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.
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:
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?]
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.
While I hear this argument a lot from atheists, I really don't think even a Christian thinks "I'll just rob/abuse/kill and give confession to wipe the slate clean." No, that is not how people think. Why? Because Christians believe in an all-knowing God who knows not only your deeds but your thoughts and intentions and expects confession to be sincere.
I think the problem with this article is that he is putting Atheism into the same category as religion and needs to be stopped. Atheism is just not believing in god(s). To say that Atheism promotes anything other than reason and logic in life is ignorant and misinformed. If he wants to leave Atheism, he can, but he needs to know that Atheism is not a religion.
How does the "There's no God, Relax" campaign target people who have made bad choices and/or have been sexually irresponsible? That's ridiculous.
I do believe religious people are far more immoral, irresponsible and definitely more hypocritical than Atheists.
Certainly, what religions class as promiscuity - I do not - used to be married, and the circumstances have coloured my opinion. He was catholic, he and his mother went to church every Sunday, etc. etc. ditched the wife and kids, dead beat dad. xianity nor marriage does not protect anybody from being abandoned - and in my experiences with xians, they are the worst cheaters, dumpers, charlatans, liars and immoral cowards. There are so many of them, they have numerous dating sites, after they have divorced. Hypocrites personified.
The ones who suffer are the beta males - the ones who have been GENETICALLY locked out, because they are simply inferior. So you think females should have someone who is inferior, siring their children?
Promiscuity is the leading cause of single motherhood - more crap - the leading cause of single motherhood, are fathers cheating, leaving, not supporting their family, ditching the wife and kids, also known as dead beat dads. Of course, women cheat, but they do it for different reasons. Just as many christian men watch porn as Atheists, America being one of the porn capitals of the world, a christian country.
Just because a female becomes pregnant, keeping in mind, this is not a miracle pregnancy - does not make her , in your words, 'promiscuous'. What is your definition of promiscuous - it is not in my vocabulary - it is a lack of knowledge, especially for girls, who don't understand the testosterone drive of the male, and will go weak at the knees as soon as anybody says I love you -
MEN TELL CHICKS WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR!
Knowledge is power, that is what is missing in todays civilized societies, where the church will not allow sex education.
Forewarned is forearmed - tell kids from as young as four or five, what nature is about, what birth is about, and when ready, tell them about intercourse. Education and information is the key to babies having babies. Make both male and female knowledgeable, they will be more confident, and not fear the other sex.
A true, working polygamous community is the one that works well - the best genetic material available, when women do not have to rely on the male to support them while having children, when the women can go to work, education, or staying at home looking after the kids - that is how polygamy is supposed to work.
But no, you now have the mormons, old men marrying young gils, pregnant at fourteen - that is polygamy today. Or in muslim communities, where the women are kept at home, no education, not going out for any reason without male accompaniment, repressed and psychologically damaged.
Single mothers used to be left in a ditch - therefore
Single motherhood produces 2 to 10 times more likely to suffer from etc. etc.
Only because society did not step up. Education is the key - keep young mothers at school, or help them get a job, generally support them. The talent that is being wasted, just because a girl had a baby, is disgraceful.
Sexually transmitted diseases - wear a condom, every time. Education.
When a woman, say in a tribal setting, is pregnant, all the woman help, they have been there, done that, the wise ones.
Hopefully, society is starting to catch up, allowing pregnant and new mothers to go back to school, the days of taking babies away is, at least in Australia, long gone - women are now being supported like never before, the result, less pregnancies, less single mothers.
Atheism promotes promiscuity - Nooowww, you are really stretching it - by the by, I don't think you are an Atheist, you are a closet christian, or still have remnants of a past xian life.
I would pitch an Atheists morals against christian morals any day.
Promiscuity is because the church restricts because the church is old and stupid. Noooo - because the church will not allow education about sexuality - by the by, one of the results being the sodomisng of hundreds of thousands of children, by thousands of priests, lets not go to what frigging islamist's are doing to it's women - AAAAAgggghhhhhh - it breaks my heart.
Can you point links to me about prominent Atheists condemning promiscuity? What is promiscuity? What is your fear of sex - very sad.
There is a strong correlation between divorce risk and low IQ. - Noooo - it is because men are polygamous by nature - it takes a strong bloke not to have sex outside a relationship - I am not married, and have a delightful, fun, happy relationship for, hmmmm 30 years. Would not get married again, it proved nothing, certainly not security.
Is the Atheist movement willing to take up the mangle/mantle of promoting social morality from the church after slaying it? Atheists are not scared of sex, which is your problem, and religions problem. Talk about it, explain it, being in darkness promotes fear, knowledge takes away the fear, education is always the key.
Good people are good people, religion doesn't come into it in any way shape or form. the church is full of hypocrites, charlatans, protectors of pedophiles and misogyny - so why do you keep on saying how moral the church is - because it most certainly is not.
RE: "The ones who suffer are the beta males -"
AND: "If enough alpha men are not available, hypergamous females would rather not enter into any relationship at all rather than be with beta men"
If women would prefer no man to Beta men, how would monogamy possibly resolve that? Your entire premise sounds to me like the plaintive cry of the Beta Male --
RE: "When promiscuity is controlled through strictly enforced monogamy"
So you're suggesting, what? - the Morality Police?
