do creationists know they are losing or not

[Zelenius]

Fertility control has always been available (the "better classes" have commonly had smaller family sizes than the poor), and concern that the great unwashed are outbreeding the "better classes" is nothing new either. And yet here we are, way beyond the Enlightenment.

There's nothing very special about what we're seeing now. Religiosity ebbs and flows in the zeitgeist but science, technology and secular rationality just keep advancing. The reason is, to my mind, that the latter work, but the former doesn't. Antibiotics drive out exorcists. The Maxim gun makes short work of the Mahdi Charge.

Even in the US the most vocally Christian politicians are socially repellant to most people born after 1980 or so, and to many born before. Religiosity is an indulgence of comfortable times, but after the party practical matters come to the fore. It is once more about the economy, people . Keeping a job, keeping a home, keeping a family - and what kind of future will the kids have? Heaven can wait, and as for jihad - how much does it pay?

We've had thirty years of increasing religiosity, and the real damage has been done by an old-time financial bubble bursting.

You seem to be underestimating the effects of modern medicine, the welfare state and modern birth control methods. Whatever birth control methods the "better classes" used in ancient times were not nearly as effective as modern birth control methods. Just because the concern that the uneducated/irresponsible may out-breed the "better classes" was mostly wrong in the past doesn't mean it will always be wrong.

Educated women also have children later than the uneducated; this is also a recent phenomenon since it wasn't so long ago that even women from the more affluent classes tended to have children earlier before they were allowed to get educations or have careers. The most irresponsible and most religious women will often start having children in their teens. This reduces the generation gap, with the irresponsible producing offspring faster than the educated/responsible classes.

Modern birth control methods are so effective that they are one of the main reasons Japan's population is shrinking. Differential fertility is one of the reasons Lebanon went from being a majority Christian territory in the early part of the 20th century to a majority Muslim country in the later half(this is a very contentious issue so it is hard to get accurate figures). This is one of many factors that lead to the Lebanese civil war. Emigration of Christians also reduced their share of the population.

The Christians in Lebanon have generally been more affluent, educated, secular and more "western", than the Muslims. The Copts of Egypt are similarly better educated, and may soon find themselves driven out of Egypt due to the new Islamist government. A similar phenomenon has been going on in Iraq. While being "driven out" isn't the same thing as being out-bred, this is just the end result of so many years of Muslims having a higher fertility rate.

Lebanese Demographics

In the U.S, while atheism/no religious affiliation is growing, so is fundamentalism. Religious moderates are the biggest losers.

 

[Dinwar]

Whatever birth control methods the "better classes" used in ancient times were not nearly as effective as modern birth control methods.

Just to clarify, you can't actually say this as a 100% true fact. The simple truth is we don't know. The Romans used a plant for birth control, and that planet is now extinct, so testing is impossible.

 

[Akuma Tennou]

if a nation such as Iran gets nukes, tell me again how we'll all be laughing in 10 years.

waw i know i'm pessimistic but not that much!
there won't be no nuke warfare. ever
most iranians crave for democracy
their leader is insane, that's a fact. but not to the point of being that feared. it's a lose-lose game for everyone and even that fool knows it. that nuke thing is more of some attentionwhorism and urge to be heard (and feared)

In the U.S, while atheism/no religious affiliation is growing, so is fundamentalism. Religious moderates are the biggest losers.

yup, that's what the last gallup poll was saying

 

[RhodyDave]

waw i know i'm pessimistic but not that much!
there won't be no nuke warfare. ever
most iranians crave for democracy
their leader is insane, that's a fact. but not to the point of being that feared. it's a lose-lose game for everyone and even that fool knows it. that nuke thing is more of some attentionwhorism and urge to be heard (and feared)

I suppose next you'll tell us that no one would ever strap explosives to their chests or fly planes into skyscrapers...

 

[Akuma Tennou]

I suppose next you'll tell us that no one would ever strap explosives to their chests or fly planes into skyscrapers...

i suppose next that whatever i say you will interpret it the way it suits you better ? so what's the point in your reply ?
are you sayin' that iranian people didn't riot against ahmadinejad's "election" ? he's left one year to produce the bomb and use it. that won't happen. the main threat is kim jong un but i think he's full of it as he well knows he'll be automatically vitrified if he was to use the bomb against whoever.
your lil' fireworks bears no comparison to the nuke and you know it well too

 

[RhodyDave]

i suppose next that whatever i say you will interpret it the way it suits you better ? so what's the point in your reply ?
are you sayin' that iranian people didn't riot against ahmadinejad's "election" ? he's left one year to produce the bomb and use it. that won't happen. the main threat is kim jong un but i think he's full of it as he well knows he'll be automatically vitrified if he was to use the bomb against whoever.
your lil' fireworks bears no comparison to the nuke and you know it well too

You should study Middle East history a bit more. The idea that just because Ahmadinejad has one year left in his 'term' is meaningless. Ali Khamenei is the Supreme Leader, who has the real power in Iran, and there are no term limits. The very discussion of term limits in this context is ludicrous.

