And the Religious SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.

[Danno 1,228]

Sure it could be 3.

No matter what they tell you, I bet it was a major pain in the a$$ to have 8-12 kids in this country, or any other country for that matter.

And what do you mean their hunger is not due to kids? If you have 10 mouths to feed, and you can't even feed yourself, I'd say that's a problem. It damn sure aint a coincidence.

Why can't a person feed himself?

[Karee 4,190]

Why can't a person feed himself?

Multiple reasons I suppose. Drought, war, floods, a cruel and uncaring god. Pick one. Point is, if they can't feed themselves, how are they going to feed their 10 children, or 3 or whatever?

[Novembro 1,763]

[Danno 1,228]

Multiple reasons I suppose. Drought, war, floods, a cruel and uncaring god. Pick one. Point is, if they can't feed themselves, how are they going to feed their 10 children, or 3 or whatever?

Natural disasters are fairly rare and the world has never been at more peace than it is today, most conflicts are in pockets, when was the last time we have even seen tanks going at it (Balkans).

Many of these problems are due to political structures and social dysfunction.

But what explains why people in the wealthiest parts of the world with never before known social support... don't want to be bothered with having a couple of kids.

On a global level (as well as other wise) it is extremely selfish, I mean where have all the advances come from which have brought the most promise for people in need... the WEST. Who pioneered the multitudes of lifesaving drugs, the production of agricultural advances that allow 5 times the amount of harvest on the same plot of ground... the inventions and methods which have delivered the masses out of grinding poverty around the world?

Those and more have mostly come from the withering, shriveling Western world. Who will deliver the advances for tomorrow as the surging masses move in to Europe and beyond, certainly there will be a shortfall of ability at least in the short term.

I guess you could say those Europeans are screwing the world over again as they exit the scene.

Well I guess I shouldn't limit that to Europeans as Japan and a few other leaders are on the way out too.

But Danno could "right the ship" if only every one would just listen to me, me me!!!!

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

But Danno could "right the ship" if only every one would just listen to me, me me!!!!

March 5, 2013: the day we saw Danno implode in a full narcissistic breakdown.

Tell us about your childhood.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Not sure why all the talk about education levels when his premise is-

Secular people have far fewer kids than those with a strong religious faith.

You assume the stats as they are now will continue indefinitely and you assume that the offspring of a religious person will be another religious person.. Generally only true in societies where religion has control (direct or otherwise) over the government/people.

Also.. Why do you care? Wanna beleive in an omnipotent being? Have at it. I'd like the choice not to beleive without the hassle.

Also.. using your logic why are there *any* gay people at all? Surly they produce less offspring.

Edited March 6, 2013 by OnMyWayID

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Meh. The world as we know it now will cease to exist soon enough. It has been a pleasant half century or so, but things will get back to the normal for 99% of the population soon enough - death and despair, and for the other 1%?

Edited March 6, 2013 by The Patriot

[Danno 1,228]

You assume the stats as they are now will continue indefinitely and you assume that the offspring of a religious person will be another religious person.. Generally only true in societies where religion has control (direct or otherwise) over the government/people.

Also.. Why do you care? Wanna beleive in an omnipotent being? Have at it. I'd like the choice not to beleive without the hassle.

Also.. using your logic why are there *any* gay people at all? Surly they produce less offspring.

1. There is an actual science involved in studying these trends, you're supposing you know more than them about how these trends evolve.

2. Statistic show people reared in a Religious home tend to follow that same path. Often times reverting back to it mid-life.

3. This topic is not about religion as much as it is about the effects of fertility of the secular and the religious.

4. You're question assumes Most gay people are born that way, there is very little evidence and much less logic which proves that to be the case.

You also are misinformed about Homosexuality altogether, supposing it to be a light-switch, IE- you either have it or not and this is simply false too.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Trust Danno, if there is one thing he knows, it's being gay.

Let him dream his little dream about the return of the Dark Ages, and move along.

[Karee 4,190]

1. There is an actual science involved in studying these trends, you're supposing you know more than them about how these trends evolve.

2. Statistic show people reared in a Religious home tend to follow that same path. Often times reverting back to it mid-life.

3. This topic is not about religion as much as it is about the effects of fertility of the secular and the religious.

4. You're question assumes Most gay people are born that way, there is very little evidence and much less logic which proves that to be the case.

You also are misinformed about Homosexuality altogether, supposing it to be a light-switch, IE- you either have it or not and this is simply false too.