RE: "There is a strong correlation between divorce risk and low IQ."
Believe it or not, as you wish, but I have a very high IQ, and as incredible as it may sound (funny story, that --), I've actually been divorced more times than I've been married!
RE: "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."
Which religion would you recommend? The one that tells you to stone your children to death if they curse you, or the one that tells you to kill everyone who doesn't believe as you do?
RE: "In reality, there is no hell or heaven, but there are societal consequences of your choices."
So why not teach that, rather than support a religious philosophy that, by your own admission, abounds in fallacy?
RE: "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."
Sounds to me like you're describing 2000-year old Catholic Confession --
RE: "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."
We all know - at least those of us who have spent any time studying the history of the Bible, that the Bible was not written in the manner that it says it was, by the people who it has been claimed wrote it, and it has been demonstrated and accepted by most reputable biblical scholars, that many of the characters of the Bible were simply invented, and never actually existed. Is it at all possible that someone, or a committee of someones, decided, "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."
RE: "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."
No man practices polygamy who cannot afford to support multiple wives and multiple children - logic dictates that while the "polygamous Taliban," if such is the case, may well be sitting in his home, planning terrorist activities, others - more likely sex-starved Beta males - are carrying out his instructions, while he's safely tending his business, to continue making the money it takes to support multiple wives and children, which he wouldn't be able to otherwise keep.
I have no statistics to back me up, but I have every reason to believe they're out there, if anyone wishes to look for them (the older I get, the fewer frivolities I choose to waste my time on, and spending hours researching, to respond to your points, is not one of those), but I suspect that one will find a direct correlation between sexual repression and aggressiveness. The army of men who "ain't gettin' none" is likely to be far more ferocious that one that is "getting it" regularly - I'm just sayin' --
Here's your "Morality Police" in action:
(CNN) -- Outraged Tunisians took to the streets by the hundreds Tuesday, angrily protesting the treatment of a woman who was allegedly raped by police officers -- and then charged with public indecency when she filed a complaint.
"At best, charging the victim of a rape by police officers instead of protecting her from intimidation and stigma highlights the deep flaws on Tunisian law and criminal justice system," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, deputy Middle East and North Africa program director at Amnesty International.
"At worst, it is an insidious attempt to discredit a rape victim and protect those she accused of raping her."
The case began September 3 when three police officers approached the woman and her fiance while they were in their car in the capital Tunis, the woman's lawyer told Amnesty.
Two of the officers then raped the woman inside the car, while the third took her fiance to a nearby ATM to extort money from him, the woman claimed.
It was only after she filed a complaint against the officers -- and they were charged with rape and extortion -- that the officers said they found the couple in an "immoral position" in the car.
"This case first shocked public opinion since the innocent woman was raped by policemen," said Salah Eddine El Jorshi of the Tunisian League of Human Rights. "But when the verdict was announced, we were shocked even more that they tried to take this to another level by targeting the victim herself."
Authorities have not specified what they meant by "immoral position," but the claim was later repeated by the country's interior ministry, Amnesty said.
The couple was charged with "intentional indecent behavior," which could yield up to six months in prison.
Both have denied the charges. Tuesday's session is the second of what is expected to be several court hearings on the matter.
Interesting! I worked with a fellow from Tunisia for a few years. Now looking back, after telling him off and quiting, that his atitudes to others almost matched the Tunisian authorities. Amazing!
If you've taken nothing else, Shankar, out of what I've said, at least take this:
In saying, "I am going to judge the merit of a social construct on the basis of its usefulness, not on the basis of its truthfulness," you are, in effect, saying that you believe - as eons of religious leaders before you - that Humanity is, on average, too stupid to ever behave in a sensible fashion (though I'm not sure whom you would cite as a decision-maker, as to what constitutes "sensible" behavior), that you feel it is necessary to lie to them, to cause them to fear and feel guilty, in order to elicit that "proper" behavior.
Further, you stress, "there are societal consequences of your choices." I said it above, and I want to stress it again - teach in your schools, that there are societal consequences of your choices, alongside evolution and comparative religions, which should include a lenthy chapter on those who reject all religions and the reasons for doing so. Then, having instilled a sense of societal responsibility, give people the freedom to choose what they wish to do with their lives.
Whether you're raising children or teaching children, you can never dictate morality - the best you can hope for is to lead by example and advice - the child will determine how effective you have been. But a child reared in guilt, lives in shame, and a child raised in fear, lives in fear - instilling either of those in the minds of an innocent child, is, in my opinion, immoral.
A child reared in guilt, lives in shame, and a child raised in fear lives in fear.
It is not only immoral, it is child abuse.
It is unclear how anyone could tell the difference between a sociopathic disturbed male and a A-male. Or if B-males are really all that different. Is there a check list? If I told you my height, IQ, education, and number of times married, or number of degrees, would this help? Or does an A-male really act more like a silver back gorilla, or a crazy with a gun fetish and motorcycle? In short, A-male is a bad boy, just like some women like them! LOL
A-males who are bad boys - the girls they attract are also dumb - and they breed, to produce more of the same - give me geeks and nerds any day.
Sadly, I never owned a motorcycle, but I recently added to my private lab a used spectrophotometer and a time delayed digital camera 4MP! Sexy huh?