IEET > Rights > HealthLongevity > GlobalDemocracySecurity > Vision > Staff > J. Hughes > CSR > FreeThought > Eco-gov
News of the Future: Atheism, IQ, Longevity, Sperm
Dr. J.   Jul 18, 2009   Changesurfer Radio  

Atheists are smarter. Purpose in life predicts longevity. The coming crisis of aging and arguments for the Longevity Dividend. Artificial sperm: a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle?  (MP3)




COMMENTS
A four point difference in IQ between atheists and liberal religious people is neglible, it doesn't account for anything. It's funny that you couldn't resist bashing agnostics. Atheists hate agnostics like gays hate bisexuals. No one likes a fence sitter. As Stephen Colbert has said often enough "Pick a side, we're at war!". I don't think there's anything wrong with someone wanting there to be some kind of inherit, transcendant meaning to life, as oppose to just what we say it is. That's
just humilty. As for creating an institution to replace the roles of religion, I say if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It wouldn't matter if it's theistic or not. If something does the same thing as religion, then in what sense is it not a religion?
I liked you "thanking the christian right", and encouraging chrisitans to have more babies to offset an aging population. Even if the Human reproductive rate dropped below replacement levels, there would still be individual demographics, lets just call them quiverfulls, who would be having lots of kids. As the rest of the world shrinks, the quiverfulls would grow and eventually become a majority.
As for artificial sperm, I don't think IVF is an apt analogy. It's still pretty much a natural conception, real sperm + real egg, it just happens outside the womb. Cloned animals on the other hand usually don't make it to term, and when they do they suffer from congenial defects. Artificial gametes will likely cause similar problems. The process of creating artificial gametes itself might make them flawed, and a person's genetics and epigenetics would not allow them to sire a child with a person of the same sex. The artificial gametes would have to be heavily genetically modified (which would almost surely be dangerous to any potential offspring), making any homosexually produced individual a designer baby. Given the incident with PGD babies back in March of this year, I don't expect society to react well to GM babies. Designer babies will likely be banned, which would prevent homsexually produced babies while not specifically targeting Homosexuals. It's just a catch 22. It will definitely take a while for both artificial gametes and genetic engineering to advance to the level to allow a same sex couple to have their own biological offspring, and it may not be econonically viable, or even happen at all. We've already poored billions of dollars into stem cell research with little progress. Maybe stem cells will eventually turn out to be largely useless, and we'll abandon them for something better, like blastemas (look it up on wikipedia). If we forget about stem cells, we can forget about artificial sperm and men everywhere can let out a big sigh of relief.
No, Atheists don't hate Agnostics like Gays hate Bisexuals. That's a crazy thing to say.


Seriously, I'm an Atheist...but really I (and every human on Earth) are Agnostics. EVERYONE is an Agnostic. Atheists & Faith-Heads are Agnostic because there is little that can be known 100%.


But of what we do know, we can be pretty sure there is no supernatural.


And there is a direct correlation (not causation necessarily) between levels of superstition and levels of intellect/education. A Bushman (far removed from civilization) will see the supernatural everywhere, where as a cosmological or genetic scientist would see far less supernatural cause/effect within a natural world.


Atheists, as a rule, are more intelligent than those that believe in a supernatural. Simply, the evidence is "OUT." Those that aren't wearing blinders (or have removed them) or are of sufficient intellect that they know the difference between 'what they know to be true' and 'what they want to be true' came out before those that are going to have the facts forced upon them socially (like religion has been forced upon the masses for eons).


Eventually, people that make extraordinary proclamations without extraordinary evidence will be laughed at like the witless cultists that they are.
"EVERYONE is an Agnostic. Atheists & Faith-Heads are Agnostic because there is little that can be known 100%."

Eric, are you 100% sure about that?
>Even if the Human reproductive rate dropped below replacement levels, there would still be individual demographics, lets just call them quiverfulls, who would be having lots of kids. As the rest of the world shrinks, the quiverfulls would grow and eventually become a majority.

This is an example of false logic. I wouldn't bet on "quiverfulls" for two reasons:

1) Most of quiverfulls' kids won't have desire to have many kids, if any at all (as history shows us). No culture can exist isolated forever. At some point children just refuse to follow parents' blind way (or, if they are isolated, die out).

