Why are atheist so unpleasant?
I hate arguing about religion and God. You can't decide the issue definitively, like you can a math equation or an engineering problem. I have trouble putting my thoughts into words in this arena because I did not arrive at my belief in God by dint of my own reason: I learned to love the Lord through personal experience, reading The Bible, and studying history.
I have referred to philosophers like Kant and Descartes to give me words and logic that explain my belief, but it's still only well constructed chunks of internally-consistent logic: Deny the premise and we're back to square one. Atheists have no success either. They face the same problem only worse: How do you prove a negative, that God does not exist?
A Question for Atheists: If God doesn't exist, why waste so much effort on the issue?
It all boils down to Primum Movens. First Cause. Believers believe God put things in motion. Atheists do not. Both beliefs require a leap of faith, but an atheist will never admit that.
What else besides a Divine Creator would explain that spark in each human being that Descartes and St Anselm refer to? Has there ever been a society that did not believe in some type of deity? Why does the idea of a god or gods occur in every society from the dawn of time if there's nothing to it? I guess a skeptic would argue it is man's feeble attempt to explain the unknown by projecting all scary, uncontrollable phenomena onto a big bad god in the sky. But still, why does everyone (well... almost everyone) come to the same broad conclusion: that there is a creator?
These thoughts are not airtight logical debating points that shut down a God-denying interlocutor, but they are just a few of the many markers that point to a Divine Creator.
My personal theory is that snide atheist anger (I've found very few pleasant atheists) stems from psychological tension caused by denial of the obvious. Their life is a constant battle to quench that God-given inner spark that causes humans to seek their creator. They think they've got their own flame quenched, but it flickers back to life, then rages out of control as arrogant anger against The Heavenly Father and his followers.
Atheists want to kill God and screw the believers: It's the ultimate Oedipus Complex.
41 comments:
Yes Freud. I actually believe in god but have suppressed it. You got me!
Also, it's possible that some atheists do believe in god secretly or unconsciously. This may apply to many religious people in reverse as well.
Also, that people have always believed in god is a remark at the psychological weakness of people, not the strength of god.
Also, it's not a leap of faith to say that I don't know what the first cause was, or that there was indeed a first cause at all. However, saying that god was the first cause is indeed a leap of faith.
I think it goes straight to the inequality of outcomes issue that most atheist will also have to admit sharing with the immoral deadbeat crowd in general.
Its not enough to be angry at people that simply have more stuff than you. How dare they possess a philosophy of such unfairness that allows their passage through the eyes of storms all the better man for it.
This is at the core of why GWB was so hated. They could have cared less if Iraq failed or succeeded. They could have cared less if every ethnic minority in New Orleans died on the day of Katrina. What they got outraged about was GWB's unfair passage through the storm they so carefully crafted.
SteveH
SteveH: Great observation. Life (and God) is so unfair! Send me an e-mail if you'd like to blog here.
Canadian: This is a theory I've developed through personal observation and empirical evidence. If I looked hard enough I'd probably find someone else has already posited this theory and I'm not the originator.
The ubiquity of a belief in God could indeed be a sign of psychological weakness, as you say, but it could also be a sign of that spark.
The power of denial and justification is a strong one.
Okay, Silverfiddle, you know what? I actually respect your theism. I'll tell you why. You don't claim that it is purely logical, reasonable or even practical to believe, but for you it works; you go as far as suggesting that evidence may point to it working for more people than it works for today, but I an live with that. I'd suggest you actually read Freud's "Civilization and It's Discontents" to see how wrong that actually is, but I can agree to disagree with you.
As for little stevie wonder over there, to even suggest that people of a different religious/political stripe don't 'really' care about people suffering and dying is truly a cheap and cowardly dishonest shot to take.
That Viktor Frankl, MLK and all of the other countless people who've used religious faith to help them deal with their suffering, or in some other way help them deal with trials and tribulation shows one thing:
Religion can work for some people, some times.