You seem to believe that the fact that something hasn't yet happened precludes it from ever happening. I ask you; do you think that no radical Islamic group will never use a nuclear weapon? Remember, a dirty bomb or a truck with a nuclear warhead is technically feasible for any number of groups right now. You don't need an ICBM or a plane to deliver a payload.

 

[el zone]

So have we reached a consensus I'm the only Christian on the whole board, ratio 1:20K?

 

[Dinwar]

So have we reached a consensus I'm the only Christian on the whole board, ratio 1:20K?

AvalonXQ, westprog, and many others are Christians (in that they accept Christ as a god and the Bible as a valid holy work).

 

[el zone]

Hey cool this board is a great science/experience resource

 

[Akuma Tennou]

You should study Middle East history a bit more. The idea that just because Ahmadinejad has one year left in his 'term' is meaningless. Ali Khamenei is the Supreme Leader, who has the real power in Iran, and there are no term limits. The very discussion of term limits in this context is ludicrous.

You seem to believe that the fact that something hasn't yet happened precludes it from ever happening. I ask you; do you think that no radical Islamic group will never use a nuclear weapon? Remember, a dirty bomb or a truck with a nuclear warhead is technically feasible for any number of groups right now. You don't need an ICBM or a plane to deliver a payload.

well you're right about my lack of knowledge concerning Middle East: i knew of the power of khamenei but clearly underestimated it (waw that fake fatwa thing will become a standard in political chess books)
but that doesn't change what i think, neither my point: iranian people did know about the real power of khamenei, so they rioted mostly against him than against ahmadinejad

i said iranian people was craving for democracy and as a confirmation you can read this recent paper on the wall street journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304363104577392050519982974.html (i can post links now, cool)

and please stop telling me what i believe or not, your "You seem to believe that the fact that something hasn't yet happened precludes it from ever happening" is insulting. i don't think i ever supposed you were a moron just because we disagree. if you felt insulted by one of my posts i apologise even though it was not made on purpose. but i clearly don't understand why the heck are you so aggressive on me.

 

[SezMe]

I ask you; do you think that no radical Islamic group will never use a nuclear weapon? Remember, a dirty bomb or a truck with a nuclear warhead is technically feasible for any number of groups right now. You don't need an ICBM or a plane to deliver a payload.

That is a likely scenario but I don't think it will come about through well known nuke programs now extant in Iran. Rather, I suspect some rogue elements will get bomb material or (much more likely) dirty nuclear material and use that to create chaos. To wit, if Iran launches a nuke at Israel, it's toast. If AQ lets off a dirty bomb in Chicago, who do you go after: Pakistan, Russia, India, Iran, Afghanistan or one of the other -stans?

 

[RhodyDave]

well you're right about my lack of knowledge concerning Middle East: i knew of the power of khamenei but clearly underestimated it (waw that fake fatwa thing will become a standard in political chess books)
but that doesn't change what i think, neither my point: iranian people did know about the real power of khamenei, so they rioted mostly against him than against ahmadinejad

i said iranian people was craving for democracy and as a confirmation you can read this recent paper on the wall street journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304363104577392050519982974.html (i can post links now, cool)

and please stop telling me what i believe or not, your "You seem to believe that the fact that something hasn't yet happened precludes it from ever happening" is insulting. i don't think i ever supposed you were a moron just because we disagree. if you felt insulted by one of my posts i apologise even though it was not made on purpose. but i clearly don't understand why the heck are you so aggressive on me.

It hasn't ever been my intention to insult you or tell you what you believe. I'm sorry if I've come across in that way. I said the you "seems to..." which means that I have the impression of this based on what you said. Also, I do not feel insulted by anything you've said. I think that you and I have been discussing an issue on which we have differing viewpoints, and at times language can convey meanings not intended. I will make every effort to not appear aggressive, as that's not how I wanted to sound.

