majority of non-Christian Americans, who identify as generally non-religious as a vast majority, not atheist.
>Because the counter to “Christianity is declining” was the assertion that atheists aren’t having kids
But atheists aren't having kids. People of my generation who are secular are not interested in starting families. How is that a point of contention? Do you have kids?
You’re 23. You actually don’t know which people your age are going to have kids yet.
I actually do and they're called my cousins and they won't stop sending me photos bragging about their newborns.
It’s actually insane how much this is going over your head.
lol the projection.
You’re 23, many of the people your age won’t stop or even start having kids until the 2030’s.
You don’t even seem to understand how time works
Do zoomers not understand what anecdotal evidence is?
Aight show me your kids then. Your point is also moot because as we've already established itt, TFR doesn't measure what's going on in the modern day.
Anon toddlers and babies right now are the result of this TFR graph
No, that graph covers women who have stopped having children. 45 year olds aren't walking around with toddlers anon, if they have kids they're 10 at the earliest.
35 year olds are. 45 is the max age on that graph.
Great so stop being facetious. Also considering the fact you don't have children and that you're trying to push the semantics of claiming that the earliest age people start families is 35 (lol) instead of 26 or 27 (likely earlier than that even in the South) instead of just admitting the fact atheists don't care about having kids, is insanity, and it's even more insane that because of a graph that explicitly shows women 35-45 (which again is quite old) who are religious have more kids on average than atheists, you make the assumption that somehow atheists have a super high birth rate?
>you make the assumption that somehow atheists have a super high birth rate
Never said this. I said Christians are declining in number due to people leaving Christianity, and the most recent TFR numbers show a 0.1 child per woman disparity.
Furthermore Christian TFR declined 0.25 since 2013 when this older TFR was calculated and secular birth rates have risen.
Christian birth rates have declined, but the source of their numerical decline is their incredible rates of people breaking free from the religion.
No, you said that the apostasy rate was so high that the atheists would magically overrun the Christians (somehow?) even though the apostates aren't having kids, and then supplemented that by tryin to claim that atheists somehow have a high fertility rate.
>No, you said that the apostasy rate was so high that the atheists would magically overrun the Christians
It’s not magic people are just leaving Christianity, have been doing so since 1945 and it’s accelerating.
>Christianity is only declining in places with declining birth rates
hilarious, totally sustainable right atheistcucks?
Birth rates are declining all over the world
we're discussing individual countries moron :^)
Not true. Africa, Mongolia, and India all have increased birth rates, also Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Mongolia as well as in Africa.
>Africa, Mongolia, India
Two of those are countries, one is a continent.
India's TFR is below replacement.
>no wants to attend the gay churches in the U.S.
Gee, I wonder why?
>magically
See:
It's already a done deal in several countries too.
>the netherlands
>actual globohomosexual country where all of their churches are banned
So are you dutch then? Lol.
Also as this anon mentioned Christianity is exploding in Asia and is the fastest growing religion worldwide. But yeah you can keep being facetious and find pockets of data in regards to specific countries and apply that for global statistics despite not being an accurate representation.
>Statistics show Christianity is collapsing in teg West
>But my cousin have kids, therefore the statistics are lying!
What the frick are they teaching zoomers in school? Is this the result of coming core math?
I don’t know man, it’s really concerning. They’re not equipped to understand really basic concepts.
>believes an article 'researched' by "scientists" over objective reality
Maybe you should've dropped out of school? Seeing as how they've become state funded brainwashing factories lol.
Every time people are surveyed on their religious affiliation in America it shows decline in Christians. You people b***h every day about America leaving Christianity. You’re a completely irrational actor.
>Every time people are surveyed on their religious affiliation in America it shows decline in Christians.
Which surveys conducted by who?
so? Christianity and Islam are growing globally and atheism is declining
cope
>growing globally
God/Allah can have the turd-worlders, we don't give a shit.
so you admit atheism is declining
good
Detroit is overrun entirely by Muslims. I would suggest to start living in reality instead of searching for israelite articles on israelitegle that confirm your own delusions.
