Giving up on Atheism - Atheism promotes promiscuity and is bad for society

I am an atheist/ agnostic but after careful thinking, I've decided that perhaps virulently promoting atheism (as this community is doing) isn't really good for society. Please don't get offended, just read my arguments below calmly and rationally. If you can argue that I am wrong, I will listen to those arguments and change my opinion.

Note 1: I am using science in all my arguments, not religion.Not all my links point to scientific studies, but I'm sure you could find relevant evolutionary psychology papers if you googled for it.

Note 2: Please don't take offense, I'm not a sexist or a misogynist. I am trying hard to be as unemotional as possible in my arguments.

Argument 1: Polygamy is bad for society

What percentage of our (pre-civilizational/ barbaric) ancestors are males? The answer is not 50%. As evolutionary psychology points out, 80% of our female ancestors managed to reproduce but only 40% of our male ancestors did so. (Link: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm). Simply put, in barbaric societies, males were the high-risk high-reward sex whereas females were the low-risk low-reward sex.

Why? 

Males are genetically polygynous (interested in sex with as many women as possible - this makes sense as men can produce millions of sperm every day and have a low reproductive cost)

Females are naturally hypergamous (interested in only one man but the best; the top 'alpha' man - this makes sense as a female produces one egg per month and has a high reproductive cost due to pregnancy and child birth).

When sexuality is uncontrolled, the combination of male polygyny and female hypergamy results in polygamy a.k.a harems (one man having sex & children with multiple women).

The ones who suffer are the beta males - the ones who have been sexually selected out. They typically become violent and don't contribute to society. There is an argument to be made that the Taliban practices polygamy and this is the source of violent behavior of terrorists from that part of the world. (Link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-inco...)

When promiscuity is controlled through strictly enforced monogamy, every man gets a wife. This reduces violent behavior and unlocks the productive capacity in males. I don't have the link available but a man who is already married or believes that he will marry in the future will be 4x productive as an unmarried man who does not believe that he will ever marry (e.g.) Japanese grass-eaters ostracized by an increasingly promiscuous Japan (Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/27/japan-grass-eaters-sala...)

Alpha men don't significantly contribute to society - they are not scientific geniuses or hard workers. They are typically physically aggressive men. Contrary to feminist dogma, physically dominant men (even dominant to the point of abusive) are attractive to women because they exhibit alpha tendencies - The Dark Triad of Narcissism, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy.

Alpha men understand their higher attractiveness (compared to betas) and adopt a pump-and-dump sexual attitude. They have many sexual partners but don't bother helping with raising their young; some of their young will die due to lack of resources but they make up for it in numbers.

Betas adopt a nourish-and-protect sexual attitude. They have only one sexual partner, whom they win by proving their love and commitment. Then they have children with only this partner, but provide resources and protection to ensure their children grow up successfully.

Monogamy is the cornerstone of civilization. See the Moralia versus Libertalia argument (Link: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/10/14/relationshipstrategies/how...). In a monogamous society, with greater male economic participation and lesser violence, prosperity, rule of law and art flourish.

Argument 2: Promiscuity naturally leads to beta ostracism and harms society

Promiscuity - Defn: Any form of sex outside of monogamous marriage (including exclusive relationships)

Non-exclusive relationships (polyamorous relationships) are almost always polygamous (one alpha man with many women). This results in many beta men losing out.

Exclusive relationships also result in beta men losing out - Why? If enough alpha men are not available, hypergamous females would rather not enter into any relationship at all rather than be with beta men - "The Where have all the good men gone?" tirade from many women in modern promiscuous culture.

Promiscuity is the leading cause of single motherhood. Many women will rather have children with alpha men (who will later abandon them) rather than with good beta providers (whom they find dull and boring).

The social effects of unleashed promiscuity are enormous - 40% out of wedlock births, single motherhood and increased Govt debt/ taxation to support single motherhood by the State which steps in to replace the father.