Thank you for the link. I will read it soon, once I have a little time.

 

[RhodyDave]

That is a likely scenario but I don't think it will come about through well known nuke programs now extant in Iran. Rather, I suspect some rogue elements will get bomb material or (much more likely) dirty nuclear material and use that to create chaos. To wit, if Iran launches a nuke at Israel, it's toast. If AQ lets off a dirty bomb in Chicago, who do you go after: Pakistan, Russia, India, Iran, Afghanistan or one of the other -stans?

I agree with this mostly. Is it wrong to say I hope you're right? What a twisted position to be in, to think this way.

Still, I can't help but think that a situation like we have now in Syria could escalate. Or another Iraq/Iran war. It's hard to project a positive future for that region while religion divides its peoples so.

 

[CapelDodger]

I wish I could share your cavalier attitude, but bear in mind that back in the days of the Enlightenment, through most of the 20th century, religious fanatics (which include the leaders in several Muslim nations) haven't had the ability to kill millions with nuclear weapons. We are on the threshold of that time right now, and if a nation such as Iran gets nukes, tell me again how we'll all be laughing in 10 years.

Pakistan's had nukes for over ten years and is a political and religious mess, so I will remain sanguine (not cavalier) if Iran gets them. The country isn't going to get taken over by some Mahdi figure any more than the settlers in Israel will be given control of those nukes.

In ten years we'll have something else on our collective minds, just as twenty years ago we had the Soviet Threat, and the Yellow Peril before that. If there's a current threat in the Western world it's from fascism, with Muslims in place of the more traditional Jews. And the threat to the Western World is China in so many ways.

In July 2022, providence willing, we can meet here again and have a big laugh about it (or at me if I'm wrong, which I won't be).

 

[CapelDodger]

You seem to be underestimating the effects of modern medicine, the welfare state and modern birth control methods. Whatever birth control methods the "better classes" used in ancient times were not nearly as effective as modern birth control methods. Just because the concern that the uneducated/irresponsible may out-breed the "better classes" was mostly wrong in the past doesn't mean it will always be wrong.

It's an indication, though, and a reason to look at the arguments used in the past and now.

Educated women also have children later than the uneducated; this is also a recent phenomenon since it wasn't so long ago that even women from the more affluent classes tended to have children earlier before they were allowed to get educations or have careers. The most irresponsible and most religious women will often start having children in their teens. This reduces the generation gap, with the irresponsible producing offspring faster than the educated/responsible classes.

That argument has always been made.

Modern birth control methods are so effective that they are one of the main reasons Japan's population is shrinking.

Japan is not a good example to choose, because fertility control there has been world-class for a very long time. It's the post-war economic situation which has led to the current demography.

Differential fertility is one of the reasons Lebanon went from being a majority Christian territory in the early part of the 20th century to a majority Muslim country in the later half(this is a very contentious issue so it is hard to get accurate figures).

Lebanon wasn't even a country until 1926, as I recall, so it'll be impossible to get figures on it. Its borders were drawn up by the French to give it the best territorial result while maintaining a Maronite Christian majority (France has been the patron of the Maronites since the later 18thCE formally, and before that informally. The Maronites answer to the Pope, and Their Most Catholic Majesties of France got the franchise from the Vatican and approval from the Sultan, who was allied with them against the Hapsburgs. There's not much religious leaders won't do for a fistful of francs). That demographic balance was messed-up in 1948-49 when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (but few of the Christians) were driven north. In a small and highly artificial country like Lebanon that causes reverberations.

This is one of many factors that lead to the Lebanese civil war. Emigration of Christians also reduced their share of the population.

Fortunately most of us don't live in small artifical countries with territorial wars going on all around us and a constitutional arrangement dreamed up by French Imperial bureaucrats to fit a world which never happened. It's no wonder a lot of Lebanese have felt better off out of it. I'm sure I would.

The Christians in Lebanon have generally been more affluent, educated, secular and more "western", than the Muslims. The Copts of Egypt are similarly better educated, and may soon find themselves driven out of Egypt due to the new Islamist government. A similar phenomenon has been going on in Iraq. While being "driven out" isn't the same thing as being out-bred, this is just the end result of so many years of Muslims having a higher fertility rate.

You say "this is the result" as if it's already happened. The Christians in Iraq were never a majority so fertility has nothing to do with their recent problems. They were doing as OK as anybody else in the Middle East until the complete breakdown of society and the intrusion of Al Qaeda and the like.

