Why does evolution select against atheists?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
Only a heathen could say "too late for him", there is never too late to repent and accept Jesus, there are no jobs which are too tough for Jesus. I'm afraid you gonna burn in hell too, don't type in vain, you are closeted heretic yourself. REPENT I tell ya, on your knee, REPENT and save Gorby from eternal fire, that's your orders. Say NO to Satan who tempts you.
Cougin' it
Up here in Washington state, we have a phrase: "Cougin' it".
It refers to the athletic program at Washington State University, whose mascot is a cougar. We call them, colloquially, "The Cougs". And to "Coug it" means to do what their teams so frequently do: perform well until a critical juncture, and then blow it.
With the advent of Sounders FC, I've been doing something lately that I haven't done in a long time—watching soccer. It's not as boring as most Americans suggest, but if there's a three-point gap, especially at 3-0, at around sixty minutes, I generally turn the game off.
And we all know that can be a mistake. It's not over at seventy minutes with a three point gap.
Watch a Major League Baseball game. At the end of the eighth inning, if the home team is down, a lot of fans start leaving the game.
This is essentially what you're doing.
These societies survive because they are aggressive and inherently covetous. Yet we know from legend and history, and also from contemporary microcosmic representations, that aggressive covetousness eventually fails.
You're looking at a scoreboard in the middle of the game and calling it the final.
You have on the one hand an emerging intellectual maturity, and to the other, a horde of wishful apocalyptics. That the apocalyptics are ahead right now says nothing of the final outcome. Their influence in the United States, for instance, is beginning a waning phase.
I think many atheists are unrealistic insofar as they might imagine a world without religion. This is nearly impossible; we will always have a use for myth. However, the fact of this utility does not mean the triumph or even accuracy of any given mythic representation. The downfall of the current phase of religion is that its most influential representatives hope for the end of the world.
That's the whole point.
Evolution pertains to species. Redemptive religion pertains to the self. That is why redemptive religion will fail, and why it might well take the entire human endeavor with it when it does.
Are religionists proud of Joseph Kony? Osama bin Laden? Are you proud of Israel? Should we just shrug and dismiss the Palestinians, saying, "It's natural selection. There's nothing wrong with that."
There is a reason why religion is popular: it exploits psychological dysfunction and immaturity. Why else do Christians need to condition children to believe? Why else should they devise fake Bibles in order to get children to believe before they find out what a lunatic, genocidal liar their God is? Religion exists in a symbiotic relationship with psychological insecurity: the weakened psyche clings to the religion, thus keeping the religion alive; the religion inspires feelings of empowerment to blunt the effects of that insecurity. Empowerment is the common link between the suicide bomber who praises Allah before he dies, the American Christian bigot who proclaims the good news of Jesus while working so hard to hurt his neighbors, and even those who simply pray for God to take away the alcoholism, or punish the rapist.
Redemptive religion is a self-centered affair. The damage one does to the rest of the world fades away; there is only self and God, and that's all that matters.
Except it isn't. Suicide bombers don't protect the vulnerable, they kill them. Christians routinely reject Jesus Christ. The religious find their religions unsuitable.
Religious people become so set on supremacy that they will destroy what opposes them, even if that opposition is mere disagreement.
If you take a snapshot of today, you might be able to claim that religion won. But neither can religion escape the suffering and destruction that it has visited upon our beleaguered human species. And in its redemptive form, religion aims to destroy everything.
So it seems unwise to call the game over, madam, when the whole plan is to Coug it anyway.
I remember once the stream of people heading for the exits in the eighth. Exhausted, we finally left the game in the fourteenth. We got home in time to catch the end, well after midnight when Mike Cameron sent one over the wall in the bottom of the nineteenth inning. And less than a week ago, the M's and the A's fought for fifteen innings before an errant throw to second brought the game to a thrilling (or heartbreaking, depending on your perspective) end. Check the box score. The Athletics came to the Emerald City, and they Couged it.
And so will the religionists. Look at the development of the Devil in Christianity. In its earliest stage, when Christians sought to separate themselves from the Jews, the Devil was found in Jews. When Christians worked to convert the pagans, the Devil became pagan. And when Christianity was established as the authority, they turned on one another, and the Devil was found in fellow Christians. And often, it still is. The Pope is the Antichrist, hadn't you heard? At least, that's what the Seventh-Day Adventists say. And Southern Baptists are not much fonder of the Roman faith.
They'll fight until there's nobody left to fight. And then that last will slip away unto the glory of God.