Praise the Lord, I do not and will never live in Detroit.
It took him like 7 repetitions to get that women don’t stop having kids until they’re in their 30’s.
so self reflection is lost on you it seems
>When atheists aren't having any kids at all
Why do you keep lying? Atheists are having only slightly less kids than Christians.
Okay show me your kids then. I'll wait.
> I am not Christian anymore.
That's just a phase and you know it.
Also remember that the atheist fertility rate is massively plummeting and only continues to go down.
It’s actually increasing in America, Christian TFR declined 0.3 and 0.2 from 2013 to 2020
See:
Apply this logic consistently and you won't accept any statistic has any meaning.
23 is old enough to be embarrassed that you’re not fully comprehending why it makes sense to wait for women to stop having kids before you count how many kids that group is going to have.
Covid lockdowns really destroyed zoomer brains huh?
NTA and you're just confused about how statistics work, it's not helpful in any way.
Look another guy who doesn’t understand why total fertility rate is measured in groups of women who have finished having kids.
anon, when are you going to start getting married?
A difference in rates before age x will usually be indicative of the total unless there's some major factor that's not been accounted for. Giving an example of a possible factor like that would be an argument against the conclusion, confusing people about the validity of building conclusions based on statistics is not.
Education rates, intelligence and income all vary for religious groups and also change average age of pregnancies.
More importantly it’s TFR. You’re not guessing and extrapolating. You’re straight up counting children and getting the average per woman, per group.
Except it isn't. Trying to do it like you propose (asking cohorts of menopausal women how many children they had over the prior twenty-thirty year interval) would be useless. It's like computing life expectancy by looking at the average age at death in the past year.
https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/123
>Total fertility rate is directly calculated as the sum of age-specific fertility rates (usually referring to women aged 15 to 49 years), or five times the sum if data are given in five-year age groups. An age- or age-group-specific fertility rate is calculated as the ratio of annual births to women at a given age or age-group to the population of women at the same age or age-group, in the same year, for a given country, territory, or geographic area. Population data from the United Nations correspond to mid-year estimated values, obtained by linear interpolation from the corresponding United Nations fertility medium-variant quinquennial population projections.
https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm
>total fertility rate in a specific year is defined as the total number of children that would be born to each woman if she were to live to the end of her child-bearing years and give birth to children in alignment with the prevailing age-specific fertility rates. It is calculated by totalling the age-specific fertility rates as defined over five-year intervals.
Anon, he's not going to understand, he's too focused on drawing up the first statistic he finds on israelitegle to realize the information he pulled up isn't valid to begin with.
Only getting lower, anon. Gotta start having kids.
Literally every statistic ITT proves you wrong. The number of Christians declines every generation. If Christian birthrates were high enough to offset apostasy rates then we would be seeing some kind of bump in the number of children identifying as Christian. But we're not seeing that, the number of young people identifying as Christian is much lower than older people.
see
Again, if Christian birthrates were high enough to matter we'd see more teens and young adults identifying as Christian. But that's not what we're seeing, you g people are increasingly leaving Christianity and identifying as nonreligious (whether that be atheist, agnostic or none). There is no increase in Christian children in the US
Your words betray a lack of spiritual understanding. It is but an illusion to doubt the power of our faith. Rest assured, all of my beloved brethren and sisters in Christ are steadfast in their devotion to our Lord and Savior. And through our collective worship and witness, we continue to spread the Gospel and bring more souls into the fold. May you be blessed with the gift of spiritual sight, that you may see the truth as clearly as we do.
Let me explain this one more time since apparently this is extremely difficult for you to comprehend. How many of these young non-religious people are starting families? Having children? Next to none. How many zoomers who are overtly atheist do you see having kids? Next to none. People who are not religious do not care about starting families.
>How many of these young non-religious people are starting families? Having children? Next to none. How many zoomers who are overtly atheist do you see having kids? Next to none. People who are not religious do not care about starting families.
