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: 6394

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

His arguments are too interesting to be mere trolling. But it's strange he seems no need to rebut our refutations.

Bur he/she/it IS rebutting our refutations, merely choosing whose refutations to rebut.

The low-hanging fruit.

I'm not sure I would call Heather that, but he does seem to prefer her as an audience - I've also noticed that he ignores you and I, and I gotta tell ya, these days, I'm hanging pretty low --

I guess the question is, is theism all that stands between mankind and everything evil and socially wrong-headed.

I don't really think that's the question, but rather if the secularization of society is only a good thing. I think he is pointing a finger at some problem areas which are, though far from wholly, caused by secularism.

This board can some times be a hallelujah-like echo chamber over the evils of religion and the benefits of secularization. Surely, there must be negative aspects also?

Arcus, please identify why there must be negative aspects? 

I didn't state that there had to be issues, but I am highly skeptical to something only being good. It's a pretty big social experiment, plenty of things can go awry.

It's hard to say.  I'm finding the following difficult to express clearly, so you'll have to try just for the gist of what I'm saying:

Secularity tells us what to separate out from government, but it doesn't make as clear a statement on how we should fill any voids which may be created in the process.

My problem with religion in any governmental capacity is that it cannot be rationally appealed once you accept it as a legitimate foundation.  For instance, it is wrong to murder because God said so.  If God say it was right, it would be right, but he didn't, so it isn't.  What am I supposed to do with that?  How can I appeal it?  If murder is truly bad for society, I should be able to make rational arguments for this position even once God is removed.  At that point, anyone can challenge the position as long as they can make a rational argument against it.

I know I'm not saying anything new here, but my point is this:
To ask if there are negatives to secularism in itself basically boils down to asking if there are negatives to removing something irrational and unquestionable as a foundation for government at any level.  

There probably are.  Perhaps it simplifies certain matters or provides peace of mind.  It's just after spending so much of my life weighing the pros and cons of my stance, it feels like considerable backtracking to reevaluating these things without good reason.

I'll go one step further Arcus - I not only agree with you, but I DO state that there have to be issues - I've never known anything in life that was 100% positive except possibly positrons, and I'll bet even they have an off day.

Most, if not all things come with built-in caveats, excess being only one of them.

1) One can never show that atheism 'causes' an increase in promiscuity, one can only find a 'correlation'. That means in theory it is possible that atheism and promiscuity can be detached.

2) Atheism is about whether or not you sincerely believe in the existence of a God. You say you are an atheist, but now that you think that atheism promotes promiscuity can you retroactively change your belief about God? Seems disconnected doesn't it? That's because it is!

3) You are an atheist! Are you helplessly promiscuous? Why is it that you can manage to be atheist and monogamous and others not? Are you superior to others? 

4) Say you are from a religion like Hinduism, which I am sure you are familiar with and you hear of Krishna and his several wives and hundreds of girlfriends, and you tell yourself that what is good for a God is good enough for me. Or you learn of Draupadi being married to 5 brothers all at once (polyandry), and think why should I judge my girlfriend for wanting to be with another man in addition to being with me. Is religion inspiring or deterring polygamy in this case?

5) Even if it true that atheism promotes promiscuity, why is that bad? It is not obvious to me that monogamy necessarily means a better society. The cultural/social conditions under which monogamy was found favorable in the past need no longer hold at some time in the future. It is not objectively true that monogamy is the best of all possible situations! It seems to me that one could have made similar arguments as yours in the past to discourage beliefs that they would see as promoting other 'morally repugnant' things as homosexuality? Do we not now think that the right to marry a person of the same sex is a basic, and self-evident human right?

I encourage you to think a little bigger Mr. Shankar.  Your research on the issue is appreciated, but I am afraid that your moral myopia is preventing progress in this case, nay it seems to be leading to a regression!

Vincent - I already posted on another thread, a statement by a tele-evangelist (which, I don't recall) - a statement I took directly from his video, so it's not an issue of rumor, he said it - that the removal of prayer from school in the '60's contributed directly to the increase in teenage pregnancies. Just because two things happen along the same time line, doesn't necessarily mean that there is any relationship.

RSS

Atheist Sites

Forum

The Movie Kiss: Romance or Rape?

Started by Unseen in Society. Last reply by Cato Rigas 1 hour ago. 68 Replies

Parents: help?

Started by Lee in Advice. Last reply by Cato Rigas 1 hour ago. 9 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Unseen 4 hours ago. 70 Replies

Blog Posts

In Avoidance of Anger

Posted by Pope Beanie on November 27, 2014 at 4:59pm 0 Comments

The plane that never crashed

Posted by Brazillian atheist on November 27, 2014 at 12:17pm 1 Comment

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 umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service