I don't think it matters how many wives a man can have in relation to population increase.  Assuming the sex ratio is even, the only difference is that one man will have more wives at the expense of other men who will have none.

Even though Osama was one of fifty-five children, when you divide the number of children into 

the number of wives, it is only 2.5 children per wife,

which is not much more than the average.

And there are other considerations re. the birth rate

besides religion.  For example, economic conditions.  Many

Africans are Muslim but they are also very poor and

while the birth rate is high, so is the infant mortality

rate.  And then there is a correlation between education

and birth rate.  The more educated a woman is, the 

less children she is likely to have.  A culture that promotes education for women has as much to do with social mores as it does with religious beliefs.

(Please excuse the typing.  I'm having trouble with 

the wraparound.  Sometimes it works and sometimes

it doesn't.  Like right now) 

When atheists bring up logical arguments, they are most often a reply to a logical argument given by a theist. So it is not the atheist who first induces logic into arguments; it is the theist who usually makes the first argument using logic to argue for the "logical necessity" of God.

They usually seem to insult them because they throw the logical "book" at them after a theist tries to use logic in their arguments to justify the need for God. Most often, theists who use logic haven't studied logic in depth. So when a theist encounters a logician, who knows all kinds of logical method, they are in for a rude awakening.

The R.R.S. is skeptical of all Gods and fight against all religion; bringing up Islam is only focusing on a specific religion among many.

Scary...

Well, the R.R.S., being atheists, are not trying to convert anyone. Atheism is not a religion, it's a reaction. I think the R.R.S. is open to debating and opposing all religions. It just so happens, that more often than not, there are Christians who the R.R.S. has the opportunity to argue with. If there were Muslims who wanted to argue, I'm sure they'd get the same treatment from the R.R.S. like Christians who want to argue are getting now.

Oh and as I am a theist, if I presented the R.R.S. position inaccurately in some way, please feel free to correct my slip-up.

I think anyone seeking global dominance is fighting a losing battle. I hope you dont think atheists live in fantacy land.

It is however reasonable for us to give others an alturnitive oportunity.  

The data on the effects of polygamy on birth rates is inconclusive.  It appears to depend at least partly on exactly how the society manifests polygamy.  In Somalia, for instance, there's lots of remarriage allowed, and remarried women have lower fertility rates there.

But the key to understanding polygamy from an evolutionary standpoint is to recognize that the common factor in animals (including social primates) who use a "harem" strategy is that it's the *high-status* male or males who are the father(s) of the majority of the offspring in the group. So it's not just that your father is the biggest and strongest monkey, it's also that the fact that he's your father contributes to your status in the group, and therefore your survival odds, even after you are born.

And this is the pattern that carries in human polygamy too.  It's only established, senior males with some economic stability and social status who start taking more wives.  Nobody will even consider letting their daughter be the second wife for Ahmed the street vendor--he can barely afford one wife.  But Ahmed the electrician who has an onion farm on the side, he's good marriage material.  The Koran even specifies that you can only have more than one wife if you can treat them all the same--meaning that you can financially support them all.  These social and economic assets then contribute perhaps more efficiently to the survival and prosperity of his offspring than would happen for an equivalent number of man-woman pairs.

Anthropological studies do show that the polygamous high-status male with several wives pattern is the most widespread and common throughout known human history as a whole (this one-man-one-woman thing is relatively new). So if nothing else, it is at least a reproductive strategy that got us to our current prodigious heights of overpopulation.

By the way--the disclaimer.  I personally have just one wife and that's plenty for me. 

Give us time. A thousand years ago the whole idea of model of consciousness and reason that most people in the world today take for granted didn't even exist. As humanity continues to reap ever larger benefits from that model, it will catch in in more and more places. 

Insulting someone isn't as bad a tactic as you think. It often gets their attention and forces them to apply their intelligence to the "threat."

It's pretty irrelevant to me what religion people convert to. The goal is to discredit the whole idea of holding beliefs on faith.

Memes (like God and reason) can propagate in any human's brain. Yes, it's going to be harder to get through to someone who was raised religious. But as the movement for atheism gains strength (we hope) all these religious kids will just become more soldiers in the cause.

Islam will never become a global political block - it will fracture internally and tear itself into warring factions just as every other religion has done. You say why yourself in another post on this thread: as the experience of Muslims in the developed world diverges from the experience of Muslims elsewhere, they will start to get different ideas about the practice of Islam (including, hopefully, atheism).

The RRS is opposed to Islam and does seek to get Muslims to think rationally about their faith. We just get few Muslims on these boards because it's an American site.

I'm always disappointed when someone says atheists should give up.

Here's a fancy little essay I wrote a few weeks ago, addressing the question of why atheists fight.  It's not a direct answer to your post, but think for a second about the rationale.  I think you'll understand what I'm getting at.  While I agree with you that Islam is a very powerful force, and will likely overshadow Christianity in the near future, I don't see how that changes the fact that I believe strongly in my own cause, and would like to see both religions lose power.  If I do nothing, nothing will happen.  If I fight, any gain is gain.  Anyway, here's my essay.