If you look at my blog (http://reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com/) and specifically anything I've wrote about religion, you'll see that this is my point exactly. Different ways of life work for different people. However the problem with a public figure with such strong other-worldly faith is that he takes the public with him into his feelings of repulsion and disgust with the world (and therefore positing another 'better' world to which death is a portal).
As far as Bush should be concerned, there is no salvation; justice is what you make of it in this world. The reason I despise his religious faith is only because it is harmful to the rest of the world... The rest of life on this planet is taken for granted. What is love of god other than hate of the world. Christian love is precisely the feeling that you would give up everything for the thing you love.
The feelings of love an atheist ought to feel (I'm not saying all do) is the feeling that despite the suffering, despite the hardship or even because of the existence of such things, life on this world really is lovely. It's lovely in the way greek tragedy is lovely. Not in spite of its tragic moments, but precisely because it is so tragic (the realization of death being the most tragic part of life that atheists painstakingly embrace while theists make up other forms of life to 'get through'.).
For a public figure to embrace this way of thinking rather than the Christian way of thinking would obviously be better. There can be no question. That's how and why I think Bush was able to fuck-up so badly. Precisely because of his 'love' of god.
Also, this blog is propaganda. The moment someone gives a good shot explaining why the left is so desperately immoral, or otherwise reprehensible, they're offered an oppurtunity to write.
This is propaganda. I could get Websters over here right now to feature your site in their next edition of the dictionary.
Christians are not called to hate the world, as you say. Nowhere in the OT or NT does it say that. We should enjoy it and be good stewards of it.
Perhaps you've confused seclorum and mundis?
Call it propaganda if you want. This is my cyber soap box where I share my well-reasoned opinions with the rest of the world and engage in conversation with you, SteveH and others.
I'm happy with it.
Well-reasoned opinions???/Ideological propaganda??? More or less the same in your cyber-world.
Abraham kills his son. That's hating the world for the love of god.
Abraham did not kill his son. Read Genesis!
He wasn't about to? Whether he did or not is aside from the point, really. He did/would've give/n what many parents would consider their 'world' for god. It's a symbolic representation of the repulsive feelings Christianity has towards life.
The very idea of a philosophy that views life on this world as so bad that it has to construct some other, 'better' world to which death is the only portal is sickening to me. That's why I don't like Christianity, or religion in general.
Even the most atheistic buddhist believes that meditation and foregoing desires, etc... is the path towards enlightenment, or whatever.
The point is that the meek will not inherit the earth, those who can't get laid on earth aren't going to get 72 virgins in heaven, eating some meats rather than others is not going to ban you from an eternla party after death, the poor will not have an easier time getting into heaven, and most importantly, accepting christ (or anything else for that matter) into your life/world is not going to give you another one!
It's pathetic to believe such thing. Try and overcome being shy, go after less attractive girls, or get a better haircut, eat whatever you think will be good for you to eat, etc...
It's not just pathetic though. True, sincere, honest faith is dangerous (you could argue that fake faith like that of Haggard, Robertson, Warren, etc... is worse); but the point is that sacrificing this life for another one is not reasonable. It might work for holocaust victims with no better hope, but it's not the way for people who have good reason to love life to go.
I didn't make it quite clear enough, but even atheistic buddhism sickens me.
"It's a symbolic representation of the repulsive feelings Christianity has towards life."
This statement is proof you do not know what you are talking about. Genesis is a Hebrew book, not a Christian one.
Neither Judaism nor Christian is anti-life or anti-world. You fundamentally misunderstand these religions. I suggest you either study up or refrain from further ignorant comments.
What does it mean to misunderstand such vague, sectarian religions? I could break off into a sect of Christianity if I could get enough people to agree with my understanding (even if you call it a misunderstanding). It could be call Athevangelical Christianity (of course I'm being facetious, but it's actually not far from the truth.).
Do Baptists misunderstand, do Presbytarians misunderstand?
