Why does evolution select against atheists?

[superstring01]

Huh. I never thought of you as a religious man, Tiassa. Nothing negative implied. Your posts, in general, scream, "secular humanist", which you may be, but most secular humanists these days are at least agnostic.

~String

PS-- I finished "The God Delusion" a few weeks ago and I thought it was a brilliant work. Dawkins takes a lot on himself, but his points about the ridiculousness of most religions are spot on.

 

[glaucon]

It would seem that atheistic societies are self limiting, they shrink, do not replace their populations, then are overwhelmed by theistic societies.

Problematic elements to your premisses:

Define "seem".
Define "atheistic societ(y)".
Define "theistic societ(y)".

It appears to me that these groups you're making use of have never, and don't exist.

What makes atheistic societies self limiting?

The few generally do suffer to the benefit of the many.
See, the problem with your argument is that you're attributing to evolutionary processes some sort of discriminatory power.

Remember: it is entirely probable that a mutation can occur within a species that would benefit its survival to the extent that it could thereby dominate its environment, but this does not mean that it will therefore do such. Selection of characteristics favours efficacy in the development of progeny more so than utility (be it perceived or real).

 

[jpappl]

SAM,

So clubbing on head is okay with you?

I meant when we treat our fellow humans? Under what circumstances?

Eg if I were to say that my aim is to see the end of atheism in society, that even one atheist is one too many, what would be your decent response?

Obviously you are twisting my words and my meaning. Please treat me as I am treating you.

The head clubbing is not ok, however, what is perfectly understood is that actions have consequences. In this case, those who see the result of one man sleeping with anothers wife understood that it is a risk that comes with a negative consequence if caught.

The thing no religion or any matter of teaching of morals in a society can and never will control is the desire, the instinct. Therefore as long as there are people on this earth there will be men and women who break these LONG evolved taboos and will in various ways suffer the consequence.

That is what religion has been trying desperately to fight and FIX. It can't and so is a failure. It can't stop/FIX our sexual and other human instincts and we don't need it to teach us right from wrong. These rights and wrongs are self-evident and WE create LAWS to address them. It has always viewed humankind as imperfect and in need of repair. It wants to somehow separate us from the animals and their instincts, unable to realize that it can't and never will.

With regards to your last statement. My response would be based on your actions to create your nirvana. If it is peaceful and an attempt to discuss and win in debate then my response would be likewise, of course if it is to wipe us from the face of the earth in any manner possible than I would do what I could to defend myself.

Which appears to be your extreme animosity towards anyone who is an atheist. You obviously feel that you have been wronged, misjudged or it may be that you are insecure about your beliefs and seek to strengthen them by convincing yourself that the other side is truly evil. We aren't and neither are most people who are religious. If that was the case we wouldn't be here right now. Like I said, there are good and bad people of all faiths.

Since I am not a strong atheist but an agnostic who does not believe in but can not prove god does not exist I guess I would be safe from your cleansing. No ?

 

[iceaura]

I was just informing SIASL that he can educate himself on the effects of the disintegrating family unit. Its a pretty hot topic in some circles, all of which happen to be theistic.

And being theistic, tend to overlook Marxist and other non-theistic approaches to the corporate and authoritarian assault on family values - or their own malign effects on familial relations. This kind of PR campaign is familiar: Fascism, for example, celebrates family values as a national virtue, and pillories the atheistic secular humanist for their betrayal of "Kinder, Kuche, Kirchen" - but as with theocracy, fascist governance imposes degradations on actual families.

I've seen how athiests are left free to attack theists here and how theists' complaints are ignored.

Not because they are theist's.

Atheists at Sciforums should just say, "Fuck Richard Dawkins". They need to go read well-written, conscientious history about the development of religion.

I haven't been around that long, maybe, but in my time it's been the theists here who have hung the discussions with their take on Dawkins. It's fine for me to have read conscientious, well-written histories about the development of religion, such as Armstrong's, but I've never found a use for them in any discussion with a theist around here - around here, even the concept of a spiritual life without a deity is impossible, let alone an informed discussion of the emergence of deity and its effects on human culture, human civilization, human life.

We're stuck on obsessively misrepresented Dawkins, on the atheism of all evildoers, on the bizarre revisions of history necessary in avoiding otherwise obvious implications, until the theists get a clue, regardless of the behavior of the atheists.