The one thing that can compel me to fear for the future of the human species is redemptive monotheism.
I have no idea what the next phase in worldwide religion will be, but the redemptives will destroy everything if they can to make sure we never find out.
S.A.M. said:
Up here in Washington state, we have a phrase: "Cougin' it".
It refers to the athletic program at Washington State University, whose mascot is a cougar. We call them, colloquially, "The Cougs". And to "Coug it" means to do what their teams so frequently do: perform well until a critical juncture, and then blow it.
With the advent of Sounders FC, I've been doing something lately that I haven't done in a long time—watching soccer. It's not as boring as most Americans suggest, but if there's a three-point gap, especially at 3-0, at around sixty minutes, I generally turn the game off.
And we all know that can be a mistake. It's not over at seventy minutes with a three point gap.
Watch a Major League Baseball game. At the end of the eighth inning, if the home team is down, a lot of fans start leaving the game.
This is essentially what you're doing.
These societies survive because they are aggressive and inherently covetous. Yet we know from legend and history, and also from contemporary microcosmic representations, that aggressive covetousness eventually fails.
You're looking at a scoreboard in the middle of the game and calling it the final.
You have on the one hand an emerging intellectual maturity, and to the other, a horde of wishful apocalyptics. That the apocalyptics are ahead right now says nothing of the final outcome. Their influence in the United States, for instance, is beginning a waning phase.
I think many atheists are unrealistic insofar as they might imagine a world without religion. This is nearly impossible; we will always have a use for myth. However, the fact of this utility does not mean the triumph or even accuracy of any given mythic representation. The downfall of the current phase of religion is that its most influential representatives hope for the end of the world.
That's the whole point.
Evolution pertains to species. Redemptive religion pertains to the self. That is why redemptive religion will fail, and why it might well take the entire human endeavor with it when it does.
Are religionists proud of Joseph Kony? Osama bin Laden? Are you proud of Israel? Should we just shrug and dismiss the Palestinians, saying, "It's natural selection. There's nothing wrong with that."
There is a reason why religion is popular: it exploits psychological dysfunction and immaturity. Why else do Christians need to condition children to believe? Why else should they devise fake Bibles in order to get children to believe before they find out what a lunatic, genocidal liar their God is? Religion exists in a symbiotic relationship with psychological insecurity: the weakened psyche clings to the religion, thus keeping the religion alive; the religion inspires feelings of empowerment to blunt the effects of that insecurity. Empowerment is the common link between the suicide bomber who praises Allah before he dies, the American Christian bigot who proclaims the good news of Jesus while working so hard to hurt his neighbors, and even those who simply pray for God to take away the alcoholism, or punish the rapist.
Redemptive religion is a self-centered affair. The damage one does to the rest of the world fades away; there is only self and God, and that's all that matters.
Except it isn't. Suicide bombers don't protect the vulnerable, they kill them. Christians routinely reject Jesus Christ. The religious find their religions unsuitable.
Religious people become so set on supremacy that they will destroy what opposes them, even if that opposition is mere disagreement.
If you take a snapshot of today, you might be able to claim that religion won. But neither can religion escape the suffering and destruction that it has visited upon our beleaguered human species. And in its redemptive form, religion aims to destroy everything.
So it seems unwise to call the game over, madam, when the whole plan is to Coug it anyway.
I remember once the stream of people heading for the exits in the eighth. Exhausted, we finally left the game in the fourteenth. We got home in time to catch the end, well after midnight when Mike Cameron sent one over the wall in the bottom of the nineteenth inning. And less than a week ago, the M's and the A's fought for fifteen innings before an errant throw to second brought the game to a thrilling (or heartbreaking, depending on your perspective) end. Check the box score. The Athletics came to the Emerald City, and they Couged it.
And so will the religionists. Look at the development of the Devil in Christianity. In its earliest stage, when Christians sought to separate themselves from the Jews, the Devil was found in Jews. When Christians worked to convert the pagans, the Devil became pagan. And when Christianity was established as the authority, they turned on one another, and the Devil was found in fellow Christians. And often, it still is. The Pope is the Antichrist, hadn't you heard? At least, that's what the Seventh-Day Adventists say. And Southern Baptists are not much fonder of the Roman faith.
They'll fight until there's nobody left to fight. And then that last will slip away unto the glory of God.
The one thing that can compel me to fear for the future of the human species is redemptive monotheism.
I have no idea what the next phase in worldwide religion will be, but the redemptives will destroy everything if they can to make sure we never find out.