Single motherhood produces children 2 to 10 times more likely to suffer from:

  • substance abuse
  • truancy
  • health problems
  • being abused
  • behavioral problems and personality disorders
  • criminal behavior
  • gang activity
  • suicide and running away
  • dropping out at all levels of education
  • incarceration as youths and adults
  • sexually transmitted diseases
  • having children outside of relationships
  • becoming teenage parents

(Link: http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/2012/03/transcript-of-fempocalyp...)

Argument 3: Atheism promotes promiscuity (Edit: by being silent about it)

I am not saying that atheism caused promiscuity (that happened in the 60s due to a variety of other reasons including feminism) but atheism has played a role in the rise of moral relativism, especially with respect to promiscuity.

The Golden Rule is perhaps the first tenet of religious morality but it is not the only one. The second most important tenet of religious morality is monogamy.

I have seen many arguments about how atheists are equally moral (if not more so) than religious people. In all these arguments, people assume that morality = Golden Rule.

Based on my personal experiences, many atheists seem to think that:

Morality = the Golden Rule

Promiscuity = personal freedom (i.e.) promiscuity is acceptable behavior that the Church restricts because the Church is old and stupid. Many atheists don't seem to realize the far reaching social effects of promiscuity.

This moral relativism on promiscuity is obvious even in this site. For example http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/atheists-are-not-moral-peo... does not deal with promiscuity at all. http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/what-is-your-stance-on-mar... has answers from many atheists clearly exhibiting moral relativism on the subject of promiscuity.

[Edit: The majority of your arguments were against this. I can understand why this may look like a strawman argument. Let me clarify:

There is a strong correlation between divorce risk and low IQ. There is also a strong correlation between high IQ and atheism (giving you folks a compliment, take it :) ).

Atheism as a movement, originated primarily amongst high IQ society. But it has now gone mainstream and is growing fast, scarily fast almost. As Uncle Ben put it, "with great power comes great responsibility". But Atheism does not seem to be taking up that responsibility from the Church. Yes, the Church is broken and old and corrupt and its practitioners are bigots and hypocrites. But, it is still the only thing out there taking a stand against promiscuity. Atheists seem to walk away from the responsibility of condemning promiscuity and most Atheists promote sexual freedom.

Morality naturally comes to Atheists because they are high-IQ individuals who are better able to visualize the impact of their life choices in the future. But, as atheism goes mainstream and the Church dies out, what happens to all the voices condemning promiscuous behavior?

We are not more evolved now in anyway than we were in the past. We are, still at our core, apes struggling to build great civilizations. We all (especially low IQ individuals) need moral guidance to help us in this struggle, to make better life choices.

Can you point links to me about prominent Atheists condemning promiscuity? Is the Atheist movement willing to take up the mantle of promoting social morality from the Church after slaying it? ]

[Edit 2: I am not a troll, I've just been super busy last few days, I will have more time this weekend to reply to some comments below. The essential thing I am trying to say is that religion is not pure evil, and we should not look at it in terms of black and white.

There are definitely good things about religion. There is a very interesting theory that religions also evolve over time and the most popular religions are the most useful ones to society, and they became popular precisely because they were an advantage to societies that adopted them. For example, societies with religions that promoted monogamy were almost always more successful in combat over societies that had religions that did not emphasize monogamy. The reason is because in societies that practiced monogamy, soldiers had a genetic stake in survival of that society (they had their own children to protect). Rome fell because of polygamy - the top politicians had harems and orgies and monopolized the women, resulting in loss of morale amongst troops who did not get the chance to be fathers. Rome was increasingly forced to rely on mercenaries rather than patriotic troops to protect her. After the treasury ran out, Rome collapsed because disenfranchised beta males, who had no genetic stake in Rome, simply walked off and allowed the barbarians to invade.