The Muslim president of Egypt is pledged to work with the Copts, who he recognises as being just as Egyptian as its Muslims and Jews. He hardly constitutes the government anyway; there's still a revolution going on so things are very much up in the air. We should give the process time. The Copts have been in Egypt since before Islam existed (out of reach of Catholic and Orthodox death-squads) and I doubt they'll disappear in our lifetimes.

In the U.S, while atheism/no religious affiliation is growing, so is fundamentalism. Religious moderates are the biggest losers.

Indeed. When religion appears extreme it repels moderates, and that is how it appears in the US. It's also how it's appearing anywhere jihadists get a chance to reveal what they really are (death cultists). The worst thing a religious party can do is gain power, because theocracy in practice soon loses its sparkle.

 

[CapelDodger]

waw i know i'm pessimistic but not that much!
there won't be no nuke warfare. ever

Well, except for that one time. It does seem to have been enough.

most iranians crave for democracy

As we saw after the last elections, which the aging and discredited regime had to steal. The protests failed that time, but revolutions aren't often made on the street. They're usually made in prisons and in exile. That's why, in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has a President and the Twitter generation have discovered you can't cloud-source a revolution. The Iranians were ahead of the Arabs (as in so many things ) in learning that.

their leader is insane, that's a fact. but not to the point of being that feared. it's a lose-lose game for everyone and even that fool knows it. that nuke thing is more of some attentionwhorism and urge to be heard (and feared)

The regime is banging the old colonial drum : come see the Western Powers denying Iran its sovereign right to make nuclear fuel! It's a sign of weakness.

When the democrats come to power (as they surely will) they'll make the same demand, of course. They're just as proudly Iranian (and faintly contemptuous of the Arabs) as the Mullahs.

 

[CapelDodger]

You should study Middle East history a bit more. The idea that just because Ahmadinejad has one year left in his 'term' is meaningless. Ali Khamenei is the Supreme Leader, who has the real power in Iran, and there are no term limits. The very discussion of term limits in this context is ludicrous.

The idea that because Khamenei has the title "Supreme Leader" he could get up one morning, order a nuclear strike, and have it happen is, of course, ludicrous. What he can do is issue fatwas, or religious opinions, like the one in which he declared nuclear weapons to be fundamentally un-Islamic.

[quoe]You seem to believe that the fact that something hasn't yet happened precludes it from ever happening. I ask you; do you think that no radical Islamic group will never use a nuclear weapon? Remember, a dirty bomb or a truck with a nuclear warhead is technically feasible for any number of groups right now. You don't need an ICBM or a plane to deliver a payload.[/quote]

A dirty bomb or a stolen nuke (none so far, even with the breakdown of the USSR which was a fairly scary moment; a few have been lost but presumably not yet found) is a possibility. That wouldn't constitute a nuclear war though, and the fact that it hasn't happened while 9/11 did is cause for optimism.

If such a thing did happen it would concentrate minds wonderfully, and situations such as Mali, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan would be sorted out in pretty short order. With the Chinese, Indians and Russians taking lead.

(Not so much the Brits; it looks like we've done our last Afghanistan War. Hats off to the job our people have done winning the fight there but it's not solving the problem.)

 

[CapelDodger]

I agree with this mostly. Is it wrong to say I hope you're right? What a twisted position to be in, to think this way.

Still, I can't help but think that a situation like we have now in Syria could escalate. Or another Iraq/Iran war. It's hard to project a positive future for that region while religion divides its peoples so.

The Sunni/Shia divide is ethnic and economic far more than it is religious. Ba'athist Iraq kept religion firmly in its place, but the Sunni/Shia social divide remained. The developing conflict in the Middle East is not a religious one.

It's the final unwinding of the Ottoman Empire and the hegemony of the West which followed. In one (socially conservative) corner is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arabs, in the other is Iran run by a bunch of old and/or rural social conservatives ... that latter configuration can't last for long. And in another corner is a very attentive Turkey, keeping its options open.

We live in interesting times, but not because of religion.

 

[CapelDodger]

If AQ lets off a dirty bomb in Chicago, who do you go after: Pakistan, Russia, India, Iran, Afghanistan or one of the other -stans?

That would be decision to be in on, wouldn't it? If the general tenor was that it had to be done then my vote would be for some valley in the Hindu Kush that isn't an important watershed.

 

[RhodyDave]

If there's a current threat in the Western world it's from fascism, with Muslims in place of the more traditional Jews.

Can you explain this? Are you equating Jews to fascism?