What? Christian are only 10% more likely to start a family than atheists. And then half their children end up leaving Christianity anyway.
>Christian are only 10% more likely to start a family than atheists.
According to which study? The TFR study you keep harping over only surveys groups of people 35-45, not zoomers.
You can’t measure how many kids a zoomer women will have yet because the oldest ones are 28 while the middle ones are 23, and the youngest are still in their teens.
Ah, so then it's impossible to make the claim that the religious to non-religious birth rate is negligible due to lack of data?
If you want to go down that road you can’t make any claims on the fertility rate of zoomers because they’re not done having kids yet.
That is a reasonable stance.
I can make claims it's just that no claim made can be backed up with a study. The thing is the only dudes my age who seem to care about starting families and are married are very religious, it isn't unreasonable to make the suggestion that people who are more religious have more children on average than people who are secular since that's what does occur.
And how old are you again? Remember if you’re below 18 leave the board.
I'm 23.
Lmfao frick off. You’re 23, no shit people your age aren’t having kids.
Yeah, if only there was some divinely inspired book that told people to start having kids.
>Oyish had brain broken zoomer boys into thinking if women dont want kids at 23 they’re never going to have kids.
Almost feel bad for you
>muh apostasy rates
How do you not comprehend that these apostates aren't reproducing? The only people interested in reproducing are religious people. The non-religious will inevitably perish because of this.
That's true in countries that are demographically collapsing; across Europe and the developed world. In other places, it is less true.
The chart shows decline from 1938 until now, which is 90 years.
However you think population demographics work in regards to religion is incorrect
This homie apparently thinks atheists outbred christians for the past few centuries
wouldn't be surprising if atheists think that way lmao
>bro here's a chart I created believe le fake news
Do fedora tippers really?
What does that chart have to do with what is being discussed?
Just because people are no longer a member of a church does not mean that they have become atheists.
It's the equivalent of posting a chart indicating a decline in attendance at fast food restaurants, and claiming that it's evidence that veganism is winning.
Not him but why does the number of atheists matter? Every study on religion in America shows the same thing, I’m an agnostic, it’s all secularism.
>Not him but why does the number of atheists matter?
because we were talking about atheism.
Well, for starters: atheists aren't scientists. Unless they are.
Secondly, substantively, the argument is anti-science. Which is already damning.
You can be religious without being dogmatic and you can be scientific and a dogmatic zealot.
Thinking you have God all figured is idolatry so any overly dogmatic zealot will always be an idolater. The highest authority is not conceivable by human minds, claiming a human idea is the highest authority is claiming that authority for yourself.
>you can be scientific and a dogmatic zealot.
No you can't. The very first rule of science is that nothing is immune to questioning. The same can't be said for Christianity.
>By refusing to tackle most of my statements?
No, by refuting your narrative. Keep coping.
>If you were an adult you'd believe in Santa Claus.
L M F A O
M
F
A
O
>continues to dodge
So when will you decide to actually address anything I stated if you're so sure of yourself? I have time, I'll wait.
>No one type of worship is inherently is predominant.
This is untrue though. Buddhism has been predominant in Asia ever since the Buddha started teaching. Same is the case with Christianity in Jesus, and regardless of the actual substance of what is being taught, my point was that human beings have an innate inherit desire to worship and that most of humanity has some sort of organized belief. Hell, even Zoroastrianism still exists even if they're not as predominant as they used to be back when Persia was an empire.
Admit you were wrong, and I will address the rest of your narrative. Until then, you're not worth it.
>doesn't tackle anything stated at all
>i-i'm right
>okay, prove it
>no, admit I'm right
So are you in middle school or just starting high school?
>No you can't.
Obviously you can you absolute moron. If you think you can't you're a dogmatic zealot looking for excuses to avoid thinking.
>nothing is immune to questioning
Then question your assumptions moron.
>The same can't be said for Christianity.
Why not moron? The tradition of critical thinking that become formal science emerged in the Christian world. The example set by the living Word challenged established dogma.
>Obviously you can be open to question everything yet be dogmatic you absolute moron.