My point of view has always been "What is best for society?", and not "What is true?". Atheism is the correct working hypothesis because there is no proof for God and we have to use Occam's razor at all times. I don't see any downside consequences of high IQ people discovering/ discussing Atheism. But, we have a moral obligation (as the high IQ elites in our society) to do what's best for society. Imagine a ghetto filled with the poorest, uneducated people in our society. We have to make the decisions that will benefit them.

I don't really have a problem with Atheism, but I have significant issues with the Atheist Movement. For instance, take the advertisement "There is no God, Relax". This advertisement is targeted at people who have made bad choices in their life and have been sexually irresponsible. They are probably feeling guilty about these choices and the Atheist Movement is offering them an easy way out. It tells them "There is no Hell or Heaven, so relax and continue making bad choices". In reality, there is no hell or heaven, but there are societal consequences of your choices. In reality, guilt is often a very useful biological mechanism for correcting bad behavior, but Atheism is offering them a way to rationalize away their guilt so that they can continue making bad choices. I am speaking about this from personal experience, I have known people who commit adultery and rationalize their guilt because they think that the concept of 'sin' is meaningless as there is no God.

Also, to all people accusing me of being a sexist and having double standards, I am not asking for double standards from men and women; I am demanding high standards of expected social morality from both sexes. How is that sexist in any way?]

Summary

I am going to judge the merit of a social construct on the basis of its usefulness, not on the basis of its truthfulness. I will only promote an idea to society only if I am convinced it will help society.

If the Traditional Conservative Church (not the Modern version that tolerates no-fault divorce) is useful to society as an institution that encourages monogamy, I would rather have that than Atheism.

Views: 6207

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

But this is the world many women want?? Wow. Really??

Women WANT to not be treated as secondary citizens, we WANT to be able to do no more or less then our gender counterparts without being especially 'penalized' for it, we want the same freedoms. But the implications of ur statement : "But this is the world many women want and who are we to take it from them?" Ur implication that WE WANT a world of promiscuity so we can let loose I find not only offensive but down right arrogant. And who do u think u are that u feel u (males) can or even have the right to 'give and take' ANYTHING to/from us (women) ...Im refering to ur "... and who are we to take it from them?"

Like wow!

KUDOS MIA!! YOU GO WOMAN!!! WOOOOOT! <3

Ok, if atheism promotes promiscuity, then don't you think that people would be joining in the millions, you know 'the more the merrier'. Think Atheist could be considered the Sodom and Gamoria of cyberland! 'Come one come all', the greatest place on earth!

But, NOOOOO, we have theists coming here to bug us, like they are boored or something. Are these theists looking for 'a little, wink wink nod nod..' ?

Sorry theists, we are not interesting in helping you in your '..wink wink nod nod!' on. Damn another crazy bubble pooped! 

Don't confuse RELIGION with POLITICS. I know if you read anything American (news, twitter feeds, here); you get the impression that in America there is only left wing (by default appears to be only extreme greenies, gay parade queens, all the atheists and so on) vs right wing (which by default appears to be only extreme bible bashing, war mongering rich people) and no in between. It appears that way, they write that way, but they know what they mean, whereas we, from other countries, don't. We only think we do.

Also, don't believe that as a male, you are superior. I know that is hard coming from some countries where religion holds sway, but women are not the source of weakness or evil, and if you feel bad about yourself, don't think that by putting women in their place you suddenly have more value. It doesn't work that way. I know you have made no mention of this, but I hear it in your writing and it is often the strongest reason men have for going back to religion. Not a belief in god, but a belief that they should be treated better than someone else.

Your concern that with absolute freedom, you get absolute debauchery, can be referenced from history (and particularly now) many, many times, and I realise that in some countries the level of freedom is solely dependent on the level of religiosity. I think I know where you are coming from, however your arguments are based on prior indoctrination and your distrust of how the soft approach is destroying society today. That is simply the pendulum swinging from side to side, when the population realises just how much this soft approach hurts humanity (science based reasons), no doubt it will swing back. Religion is not the way, its what got us into trouble in the first place.

it is often the strongest reason men have for going back to religion


Hmmm... come to think of it... I don't think I've met any female "former-atheists." Interesting... 