The oldest surviving societies, like Hinduism and the aboriginals are not based based on violence, while being deeply religious.
In fact, it is the so-called "secular" ones, like Greece, Rome, the colonials, the communists and now the liberators, who consider human lives as collateral damages.
I agree with you that violence is a self limiting philosophy and that could be another reason atheists do not form a society that can survive. Its because they are willing to consider the victims who stand in the way of their perfect society as "collateral damages" and keep mum while the bodies pile up.
Consider the number of secular humanists here who are willing to support the bombing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians as collateral damages while going all wild eyed at the "extremist" Afghanis who apparently threaten their way of life, simply by having survived the refugee camps and considering their dying children more valuable than "art".
In fact, it is the so-called "secular" ones, like Greece, Rome, the colonials, the communists and now the liberators, who consider human lives as collateral damages.
I agree with you that violence is a self limiting philosophy and that could be another reason atheists do not form a society that can survive. Its because they are willing to consider the victims who stand in the way of their perfect society as "collateral damages" and keep mum while the bodies pile up.
Consider the number of secular humanists here who are willing to support the bombing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians as collateral damages while going all wild eyed at the "extremist" Afghanis who apparently threaten their way of life, simply by having survived the refugee camps and considering their dying children more valuable than "art".
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
HIndus are not violent? common SAM don't hold us for complete idiots, we do know a thing or two about world around us. Religious Hindu can become crazy, bloodlusting, bigots on extermination mission. Their gods do nothing about it.
If you consider Greece and Rome "secular" you know NOTHING about either. OK, I'm done. Don't forget to learn a thing or two in between typing.
Last edited:
In the first place, the title of your thread implied some kind of evolutionary issue, which would have been interesting, not more of this Social Darwinism shinola that theists in general can't seem to distinguish from evolutionary theory.SAM said:
In the second, we know that you begin by denying that there are any spiritual, religious, long-lived, and atheistic societies - so what you are really asking is why stupid, self-destructive, shortsighted societies with no coherent or organized means of acquiring and expressing wisdom that are famous for falling apart have had comparatively short lifespans, compared with more complex and farsighted societies well fortified with ritual that are famous for longevity. That is a begging of any real question about human culture, or human evolution, or human circumstances.
We have, after all, several recent collapses of strongly theistic societies - Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Yugoslavia, etc - and more teetering on the brink (Mexico is particularly worrisome to the US, as is Iraq), to compare with the atheistic societies that have recently collapsed, if we can think of any. So abstraction is unnecessary. And we have many historical examples - the Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Mayan, Incan, and Ottoman empires, say - of societies famous for religious conversion to theistic belief and known to have collapsed, to check for timing, etc.
And we have several examples of apparently - by their own philosophical analysis - atheistic societies recently overwhelmed by strong theists with overt religious motives and justifications - the Navajo and Paraja and some other Red peoples of the Americas, say. So why did the theists triumph, in Timor, in the Americas, in the Middle East - destroying and replacing whole cultures of hundreds of years?
Or why does every successful tyranny and long-lived despotism involve a priesthood, and in particular one that controls the worship of a male god requiring obedience and submission? Deep questions, these.
Or we could even ask something relevant to the thread title: what are the effects of theistic belief, under what circumstances has it proved beneficial or at least correlated with benefit, and does this matter have any implications for human evolution? But no such question is possible if we begin by identifying theism with wisdom and spirituality.
So a more accurate version of the actual OP question might be: why does everything lasting and good and deep and wise and spiritual in human culture look like theism to a typical Abrahamic theist?
And why does the overt, famous, much-discussed theism of the pilots of the American planes, commanders of the American forces, policy setters of the American imperialism in the Middle East, the people who are in physical fact "piling the bodies up", not register on the brain of the typical foreign Abrahamic theist?SAM said:
It's the secular humanists, and especially the atheistic secular humanists (a minority, btw) in the US who have been trying to turn this insane, Deity-inspired, church-based, theism ridden, religiously justified bloody ship around. And ignorant, arrogant, simpleminded and bigoted foreigners like you bite the hands we put on the wheel.
I see religion serving to purposes.
One is epistological, and a product of how social we are. We tend to look for patterns, and see them even when they aren't there. This is the basis of superstition, and, historically, missing patterns was probably more costly to our ancestors than having to worship facing a giant black rock five times a day. We anthropomorphize everything, since it is a very useful way to predict how other people work, and, to a lesser extent, the universe.