Why don't you tell me why loving god, heaven and another world (whatever that may be heaven or otherwise) is not necessarily anit-life?
You call me ignorant and not stupid. What have I ignored? I know there is a lot in the bible about caring for others, caring for the earth, etc... but this is all in the vain attempt to get some sort of eternal gratification.
It's just deplorable. Christianity has you blind if you cannot see that for yourself.
I could break off into a sect of Christianity if I could get enough people to agree with my understanding (even if you call it a misunderstanding). It could be call Athevangelical Christianity (of course I'm being facetious, but it's actually not far from the truth.).
I agree completely with that statement. In fact, thousands have done just what you describe, which explains the babel of confusing and contradictory creeds.
Why don't you tell me why loving god, heaven and another world (whatever that may be heaven or otherwise) is not necessarily anit-life?
Are you asking me to prove a negative? If God is the author of life, he cannot be anti-life. Also, believing that there is something beyond this life does not mean one has to be against this life. When heading out for a fun night of partying, chasing girls, etc, do you burn your house down upon leaving?
You call me ignorant and not stupid. What have I ignored? I know there is a lot in the bible about caring for others, caring for the earth, etc... but this is all in the vain attempt to get some sort of eternal gratification.
I can tell that you are not familiar with The Bible because you do not cite passages accurately. When you do cite something properly, it is clear you have no idea what the common understanding is. That's why I say ignorant. It's not a pejorative; you're simply not conversant in The Bible. Being an atheist, I wouldn't expect you to understand this stuff.
It's just deplorable. Christianity has you blind if you cannot see that for yourself.
My eyes are wide open, and so is my mind. The whole God thing could be just a delusion, but like I've said before, there is evidence that persuades me otherwise. The evidence is not overwhelming, but by light of my reason and personal experience, I believe.
You don't: Welcome to the void.
Well, I would contest the house burning analogy especailly since I come back from a night out to the house, but aside from that I pretty much agree.
Not sure what you mean by "Welcome to the void" either, but otherwise, I already said, your faith is only less admirable than people like Kierkegaard, MLK and Dostoyevsky. For a guy who writes a blog, I don't mind your faith.
I'm more concerned with stevie actually. If you take a good look at what he's written you'll see that his faith much more shallow and empty than yours. He uses it as a means of exclusion and degradation of people of other political stripes in the first comment he posted. I hardly think he's even sincere.
*"his faith" is "much more shallow..."*
Excuse me.
Don't be hatin' on SteveH! I think he brings original thought and a unique perspective on things, as do you.
Could you imagine you, Steve and me discussing all this over beers?
Would be cool. Unfortunately we're basically at opposite ends of the Rockies.
Argueing religion this is useless. Who belevieth in me and you will be saved. HERE IS A BIG KISS FOR ATHEIST. Redneck Ron
Thanks Ron. It's not really pointless though. I went to a catholic highschool. They all (well mostly all) believed in god up until about grade twelve. Right now, I can only name a handful of them that still sincerely believe.
Many of them have turned to a sort of hedonism, but that's what tends to happen when peoples core beliefs are shattered (not my fault. If they hadn't been made to believe in the first place the problem would be avoided for the most part.).
I've converted at least a couple of people on the internet that have admitted to me they stopped believing since reading what I recommended, or just reading a bit of my writing (this was on facebook, not my blog).
I'm fucking sick and tired of arguing against, prime mover, design, ontological, etc... when all you have to do is look it up on wiki to see how these it is refuted.
The problem with my blog is that I sense that the people reading it are just too old. Once you're about thirty, you've gone to far in your way of life to turn back (not necessarily, I would advise that change can be good at any age, but a lot of people don't agree with me.). If it was devastating for grade twelve student, I can only imagine how older people would handle disillusionment. A lot of the consruction workers who I've talked to about this basically admit at the end that their belief is silly, but with their family and everything else, their religion has just become an intregal part of their culture and it's not worth giving up even if it's insincere.
