Chapter 2

Chapter 2

What Good will atheism do to society?

I.                    Compassionate atheism

But what does it take to be a compassionate person,  maybe if you help others in need or maybe it is the way of what you give is what you get, so let’s go and talk about generosity and what does it take to be one.

I looked at some articles and I stumble upon an article that has some sort of truth about being atheist is an advantage many people believe that if you give something you are automatically

A religious person but it’s not according to “Yasmin Anwar”.” In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the most recent online issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science”. (http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/)

“The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said. In the study, the link between compassion and generosity was found to be stronger for those who identified as being non-religious or less religious”.( http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/)

In a society that has an overwhelming population, poverty and scarcity can’t be avoided and religious person makes a profit out of it, by means of donation and ration they help people but they want money, but research shows that highly religious persons are not that compassionate and generous at what they do for people. According to“Laura Saslow”, “We hypothesized that religion would change how compassion impacts generous behavior”. But they were surprised that non- religious persons inclined in their test, there are three experiments that is conducted for the purpose of finding out how generous and compassionate non-religious people are: (http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/)

In the first experiment, researchers analyzed data from a 2004 national survey of more than 1,300 American adults. Those who agreed with such statements as “When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them” were also more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as loaning out belongings and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train, researchers found.

In the second experiment, 101 American adults watched one of two brief videos, a neutral video or a heartrending one, which showed portraits of children afflicted by poverty. Next, they were each given 10 “lab dollars” and directed to give any amount of that money to a stranger. The least religious participants appeared to be motivated by the emotionally charged video to give more of their money to a stranger.

In the final experiment, more than 200 college students were asked to report how compassionate they felt at that moment. They then played “economic trust games” in which they were given money to share – or not – with a stranger. In one round, they were told that another person playing the game had given a portion of their money to them, and that they were free to reward them by giving back some of the money, which had since doubled in amount.

This goes to show that this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people.

This experiments are done to prove one thing that atheist have the ability to become compassionate even if not being force to do so or not being obliged just because of religion and in this experiment non religious people are more likely have the urge to help others instinctively.

II.                  Atheism is being smart a disadvantage?

Religion seems to be a very difficult term to define; even religious scholars find it hard to explain. In its broad sense though, religion is a complex system of beliefs, practices, and attitudes by which people relate their lives to supernatural beings or principles. There have been many religious beliefs, and some are just extensions of some major religions.

But for some religions become more extreme; and somehow taboo from the eyes of the society. So why do people do this extreme devotion and sacrifice? Maybe simply because preachers persuade them to do that or they are just plain stupid.

"Satoshi kanazawa" is Reader in Management at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Psychology at Birkbeck College, University of London. He has written over 80 articles across the fields of psychology, sociology, political science, economics, anthropology and biology.

He’s article that is widely reported “Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent” (2010). (http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/33) In his article he discussed that intelligent people are more likely composed of liberalism and atheism, but not all are the same from time to time and intelligence is not determined by just being atheism in his research show that most of the time less intelligent people are better at doing most things, however we are required to have the general intelligence, it acts as a common sense for doing some basic things. See (“Evolutionary Psychology and Intelligence Research” by Satoshi Kanazawa, in American Psychologist ;)

In his research he dictated that general intelligence is important in our modern lifestyle, as for schools, jobs and other related thing for basic necessity, so intelligent people are more likely excels in a modern lifestyle however, they lack in some aspects like how to find a wife, or how to raise a child and how to have friends “satoshi kanazawa” explained that “Intelligence does not confer any advantage for solving all the evolutionarily familiar problems” See (Gottfredson, Linda S. (Editor.) 1997. “Special Issue on Intelligence and Social Policy” by Linda S. Gottfredson in Intelligence; Volume 24, Issue 1). (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence)

And in he’s research he said that “humans are born paranoid”, basically he has a point because from the moment a baby is born they start to cry, and maybe because they are wondering where they are, and babies tends to be more curious at times. Humans are designed to see intentional agents behind natural phenomena. But for most times intelligent people are the worst kind parents simply because they are less likely to become parents in the first place. There is also some evidence that children of more intelligent women are more likely to suffer from health and behavioral problems, probably due to the fact that they tend to have children later. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence)

Because reproductive is the goal for all living organism, intelligent people go against this evolutionary path, they tend to make mistakes like having a child in their mid ages. And in his research intelligent men are more likely not to have children but that’s has to be confirm he said and intelligent women prefer intelligent men to be their husband but still he said it’s not confirmed yet.(http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence )

In this study we can see the negative effects of being an atheist, simply because intelligent people are more likely to think in a logical way and most of the time will forget the most important things in life, they usually get side tracked from different things and it will distinguish the general intelligence from the way atheist live their life.  

III.                The real evolution

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

 ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

This is a quote by “Richard Dawkins” one of the renowned atheist in the world, he made many books including the delusion of God, the greatest show on earth, the magic of reality, and the blind watchmaker, this man “Richard Dawkins” he is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author.

He has won countless awards and regularly lectures around the world. He widely accredits Charles Darwin as having a profound influence on his life and work, commenting in an interview with The National Geographic Channel Online that Darwin was “the founder of really everything that I do…whereas some people make a discovery and they stumble upon it, Darwin devoted himself to making his theory clear, to listing all the evidence and spending decades of his life gathering the evidence so no one could doubt it.”(http://natgeotv.com/uk/dawkins-darwin-evolution/dawkins-biography)

I was moved by his research in evolution and how he become the man that everyone know now,

In a article about “why evolution is true” (http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/646837-james-shapiro-goes-after-natural-selection-again-twice-on-huffpo) by “JERRY COYNE” in his post  a man named “James Shapiro” has yet again want to proved that natural selection has little role in the process of creation but what is REAL EVOLUTION it is not like magic that you can generate a new limb at once, it takes time maybe years to produce such things, but we can be assured that evolution is true not because of some words made by a imaginary man, but years of evolving factors, adapting to ones surrounding, making sure that a new species will emerged from the branch of its ancestral path, that is how the evolution goes.

