Why does evolution select against atheists?

[Tyler]

Why limit it to social issues? I'd say sports - for many people - works as a fantastic social bonding agent. Many other things to, sports just happens to be my favourite.

 

[James R]

Generally speaking. In religious societies, divorce is either unheard of or solution of last resort

Again generally speaking, incentives for having more children are seen in secular societies, incentives for having less, in religious ones

Intact families seen more in religious societies than in secular ones.

Now, consider again women's rights.

What rights do women have in religious societies, compared to secular ones? And how might these impact upon the issues you mention above?

Also, which secular societies do you have in mind? Would you regard the USA as secular or religious, for example?

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh, and you ignored it the first time...

1. My parents are atheists. My mother is a strong atheist, my father a weak. (Or, in plain English: my mother believes there is no god, my father doesn't pretend to have such knowledge for or against.)

2. Yes.

3. Yes, one sister.

4. Nope.

5. Not in China, but that's because they don't have such things in China! In Canada I did, yes. My mother does as well. My father doesn't have such things for politics - he's not much interested - but he does for business and sports. My sister is very active politically.

I did not ignore it. You're Jewish atheist, your community considers you Jewish even if you don't believe in God. I assume you're associated with Jewish organisations.

 

[Tyler]

Not for quite some time. I did have some association with a jewish charity raising money for sudan, but other than that I haven't been associated with any jewish social groups.

 

[James R]

Ah of course. because women who have more children have no rights.

Fewer rights, SAM. Did you not know this?

If you live in a repressed religious society (think under the Taliban, for instance), then as a woman you are not allowed an education, you must submit to your husband on command, you aren't allowed a job other than child bearing and child rearing, you have no access to contraception, your body is not your own to control, etc. etc.

The general pattern that is discernable is the more religious the society, the more oppressed are its women, and the more children each women is likely to bear, on average.

If you don't believe me, do a little research. As an educated woman, I would have thought you'd be aware of this already. You owe it to yourself and to other women less fortunate than yourself to educate yourself about this.

Which is why the government gives them inducements to have less children.

Gives who inducements? Which government are you thinking of, in particular?

And women in secular societies have more rights, hence the government gives them inducements to get married and have children.

Which government? Inducements to who, and of what type? Be specific.

 

[S.A.M.]

Now, consider again women's rights.

What rights do women have in religious societies, compared to secular ones? And how might these impact upon the issues you mention above?

Lets see. In India, the secular women manage both home and work and have no energy to look after children. The religious ones stay at home and look after their families and have more children. Rights are quite similar. If they are poor, the ones in secular places like Mumbai scrub floors or collect garbage. If they are rich, they work in industry. The religious men take looking after the family more literally than the secular ones do.

In Saudi Arabia, it is similar. Laws are strict for both men and women. Women are paid the same as men and own their own property and money. They work in institutions where women have an advantage and are seen in lower numbers in institutions where men have an advantage. Regardless, they get automatic maintenancefor themselves and their children from their husbands in case of divorce

Divorce is growing rapidly in secularised places like Mumbai and Jeddah, it is almost unheard of in the more religious parts of the countries.

Also, which secular societies do you have in mind? Would you regard the USA as secular or religious, for example?

No, I don't regard the US as religious. They don't believe in God except at their convenience.

 

[James R]

SAM:

Lets see. In India, the secular women manage both home and work and have no energy to look after children. The religious ones stay at home and look after their families and have more children.

Does choice come into this anywhere? Or are there certain expectations of women?

In Saudi Arabia, it is similar. Laws are strict for both men and women. Women are paid the same as men and own their own property and money. They work in institutions where women have an advantage and are seen in lower numbers in institutions where men have an advantage. Regardless, they get automatic maintenancefor themselves and their children from their husbands in case of divorce

Are the women of the world lining up to migrate to Saudi Arabia, then?

Divorce is growing rapidly in secularised places like Mumbai and Jeddah, it is almost unheard of in the more religious parts of the countries.

What about honour killings and female genital mutilation? How do those stats compare between Mumbai and the more religious parts of the country?

I don't regard the US as religious. They don't believe in God except at their convenience.

They say they do.

Are you saying that some theists are not legitimate? What does it take to be a "real" theist, SAM?

