Agnostic.com

19 6

What are atheists for? Hypotheses on the functions of non-belief in the evolution of religion . . . .

The evolutionary function of atheism may be to "catalyze the functional advantages of religion,"

"...as long as atheists do not become too numerous."

[tandfonline.com]

skado 9 Apr 19
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

19 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Who the fuck thinks atheists must have some kind of 'function' and shouldn't become too numerous? That's got to be the demagogic crap I've ever read in my entire adult life.

Scientists, apparently.

@skado Pseudosciensts, perhaps.

@sterlingdean
Shall we take a closer look?
"Science is better than religion.

0

I don't believe that Atheists, and especially Agnostics have anything to explain or te "be for!"
When you come up with a story or an idiology full of unproven nonsense, mixed with stolen universal values then you are the one who needs to provide the proofs. History rarely lies, religions always do!

1

Geez Louise, what a load of batshit that article was.
"Atheists are a phenomenon," bloody hell Skado, Atheists/Atheism was around LONG before the first humans ever dreamed up the first seeds of religions.
You don't think that Believers in Religions, etc, merely jumped down out the trees with our earliest ancestors do you?

I don’t hold any beliefs about it one way or the other, but I am open to whatever the science says, and there’s a good bit of evidence I keep reading about that indicates the roots of those beliefs/attitudes very likely do go back to, and maybe beyond early humans. That doesn’t in any way suggest the beliefs themselves were true; just that holding the beliefs conveyed some survival and/or reproductive benefits.

1

Aw, come on Skado don't tell us you've been snorting the Kool-Aid powder.
Everyone knows that when I was God I created Atheists for the sole purpose of being able to have good, lengthy, in-depth debates and discussions with people who wouldn't merely answer me with the usual " Yes Sir, No Sir, three bags full Sir, garbage....LOL.

0

I agree atheism can have a corrective effect, particularly now.
Today's dominant religions have become outmoded, obsolete, archaic, in other words no longer relevant to the state of human knowledge.
Atheism is the extreme reaction. It challenges each religions core beliefs, and once the preponderence of the evidence reaches a tipping point, I think two things happen almost simultaneously: the dominant religions fight back, defend themselves, and try to adapt (ultimately unsuccessfully), and NEW paradigms begin to slowly but surely develop to replace them.
This is where Agnosticism could play a transitional role, as old-school religions are replaced by new forms performing the same function: analyzing ourselves and our universe and explaining our presence and our purpose.
Of course, atheists would say we HAVE no purpose other than to be born, live, procreate, and die.
Agnosticists, on the other hand, think there's possibly much more to it than that, and given the apparent need innate in human beings, search for more effective ways to discover what that is.
Obviously yesterday's 'holy books' are inadequate. I'd argue raw scientific data is also, while a superior foundation compared to centuries-old fables, an incomplete picture, given all we either know or suspect.
This is because with each new step up in sophistication, new questions are raised. When we learned the Earth revolves around the sun, that realization opened up the door to a brand new set of inquiries. And so on with each new discovery.
So this is why I believe while atheism can serve a useful role, it is Agnosticism which is more suitable to channeling our intellectual energies in the most useful directions.

2

There is always a need for those who prevent abuses of religion

bobwjr Level 10 Apr 19, 2020
0

I only read the abstract, but I am impressed with the basic ideas. The author makes it clear that he is not talking just about officially declared atheism, but rather about anyone who tends to be skeptical and doubtful. I can see where skeptics might be very valuable to a tribe in certain ways, to give balance and to lead in new ways of thinking and behaving, new inventions. Society needs a few skeptics, but to survive in many environments requires teamwork and unity. Too many skeptics might be dangerous to the group.

That same principle is at work right now in society, especially in business settings where a patient and unquestioning workforce means high productivity, but where a few independent thinkers can help guide future policy.

I agree very much with Fernapple. I don’t think there are specific genes for every human characteristic. There might be a genetic tendency toward independent thought and behavior though, and also toward group adherence and behavior. We have conscious awareness and free will and can forge new paths.

2

Holy begginig the question Batman!

Stopped reading after "What are atheist for?" As this introduction asserts atheists have a specified purpose. Assumed (based on the comments below (more value then the article and link)) this post was nothing more then a absolute wo-wo garbage.

Reading the comment below confirms my conclusion.

3

Atheism is a scientific viewpoint. Theism is superstition gone out of control.

How is atheism a "scientific viewpoint?"
It seems to me it has nothing to do with science, other than the fact that school of thought correctly points out much of religion's claims are unscientific.
But atheism itself is not 'proven' or 'disproven' by science.
Atheists cannot use science to bolster their assertion life is either an accident and/or meaningless, for example.
If anything, atheism is, like religion, an science-neutral belief system for which there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever.

@Storm1752 ummm, what? Of course we can!

@Storm1752 I was born into a Moron (oops, Mormon) family and was brainwashed to believe everything the church leaders taught, not because it made sense, but on blind faith alone. In the public schools, I learned how to think scientifically. Still, it wasn't until my late 20's before I decided to examine the scriptures scientifically in order to prove to my skeptical friends that Moronism (oops, Mormonism) was true. Instead of proving it true, I found false prophecies, contradictions, and stories that went against scientific knowledge. I discovered, then, that Moronism and its scriptures (including the Bible) were false. This I discovered because I understood science, and how to prove things with facts and evidence -- not just blind faith. It was because of science, then, that I became an atheist. Atheism is much more in sync with science than theism is. I now understand, thanks to my researh, that religion is just a scam based on mythology.

