Moral superiority: Seculars vs Religious

[The Grand Nudger]

You know what might really turn them off to having a debate? Knowing that you're a liar looking for a gotcha.

[Dystopia]

So I was reading "Non-believer Nation" and the writer brought up a number of very good points about the correlation in national population percentages between secularity and religiosity in regards to crime. I knew about the studies in the US, but apparently it's not just in the US; the higher the ratios of secular individuals to religious individuals, the lower the rate of violent crimes, particularly murder and sexual assault.

This strengthens my personal idea that religion could be directly or indirectly considered the cause of most of current world issues human societies face, in the west or everywhere else. Not necessarily one religion or religious institutions, but ideas and actions people have that have their origin rooted in religious principles. To give just one example, Creed, why do you think humans are so taboo when it comes to problems like sex working, human sexuality, prostitution, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, "promiscuous behaviour"...? I'm using the case of sexuality because it allows for an easy explanation of my idea, and it is obvious that the reason we despise discussing human sexuality (on a very broad sense) and solving the issues associated with it (namely an effective rape prevention policy - One that knows rape is mostly caused by social and cultural variables and not "biology"...) is because of religious principles and the idea that humans should be pure and procreation is the only reason for sex. Of course that with time people stop seeing sex as only for procreation, but they still hold a monocultural strict view of how sexuality should exist and work - Now we recognize that gays can marry and people can have sex before marriage, but we still think prostitution is a "sin" and an "immoral" job and that having to much sex partners is universally an "undesirable trait"... What do you think [I'm talking to you Creed] [The word "we" is a reference to human societies]

If one says that "good wholesome Christian values" are a good strong moral backing, how does one explain how the less a national population adheres to those values, the lower the crime rates are?

If it went the other way around, that the more secularization of a population, the more violent the society, I personally would find myself hard-pressed to explain it other than to say "religion must provide peace of mind and culture," but such is not the case.

I think what a theist would reply here is that regardless of crime statistics that doesn't prove god exists or not, and I am of the same opinion - Secularism is correlated with less criminality and better standards of living, however I don't think any of that, regarding the god hypothesis, proves god is wrong - He could as well be an evil sick bastard.

[Zenith]

You know what might really turn them off to having a debate? Knowing that you're a liar looking for a gotcha.

I agree. Anyway, let's leave my 'pretend you're a christian' idea aside.
I should join a christian forum, introduce myself as an atheist and try the question of crime in secular / religious countries, see how it goes. No lying.

[Norman Humann]

I agree. Anyway, let's leave my 'pretend you're a christian' idea aside.
I should join a christian forum, introduce myself as an atheist and try the question of crime in secular / religious countries, see how it goes. No lying.

You will most likely be sent directly to hell. Don't collect 200$ and all that stuff. Just saying.

[Zenith]

This strengthens my personal idea that religion could be directly or indirectly considered the cause of most of current world issues human societies face, in the west or everywhere else. Not necessarily one religion or religious institutions, but ideas and actions people have that have their origin rooted in religious principles. To give just one example, Creed, why do you think humans are so taboo when it comes to problems like sex working, human sexuality, prostitution, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, "promiscuous behaviour"...?

Blackout, I'd like to give my opinion here as well: If you look at the pagans of antiquity before christians and those who were not jews, you will see they had taboos as well. For instance, the ancient greeks, AFAIK had no rights for women, it was only men who had rights. I also don't believe that bible commandments like "if a woman committed adultery, then kill her!" were unnatural for the jews thousands of years ago: a similar view they must have had before, or at least they already despised greatly a woman who did that.

Why think a prostitute is immoral? I'd relate it to our animal instincts, where men want to be the alpha males trying to pass their genes: if your woman is a prostitute / harlot, then you can't trust that her offspring is also yours. If another woman is a prostitute, yes, you'd like to f*ck her, but that's all.

Why is rape a bad thing? If she's married, you wouldn't like to raise some other guy's child; if you're her father, you're concerned she'll remain pregnant and nobody's gonna want to marry her and raise someone else's child. If you wanted to marry her and smb. else raped her, you wouldn't like to raise the child.

Why is gay wrong? (in pagan antiquity the views were diverse) Perhaps because they're not "male enough" - alpha males are the ones who have all the females and thus have much greater chances of passing his genes forward. And perhaps that's why now, when a man sleeps with 10 women he's a hero, while if a woman tells everybody that she slept with 10 men she's a harlot.

Of course, some situations might not conclude now the same as they did thousands of years ago, but the natural instincts are the same.

P.S. Similarly, why is a man who f*cks women frequently appreciated whilst a virgin who can't convince any woman to sleep with him is ridiculous? The former is the "strong one", i.e. the natural selection enlists him to pass his genes forward, whilst the latter is the "weak one", the "inferior one", the one who gets swept away by the natural selection process. And I don't think we have an explanation in the Bible for why we admire one and laugh of the other.