No, moron.
>Then question your assumptions moron.
Will you question your assumption that it's possible to be scientific and dogmatic?
>Why not moron?
Because Christianity is literally "don't doubt Jesus or you'll get tortured forever." Leaving literally any of the Bible up for questioning is exposing yourself to that risk. This is why the best argument Creationists have ever come up with is "wut if I reject uniformitarianism lol."
>The tradition of critical thinking that become formal science emerged in the Christian world.
Not thanks to Christianity. Despite it.
>"Hey, X, Y and Z!"
>*refutes X*
>"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE YOU DIDN't REFUTE Y AND Z!!!"
>"Admit you were wrong just to prove you're not a waste of time."
>"REEEEEEEEEEE *shits his pants* REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE *kicks on the floor* REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
>Will you question your assumption that it's possible to be scientific and dogmatic?
Yes, obviously. I'm not the one refusing to even explore alternative perspectives but your behaviour is predicted by and supports the model that people appealing to science can be dogmatic zealots.
>Because Christianity is literally "don't doubt Jesus or you'll get tortured forever."
You're restating the assumptions of your model, not even attempting to support it, just restating over and over that you're right.
>Not thanks to Christianity. Despite it.
And again. How do you know all this with such certainty? You obviously don't know anything about history or you wouldn't be misrepresenting it like this so what could you possibly base your absolute knowledge on?
>muh creationists
Is all you have. Nobody except burgers behave like you morons. You're not talking about history but your own local bullshit. All your "points" boil down to the fact that your cousins are morons and so are you.
TFRgays are literally the dumbest people on Oyish. They don't understand statistics or demographics yet still feel comfortable making wild predictions about over 100 years in the future.
-t.
"Accepted" science is just another set of dogma. Nothing wrong with the scientific method itself (Shame most atheists don't actually use it).
atheists aren't smart enough to develop critical thinking skills, and it's part of why they trust on israeli scientists to tell them what to think instead.
The Christian holy book was literally written by israelites.
Okay? And you think the people who call themselves israelites today are those same people mentioned in that book? Buddy, it appears you've been deceived by israelites..
>The Christian holy book was literally written by israelites.
No it wasn't.
Jews are only one of the twelve tribes in the Old Testament. You're simply incorrect.
>zoomer arguing for christianity
>millenials arguing for lack of religion
we live in a very strange reality
Zoomers are less religious than millennials. We’re on Oyish, what’s normal here isn’t normal in reality. It’s notoriously abnormal.
Wrong. Oyish is trend-setter. We are in the ovarices of bloomin' christian movement.
We’ll see about that.
"Higher power" is just God.
Not the Christian one.
>Not the Christian one.
Why does that matter?
They're still not atheists.
They're still religious.
They still celebrate Christmas.
The roots are still there and all it takes is the right conditions for faith to blossom again, and religious revivals happen all the time historically.
I’m not an atheist, left Christianity 16 years ago, not religious. I celebrate Christmas for cultural tradition, don’t even think about Jesus.
Why did you leave Christianity and for which reasons? Also which denomination were you a part of?
>I celebrate Christmas for cultural tradition, don’t even think about Jesus.
You completely missed the point I'm making.
Even if you don't think about Christ you're still engaging in the tradition, and all it takes is for you to start thinking about Christ again to switch from cultural Christian to practicing Christian.
It's like the difference between an empty house and a vacant lot.
>why does that matter
because your own religion makes it clear you need to believe in the christian god, and they are only "religious" in the vague sense they entertain the idea but usually do no actual religious activities beyond maybe visiting a church on major holidays and thats a big if (whcih is also declinging anyway) lets take a look at your christmas example, many don't celebrate it because its Jesus birth even if thats the original intent, they celebrate it because its an excuse to light up their house and party with friends and family
Zoomers think religion is a fashion, they are obsessed with aesthetics and don’t care about substance.
They’re insanely gay and shallow.
>zoomers this zoomers that
examine your own life before bashing your betters.
gay
you keep projection like that you're gonna turn into a mirror
atheism is dead, anon. let it go.
