Quote from: Melech on March 07, 2016, 07:08:27 AM

Quote from: CoinCube on March 07, 2016, 05:20:15 AM

Quote from: Moloch on March 07, 2016, 04:17:43 AM

Quote from: CoinCube on March 07, 2016, 02:49:45 AM

Low Fertility (only one child)

I think you confuse, "Low Fertility", with choosing to not have lots of children...
I don't believe there is a scientific study showing Atheists produce lower sperm counts, or any such indicator of fertility
Since when is having 1 child instead of 5 a bad thing? I don't even see how this is a negative trait
If it were a race to have the most children... anyone with less than 20 children loses, right?

This issue came up earlier

Quote from: CoinCube on February 29, 2016, 04:26:17 AM

Quote from: anon_giraffe on February 29, 2016, 02:26:00 AM

But artificial manipulation of fertility through contraception or other practices would make it only useful if you managed to discount those practices.
Just because an intelligent couple choose to have no children has no necessary meaning to their true "biological fitness"?

Biological Fitness is an empiric not a moral measurement.
There are two accepted empiric measures of biological fitness these are Absolute Fitness and Relative Fitness. Both of these are directly proportional to fertility unless there is a large differences in infant mortality between the groups. As all of the data comes from one country USA there should be no large differences in infant mortality.

Now the case can certainly be made that Biological Fitness is an irrelevant metric. However, it is likely that some readers will feel this metric to be important and that makes the data relevant.

As I mentioned in my response to anon_giraffe fertility rate like biological fitness is an empiric not a moral measurement and its relevance to this discussion can certainly be disputed. There are multiple definitions of fertility. The most relevant is the Fertility Rate.

Deciding if sub-replacement fertility is a good or a bad thing is a deep topic and beyond the scope of the the arguments in the opening post. I am content to leave this decision up to the reader but have no objections to anyone who wishes to promote their views on the matter.

Blah, blah

FIRST, you have to show/prove that the rate of children Atheists have is a bad thing

I could argue that fewer children is a good thing... If you have $100,000 inheritance, it goes to 1 person, instead of 5 people each getting $20k... fewer children = better

I would also argue that parents who have 5+ children tend to be on welfare their entire lives and are a huge drain on the system, providing nothing, taking everything

Humans are not horses used for breeding and you cannot possibly justify using a "fertility rate", even misnamed such as you are, against Atheists

Your arguments against Atheists are super thin... they are tall, smart, athletic, etc... oh noes... better kill those poisonous assholes!

This entire thread is nonsense, as most religious threads are

It's an interesting metric, you are mis understanding it.
As used it is an indicator of physical health,

but we both agree it is not useful in this case as western atheists generally choose their own fertility rate rather than let nature take its course.