But I mean, I've had muslims that prayed five times a day eat quiznos five meat stack. I've got Christians to finish up projects on sundays (quitetly, it is actually illegal).
I'd like to move on to life after god, but if I believe it is a good thing for society in general to lose its faith. It may be hard on individuals or even society for a short period of time, but I think we can and must get through it.
I do sense that you guys are just too old and died in the wool to admit publicly in a loss of faith, but I still think that I can slowly ween you guys of the god pacifier.
""I've converted at least a couple of people on the internet that have admitted to me they stopped believing since reading what I recommended,
Canadian Pragmatist""
So why not try going door to door with some nice pamplets? Point being, you ARE exactly what people like yourself claim you most detest.An annoying fundamentalist.
You don't need long standing traditions to be a fundamentalist. All you have to do is find yourself on an incredible planet whirling without end around the fireball of a star and proclaim "NO DEEP MYSTERIES HERE, NOW MOVE ON".
Come to my door and i'll smile and thank you for the pamplet just like i do all the rest. Its not like theres a real chance of meaningful dialogue with someone who already knows everything yet seeks to understand nothing.
SteveH
The firest thinga ask and which I akready know the answer, "are you Catholic"? Then I tell those pamphlet delivers that I am sorry but this a catholic house and am sorry u had to make useless effort in trying to recruit those who already beleive. Then always tell them have a good day and God Bless.
Then I seen Obama supporters at the end of street and ask them if they giving out information for McCain. "I am not a big fan of McCain either". OH Then I am sorry to here that. LOL!!!
Religion is something hold dear and to yourself but am Catholic. I do respect others in how they beleive but don't shove it down my throat. If you do then I get to do the same thing. It is like, "don't talk to me about politics unless you vote and then don't discuss religion with my if don't go to a church".
Catholic and dang proud of it. Join the NRA!! Redneck Ron OH!! Canadian if you think that I am agreeing with you then your reading something into it. I make statements from my heart and may be off camber it is always with honesty.
I don't find it fundamentalist (you meant evangelical) to try and explain why someone is wrong about something.
If someone said they thought that gay marriage effects their straight marriage negatively, I would correct them on that as well. If someone says that making gund cheap and easy to get a hold of doesn't increase the chance of crimes/violent crimes I would correct them on that as well.
If you take a look at this blog, I'm not the one who brings religion up. I've read articles on militant atheism, rick warren, and some sort of atheist complex.
I hope I'm not getting to be annoying or completely anti-social by discussing something as sacred to your hearts as religion, but I think it's completely reasonable for me to do so.
The problem with people going door to door converting is that they have to bring it up. If someone else brings something up, I don't see why talking to them about it is so fundamentalist?
No canadian- your not be annoying because it is nice to see someone more off center than I am. Redneck Ron
Here I actually have to disagree with you. Not all atheists are militant fruitcakes, although the ones who are I can't vouch for.
Putting aside the God exists, God does not exist debate, I think your feelings against religion are misplaced. Let me approach this argument from a secular standpoint.
Read 'in context' any of the great religious texts and putting aside God or Gods, I think that overall you will find very positive messages about doing unto others...and so forth. This holds true whether they be Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) or any of the eastern Asiatic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism). They all pretty much present positive, good, moral, and ethical codes that if followed would lead to the benefit of mankind. I can think of no widespread religion that actively calls for the conversion or death of non-adherents. YET... man has used religions to justify just that, as he has used cultural differences, political differences, economic difference... ad infinitum, any excuse will do.
You seem to hold religion to blame for quite alot of the negative things in this world, unjustly, I believe. For predominately it is not the religions, philosophies, political constructs, or secular creeds that are flawed, but man's interpretation and implementation of them. You can't eliminate evil, horror, warfare, violence, etc. by eliminating God and religion. Take away God and man will kill man for some other reason or principle, be it political, economic, or social.