You are surely correct in your irritation and dismissal of the baiting, the slander, the intemperate vocabulary, and so forth, from the prevalent atheists here. Discourtesy is far more than skin deep. But IMHO you overestimate the local theists, if you think greater civility and compassion from the atheist side would deepen the discussion in general.

This will still be the standard on the table:

When the Jews abandoned their religion, they came up with Zionism. They replaced Tikun Olam with racial ethnocracy and murdered people for land and resources. Now they bulldoze homes orchards and chickens to prove their moral superiority.

Atheism is incompatible with civil society.
- - -
Really? Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism was an atheist. This is not a secret.
- - -
Zionism is. Jews have been around for 2000 years before atheism destroyed their beliefs.
- - - -
The Zionists who made aliya initially were all Labour Zionists most of them communists and hence essentially atheists.
- - -

Now: compassion's role in responding to that would be what, exactly? And that's the norm, uninvited - the high side of it. The low side is much worse, and no more provoked.

 

[S.A.M.]

@jappl

I was just wondering if I would ever see any atheist point out the intolerance of other atheist as unacceptable. Clearly you felt the need to sermonize me for saying almost exactly what Q said. I noticed you did not feel the need to point out his insecurity and I wondered what you would say to me.

 

[Tiassa]

It's not really that tough, so what's your problem?

Moral action is often logical, but often not. Is there a moral calculus? I think we have to use personal judgment. The problem is no one wants to face the consequences of their actions, to they defer the hard questions to some authority, it's lazy. My point of view is that morality never did come from religion, it came from our personal judgment as social animals.

The question is not, in and of itself, a particularly difficult one: What is the foundation of your moral outlook?

Are atheists amoral? I don't think so, else they wouldn't appeal to the damage caused by redemptive monotheism. So we have all these atheists, all these individuals, with moral structures about themselves, unwilling to reveal any aspect thereof.

I don't have a problem with zeal. Never did. I am evangelist for things that make sense, for things that have evidence.

Yes, but you're religious the way a Green Bay Cheesehead is religious.

I don't much give a damn what fool things people believe, just don't force them on me through such notions as the US being a "christian nation" or that morality can only come from an authoritative book on morals (that happens to be full of hypocrisy).

You live in society, Spidergoat. Get used to that fact. Deal with it.

He's brilliant, polite, and kicks the ass of the religious every time he debates them.

Kicking the ass of a retarded kid is just as easy, but it ain't right.

I don't think I'm being thuggish, but I guess no one is supposed to question religion the same way we question everything else.

You're the one who is—

"Of course, posting here is about my personal satisfaction. I'm under no pretense that I'm trying to do good, or change society. Religion has much to answer for, it deserves the bashing it gets.​

—out on a vendetta.

It's kind of like the question of whether you fight a guy to stop a wrong from taking place, or just for the satisfaction of kicking someone's ass. You reject the former, embrace the latter. That's certainly thuggish.

About what?

About their asserted connection between atheism and a lack of morality. You're exemplifying it with your crusade.

They love an enemy, that's what religion is all about, creating an in-group, and an out-group, so you can feel loved and superior.

And so you're doing the same thing in return. Do you really think you can beat the faith out of these people? Oh, that's right. You're not interested even in that. You're just out to whoop some ass.

I don't hate individual religious people, in fact most of my friends are religious of one form or another.

Good for you, sweetheart. That and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

I know that people have their own unique life story, and that religion may fit with them, it may work. I also don't expect much from society in general, so, so what if people believe crazy shit... I'm just here to say it's crazy shit.

And it is certainly empowering to keep saying so, isn't it? No wonder you don't actually want to change anything. It's a lot easier to just keep screaming.

Still don't know what the hell you're talking about.

It's a nice fallback position, isn't it? Too bad you're utterly incapable of supporting it.

• • •​

I never thought of you as a religious man, Tiassa.

I'm not especially religious. I gave up my last religion years ago.

It's to the point these days that I look at religion much as I do art. More specifically, it's a form of mass performance art. Observing the phenomenon one sees representations much akin to painting, literature, and drama.

As to agnosticism, I don't bother with the label. I long ago found a definition of God that I could accept, so I don't call myself an atheist. It's a notion of God without consequences. Philosophically and metaphysically, the only true statement that can be made about God is two words long: God is.

Not, "God exists."

God is.

You'll find hints of it in history. The Unmoved Mover, for instance.

