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.
The best way to get rid of them is to pretend to worship Satan. And talk to them in a straight, but caring voice about the Lord of Darkness, and how darkness is truly light, and the path of darkness is the way to truth peace and great power. They will freak out and never bother you again. My brother did something like that.
I usually tell them it was the bible that made me an atheist. I keep thinking one day I'll get someone who has a follow up to that, but so far, just blank stares.
A few months ago the JW came to our door. The first family members to notice was our two puppies all 110lbs of, unfocused joy and love! The puppies where pounding the door trying to get out to 'love' the poor JW woman to death. I opened the door slowly, fighting off the puppies, that were now trying to strip me of my cloths, and said to the poor woman, 'it might be best if I not open the door sorry'. She handed me a JW tract through the door crack, but I refused, then she ran back to the street. For a few seconds I was filled with a fiendish fantasy of opening our door, and releasing the hounds of madness on her, but I did not want a legal assult action filed against us.
I heard one time in Denver one of the atheist activists came home to find A ) their dogs running loose in the neighborhood and B ) A bunch of litter strewn all over their lawn.
On closer investigation, the litter turned out to be hastily-dropped issues of Watchtower magazine.
I think at this point one can reconstruct what happened.....
I have a rather unique strategy for the JW's and it's worked from one end of Canada to the other. The first time they arrive I tell them that my beliefs on religion preclude me from having a conversation with proselytizers of their ilk, so I would like for them to not only refrain from returning, but please add my address to the 'no-soliciting' list of their organization. In three different cities this has resulted in zero repeat visits.
Having been a JW myself (guess I shouldnt say I was ONE bcuz according to their teachings a person is only considered a JW if they have been baptised which wasnt tho I was considered an 'approved associate' but this has since changed and now u must be baptised to go out in 'field service' or call urself a JW) I can tell u that that would work. It is actually taught during 'school ministry' that if someone should outrightly say they do not want u knocking on their door (or any variation of that) u are to try to reach them during that same visit and try to sway them (with man predertemined and well rehearsed responses) and if u are not successful u have to report their name & address so that it is added to the 'do not knock' list.
That said... I have had situations where after telling them they were not welcomed to knock on my door they came again anyway (tho they did know me from previous visits to the meetings so this may have been why my request initially went ignored) it wasnt until they could detect oncoming aggression on my part that they finally stopped knocking on my door.
Some genius of an atheist got rid of them by putting a sign on his front door that said something like "If you wish to preach to me, please pray for this door to disappear and I will hear you if it does." - Apparently... no theist was brave enough even to try. lol
'And pray that the demented weazels do not eat you when you succeed!'
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?"
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.