There are more atheists now than there were at the height of the New Atheist movement. There are atheist orgs even in Africa and India now.
False, there are less atheists now than there were at the height of the movement. Atheism has died, anon, and it's why everyone's leaving it.
Lol Ali is the patron saint of tradLARPing, she converted for purely political reasons and the fact that she hates Islam. She didn't even talk about God or Jesus or salvation or anything in her article. Basically no different than the converts on Oyish.
The highest copium. She confessed on stream to believing Christ is genuinely divine.
None of that stuff matters anon.
They're not atheists.
They still believe in a "higher power" (which is actually closer to what God would be than the "man in the sky with a beard" strawman they rejected).
They still believe that there could be life after death and bad people are punished after they die.
All it takes is one crisis that demolishes the illusion that they have control over their lives, and they're full fledged Christians again.
>bro who cares if they don't follow the majority of my basic religious teachings
>or attend my religious services
>or barely believe in a diety, and certainly not my specific diety
>they are totally going to follow my religion any day now
I don't think you really grasp what this actually means, people in your religion becoming less religious is not a good sign since that means each generation is even more likely to not believe and its already showing, you can cope how people saying they now have a vague idea there might be a good is good for your religion, but the truth is if you were to go back a few decades ago and say that to a priest he would be mortified
>Oyish is a trend setter
Oyish hasn't be that for years, and even when it was it was just for some memes not anything like changing the way people think
I mean I started using this site because of Kanye so idk, maybe your perception of what's normal here and the world just isn't accurate.
>tradlarpers on Oyish bragging about having a 10% higher TFR than atheists while churches are shutting their doors all across the country
Amazing.
Actually scientism is worse than what atheists accuse religion to be. In religion the dogma is set in stone, the religious leaders can only twist and bend it so much. In scientism the followers are complete sheep, the government and major corporations can keep changing the dogma infinitely and have the sheep hooked and unquestioning.
It's the consequence of abandoning the concept of objective truth. if truth is subjective then the government gets to define truth.
Unless you got the reply to the post wrong, you're an absolute moron. Science doesn't favor subjectivism, the contrary, science pressuposes and objective truth. A scientist worldview would never dismiss the concept of an objective truth, like the Post-modern philosophers did, a scientist worldview would allign with the positivist philosophers of Vienna, it would INSIST on an objective truth, just one that you don't accept.
It's impressive just how stupid christcucks can be holy shit.
>No TRUE scientist would ever dismiss the concept of objective truth!
Even if they were following "the science" and that's the conclusion to which it led?
Science could never claim truth to be relative, that's a philosophical stance. For it to come to such conclusion would require to prove that all truth is relative, therefore finding an objective truth and being self-refuting.
>Hawking's theory is nonsense because it got disproven by later science.
>Therefore, science is nonsense.
That's the logic I would expect from a christcuck.
>science is great because all of it turns out to be complete bullshit 5 years later, this is why we should trust the SOIINCE
If you knew what logic was you wouldn't be making half of the statements you do. Explain how rogue waves form if your precious soiience is so valuable to humanity (spoiler, it's not).
Science is great because of it's effectiveness at acquiring knowledge. That's right.
Knowledge that's objectively proven to be false? Should we start using outdated models of atoms from 50 years ago and believe that? How useful is that information if none of it is objectively true? According to your own worldview nothing you believe in can ever be true because all of it is proven false years later.
The Bohr model was incredibly useful even if it was an oversimplification. Even Newton's laws are useful, even if they're an oversimplification.
none of that matters if it's all wrong.
A simplified model is not the same thing as a wrong model. Ptolemy's model of the universe was objectively wrong, as it was found to not describe reality at all, even if it seemed to work. Newton's models are correct in that they can be proven with math and experimental physics, there are just hidden factors at very small and very large scales that require modern relativity or quantum mechanics equations.
Great so 90% of what you believe is objectively contrary to how reality functions, why continue to follow it?
Where are you getting that 90% number from?