[Dystopia]

Blackout, I'd like to give my opinion here as well: If you look at the pagans of antiquity before christians and those who were not jews, you will see they had taboos as well. For instance, the ancient greeks, AFAIK had no rights for women, it was only men who had rights. I also don't believe that bible commandments like "if a woman committed adultery, then kill her!" were unnatural for the jews thousands of years ago: a similar view they must have had before, or at least they already despised greatly a woman who did that.

When I say "religion" I mean all religion, literally.

Why think a prostitute is immoral? I'd relate it to our animal instincts, where men want to be the alpha males trying to pass their genes: if your woman is a prostitute / harlot, then you can't trust that her offspring is also yours. If another woman is a prostitute, yes, you'd like to f*ck her, but that's all.

Animal instincts? Prove it

Why is rape a bad thing? If she's married, you wouldn't like to raise some other guy's child; if you're her father, you're concerned she'll remain pregnant and nobody's gonna want to marry her and raise someone else's child. If you wanted to marry her and smb. else raped her, you wouldn't like to raise the child.

That's not the reason why we consider rape wrong. And pregnancy isn't even the most relevant occurrence, but you can always prove me wrong.

Why is gay wrong? (in pagan antiquity the views were diverse) Perhaps because they're not "male enough" - alpha males are the ones who have all the females and thus have much greater chances of passing his genes forward. And perhaps that's why now, when a man sleeps with 10 women he's a hero, while if a woman tells everybody that she slept with 10 men she's a harlot.

Masculinity and femininity are social constructed concepts. But if you think this is about genes, prove it.

Of course, some situations might not conclude now the same as they did thousands of years ago, but the natural instincts are the same.

You still have to prove that those natural instincts are enough to specifically justify the social institutions and behaviours you argued about

P.S. Similarly, why is a man who f*cks women frequently appreciated whilst a virgin who can't convince any woman to sleep with him is ridiculous? The former is the "strong one", i.e. the natural selection enlists him to pass his genes forward, whilst the latter is the "weak one", the "inferior one", the one who gets swept away by the natural selection process. And I don't think we have an explanation in the Bible for why we admire one and laugh of the other.

It's called gender double standards and it has a cultural explanation. But if you think this is natural, you can always prove it. I'll wait.

[Nope]

Why think a prostitute is immoral? I'd relate it to our animal instincts, where men want to be the alpha males trying to pass their genes: if your woman is a prostitute / harlot, then you can't trust that her offspring is also yours. If another woman is a prostitute, yes, you'd like to f*ck her, but that's all.

Can I see some studies proving that there are alpha men, also? If it is human instinct for men to want sexually pure mates then all human groups would act the same. The Mosu in China live in groups led by a matriach and children are brought up by their uncle because the Western nuclear family led by mom and dad isn't the ideal

http://www.mosuoproject.org/walking.htm

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articl...awaii.html

I also included a site that discussed the fact that traditional Hawaiian society did not have a negative view of premarital sex

Why is gay wrong? (in pagan antiquity the views were diverse) Perhaps because they're not "male enough" - alpha males are the ones who have all the females and thus have much greater chances of passing his genes forward.

I think that you have been on too many male rights sites. You keep bringing up alpha males. Until relatively recently marriages were usually business contracts so the woman didn't have much say in who became her mate. Because she didn't have much say being an 'alpha male' didn't really have a part in how someone got a mate in Western society

[Dystopia]

Can I see some studies proving that there are alpha men, also? If it is human instinct for men to want sexually pure mates then all human groups would act the same. The Mosu in China live in groups led by a matriach and children are brought up by their uncle because the Western nuclear family led by mom and dad isn't the ideal

There are no alphas or betas. It is made up as much as gods are. Using the argument of pseudo-biology is the only think some people can think of, and it isn't enlightening since there are no consistent or reliable studies on sexual dimorphism that prove differences (neurologically, physically and biological) between genders are enough to justify lumping people into categories of "most likely behaviour" ---> Many things that we still think as natural are truly a result of deeply ingrained cultural and social norms. Because of this, the whole "alpha males" and "manly men" arguments are completely destroyed and the appeal to "nature" as well. I'd also like to add that frequent divergences from those supposedly "natural" patterns prove that it isn't as natural as we think it is.

Edit - And this is an example of an idea that comes from religious principles.

[Nope]

P.S. Similarly, why is a man who f*cks women frequently appreciated whilst a virgin who can't convince any woman to sleep with him is ridiculous? The former is the "strong one", i.e. the natural selection enlists him to pass his genes forward, whilst the latter is the "weak one", the "inferior one", the one who gets swept away by the natural selection process. And I don't think we have an explanation in the Bible for why we admire one and laugh of the other.