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM:

Does choice come into this anywhere? Or are there certain expectations of women?

The secular women are expected to bring a pay packet, the religious women are expected to stay home,though the latter is not necessarily true, the former almost always is. Few men used to a double income are willing to give a woman the choice to stay at home.
Expectations for women exist in all societies, just as expectations for men do.

Are the women of the world lining up to migrate to Saudi Arabia, then?

No, nor are the women of the world lining up to migrate to <insert your notion of a secular society> Unless you think Mexicans are jumping the border to abandon religion.

What about honour killings and female genital mutilation? How do those stats compare between Mumbai and the more religious parts of the country?

More in Mumbai, than in other parts of the country. Men don't have to answer to their families as much in Mumbai.

Are you saying that some theists are not legitimate? What does it take to be a "real" theist, SAM?

Why, believe in God, of course.

 

[James R]

Do you a "genuine belief in God" spidey sense, SAM, such that you can detect whether people who say they believe in God really do or just do so at their convenience?

Or is there some other way you tell the difference?

 

[S.A.M.]

Like a gaydar but for theists? No. But its easy to know by interacting with people whether their actions support their words. e.g. I can call myself a secular humanist, but if I open threads about lying warmongering Muslims and defend those who torture them, you can bet even money that I'm neither secular nor a humanist.

 

[James R]

It seems to me, SAM, that your argument is circular.

You start by claiming that theists are more family and community oriented, more loving, more friendly, more giving etc. than atheists. But then you go on to argue that anybody who is loving, friendly, giving etc. must be either a closet theist or have residual "brainwashing" that makes them act that way.

In other words, you're assuming what you really ought to be proving.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not at all, I don't think secular humanists who don't support torture are necessarily atheists.

In fact, I have issues with the word secular meaning "without religion". Indians are secular and are not "without religion". People like Richard Dawkins and the guy who made the Mohammed cartoon, or Josef Stalin are not what I would call secular.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Do you have discussions on purple and yellow pandas as a rule?
Do they define your stance or beliefs in anyway?

I don't believe they exist & I don't believe they don't exist.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Education: theism is detrimental to thinking, it strangles the imagination and crushes thinking processes. Theists have fixed notions of what is possible and impose it on education.

Law: theists lack a moral compass and extend this to the legal process by diluting the concept of right or wrong

Marriage: theists have no concept of marital sanctity

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Family: same, they have no reason to maintain family bonds. I would not be surprised if most atheists were either loners or had broken relationships with their familu

Community: atheists have no basis for community, they are individualists.

Your concepts of family & community are not the same as everyone else's.

 

[(Q)]

Atheism undermines social institutions and brings about social collapse.

Really... tell us more about how the non-acceptance of the wide variety of myths and superstitions brings societies to ruins.

Perhaps, you can then learn how the hard core belief in myths and superstitions brings about violence, corruption, war, ignorance, etc. etc. etc.

 

[iceaura]

Atheism does not provide for marriage, responsibility towards the family and children,

Which apparently (since the assertion is impervious to counterexample or observation of inconsistency) is true a priori, so that cultures that do provide for marriage and family and spiritual ritual and so forth are necessarily theistic.

And cultures that provide poorly for marriage, family, etc, (say among certain demographic classes or castes) are not theistic.

In Theist World. Or possibly just Abrahamic Deity World - other theistic types seem less afflicted.

Religion strengthens these institutions and hence the community and increases the possibility not only of survival but also of better conditions that enhance quality of life.

And that is of course presented as an argument for theistic belief - not only its benefits, but its truth.

Just theorising on why atheism does not work as a social institution, in the way that religion does.

Could it be because atheism is not a social institution at all? Just a thought.

My theory is that atheism not only does not create any social institutions but is detrimental to existing ones.

Now there is a real question.Too bad it can't be discussed - examples of the effects of theism on social institutions are impossible to even introduce, because no such introduction ever takes place in Theist World. The social institution without the theism is impossible, unimaginable, and therefore nonexistent.

Education: atheism is detrimental to thinking, it strangles the imagination and crushes lateral thinking processes. Atheists have fixed notions of what is possible and impose it on education.