What is the point of believing in abject lies and continuing to deny such?
Where is your evidence that 90% of what we believe is a lie?
You already have the evidence.
>Knowledge that's objectively proven to be false
If it's objectively proven to be false by later testing, it's not knowledge. If it's proven by mathematical formulas, like Newton's laws which describe physical reality, not only is it knowledge, it's basis in mathematics makes it wholly certain.
>Should we use older models.
No, you should use what model which is more in line with truth, according to our current scientific knowledge.
>How useful is that information if none of it is objectively true? According to your own worldview nothing you believe in can ever be true because all of it is proven false years later.
No, according to my worldview, human knowledge is best defined as that which is totally certain, such as physical laws and the calculations which describe the orbits of the planets. But because cosmological models or the geographic Out of Africa model in anthropology may later be disproven by further evidence, le heckin science is lies. All truth is relative (except this one)
>he believes space is real
>claims to believe in total certainty
You're in for a rude awakening.
>How useful is that information if none of it is objectively true?
Given that using it we're able to do things like post on the internet, very useful.
Even if it isn't ground truth, the conception is that it represents the best attainable state of knowledge about the physical universe, which we parlay into an enormous array of applications.
And here we see a pathetic attempt at God of the Gaps, in which anything that can't currently be explained is assumed to be unexplainable, with the added assertion that it somehow invalidates the entire enterprise. Anon would greatly benefit from readings on the history and philosophy of science, where these and related questions have been studied and debated for hundreds of years, but Anon won't do that. Anon has an opinion, and on the internet, what better source of truth is there?
>but Anon won't do that. Anon has an opinion, and on the internet, what better source of truth is there?
That's exactly what you're doing though, what's your point?
>Given that using it we're able to do things like post on the internet, very useful
So.. what charlatan book written by a israeli scientist did the inventor of the internet read to come up with the idea for it?
There was no single inventor of the internet (or its Arpanet precursor), but all of the ones involved were members of the conventional scientific establishment.
Digital computers themselves are only possible through modern scientific knowledge and engineering, as are the fiber optic cables that carry traffic today.
>but all of the ones involved were members of the conventional scientific establishment.
Gonna need a source on that one bud. There's nothing to suggest that the individuals who invented the internet remotely shared anything similar to your worldview or even exalted scientists at all. Also if science is so great why can't scientists reinvent Greek fire or Damascus steel or the the system of interchangeable parts for row boats the Carthaginians used?
https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/ARPANET_final.pdf
Joseph Carl Robnett Licklider, Program Manager, ARPANET
>graduated from Washington University in St. Louis with majors in psychology, mathematics, and physics in 1937,
>M.A., PhD in psychology
>MIT professor
Robert Kahn.
>Askhenazi israeli
>BE at CUNY, M.A., PhD in Electrical Engineering at Princeton
Vint Cerf
>BS in Mathematics at Stanford, M.A., PhD at UCLA
>Professor at Stanford
Another component of what would become the internet was the National Science Foundation's NSFNET
>there is nothing to suggest
That you know anything about the topic at all. You really should've picked a better hill to die on than insisting that this massive technoscientific enterprise had nothing to do with science and technology.
Great, none of these people believe in what you profess though.
Also you still never explained how rogue waves function. If science is so precious and can explain everything (before it gets proven objectively wrong and needs to get thrown out of course) then why are the models you profess to use so abjectly shit?
No "scientist" believes in objective truth though, they believe in irrational speculation, at least if we're talking about modern scientists, a large majority of which are ethnically israeli. You have modern 'scientists' proposing transgender ideology and other such post modernist nonsense that has nothing to do with science. But yes, go on about how you think Hawking's blackhole theory that was disproven to the extent of causing him to leave the public sphere and other such nonsense that has no basis in reality are true simply because these self proclaimed 'scientists' told you it was the case. You are Black person cattle, actual sheep.
As long as a israeli scientist throws out a corporate media article you will believe whatever it says without question. They could tell you to your face that the sky is made of plasma and you'd eat it right up because you don't possess the capability of independent thought. You are a slave.