Man does not need God or religion to justify man's inhumanity to man in his own mind. Given the right (or wrong) set of socioeconomic, cultural and political pressures Americans and Canadians could be killing each other (54 40 or War) just as easily. You seem to view religion as a call to evil, when in reality it is (they are) a call for man to act better than himself. That call is stronger in religion than any other secular philosophy.
Much evil and much good has and can be done in the name of religion, it is certainly no worse than say, what has been done in the name of communism. The common theme in 'evil' in this world that you think you have laid at the doorstep of God, would more appropriately laid at the doorstep of humanity.
The greatest thing that religions offer is not the call to worship god, but the call to act more like him. Act more like God, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed. For in truth, if we all acted like our religions call us to, would we not already be living in paradise on earth?
The flaw you see is not in God, it is in man. Eliminating God solves nothing.
~Finntann~
I agree with all of that (except the last sentence). Religion is a tool. Good? Evil? Depends who's using it. Agreed. They all preach more or less good tenets, blah blah blah...
Eliminating the superstitious idea that there is a supernatural realm to existence (god or not) will be devastating for many people.
Imagine sitting down to eat spaghetti without a fork. For so long, religion has been the only route towards meaning in people's lives that they will be left incapacitated without it. I think the short term consequences of "killing god" as Nietzsche puts it will, and in some ways already is becoming as devastating a phenomenon as anything else.
Materialism, hedonism, suicide, depression, etc... these are only some of the first consequences of killing god (loss of faith).
What can I say? I'm a tough guy aside from working in the construction industry (where it seems like everyone pretends to be tough). I'm willing to go through birth pains. I'm willing to go through them and then die before I see their glorious (or possibly not so glorious) results; but I am a humanist.
I believe in no god, no spirits, but I believe wholeheartedly in humans. We ('they' if I die) will overcome.
The fact of the matter is that religious conviction has become weaker and weaker since the time of Christ. Religious adherency has been up and down depending on where you are in the world, but recently it's been going down dramatically in places like Japan, Finland, Germany, France, Australia, even England... It's been going down slowly in places like Canada and the USA as well. If you compare the amount of religious adherents among young people now to the previous generation, you'll problably find it startling. Forget about going out to Africa to spread the word! Poor, devastated and often illiterate people are easy targets for converts. I think you'll even admit that.
Far from the message people like Dawkins, Hitchens, etc... give about a post-religious world of sunshine with light clouds wavering. My message is one of a deep and dark storm with a chance of some sunlight, maybe just before dawn.
How I've gotten so many converts with this message, I don't know. People just need a reason, a purpose, a meaning. Religion offers ONE and one type of meaning only. For the people who don't fall into that one type rank and file, instead of turning to another religion (or breaking off into sects like Luther and others have done) that caters to a slightly different type, these people are setting their own parameters. They're beginning to see the emptiness of religious revolution towards another kind of religion. They're becoming free in the only true sense of the word.
Religions are becoming more relax. Orthodoxy is becoming a thing of the past. What you might call, 'cafeteria catholics' are atheists who have yet to meet someone like me, or are just too afraid to become 'free' if they have (One of my best friends is an Italian Catholic with a strong religious tradition in his family. He'll basically admit to being a bit scared.).
Free to do what? Free to define their own meaning(s)[the (s) is crucial] to life; free, not to having to stop, or repress wanting or going after their true wants and desires because they are innobel. Instead, what they want and desire is nobel.
When the focus is truly on this life in this world (true atheists consider it blasphemy to speak badly of life), you're moving "Beyond Good and Evil" as is the title of one of Nietzsche's great books.
I think this will be a lot for you to take in, so I'll stop here for now.
"free, not to having to stop, or repress wanting or going after their true wants and desires because they are innobel. Instead, what they want and desire is nobel."
And that is the characteristic flaw of the majority of secular hedonist & humanist philosophies. Thinking that merely acting upon your base instincts and desires is noble.