It's called gender double standards and it has a cultural explanation. But if you think this is natural, you can always prove it. I'll wait.
[/quote]

If the double standard was instinctive very few people would go against it because it would be hard wired into our systems. The fact that the invention of the pill could change our society's views on female sexuality is proof that the double standard is the result of our culture and not natural to our species.

[Zenith]

Blackout, I'd like to give my opinion here as well: If you look at the pagans of antiquity before christians and those who were not jews, you will see they had taboos as well. For instance, the ancient greeks, AFAIK had no rights for women, it was only men who had rights. I also don't believe that bible commandments like "if a woman committed adultery, then kill her!" were unnatural for the jews thousands of years ago: a similar view they must have had before, or at least they already despised greatly a woman who did that.

When I say "religion" I mean all religion, literally.

It's still not valid: the pagan gods (and thus, in pagan religions) did not give any commandments to people on how to behave and how to treat women, etc. They simply demanded offerings and that was all. It did develop later on, as ideologies started to rise and they were transposed to gods, such as some forms of Buddhism, the belief in "good gods" and "bad goods" - which was borrowed by Judaism / Christianity from the persians, etc.

A more realistic counter argument against my position would be the popular belief that ideologies regarding sex and thus the women's place in society turned against women's favor when agriculture was discovered: it invented private properties, and thus some men ruled over others, and thus began to claim ownership over people and women's rights decreased. Whilst before agriculture, the tribes required that all members contribute to the group for the group to survive, so there was / must have been equality between men and women.

Why think a prostitute is immoral? I'd relate it to our animal instincts, where men want to be the alpha males trying to pass their genes: if your woman is a prostitute / harlot, then you can't trust that her offspring is also yours. If another woman is a prostitute, yes, you'd like to f*ck her, but that's all.

Animal instincts? Prove it

First I want to emphasize that this is a hypothesis that I currently believe and which makes sense for multiple situations.
Second, if you look at various species of animals you will see behaviors where females are submitted to males and the alpha male mates with all the females and so on.
A quick search:
http://www.livescience.com/27921-animal-sex-chimps.html
http://www.livescience.com/48743-aggress...-more.html

"Subordinate males often like to mate in secret, out of the alpha male's sight. If an alpha male catches a coital couple, he may execute a "bluff display," where he charges at the pair"
In other words, the alpha male hates when someone else f*cks with his females.

Why is rape a bad thing? If she's married, you wouldn't like to raise some other guy's child; if you're her father, you're concerned she'll remain pregnant and nobody's gonna want to marry her and raise someone else's child. If you wanted to marry her and smb. else raped her, you wouldn't like to raise the child.

That's not the reason why we consider rape wrong. And pregnancy isn't even the most relevant occurrence, but you can always prove me wrong.

Have you not read what I wrote below? I said,
"Of course, some situations might not conclude now the same as they did thousands of years ago, but the natural instincts are the same."
The evolution does not keep the pace very well with our social and technological developments. If it had kept us up to date with everything, we would no longer have had pubic hair, after all.

Why is gay wrong? (in pagan antiquity the views were diverse) Perhaps because they're not "male enough" - alpha males are the ones who have all the females and thus have much greater chances of passing his genes forward. And perhaps that's why now, when a man sleeps with 10 women he's a hero, while if a woman tells everybody that she slept with 10 men she's a harlot.

Masculinity and femininity are social constructed concepts. But if you think this is about genes, prove it.

You prove that masculinity and femininity are social constructed concepts.
But they are in animal kingdom. And it is the reason a male lion kills a foreign pack's male lion and takes the females as his own later on.
Or perhaps you meant something else?

P.S. Similarly, why is a man who f*cks women frequently appreciated whilst a virgin who can't convince any woman to sleep with him is ridiculous? The former is the "strong one", i.e. the natural selection enlists him to pass his genes forward, whilst the latter is the "weak one", the "inferior one", the one who gets swept away by the natural selection process. And I don't think we have an explanation in the Bible for why we admire one and laugh of the other.

It's called gender double standards and it has a cultural explanation. But if you think this is natural, you can always prove it. I'll wait.

It can also have a natural explanation.

---

There are no alphas or betas.

What I mean, there might have been, and we might still have trails / leftovers from a time we were like that. Or is that impossible?

---

If the double standard was instinctive very few people would go against it because it would be hard wired into our systems. The fact that the invention of the pill could change our society's views on female sexuality is proof that the double standard is the result of our culture and not natural to our species.

There is also another thing that comes to mind, something a bit similar: The belief of one that he lives through your descendants. This is not a belief that everybody shares, but it is quite possible people throughout time believed in it, and it might be a natural incentive for procreation.