The end result is that "God" becomes a word that describes the whole of everything. And it works well enough. At three letters and one syllable, it seems rather ... what's the word? ... concise. It's certainly easier to say than, "Everything that is, ever was, and ever will be, as well as potential and impossibility alike".

Dawkins takes a lot on himself, but his points about the ridiculousness of most religions are spot on.

Dawkins is good at pointing out obvious flaws, but I'm not especially impressed with his psychological and anthropological overview of the histories of God and religion.

In these debates, I often feel stuck on a precarious middle ground. Religionists—especially redemptive monotheists—are a destructive force, but the atheistic response isn't doing a hell of a lot better.

Take Spidergoat's self-proclaimed vendetta, for instance. In the end, it's just more of the same, and much is risked with little or no potential for gain.

The entire debate ends up sounding like cable news punditry.

 

[superstring01]

I think you'd be described (at least by Dawkins) as a pantheist. A "God is in the firmament... in the face of a newborn baby" kind of guy. But that's just an assumption. Einstein was a pantheist; believing in evolution but referring to "God" in a poetic sense.

Dawkins is good at pointing out obvious flaws, but I'm not especially impressed with his psychological and anthropological overview of the histories of God and religion.

Well, it's kind of Dawkins's job to point out these flaws, don't you think? As to how and why you're not impressed with his views of religions, I'd be interested in hearing them.

The two things I think he gets wrong is in blaming religions for all the bad that has happened, and his zeal for trying to repaint most of the founding fathers as atheists (he even goes so far as to say that if they were born today, they'd be atheist... whatever that means).

The two thing that Dawkins does right is showing how pompous and whiney theists are whenever it comes to their faith and how religions have demanded and received special treatment throughout history.

In these debates, I often feel stuck on a precarious middle ground. Religionists—especially redemptive monotheists—are a destructive force, but the atheistic response isn't doing a hell of a lot better.

Indeed, the history of human suffering would not have been any less had we eschewed religion. People fight over anything and religion has been just a convenient excuse. As to the atheist response, again, I don't think that giving up religion will improve humanity, though I don't think it will hurt it either. Flaws don't go away with the acceptance or rejection of faith.

Take Spidergoat's self-proclaimed vendetta, for instance. In the end, it's just more of the same, and much is risked with little or no potential for gain.

I would agree. I would say, to his point, that Religion has nothing to answer for, people who wield power however, do. Religions are human inventions and merely reflect the human belief system of that era.

~String

 

[Tyler]

I was just wondering if I would ever see any atheist point out the intolerance of other atheist as unacceptable.

I'm pretty sure in one of these recent threads I specifically argued on your side about how it's impossible to ignore the Soviet fuck-up as - while not being in the name of atheism - certainly done by many atheists.

But you'll have a hard time, Sam, finding someone to take it in a "well, our bad" sort of way, as most of these people are secular humanists, which is a related field to agnosticism that Stalin and Mao certainly were no part of. Similarly, you wouldn't say "our bad" on behalf of the Crusaders, as you're not a Catholic.

 

[S.A.M.]

I thought we'd decided you were following Tyler's stance.

I'm pointing out that the same atheists who preach tolerance to others frequently overlook the hostility and intolerance of their own. Not a good precedent considering the democides that atheists have generated in this century alone.

Secular humanists who ignore intolerance in themselves and those who also call themselves secular humanists are not very useful.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

I think you'd be described (at least by Dawkins) as a pantheist.

I've also been described according to pantheism's close relative, panentheism. I'm not so picky until it becomes consequential. My official label is Sisyphan Camusite. There's nothing divine or mystic about it, though, so it doesn't necessarily count.

Well, it's kind of Dawkins's job to point out these flaws, don't you think? As to how and why you're not impressed with his views of religions, I'd be interested in hearing them.

It's not just the pointing out of flaws. The Dawkins discussion lacks any sense of understanding what religion is about. If we purport that religion is problematic, we must understand what religion is and its relationship to people before we can measure the dimensions of the problem. This is where most atheistic evangelists fall short.

The two thing that Dawkins does right is showing how pompous and whiney theists are whenever it comes to their faith and how religions have demanded and received special treatment throughout history.

(1) Showing how pompous and whiny theists are is a little bit like explaining that water is wet. It's not a particularly difficult challenge for someone of Dawkins' intellectual stature.