For example, atheists draw all kinds of conclusions about the necessary consequences of Deity and its absence - such as: a universe without a deity is a "non-causal", spiritual aspects of reality cannot exist without a Deity, all cultures with ritual and spiritual teachings are necessarily theistic, all other admirable cultures share theistic beliefs common to ours and can be described or treated as such without imposing on them, and so forth? And the rigid structuring of education in agreement with the culturally dominant theistic credos, whatever they may be, frees the imagination and encourages lateral thinking - we see that here, in the superior ability of those so educated to imagine cultures different from their own, comprehend theories of origin and progress new to them, and so forth.

Either that, or the typical fundie theist is so accustomed to dealing in utter nonsense without earning disparagement from their intellectual traditions, that they cannot even distinguish the comically absurd and counterfactual from the deep and meaningful in these matters.

Law: atheists lack a moral compass and extend this to the legal process by diluting the concept of right or wrong

Marriage: atheists have no concept of marital sanctity

Family: same, they have no reason to maintain family bonds. I would not be surprised if most atheists were either loners or had broken relationships with their familu

Community: atheists have no basis for community, they are individualists.

These are broad generalisations of course, many atheists are "brainwashed" from having a religious upbringing and its only in their children [or grandchildren, if grandparents have an effect on the children] that we would expect to see the results of atheistic conditioning. Thats assuming they have any.

Normally, blaming the victim is something you are sensitive toward, SAM. But not when we are discussing victims of your religious beliefs as they are translated into real life institutions - the loners, the outcasts, the victims of a culturally dominant fundie theism in practice.

But in addition, we see the mental crippling of theistic indoctrination: atheists have no theistic justification for their morality, therefore their moral compass is invisible to the theist. Atheists have no theistic justification for community bonds, therefore no reason to have any, therefore none visible. No theistic justification, no marital loyalty or family bonds. Atheists even fail to extend the local theist's concepts of right and wrong into the law, thereby showing they have no such concepts. Apparently removing theistic justification from anything is like using that blue screen the TV folks use - it renders the thing invisible to a well-indoctrinated theist.

Its not what I think, its statistics. Secular societies do not reproduce enough to replace their populations.

The only "society" I ever heard disappearing because of failing to reproduce enough to maintain itself was the Shakers - a rigidly theistic group. Secular societies tend to have the opposite problem, at least in recent history - their children survive in such large percentages, and their old people live so long in good health, that they are very quick to overpopulate if they do not find some way of more or less artificially limiting their reproductive rate. They also tend to attract immigrants, especially from strongly theistic societies and other misfortune plagued regions.

No, nor are the women of the world lining up to migrate to <insert your notion of a secular society> Unless you think Mexicans are jumping the border to abandon religion.

They are jumping the border to abandon a strongly theistic society, one with all the benefits you ascribe to theistic belief. As are most other women who are lining up to immigrate to the US, as well as the women who are lining up to immigrate to Spain from Morocco, to Germany from Turkey, to Canada from Pakistan, to Australia from Indonesia, and so forth.

 

[S.A.M.]

Could it be because atheism is not a social institution at all? Just a thought.

Agreed

They are jumping the border to abandon a strongly theistic society, one with all the benefits you ascribe to theistic belief.

Disagree, they are moving because secularism makes the society a weak one where people are unwilling to extend themselves, thus opening it up for immigrants. Its a vacuum that is created in every society that becomes secular.

 

[Roman]

Then we can dismiss your claims as unsupported rhetoric.

Oh the irony:

One of the first casualties of a "secular" society is the family unit. True or False?

False.

Evidence?

Easily proved:

1. Was your family atheist or religious?
2. Are your parents still married to each other?
3. Do you have brothers and sisters?
4. Are you estranged from your family?
5. Do you have membership to a social unit within your community that requires meeting them at least once a week on social issues?

Its not what I think, its statistics. Secular societies do not reproduce enough to replace their populations.

And no, its not unusual at all that parents influence how children perform as a member of society. Like I said, you have to see the children of atheists to see how the conditioning changes.

You are living proof that theists make shitty scientists..

 

[S.A.M.]

You are living proof that theists make shitty scientists..

Ad hominem is not a substitute for argument.