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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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]

"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....

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.

Complete bullshit. Get the shovel. rolls eyes

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.

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

g

What a load of crap!

LOL
Hilarious.

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.