Leaping in front of a bus to push a baby stroller out of the way, saving the infant while dying yourself is a noble act. Doing your neighbors wife because you want to, is not.
It appears to me, that you are not so much a Humanist as an egoistic hedonist. I don't think that the quote I cited from you above lines up very well with a Humanist philosophy. While embracing the transcendental rejection of the philosophy (God, superstition, the supernatural), your statement seems to ignore the univeral morality aspect of Humanism. Characterizing your wants and desires as noble is not a Humanistic tenet it is a hedonistic tenet.
It is curious that you characterize the elimination of religion as devastating and incapacitating, attributing consequences such as materialism, hedonism, suicide, depression, etc., and yet from the tone of your post you seem to take such joy from it.
It would appear to me that your philosophy, while discarding the best aspects of religion, clings to the worst aspects of man.
Miscommunication. Look like my fault.
I'm not a hedonist, not even a utilitarian, certainly not an ethical egoist (I think Atlas Shrugged was a terrible book).
If what you want IS nobel, that is not hedonism. I realize now that my wording was a little bit unclear. I wrote "instead, what they want and desire is nobel" I should have wrote, "what they want and desire should become nobel." This is in opposition to the religious suppression of all wants and desires instead of their circumvention towards their nobel fruitions in the world. I mean, as far as I can tell, most religions suppress desires rather than attempting to find beter outlets for them. But I mean, the vast majority of the sexual, spiritual, etc... desires that religion calls bad, are really not a moral matter at all (unless you're a utilitarian).
Gay sex might have bad consequences if practiced in a unsafe way, but it's not inherently immoral. Why suppress it? Read Stan Persky "Autobiography of a Tattoo". He transforms his sexual exploits into great literature.
The temporary consequences of a loss of religious faith will be bad (by my estimation), but they can and likely will be overcome (that's humanistic). That's what I meant by sunlight after a storm.
I'm sorry; I rushed writing that comment. I hope this clears it up.
My grammar in the last comment is horrible. Sorry; hope you are able to make sense of it.
Let me put the desire circumvention part simply.
Hate is the opposite of love. Christianity regards it as a vice. What about hating Nazis? Hating your enemies? Why turn the other cheek? Why forgive your trespassers? This may often be the right thing to do, but not always. And love, hope and charity do not always result in nobel acts. Bleeding heart liberals love the poor. They just don't know how to help them out (as you might say).
Stealing is immoral in Christianity. What about Robin Hood? Need I say more?
This is really a very simple idea. My writing up 'till now(hopefully no further) has just been atrocious in explaining it. I apologize.
I said I agreed with you that religion has a had a positive influence of society (although not completely). I just think we've out grown it. The need for prohabition, commandments (most of which are 'thou shalt not's' are beyond the people of the future).
Iraq is going through the birth pangs of democracy by your estimation? The world needs to go through the birth pangs of a loss of faith. The initial consequence will likely be despair. Would you like me to lie about that?
I just don't mind struggle and hardship so much as they have the potential to result in something wonderful.
I'm gonna read this over now...;)
The wonderful thing may be more struggle and more hardship. At least these struggles and hardships can be put to completely worldly uses.
A work of art for arts sake instead of god's sake is an example. As far as I am concerned Pascal and Kierkegaard is two of the greatest writer of all time; however the content of so much of what they wrote just kills me though. I regard it as a waste of talent... waste of genius.
If your work is not completely focused on this world it is focused on nothing (as far as a true atheist is concerned.). Not that all of what they wrote is garbage or anything like that. They still managed to evoke wonderful emotions in their readers (including myself). I just think they could have done so much more.
The only blasphemy possible in a secualr world is towards the earth. Talking bad of this life on this world is blasphemy. It is a wonderful life. Tragedy and imperfection do not diminish it one bit. Read Nietzsche's "The Birth of Tragedy" (short book).