This needs to be looked into.

"Atheism promotes promiscuity (Edit: by being silent about it)"

By 'being silent' ...not speaking out against it...

I think that many atheists (having experienced it directly ourselves) have learned the importance of:

1- Acceptance of the freedom of ppl's personal choices (not meaning the damaging stuff).

2- Not forcing our personal opinions on others.

But I dont think we should be held accountable for the choices of others. We arrive at atheism individually and make our own decisions (for ourselves) in the same manner. We are 'born again' as 'freethinkers'.

I personally believe we have the right and understanding that we must change ourselves and allow others to find their own way as we did by educating and allowing others to decide for themselves. We teach about the water but allow others to cjoose to/or not to drink as is their personal choice. Whats more I believe (and think statistics will back me up here) that there are more ppl in the world (religious & non) that support monogamy as opposed to promiscuity. Many of us try to educate those whose eyes are still closed so that they may be opened but Atheists are not the world police of 'morality & promiscuity vs monogamy'. Its sounds like you hold us (atheists) acountable for not beating ppl over the head with our personal values & principles. That is not our right or part of any 'atheistic job description'. On a whole we each bear some responsibility for the world around us but to say atheism is bad because we 'promote promiscuity' thru our 'silence' I think is very unfair. If u feel atheism is bad then what are u suggesting as the alternative? A return to religion?? No way man. I personally will not return to a mental world of darkness and lies just because the worlds values or 'morality' is not pointing 'due north'.

And another question if u dont mind...how can u be "atheist/agnostic"? Are u clear on the definitions of either?

Im sorry if anything I say comes off to u as ignorant or lacking information/education. I may not be the smartest card in the deck but I am certainly not the slowest either. Seems to me u want us atheists to emulate organized religions by trying to force our opinions, beliefs, values, & principles on others. I hope I NEVER become like that. I may feel very passionate about what I DO believe but to 'speak out' is an individual choice. If atheist groups ever reach the point of establishing ur idea as a requirement for defining an atheist or 'good atheist' I will no longer proclaim myself an 'atheist' tho I will always and forevermore be a non-believer.

"Atheism promotes promiscuity (Edit: by being silent about it)"


By 'being silent' ...not speaking out against it...

I think that many atheists (having experienced it directly ourselves) have learned the importance of:

1- Acceptance of the freedom of ppl's personal choices (not meaning the damaging stuff).

2- Not forcing our personal opinions on others.

But I dont think we should be held accountable for the choices of others. We arrive at atheism individually and make our own decisions (for ourselves) in the same manner. We are 'born again' as 'freethinkers'.

I personally believe we have the right and understanding that we must change ourselves and allow others to find their own way as we did by educating and allowing others to decide for themselves. We teach about the water but allow others to choose to/or not to drink as is their personal choice. Whats more I believe (and think statistics will back me up here) that there are more ppl in the world (religious & non) that support monogamy as opposed to promiscuity. Many of us try to educate those whose eyes are still closed so that they may be opened but Atheists are not the world police of 'morality & promiscuity vs monogamy'. Its sounds like you hold us (atheists) acountable for not beating ppl over the head with our personal values & principles. That is not our right or part of any 'atheistic job description'. On a whole we each bear some responsibility for the world around us but to say atheism is bad because we 'promote promiscuity' thru our 'silence' I think is very unfair. If u feel atheism is bad then what are u suggesting as the alternative? A return to religion?? No way man. I personally will not return to a mental world of darkness and lies just because the worlds values or 'morality' is not pointing 'due north'.

Do I wish the entire world were atheist? 

Absolutely!

Do I think we (atheists) should become some sort of modern day 'Inquisition' forcefully promoting our views/beliefs as did religious inquisitions of the past?

Absolutely NOT!


And another question if u dont mind...how can u be "atheist/agnostic"? Are u clear on the definitions of either?