Is it still possible that god(s) exist(s)? Yes. I have not conclusively disproved the existence of god(s). But I have proved that the Bible is not trustworthy. Therefore, I give no credence to the god(s) described therein. I require facts and evidence. I have asked people of various religions to prove the existence of gods, and they have always failed in their efforts. Until I see evidence, I am an atheist. Thank you, science!

@Storm1752 Atheists/Atheism, to my understanding and knowledge TRUST in things proven, tangible, Logical, etc, etc, they do not, as do religionsand the religious, merely put blind faith in what they are told.
The 'Kool-Aid' of religion often dulls the mind and robs one of the inner senses of logic and reasoning, etc, etc, whereas the Vitamin boosts of Atheism stimulate and enhance almost everything and anything.

3

I just woke up, put the coffee on and read this post. I immediately thought to myself, as I often do, What can I do to make religion better, today? Tax it was my first idea but I haven't had my coffee yet, so who knows what other wonderful ideas to help religion become better will come before the day is done?

I agree: taxing religions is a good idea. As any successful business enterprise, mega-churches should contribute their fair share.
Of course, the majority of churches are practically empty, so they could not be taxed because they have no taxable income.

@Storm1752 They can pay property tax the same as everybody else and if the space is underutilized they can expand their operations into areas like day care or other community services that require a fee.
Alternatively, they can sell off properties that they obtained for free and built with donated funds, this way they could reduce their overhead and improve their balance sheet, just like any other commercial enterprise would do.

@ToolGuy Since government is the people's business, it should be run in a fiscally responsible manner that provides for the necessities of the people who are essentially the shareholders and should provide for future contingencies, as any prudent business would. In reality, government is a venture that has been co-opted by a few elites that want all the other shareholders to pay for everything and at the same time reap almost none of the benefits; super elites, religions and multi-national corporations would be the main members of this 'elite class' although their motives and intentions are far from noble.

@ToolGuy I have to level with you, I almost never follow up on the posts that you share. I recognized early on that we have very widely differing opinions and that I don't have the time to waste chasing every rabbit down your preferred rabbit holes. I respect that you have different opinions but I don't have to follow them anymore than you need to follow my opinions. Be safe and be well.

@ToolGuy Okay, I'm good with that. Have a great day.

@ToolGuy Don't get all personal about it, I enjoy your posts as well but I don't always want to go reading every link that you post either. I prefer to be a Lobo but wind up being cast into the Alpha role by necessity. I'm much happier going my own way and doing my own thing, it's just my nature.

@ToolGuy There you go again, let's break up but we can still be friends, okee dokee?

@Storm1752 ONLY empty IF they are observing and obeying the Social Distancing regulations that are, at present, in action due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, otherwise they'd be full to the rafters and literally raking in the money as usual.

2

You have to go look at the linked paper which I'm not sure many are reading. TL;DR it assumes the research indicating there maybe a "god gene" is true and humans are evolved to be theistic. Then it asks "but why then do we still have atheists" and examines what the benefits of atheism are.

[tandfonline.com]

If by 'god gene' they mean a 'stupidity gene' then I agree and I see plenty of evidence wandering around in the world each day, an over abundance even.

Nonsense.
It's should go without saying once we became aware of ourselves and our world--unique among animals (due to the infusion of alien DNA)--we were going to wonder who we were and where we came from!
THAT'S where religion came in.
There's no "theistic gene," but there IS a completely natural need for us to explain our own existence.
Religion no longer satisfies that need for many people (unless they're brain dead or willfully ignorant), so they are increasingly looking for answers elsewhere.
A genetically-generated theistic predisposition toward religion is a ridiculous joke, if you will excuse my bluntness.

5

"The evolutionary function of atheism"???!!!!!!
This phrase shows a truly foolish "understanding" of evolution, as in, no idea WTH it actually is. Move along, nothing to see....

2

I could happily indulge in a bullshit comment like most of the honorable members here.

But being the pain in the behind that I am, and just for the sake of pedantry, I will bother to add that. Genetic determinism is a real thing, but one which should not be taken too far. Genetics only specifies vague preferences, such as laziness or hyperactivity, from which our other cultural preferences grow as emergent technological devices. We did not evolve a preference for playing golf, there is no gene for golfing, and certainly, some people did not evolve a preference for golf, so that there would be an undiluted pool of more active persons available to play soccer, and thus raise the quality of football as a game.

6

Complete bullshit. Get the shovel. rolls eyes

0

I don't think the writer understands natural selection but maybe he has accidentally hit on something. Religious fundamentalists tend to have more children, examples are orthodox Jews in Israel and fundamentalist Christians in America so maybe the numbers are increasing more than they should be.

4

What is anything for? Silly unanswerable question, which means any answer is silly.

g

3

What a load of crap!

3

LOL
Hilarious.

4

An explosion of recent research suggests that religious beliefs and behaviors are universal, arise from deep-seated cognitive mechanisms, and were favored by natural selection over human evolutionary history.

I stopped reading at the first sentence above. This is because I do not believe that woo and superstition were favored by natural selection. Instead I believe that they came out of a quest for knowledge and a desire to know what cannot be known. This is wrapped in the security blanket of universal religions. It means to me that all the atheist is doing is challenging those beliefs.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:486393
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.