(2) Religions have been the standard through history. This is a long habit to break. If you look at religion through a psychological lens, it quickly becomes clear that unknitting the strands of faith and politics is a long and delicate task.

.... I don't think that giving up religion will improve humanity, though I don't think it will hurt it either

We can't give up religion. Not yet. Not until natural selection does away with that part of our brains. To the other, nature is not extraneous; we can reasonably surmise that the relevant brain functions have a purpose. Whether or not we are fulfilling that purpose is an open question. I would suggest the challenge is to put that function to its proper use. While that means we must figure out what it's for, what needs to happen in the end is that the form of our religion must change.

And even then, we must make sure to keep religion out of the state.

Take Wiccans for example. Sure, there's an afterlife myth, but none of the witches I ever knew actually believed it. And occasionally someone will write a new creation myth. Again, I've never known a witch to actually believe it. Their greatest crime is that they can be annoying sometimes, which comes back to the state. Goddess grant we should never see the pagan revival dominate the culture. Then again, while the recycling and the naming of individual trees might drive people nuts, witches can throw a hell of a party. Hallowe'en, May Day (well, Walpurgisnacht), and Christmas (Yule) would remain intact, and I guarantee you they'd be much more fun than they are now. And nobody would be telling you you're going to Hell. (Although if witches were the state, I'm sure they'd invent a Hell.)

Flaws don't go away with the acceptance or rejection of faith.

No, but the priorities and perspectives prescribed by any given religion are the central question. Christianity has become inherently greedy, with people "doing God's work" in order to impress the Almighty and buy their ticket to Heaven. If they actually paid attention to the Bible instead of just reciting it, maybe things would be different.

.... Religion has nothing to answer for, people who wield power however, do. Religions are human inventions and merely reflect the human belief system of that era.

Um .... Amen?

 

[S.A.M.]

See, the problem with your argument is that you're attributing to evolutionary processes some sort of discriminatory power.

There is one. Its called reproduction.

 

[(Q)]

Don't blame your own personal failures on Christians this time.

LOL.

It often seems as if our atheistic evangelists think it's an easy thing, just drop God like you would toss an empty can in a recycle bin.

Look at them as human beings first, instead of Christians. They're like anyone else. In this case, many don't understand how morality can come about without an establishing authority. Our atheistic fundies make no real attempt to explain this.

That isn't true and you know it.

It's not about making things better when you go about it like that. It's about pride, and petty denunciations to make one feel better about himself.

You're just ranting now.

What the hell are you talking about, (Q)? The question was never about whether or not you or any other atheist should accept supernatural claims. Are you really so self-centered that this is all you can see?

That's what it all boils down to, T.

No, (Q), you're just playing the role of bottom-shelf bigot on this.

Not when a raving lunatic is spewing it in his face.

And you're a moderator?

Just ... try for once, (Q). That's not too much to ask is it? Or is human sympathy off-limits?

But you, you're too wise for that aren't you? You're too good for that, aren't you? By no means should you have to stoop to being honest and trusting in the presence of religious people, should you?

That's just too funny, T. Did your write that while looking in the mirror?

You really appear to be under the delusion that the myths and superstitions held by theists don't affect my life negatively, nor could they care less about it.

Your sense of fair is about as significant as a corpse's sense of life.

Atheistic evangelism has for so long been nothing more than an exercise in psychological self-gratification that it's no wonder many have gone blind.

Now that's rich. You expect atheists just to lie down and take it up the ass on a consistent basis, and like some sophomoric hazing, I'm supposed to yell, "Please sir, may I have another?!"

Goodness, generosity, and genuine kindness are a bit subjective a measure, don't you think? I mean, some people beat their kids or spouse, and believe they're doing it for love. Some people condemn civil rights, and say they're promoting justice. Not every kindness is kind. Not every goodness is good. Not every generosity is generous.

Not every belief warrants acknowledgment, either. Ignorance abounds.

Everything is permitted: Well, what, then, are the boundaries one draws? How does one justify those boundaries? These are the questions our atheists dodged.

No, they are not dodged. They are explained, but ignored

I don't know ... maybe if atheists are supposed to be so much smarter than the superstitious, they could try showing it for once.

They do, time and again, but I guess you're too confused to see that. Clearly, one of the biggest problems facing this issue is childhood indoctrination.