I see you throwing around all kinds of terms like "Statistic", "very little evidence" "misinformed" but yet nothing to back any of it up. Are these studies you have performed on your own? Where are these studies?

My favourite one you threw out there was "logic" Thanks for the early morning comedy. You've brightened my day!

[Teddy B 17,252]

Really what you are saying is: HUmans have evolved so much that they don't feel the need to continue the species anymore.

What a fatalistic mindset. Every creature on earth, goes to great lengths and often bodily harm to reproduce and care for their young..... we found something better.... X-Box.

No, that's not what I'm saying, really. What I am saying is that secular people feel no pressure to reproduce unless they chose to. Religion tells people otherwise. I'm not sure what makes you believe that the human species could not be maintained by secular people, seems to me that man managed to procreate just fine, well before organized religion ever came on the scene.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Teddy B

[Teddy B 17,252]

Our religion teaches nothing about reproduction and in fact, historically speaking those who practiced it left weak or unwanted infants out on a road or a forest to die or be found by a passerby. For us, our feelings about reproduction come from a deep examination of our own convictions, morals, wants, and needs and not from supposedly celibate man who could not even begin to understand child rearing. We've chosen to have around 5 kids if nature plays along, but our hearts will be open to more despite attempting to prevent pregnancy at that point. *shrugs*

To paint all religions with the same brush stroke is rather silly and uneducated.

[Caryh 5,206]

1. There is an actual science involved in studying these trends, you're supposing you know more than them about how these trends evolve.

2. Statistic show people reared in a Religious home tend to follow that same path. Often times reverting back to it mid-life.

3. This topic is not about religion as much as it is about the effects of fertility of the secular and the religious.

4. You're question assumes Most gay people are born that way, there is very little evidence and much less logic which proves that to be the case.

You also are misinformed about Homosexuality altogether, supposing it to be a light-switch, IE- you either have it or not and this is simply false too.

But statics show you're actually wrong. Just because those with religion have more children, it doesn't mean those children will take up that religion. While some may leave to return later in life, over all the trend of those with a religion is down.

“Nones” on the Rise

One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation

http://www.pewforum.org/unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).3

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

1. There is an actual science involved in studying these trends, you're supposing you know more than them about how these trends evolve.

2. Statistic show people reared in a Religious home tend to follow that same path. Often times reverting back to it mid-life.

3. This topic is not about religion as much as it is about the effects of fertility of the secular and the religious.

4. You're question assumes Most gay people are born that way, there is very little evidence and much less logic which proves that to be the case.

You also are misinformed about Homosexuality altogether, supposing it to be a light-switch, IE- you either have it or not and this is simply false too.

..except there are less people identifying themselves as religious. Every serious study shows the population in this country becoming less religious over the last 50 years. So your "stats" are right if you flip your arrows exactly opposite.

On the second part: I assumed nothing please don't express thoughts you make up and attribute them to me. I used your logic so yeah it is probably is faulty.. But it does not matter how a person got there it stands to reason a gay person would have less sex with a person of the opposite sex and therefor on average have less children.. That is your argument about why "The religious shall inherit the earth" right?

The number of people identifying themselves in this country as non-religious is increasing over time.. zero doubt on that.. so case closed.

[Danno 1,228]

..except there are less people identifying themselves as religious. Every serious study shows the population in this country becoming less religious over the last 50 years. So your "stats" are right if you flip your arrows exactly opposite.

On the second part: I assumed nothing please don't express thoughts you make up and attribute them to me. I used your logic so yeah it is probably is faulty.. But it does not matter how a person got there it stands to reason a gay person would have less sex with a person of the opposite sex and therefor on average have less children.. That is your argument about why "The religious shall inherit the earth" right?

The number of people identifying themselves in this country as non-religious is increasing over time.. zero doubt on that.. so case closed.

Forgive me but you have not closed the case and again I think because you are confusing two basic statistics.

People are absolutely becoming less aligned with a specific denomination or even a broad faith but very few people are confirmed non-believers..... what we have primarily a growing "non-religious" country.

Also, if you look who these "unbelievers are"... you find they are more likely to be White which is a shrinking demographic (for lack of producing kids) and at the same time we are importing the developing and third world which tends to be more religious.

Bottom line- if you had two groups of chickens.... one had a healthy production of chicks while the other group produced less than one chick on average... per adult chicken, which group of chickens will be left standing?

Your logic only works by assuming "all" will loose faith eventually and have their fate too sealed by demographic decline.