Atheism is the fastest shrinking religion in the world. Atheism is in decline worldwide, with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world's population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020,
Real surveys and statistics say atheism is on the decline worldwide. Sorry atheists but atheism is not on the rise nor is it winning. It's still the minority and a declining one at that.
The Pew Research Center's statistics show that atheism is expected to continue to decline all the way into 2050 with a continued growth of religion. Other research also shows a huge surge in growth for Christianity in China which is currently the world's most "atheist" nation because of the atheist communist government suppressing religion, the research suggests that China will soon become the world's most Christian nation within 15 years.
This is simply history repeating itself: Christianity prospered in Rome back in the ancient era when it was suppressed and it still grew in the militant atheist soviet Russia when it was suppressed there only a century ago with the majority of Russians today now also identifying as Christian. Just goes to show that atheist suppression of religion still doesn't stop religion.
Sources for the legion of whiny /Redditor/ fedoras that will no doubt show up it this thread:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-unaffiliated/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html
http://masterrussian.com/russia/facts.htm
>theists critique atheists for following the soiience
>atheists proceed to affirm this by following the soiience in response
pottery
So Christians are just epistemological nihilists now that will disregard any statistics or science that they disagree with?
>draws up statistic
>gets proven to be false
>w-well the statistic is true because I believe it to be true
Your lack of self awareness is staggering.
Christians here haven't proven any statistics false, in fact you guys haven't posted barely any statistics, it was just the zoomer guy posting anecdotal evidence. All Christians have is lying and pilpul, since they don't care about history and humanities, just proselytization.
>THE STATISTIC IS TRUE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT TO BE
So you're literally resorting to blind faith?
Again, if you're going to just deny all science and statistics that disagree with you, what do you have? The Bible?
So using inherently faulty statistics somehow makes them true how? You haven't provided anything that proves these statistics to be inherently authentic, all you've done is profess faith in their authenticity.
But you haven't even made an argument that any of the statistics aren't true. It's just screeching about israelites and crying about how evil scientists are because they disagree with you.
Have even read the thread? Two hours explaining how TFR isn't an accurate method of measuring a population's fertility. But again your entire worldview consists of irrational speculation so it doesn't surprise me that reality itself is difficult to register.
The guy's argument against TFR was awful though, he clearly didn't understand basic statistics and was repeatedly shut down.
Do you live in a fantasy world where you only hear what you want to hear?
Anon anon I found an article about how the sky is made of PLASMA. Mr. Shekelstein wrote it! Wowie wow wow, look at how true all this SOIIENCE is.
So you're just going to go the creationist route and claim all of science is just a conspiracy against you. good luck pushing your worldview I guess. Remember that belief in God and church attendance are at an all time low.
But anon Mr. Shekelstein wrote an article claiming hunter gatherers were all brown women and the men didn't do any hunting! Surely that means it's true, right? We gotta trust the SOIIENCE after all.
So is the new strategy for Christians just to act as moronic as possible and retreat to a nihilistic, Gnostic fantasy world where nothing is real? If Oyish is a predictor of things to come then we really are witnessing the end of Christianity.
>nihilistic, Gnostic fantasy world where nothing is real?
Isn't that just atheism though?
Are you claiming the ChristLARPers proselytizing on Oyish are really atheists? Actually that's probably true.
no I'm claiming that you perfectly described the atheist worldview, that being one of inherit nihilism devoid of understanding God's nature and character while painting Him as a villain all the while denying objective reality while believing abject lies.
The Christians ITT are basically Gnostics denying material reality or knowledge itself. The only people interested in Christianity nowadays are full blown schizos. St. Augustine is dead, rational Christianity is dead.
>claiming charlatanistic articles are lying to you is denying material reality
You're really taking the fact that all the soiience isn't true really hard lol.
The fact that you keep saying soiience really proves the point that you're a complete schizo.
>The fact that you keep saying soiience really proves the point that you're a complete schizo.