2) Even if they did, their reproduction rate is limited by biological generation time and resources available to them, while the rest of the world is multiplying their possibilities, colonizes space etc. Probably there will be some population growth with space colonization, but not exponential with fixed cycle time like QFs do.
In point of fact, gays who hate bisexuals are, generally speaking, self-loathing, close-minded, ignorant little hate mongers who nobody under the age of 35 takes seriously anymore. I hope you're not implying that atheists are as pathetic as they are.

BTW, bisexuals are no more "fence sitters" than political Independents are.
Okay, when I said 'gays hate bisexuals' I was being a little tongue in cheek. I thought my mentioning Stephen Colbert made it clear that I wasn't being too serious. I'm sorry if I offended anyone. BTW "Pick a side, we're at war!". I love that catchphrase.

To me, the term quiverfull denotes a culture or ideology that values large families. Parents still play a major role in enculturating their young, and the large majority of people do not reject the basic religious/ideological views they were brought up with. Cultural isolation isn't required. If the average quiverfull family had five kids each, and only three of those kids on average remain quiverfulls, their population would rise fifty percent each generation, not counting converts born of non-quiverfull parents. In just seven generations their number would increase more than tenfold, then more than a hundredfold in another seven generations. As it seems reasonable to assume that most quiverfulls would also have kids young, lets say there's an average of twenty five years between generations. With the average women bearing 2.5 kids, the population would increase 100 times in just 350 years. If the government wanted to increase the reproduciton rate, either to offset an aging population or because it wants more people to colonize space, it could easily encourage a birth rate of at least 2.1 babies per woman. So, I'm not too worried. "Don't Panic!" Another great catchphrase.
It's funny that I found this site by doing a search for "agnostics who hate atheists". I don't even know any Christians who are as sure of their beliefs as atheists are of theirs. If arrogance is intelligence, then atheists do indeed win that contest, but at what price? Everyone hates their arrogance and snobbery. Their entire argument for their point of view is based on their superiority of all types, including their superior thinking and logic skills. Meanwhile, they talk to the rest of us as if we were five year old children. I'm an agnostic who hates atheists and there must be a website or a group for us. I want nothing to do with the snobbish clique known as "atheists". I even just read that they are now discussing ways to "convert" religious people with "reason".

Atheists might measure a 4 point advantage in IQ tests but try measuring an agnostic. I would bet the curiosity that have retained which makes them agnostic gives them an even larger increase in IQ points over atheists. Atheists have no curiosity whatsoever, which means their minds will eventually atrophy, and anyway, all they think about is God and Christianity. A one-track mind is nothing I would ever envy.
Bonnie, why so pale & wan? :(

I can't help but laugh when people play the 'arrogance' card on Atheists.

Seriously, what does calling someone arrogant mean. It means that they are right, they've won the battle, and now they're smiling about it.

I dedicated my fight wins to God when I was religious, but no one called me arrogant or snobbish, even though I believed everyone that wasn't a Christian was going to burn in Hell for eternity.

But now that I'm a realist (Atheist) who places his chips behind the evidence, I'm arrogant & snobbish.

Many anti-theists (which isn't the same as Atheist) are on about blind faith because we see the dangers that organized religion poses on this government and the world.
Wow... We have problems with gay people getting married, I can only imagine the uproar that will be associated with letting gay people have children with just there own dna would bring.

This also suggest while on the extreme side, that a single sex populace could one day be achieved. One step closer towards postgenderism?

The general population is just not ready for this stuff. It's going to get very interesting as all this becomes available, and policies have to be rewritten accordingly.

On a side note can I sample this audio?
Atheism and theism adresses beliefs, agnosticism and gnosticism adresses knowledge.

A theist is one who has a belief in god(s). An atheist is one who is without the belief. Not all atheists believe no god exists, this is not a position shared by most atheists.

The type of agnostic I "hate", would be the ones who would call my position of disbelief as irrational as one who believes the existance of god(s), little do they realise that I hold my current position due to what I find the lack of evidence, whilst some theists hold their position due to evidence they have found - not necessarily irrational, some hold position out of mere faith nothing more.

Yet if you ask these particular annoying agnostics, "do you believe in a god", they will claim "I don't know". The question was whether you had a BELIEF or not, a binary position, the question was not regarding knowledge.

I happen to be an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in god(s), but I do not know whether or not if god(s) exist. I find those who blindly follow like sheep without critical thought towards their beliefs, are not as intelligent as those who critically evaluate their beliefs/the world around them.

And in response to a previous comment: "I'm an agnostic who hates atheists". You show little to no difference between the "arrogant" atheists you claim to hate.
YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: No More Libertarians

Previous entry: News of the Future: Bad Thoughts