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: 6249

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Unseen

I concede several steps. However I put forth a more basic argument, and the onus is on you to disprove it. While I will give a (kind of) proof (of sorts) for it. 

I state : Minimizing the total (death,pain : in that order) in a society is the right thing to do. 

Argument : We are atheists. We don't believe in a sentient higher power.

No living being wants to die. To prove this, you can ask every human, each one will refuse. Start killing any living being. Each one will try to stop it. Right down to a bacterium which will produce neutralizing enzymes.

Those who do want death when they are sober and unpained, will also hate pain. Those who want pain, will not want death.

Since we have no higher power, we have to rely on the "opinions" (instincts for nonhumans) of the denizens of the earth. Every organism, future or present will express the same opinion. None of us are inherently higher than others (even if one thinks so, its just his belief), so we rely on this base of living beings. You will encounter exactly 100% opposition when you ask each organism to die.

So this is my "proof". The burden is on you to disprove my above statement.

@Archeopteryx: What's not clear about anti-darwinist? We rejected survival of the fittest. So we decided we don't just do what comes naturally to us. So arguments of "why not? its natural" for promiscuity don't apply : no one really cares what's natural; that doesn't determine what's right or not.

What's "burying my head in sand" about this?

RE: "We rejected survival of the fittest." - Who is "We"? I certainly don't reject it, and I don't know of any rational person who does.

RE: "What's "burying my head in sand" about this?" - I'd have to say being surrounded by evidence of Darwinian evolution and speaking of being, "anti-darwinist" certainly qualifies.

@Unseen

I concede several steps. However I put forth a more basic argument, and the onus is on you to disprove it. While I will give a (kind of) proof (of sorts) for it.

I state : Minimizing the total (death,pain : in that order) in a society is the right thing to do.

Argument : We are atheists. We don't believe in a sentient higher power.

I thought atheists don't believe in a personal deity (a deity with a human-like personality). However, I don't think God cries out when he stubs his toe, so I'm not sure how many human-like senses he has. 

No living being wants to die. To prove this, you can ask every human, each one will refuse. Start killing any living being. Each one will try to stop it. Right down to a bacterium which will produce neutralizing enzymes.

Those who do want death when they are sober and unpained, will also hate pain. Those who want pain, will not want death.

When it comes to people, that's very simplistic. In Oregon, assisted suicide is legal. Some people who take advantage of it are simply out of reasons to live. They are not necessarily in pain or even depressed. People commit suicides for reasons unknown. Sometimes we know they were depressed, sometimes we don't. Every year seemingly happy people disappear from cruise ships. Psychologists speculate that while some of the disappeared may be depressed or have been murdered, some simply may have a momentary irresistible impulse to jump off the boat! (Of course, on the way down, they probably are thinking "This is a very bad idea.")

That may be true and may not be, but if it is, all cultures I'm aware of, including our own, ultimately place the good of the whole above the wishes and even the life of the individual. (The greatest good for the greatest number can also be formulated this way:"Minorities may have to be screwed over if it benefits the majority".)

Since we have no higher power, we have to rely on the "opinions" (instincts for nonhumans) of the denizens of the earth.

Every organism, future or present will express the same opinion. None of us are inherently higher than others (even if one thinks so, its just his belief), so we rely on this base of living beings. You will encounter exactly 100% opposition when you ask each organism to die.

So this is my "proof". The burden is on you to disprove my above statement.

My assertion has been that ethics are time- and place-based. People's opinions vary from time to time and place to place. One simply has to look at the practices of other cultures in other times to see that that is inescapably true. 

What about the radical Muslim with the explosive vest who goes into a crowded market and detonates it in hopes of landing some virgin tail when he goes to meet Allah? Can you assume that the Mayan sacrifices didn't buy into the idea that they were going to meet the gods? Your view doesn't explain acts of heroism. The soldier who throws his body on the live grenade to save his friends, for example.

I go back to my question: Considering cultures who did things today we think of as wrong or horrific, were they bad people? Certainly, if ethics have an objective basis, it's strange that only today we can perceive it. It's not like some new investigative instrument has been discovered, some moral microscope or ethical calculator.

Ethics and morals are the opinions of a time and place. Some future time and place may look upon us and our widely-held ethical beliefs as primitive and degenerate.

@unseen

"Setting Sparta aside, we still have the Mayan human sacrifice thing. Were they just bad people or did human sacrifice fit into their worldview in a way we simply can't fathom because we can't relate to it?"

Oh I think many of us do it also, but we call it military service or retirement.

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 0 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 3 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 umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service