In “jerry Coyne” research he explained how he differentiate the evolutionary factors and he said that natural selection IS NOT a creative process but to put it simply it is the way of making changes from the old species for the new species, making it easier to adapt to surroundings making sure that the species will thrive from that place, and when the time has come, a new breed of species will emerged and take its place, that’s how natural selection has worked for many hundreds of years. (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/james-shapiro-goes-after-natural-selection-again-twice-on-huffpo/)

In his remark “Jerry Coyne” tells “James Shapiro” that “you’re always banging on about new sources of genetic variation, but you never seem quite able to tell us how that variation is translated into adaptive evolution. If it’s not natural selection, what is it?”

(http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/james-shapiro-goes-after-natural-selection-again-twice-on-huffpo/)

People have different perspective on how natural selection is defined, but the main idea here is that some people are just making a deduction that they cant back up with a concrete evidence, as they say to see is to believe, many researcher has proven that natural selection is the way animals or humans can adopt in ones surrounding one become extinct, another species will take it place, thats how it goes, thats how natural selection is.

IV.                The choice

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.

-          Aristotle

 Why would you follow something that you know is wrong? Would you rather follow what is right for you, or would you follow what people wants you do to? Are you in the right path or are you blinded by what you supposed to believed in.

 A man named “Jerry DeWitt” wrote an article about himself being tormented by what he believed in “From Bible-Belt Pastor to Atheist Leader” (http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/646833-from-bible-belt-pastor-to-atheist-leader) his article is solemnly about him becoming an atheist and how he find himself unable to comfort and help a woman named “Natosha Davis” a fellow preacher and a friend being a priest and all, he find the courage to let his true emotion and what he really wants to do to his life, in his article he said that he join a online network named “the clergy project” this online network is created for those clergies that no longer believe in god, through this maybe he can relate to people like him that is telling themselves what are they doing, what are their purpose in life.

 “DeWitt” quickly repurposed his preacher techniques, sharing his reverse-conversion story and his thoughts on “the five stages of disbelief” making it uproar in “free thinker” gathering around the bibles-belt, like Houston and Little Rock; he made a name for himself, people quickly notice him and they begun to seek guidance from being religious doubters from there with the help of “Dawkins” and “Hitchens” he made progress in the atheist world even if he has a “dyslexia”, he prove that even if his a atheist he can still help and make a difference.( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/magazine/from-bible-belt-pastor-to-atheist-leader.html?pagewanted=5&_r=3&smid=go-share)

A man that ones a devoted pastor saw the truth in atheism, because having a religion is not that all bad, but you have a limited point of view because what you see in the bible is the only thing that is right for you, not like being a atheist you have many options in your arsenal you can reason out what you want, you can be what you want to be, you can think freely, make decisions that wont affect others or will not harm others as long as it is in reason. 

V.                  Atheist being Arrogant.

 Why are atheists so arrogant? Atheists are people just like you, some good and some bad. And if you frequent Internet sites frequently, odds are you'll run into more than your share of jerks of all stripes, atheists included.

 But what generally motivates this question is when people run into a "strong atheist" who makes the positive assertion that "there is no God". This comes across as an unwarranted and unprecedented assault on the listener and all people who believe in anything spiritual or theological. I suspect it's this feeling of being assaulted that's behind the reflexive charge of arrogance more than anything.

 Professor “Richard Dawkins” is best-known as a vociferous critic of religion and a champion for the cause of science. So much so that he is often attacked for being dogmatic himself, in believing only his own preferred worldview should triumph. Some thought his latest book; The Magic of Reality - aimed at children, and explaining the scientific truth behind primitive mythologies - had gone beyond the pale in preaching literalism as the 'one true way'. (http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/646756-graham-hancock-questions-richard-dawkins-on-psychedelics-and-challenging-his-world-view)

 He says, that every people can or may experience some kind of trance, according to the right chemical stimulant, it may vary from religious upbringing like for instance the “Virgin Mary” for Catholics and so on. So he decided to take a hallucinogenic drug and try it for himself, as people in the ancient time uses psychoactive plants for shamanistic purposes, maybe “Richard Dawkins” wants a firsthand experience in what may lay in the so called spirit world when you take a drug like this.(http://dailygrail.com/Shamanism/2012/8/Richard-Dawkins-Would-Trip-LSD)

 So He took “Graham Hancock” suggestion that he may try the (DMT-containing) shamanic brew from the Amazon, ayahuasca. As “Graham Hancock” quoted "have you ever seriously engaged such techniques to have first-hand experience of what they're talking about, and perhaps even to challenge your own concept of what is real?" and “Dawkins” answered "I would be very curious, I must say, to take, perhaps not that drug, but something like LSD or mescaline," he responded. "I would be prepared to do that under proper medical supervision, if I were absolutely convinced that it would do me no lasting harm. And I would actually like to do it."  In the above statement as said “Dawkins“is somehow curious about the experiment but just like other skeptics, he wants to prove that sometimes what we can see is not all about religion and hallucinating “Gods” nor “angels” but he wants to prove the wonders that the brain can do when used by a right chemical stimulant, that can trigger this functions. (http://dailygrail.com/Shamanism/2012/8/Richard-Dawkins-Would-Trip-LSD)

this experiment is done to prove to people that not all you see is true that there is a explanation why this things happens, for example seeing virgin mary or other religious entity, in this experiment "Richard Dawkins" volunteered to do this just to say to people that what a brain can do if a right chemical is use to trigger this hallucination.