Not as long as atheistic fundamentalists continue to inflame religious people's fears. As I see it, there's a cycle going on like we see in politics. Keep them angry, keep them defensive. That way you can just go on being a complete bigot and never actually have to do anything genuine, honest, or useful.

Utter nonsense, complete emotional drivel.

Let's not forget that you're a hack bigot with zero credibility under the sun. Your atheism is a disgrace to humanity, (Q). It is nothing more than a variation on a toxic theme.

LOL! I'm welling up, T.

Then you will only perpetuate your sorrows. But that's a convenient outcome, isn't it? Because then you can just keep on sacrificing your intellect to hatred.

Considering that theists have perpetuated my sorrows and will continue to do so without any regard for me whatsoever, you're pointless accusations border on idiocy.

So what, then? If you're not going to communicate with ideas, will bullets work any better? Really, what do you suggest if honesty and reason are anathema?

I suggest that as an emotional housewife, you need to stop sitting around on your brains all day and get out and see the world.

 

[jpappl]

Sam,

@jappl

I was just wondering if I would ever see any atheist point out the intolerance of other atheist as unacceptable. Clearly you felt the need to sermonize me for saying almost exactly what Q said. I noticed you did not feel the need to point out his insecurity and I wondered what you would say to me.

His and your insecurities are your own. However, I would certainly defend you if I felt that you were arguing from a "this is what I believe I don't need you to believe it and I accept you for your beliefs" standpoint. But you don't appear to be coming from that position. Q may not as well but I am defending the notion that atheists are evil and are the scourge on society that you claim them to be and please don't say that you haven't claimed that. I have read enough of your posts.

The point being that in a discussion I would defend the neutral position. If you were being attacked for being a Muslim and solely for being a Muslim I would say that is completely out of order and would stand with you. I respect you as an individual and your right to believe in what you want to believe. However, if you make inflammatory statements about others you should expect a response in kind.

So how do you do that. The difficulty is separating the bad atheist from the good, the bad muslims from the good and so on.

It's a very slippery slope and painting with a wide brush is bound to irrate many on the other side.

Sure there are atheists who are intolerant and paint all religious people as nut case wackos, but to say we are all that way is just wrong, plain and simple.

 

[S.A.M.]

However, if you make inflammatory statements about others you should expect a response in kind.

So you're not a proponent of the "right to offend"?

 

[jpappl]

So you're not a proponent of the "right to offend"?

No. Not a proponent.

Just saying if you feel it is your right to offend others than don't expect them to just take the punches without throwing some back.

 

[S.A.M.]

No. Not a proponent.

Just saying if you feel it is your right to offend others than don't expect them to just take the punches without throwing some back.

Then you can see my point in throwing them back.

 

[Enmos]

Then you can see my point in throwing them back.

No, because atheists as a group have never attacked you or your believes.
You are doing exactly the same as people that say that all Muslims are evil because of an insane minority.

 

[jpappl]

Then you can see my point in throwing them back.

Yes, if someone attacked you for being a Muslim. But coming back by attacking them for being an atheist is not productive, even if it makes you feel better. Might as well go on the Jerry Springer show.

I understand that others here have said it's all religions fault for the atrocities and some have said it's all the atheists fault. The absurdity of both statements is clear. There are good people and bad people of all faiths and of no faith and it's not as simple as you want to make it.

It never has been and it never will be.

 

[S.A.M.]

Thats okay, I am directing my remarks to the ones who have. The others should do as they preach and not take it "personally"

After all, there is nothing wrong in discussing any ideology. If some athiests believe that a person is not the sum total of their beliefs then they should be able to discuss their ideologies without getting offended. In fact, other athiests should join me in challenging them instead of floating purple pandas into the mix.

I'm always asked to apologise for what someone does in Saudi Arabia or Sudan. Then its about time the other "moderate" athiests repented for the sins of atheists.

 

[Enmos]

Thats okay, I am directing my remarks to the ones who have. The others should do as they preach and not take it "personally"

And if they don't 'preach' that ?

After all, there is nothing wrong in discussing any ideology. If some athiests believe that a person is not the sum total of their beliefs then they should be able to discuss their ideologies without getting offended. In fact, other athiests should join me in challenging them instead of floating purple pandas into the mix.

Why would they side with you after you insulted them (and continuing to do so) ?

I'm always asked to apologise for what someone does in Saudi Arabia or Sudan.

I certainly didn't.

Then its about time the other "moderate" athiests repented for the sins of atheists.

Why should I ?