"Why are all atheists so angry?"

I hear this question all the time. In fact, my Rambo-Kitty avatar is partially inspired by the question. Anyway, today I was reading an article about the debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren, and was struck by Warren's statement, "I've never met an atheist who wasn't angry."

My first reaction was denial. Many atheists, myself included, are happy most of the time. My atheist friends are great fun to hang out with. We laugh and joke and drink beer, and hardly ever mention religion.

My second reaction, I confess, was anger. How dishonest of him to try to discount atheism by labeling us all as angry malcontents! This is exactly why people like him make me angry!

That's when it hit me, square in the forehead. He's not being dishonest. I don't doubt that every atheist he's met has been angry. If I met him, he'd almost certainly make me angry, too. That's just it! HE makes atheists angry, so they're all angry around him. So, I forgive him for thinking that all atheists are angry. I understand how he made the mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to reflect on "Atheist Anger" for a few minutes, and ask a couple of questions.

First, why is it a bad thing to be angry? The suffragists were quite angry, and for good reason. New Zealand had granted women equal voting rights in 1893, and America, supposedly the land of equality, was violently opposed to the idea twenty years later. There are still plenty of women who are angry because women make less money doing the same jobs as men in many industries, and women are often not even considered for promotions when they're equally (or better) qualified for the position. Are they wrong for being angry? Should they just sit quietly and wait for men to realize the error of their ways? Some people think so. I've noticed that the majority of them are men.

Am I making a valid comparison? Is it reasonable to compare life as an atheist in America in 2007 to life as a woman in the early 20th century? Clearly there are significant differences. Atheists can vote. They can, in theory, hold public office. They can get married, sign contracts, work wherever they're qualified. So, do we atheists have a right to be angry in the same way suffragists had?

To answer that question, I'll recall some more history. In Mosaic law, as we all know, women were slightly better than slaves. They had no property rights. In Roman law, women were completely dependent on male relations for all legal matters, and when they were married, it was a matter of purchase between two families.

Here, we can ask a pointed question. Do women have the right to be angry that they're not making as much as men in the workplace? After all, they can vote, own property, divorce their husband, sue him for child support and alimony, and live quite happily on their own. This country is one of the best places in the world to be a woman! What right do women have to be angry?

If your skin prickled a little bit when you read the previous paragraph, good for you. You're halfway to understanding why atheists have a right to be mad. The reason women still have a right to be mad is that things are still not equal. They have no obligation to remain silent simply because they have it better than someone who lived a hundred, or a thousand years ago. The reason women have it better now is that people were angry all through history, and made small gains here and there over many generations. Without the fuel of anger, women would still be property, and wouldn't even have the opportunity to be mad about making less money in the workplace.

So, what about us atheists? Do we have a right to be mad? Actually, yes. Did you know we've had atheist presidents? We have. I'll let you do your own homework on this, but it might surprise you to learn that many of the leaders of the U.S. throughout history have been openly atheist. Is this possible today? One congressman in California recently admitted to being atheist, and it caused a nationwide stir! It remains to be seen whether he'll be reelected. To be sure, he'll be attacked for being godless and amoral when election time comes around.

Until the McCarthy Era, the pledge of allegiance didn't have the word "God." Money didn't have "In God We Trust." Until the 70s, Christians were not actively involved in politics for the purpose of legislating religious values. Clearly, America is more theist than it used to be, at least politically. So, are things getting better for atheists? I dare say they're not. Unlike women, our situation is not improving. We are not being afforded more respect. Rather, we are being legislatively pushed farther into the margins where we have been quietly lurking for sixty years since the Red Scare.

To bring things back around, recall my comment about my atheist friends and I sitting around having beers and laughs. This is a good picture for you to hold in your mind's eye when you think of me, or any other atheist. This is what we want. We don't like being angry any more than women who'd like to be paid more. I'm sure all the angry feminists would rather things were better for women so they wouldn't have to be angry anymore. It's the same with atheists. If we were a bit less hated, vilified, and marginalized, it would be a lot easier for us to be in the presence of theists and not get angry.

Why are atheists so angry? Because things could be better, and we don't like being marginalized.

I don’t think it’s a matter of deconverting everyone individually; that really would be impossible. While we may be able to deconvert some, as a whole the goal is to erode the foundation of religion… this means making it acceptable to put religion in the line of direct criticism and so on. It’ll take a long time but eventually (i.e. decades and decades) if all goes well people will become less superstitious, more rational and critical in their thinking and more prograssive, willing to reject things instead of holding view just because of tradition.

I personally think philosophy should be taught in school so that children and teenagers learn about logical and rational thinking. The result of this would be that people actually thinking about their views of reality and as a consequence religion will take a hit.

In the end I think religion will be disrupted, not purely by external means such as criticism (although it helps) but rather internally, by people actually thinking and not passing on their confident delusions.