3 ms·

>One has to be a zealot to believe that there is a God who wants humanity to follow certain mandates and rituals. There's a selection bias: the religions that

>One has to be a zealot to believe that there is a God who wants humanity to follow certain mandates and rituals. There's a selection bias: the religions that survive today are the ones that had a reproductive advantage relative to other cultures. Natural selection applies to culture just like it does to genes. The same will hold in future as currently only the zealots have birthrates above replacement; the more secular people are, the fewer children they have, so the future belongs to the ones who believe God mandates they marry and multiply.

noduerme 12d ago
You're right, but the religious retort to that would be that secular people are miserable and therefore less likely to marry and reproduce. Whereas I'm not sure why that should be true. Sure, secular people don't have a command to reproduce, so maybe taking away the command structure just reduces the likelihood; and I guess that's the selection bias you're talking about. But prior to organized religion, people were reproducing like rabbits, so there's got to be something else.
- mathgeek 12d ago
  > The religious retort to that… _A_ religious retort. Also it’s not a binary “lots of kids or no kids” spectrum.
  - TFNA 12d ago
    In many countries now, "over the replacement rate" or "under the replacement rate" is indeed a binary that closely tracks with religious observance. I would rather not out where I am, but here a couple having even a second child will cause some observers to at least ask if the family is part of a sect.
  - noduerme 12d ago
    Okay, _a_ religious retort. I feel like you focused on a nit instead of addressing my point?
    - mathgeek 10d ago
      I wasn’t addressing your point, correct. Just helping you be more accurate.
bcjdjsndon 12d ago
> the religions that survive today Didn't most religions allow slavery? Islam, Christians, Jews, Hindus... All had rules on how to treat your slave but never printed slavery should be abolished. Funny how no major religion allows slavery any more isn't it
- graemep 12d ago
  Christianity has no rules on how to treat slaves other than one or two sentences in the epistles of Paul telling people to be kind, and another encouraging freeing slaves. This is far form endorsing slavery. it was regarded as a necessity for society to function at the time. It is rather like how Christians now often accept the accumulation of wealth that is inevitable in a capitalist society as better than the alternatives. St Paul also said slaves (and women, and people of different races) were equal before God ( Galatians 3:28 ). The Bible has rules about how to treat slaves, but from a Christian point of view these did not apply - they are Jewish law similar to not eating pork or requiring circumcision etc. Christianity was the main motivation behind abolishing slavery and we have written records of Christians calling for slavery to be abolished going back to the 4th century.
  - bcjdjsndon 12d ago
    > Christianity has no rules on how to treat slaves other than one or two sentences in the epistles of Paul telling people to be kind, and another encouraging freeing slaves. That's what I told you lol... Some moral code, huh? Slavery permissible > This is far form endorsing slavery It's right next to it. Rules for slaves would permit slavery wouldnt they? Absolutely delusional chain of thought to say the bible was against slavery. > . it was regarded as a necessity for society to function at the time. This weak excuse again... What changed? Why would god change his mind like that? Are we to believe every Christian prior to now was stupid but YOU have a truthful understanding? Or might it be people made up the bible and that's why it contains such mundane domestic concerns like what hat you can wear at what time? While we're at it, what else from this ancient religion is no longer relevant? It's many passages on how to treat each other would probably be good to delete, times have changed. I assume you don't stone adulterers either, or any of the other things god has changed his mind about over the years.

noduerme 12d ago

You're right, but the religious retort to that would be that secular people are miserable and therefore less likely to marry and reproduce. Whereas I'm not sure why that should be true. Sure, secular people don't have a command to reproduce, so maybe taking away the command structure just reduces the likelihood; and I guess that's the selection bias you're talking about. But prior to organized religion, people were reproducing like rabbits, so there's got to be something else.

mathgeek 12d ago
> The religious retort to that… _A_ religious retort. Also it’s not a binary “lots of kids or no kids” spectrum.
- TFNA 12d ago
  In many countries now, "over the replacement rate" or "under the replacement rate" is indeed a binary that closely tracks with religious observance. I would rather not out where I am, but here a couple having even a second child will cause some observers to at least ask if the family is part of a sect.
- noduerme 12d ago
  Okay, _a_ religious retort. I feel like you focused on a nit instead of addressing my point?
  - mathgeek 10d ago
    I wasn’t addressing your point, correct. Just helping you be more accurate.

bcjdjsndon 12d ago

> the religions that survive today Didn't most religions allow slavery? Islam, Christians, Jews, Hindus... All had rules on how to treat your slave but never printed slavery should be abolished. Funny how no major religion allows slavery any more isn't it

graemep 12d ago
Christianity has no rules on how to treat slaves other than one or two sentences in the epistles of Paul telling people to be kind, and another encouraging freeing slaves. This is far form endorsing slavery. it was regarded as a necessity for society to function at the time. It is rather like how Christians now often accept the accumulation of wealth that is inevitable in a capitalist society as better than the alternatives. St Paul also said slaves (and women, and people of different races) were equal before God ( Galatians 3:28 ). The Bible has rules about how to treat slaves, but from a Christian point of view these did not apply - they are Jewish law similar to not eating pork or requiring circumcision etc. Christianity was the main motivation behind abolishing slavery and we have written records of Christians calling for slavery to be abolished going back to the 4th century.
- bcjdjsndon 12d ago
  > Christianity has no rules on how to treat slaves other than one or two sentences in the epistles of Paul telling people to be kind, and another encouraging freeing slaves. That's what I told you lol... Some moral code, huh? Slavery permissible > This is far form endorsing slavery It's right next to it. Rules for slaves would permit slavery wouldnt they? Absolutely delusional chain of thought to say the bible was against slavery. > . it was regarded as a necessity for society to function at the time. This weak excuse again... What changed? Why would god change his mind like that? Are we to believe every Christian prior to now was stupid but YOU have a truthful understanding? Or might it be people made up the bible and that's why it contains such mundane domestic concerns like what hat you can wear at what time? While we're at it, what else from this ancient religion is no longer relevant? It's many passages on how to treat each other would probably be good to delete, times have changed. I assume you don't stone adulterers either, or any of the other things god has changed his mind about over the years.