The other reason is a social one- humans have greatly increased fitness in large social groups. Religion provides both a way for unrelated people in a group to get along, while at the same time providing them a way to slaughter other groups without pause. It essentially widens social ingroups so you can plunder outgroups more efficiently and ruthlessly.
Religiosity also provides an easy way for social groups to be directed and controlled. Since the fitness in human social groups is almost entirely derivative of our co-operative nature, anything that contributes to further co-operation within an ingroup will be selected for. Relatively little needs to be said about what a powerful force religiosity is for devaluing human life and individuality for the benefit of the group.
One is epistological, and a product of how social we are. We tend to look for patterns, and see them even when they aren't there. This is the basis of superstition, and, historically, missing patterns was probably more costly to our ancestors than having to worship facing a giant black rock five times a day. We anthropomorphize everything, since it is a very useful way to predict how other people work, and, to a lesser extent, the universe.
The other reason is a social one- humans have greatly increased fitness in large social groups. Religion provides both a way for unrelated people in a group to get along, while at the same time providing them a way to slaughter other groups without pause. It essentially widens social ingroups so you can plunder outgroups more efficiently and ruthlessly.
Religiosity also provides an easy way for social groups to be directed and controlled. Since the fitness in human social groups is almost entirely derivative of our co-operative nature, anything that contributes to further co-operation within an ingroup will be selected for. Relatively little needs to be said about what a powerful force religiosity is for devaluing human life and individuality for the benefit of the group.
The entire world runs, largely, on Greek thought and Roman law. I would say, as far as societies that don't suck (African, Muslim, and some Asian ones), the Greeks and Romans had immense influence. All societies are now, to some degree, "Greek and Roman." At least the ones you or I would want to live in.
Consider the number of Muslims willing to have their daughters gang raped for having the misfortune of being raped, or murdering their wives for appearing on television, or blowing their kids up for Allah.
Which Greek thought and Roman law is that?
Yes, please do consider it. I'll guarantee, having lived in such societies, that if you do away with the hype, the low numbers of such will be quite surprising. Far far below those who beat and rape their children in the US. Or cook and eat their significant others. Like Daniel Pearl vs the 500,000 children, the focus on the dramatic overlooks the reality of the facts on the ground.
www.wikipedia.org
Look it up yourself. You're too old to be spoonfed what you should already know.
And you'll find that the number of atheistic atrocities pale in comparison to the number of people killed for God every day.
As far as I know, no Islamic society keeps even approximately accurate statistics on domestic abuse, or any kind of sexual behavior.SAM said:
And if comparing the US stats with, say, Saudi Arabia's, consider that many - some would say all - women in such a country have been subjected to legal coercion that in the US would be criminal domestic abuse.
The rates of sexual crime and domestic abuse among Muslims immigrants to the US are fairly high, especially considering their economic and other demographic stats. The same pattern is found wherever Middle Eastern Muslims immigrate to countries that investigate and keep reasonably accurate records of such behaviors - Sweden, Denmark, England, Germany, etc.
If I as an atheist has to argue with a theist about who kills who then I am most certain that evolution is not being selective. It's sad because I was kind of hoping there was something there even though I shudder to think that theists are nature's choice. All I want in life is to walk down Main St. anywhere in the world and not be subject to hate, bias, bigotry, segregation, degradation, punishment and religion just because I don't believe in a god. If atheism is recessive then I'm awfully glad I am one just so I can point out to the chosen (nature's or god's) that I am quite able to deal with this without firing a shot in anger.
/shrug
Why would I bother supporting anything in any sort of, eh, discussion with you? You're a liar. You're not worth the work of typing something into a search engine and linking to.
As long as you're living in my country, you may as well take some time and learn about the culture that invented everything you use. Though more ironically, you'd never be a humanist if it weren't for secular Western humanists. Haha, you're religious beliefs are wrong, not just in the context of reality, but by the bizarre standards of your own religion. Hahaha, that's funny.
Don't be obtuse, SAM. More people get killed every day by religious whackos like yourself than executed by Big Brother.
I've found that however atheistic you are when you're young, you tend to become more religious as you get older and (presumably) closer to God. Look at the philosophical progression of Bertrand Russell's writings, for one. As for atheistic societies, they might last for a lifetime, as the Soviet Union did--but eventually they fall. I don't think Human nature is designed to deal with the idea of life without some sort of power beyond our own--some sort of hope, however frail and forlorn, that there might be some eternal world beyond the inescapable gate of death. The wish for eternal continuance is very strong in the Human psyche, and the perceived need to return and right wrongs that have been done in one's life is also a powerful motif of most religions.