>act
>implying many of the religious larpers here aren't just genuine morons
Yeah a lot of the anti-scientism posts and threads on Oyish sound like literal Facebook boomers.
>Yeah a lot of the anti-scientism posts and threads on Oyish sound like literal Facebook boomers.
>muh collapse
Two more weeks. Christianity has existed for thousands of years and it will continue to do so, personally seethe won't change this.
by this logic paganism should have never become irrelevant in europe because it also existed for thousands of years by that point
>muh paganism
Which kind? The Romans stole their traditions from the Etruscans, and then the Greeks. Most pagan religions are quite young in total time frame of existence compared to Christianity.
And atheism has existed for not even over 200 years and every atheistic country has collapsed and been replaced by a religious one. Atheism is an inherit dead end that can only be propagated by a totalitarian atheistic government and it's why the first government during the French revolution was also the world's first police state.
>every athiestic state has collapsed
>currently the most successful states tend to have massive athiestic populations
two more weeks until everybody totally goes back to religion
>Atheistic governments of the French Revolution immediately collapsed after one another and ultimately went back to their Monarchy after Napoleon
>soviet union dissolved in the 80's
>China has reverted back to allowing Buddhism
>Ukraine lost
There isn't a single atheistic government in human history that has remained stable. Meanwhile you can point to the thousands of Christian monarchies, Caliphates, and Empires.
>revereted back to Buddhism
>still maintains its an athiestic government
>dodges the part were the entire west might as well be athiestic
>also leaves out the part were Nap made it clear he did not get his authority from god and still carried out the ideals of the revolution
Napoleon was Catholic though lol cope. Napoleon is actually responsible for restoring the Catholic Church back to France. Also
>can't spell atheism right
>ignores how the West has plummeting birth rates and is collapsing in real time with meaningless jobs, abysmal economy, and all leaders selling out to Israel at the expense of their own people
>thinks this model is sustainable for a civilization
>uuuhhh he was catholic
>just ignore how he pretty much forced the pope to do what he wanted
also your birh rate memes falls flat when every state is also having lowering birth rates, not even the African states are experiencing a slow down to the point the old UN model for population growth is being readjusted
>ignores the fact Napoleon brought the church back as well had excommunication lifted for being a good Catholic
But go on and tell me about how he secretly believed everything you profess to believe despite reality.
>birth rate falls flat
The atheist birth rate surely is, when are you gonna start having kids, anon?
>brought the church back
but made sure to tell them they worked for him now also again your birthrate argument still falls flat on its face when christians to have declining birth rates, that are combined with those already born just leaving the religion and many more not even being religious to the point they debate on going to church on major holidays
Christianity is collapsing much faster than Roman paganism, a lot of countries went from basically 99% Christian to 50% Christian in less than 100 years.
Again, two more weeks.
>Again, two more weeks.
So trends exist when discussing slightly higher birthrates in christian and Muslim populations. But trends don't exist when viewing the complete collapse of Christian infrastructure in the West since WWII?
>again ignoring how the atheist birth rate is plummeting through the abyss and is only continuing to go down
We went over this. You're arguing that having a stable birth rate among religious groups means the birth rate isn't stable (??) while ignoring the fact that the atheist birth rate is only getting lower.
The Christian birthrate is only 10% higher than the atheist birthrate. And more and more people leave the Christian church every year.
See
Zoomers are the least religious generation in US history. It's over for Christianity, gen Alpha will be even less religious.
>least religious generation in US history.
That would be Millennials.
No, zoomers are even less religious than millennials, your TradCath discord group is not counterevidence.
I've seen too many atheists who form weird cults of personality around science communicators like that black astronomy guy or Elon Musk because his companies builds rocket ships and electric cars. they, and at least some of those Less Wrong people are the people who worship science. They don't care so much about the scientific method or studying it as they are in it to go:
>look at these cool science things. isn't science heckin neato?
because following the scientific method leads people to the conclusion that most of what is being taught by modern scientific figures is not scientific or even true.
Atheism is just a meme bros. Not a serious belief.