Im sorry if anything I say comes off to u as ignorant or lacking information/education. I may not be the smartest card in the deck but I am certainly not the slowest either. Seems to me u want us atheists to emulate organized religions by trying to force our opinions, beliefs, values, & principles on others. I hope I NEVER become like that. I may feel very passionate about what I DO believe but to 'speak out' is an individual choice. If atheist groups ever reach the point of establishing ur idea as a means of defining an atheist or 'good atheist' I will no longer proclaim myself an 'atheist' tho I will always and forevermore be a non-believer.

And I would like to add that I take the same stance on drug use. Am I crazy? Portugal didnt seem to think so when they decriminalized all drugs and returned the right of 'personal choice' back into the peoples' hands. It has proven to be a success.

@Shankar S,

Atheism cannot be compared to religion, as atheism does not have a creed or a dogma. Atheism is nothing more than the name that is given to people that do not have a belief in a deity. And in no way, shape or form do I, as an atheist, have any intention to fill in the gap that was left by the church.

In the Netherlands, which is full of atheists, we tend not to have any of the supposed problems that you describe, what exactly made you come up with these conclusions as to the direction in which society is moving?

If you want to know what an "atheistic" society looks like, come to the Netherlands, Sweden, or whatever.


All atheism is, is the lack of belief in gods. Your argument as others have pointed out is non-sequitur.

 

I am not saying that atheism caused promiscuity (that happened in the 60s due to a variety of other reasons including feminism)

I'm still laughing at the above sentence. You really think that people weren't promiscuous prior to the 60s? 

Your first argument I agree with - the institution of polygamy/polyandry is likely to be harmful to societies with an equal number of each gender. This is fairly new in history as men used to be killed at a young age due to disease or violence leaving a lot of young single women around (at least until they died in childbirth) which were wed to elder men. 

Your second argument I do not quite follow and I cannot see sufficient evidence has been presented to reach the subconclusion it offers. A more plausible explanation of the "where have all the good men gone?"-meme is most likely a skewed female perception of what constitutes "good men". I also fail to see how instituting strict monogamy would make women less hypergamous, unless there is a social institution such as arranged marriage forcing women into relationships with beta males they don't wish to be with. You are also misreading the statistics, out-of-wedlock births is not the same as births to single mothers. Single motherhood is a problem related more to social-economic background than morals, which is attested to by the afflictions you list which is also correlated with class. Lastly, promiscuity is not something new. Before WW2 it was quite common for men to seek out prostitutes and I'm fairly certain that i.e. doctors and mail men (any guy with a uniform, really..) had their share of flings. In fact, my father was born out-of-wedlock to a single mother and was promptly adopted away - the usual answer to unwanted births at that time.

Your final argument is probably phrased a little erroneously. Atheism, as understood as the social movement and not the belief system, doesn't promote promiscuity, but neither does it condemn it or try to control it like organized religion usually does. I'm not quite sure there is any significant correlation between belief system and moral relativism, my bet would be that cultural dimensions and individual psychological factors are much more dominant in determining whether morals are upheld in applicable situations. I.e. the French have a certain reputation when it comes to promiscuity and also score high on moral relativism, while the Brits do not and score high on moral universalism. Lastly, even though religious people say they act with moral integrity this doesn't immediately mean they have moral integrity. 

I'm not sure your conclusion follows from the premises you have made. I agree that the receding role of religion has certainly left open some issues which has been inadequately dealt with by civil society or government, and you have pointed to perhaps the most major. However, I do not agree that reverting to a traditional role of religion is the way to go as the disadvantages are too large. Secular society has found better answers to most of the cases heralded by religious institutions in days of yore such as schooling, music, art, taking care of orphans, disabled, elderly, etc, and I would rather advocate strong sexual education combined with a focus on social equality to solve the issue.

For such a lengthy post I'm surprised he's not returned to defend his arguments against the rebuttals here. If he hadn't made such involved claims, I'd readily shout "troll", but I still have my suspicions.

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service