Let me be clear. This is not to say that all struggle is indiscriminantly good. Struggle is part of life. Overcoming old struggles and welcoming new ones is part of the fun. Nietzsche ideal psychological development goes from camel (taking societies burdens on you back), lion (savagely throwing them all off to the point of carrying nothing [even what may have been good], and baby (treating life as a game. Taking on new challenges, learning from old ones.).
I'll mention again, Nietzsche is a chalenging read. Even "The Use and Abuse of History" which is his work that most follows what is expected of traditional philosophy is not that straight forward. Also, what that book has to offer is minimal (see, I don't think Nietzsche is all good):
Alexander Nehamas "Nietzsche: Life as Literature" published by Harvard.
It really is the best way into Nietzsche.
"This is in opposition to the religious suppression of all wants and desires " ?
"as far as I can tell, most religions suppress desires rather than attempting to find beter outlets for them. "
I fail to see how you can assert the above two statements with a straight face.
First of all, all workable philosophies argue for the suppresion of wants and desires to some extent, towards the common good. We all can't go running around willy nilly trying to satisfy "all our wants and desires". To do so would be absolute anarchy, so I suppose your issue is with some (not all) of the particular restrictions imposed by the moral codes of various religions.
I doubt, although I could be wrong, that you would take issue with the restraint of anger, virtues such as moderation and charity, or prohibitions on stealing, murder, adultery, greed, envy, lying... shall I go on?
Let's look at sexuality, since you focused on that in your comment. Most religions, and some philosophies urge restraint and moderation in sexuality. It is outside of the aspects of procreation a purely hedonistic activity. You do it only because it feels good, if it involved great pain, it probably wouldn't be that popular of a pasttime.
Outside of procreation it does very little towards the common good of humanity. Outside of the pure pleasure and entertainment value of sex, there are probably dozens of things that you could be doing that would be of greater benefit to mankind.
Religions are fairly logically consistent in their approach to sex, although practically none of their adherents follow their religions approach to sex to the letter. If one discourages sex for any reason other than biological function, one can certainly not advocate homosexuality, since it serves no biological function. In a small population group it is actually a negative behavior if engaged in exclusively; it is detrimental to the species.
Religious restriction of sex, generally tend to promote monogamous relationships, although some religions tolerate some instances of polygamy. Wanton sexuality generally tends to produce more negative consequences than positive, for the individual, for the social group, and for the society at large. The restrictions are as commonsense as restrictions on eating pork, since prior to refrigeration eating pork was generally detrimental to one's health in all but northern climes.
One can usually find logical and reasonable reasons behind the restrictions imposed by religion. They are for the benefit of the person, the social group, and society.
Take civil laws against sex outside marriage and adultery in a historical context. Sex outside marriage easily results in unwed mothers and inadequately cared for offspring. Adultery commonly leads to violence when discovered.
The restrictions are not the wonton repression of personal desire, but intended to further the common good of society as a whole. Honestly, if you actually read the moral codes in context the restriction on homosexuality is about on par with unmarried heterosexuality. It is only a rather recent cultural reinterpretation that tolerates 'free heterosexuality'.
"Gay sex might have bad consequences if practiced in a unsafe way, but it's not inherently immoral."
You seem to imply by your focus that the moral code discriminates against homosexuality, when in fact unmarried non-celibate persons are pretty much treated the same way and the acts are pretty much the 'immoral' equivalent of each other. Now you may have problems with the religious, social, and cultural definition of marriage... but that is another debate in and of itself.
You're really not understanding what I'm saying at all.
Desires and wants are the fires of life itself. Suppressing any of them is to suppress life itself.
No one desires to murder, rape, steal. That's not desire. Desire is emotion. Desire to be angry at someone. This may lead to murdering them, but it could lead to writing a battle rap song as well. It could lead to a dialectic. It could lead to any number of (in my opinion) nobel things.
I don't see why not allowing people to have sex for pleasure is moral (hetero or homo). Sex can be as safe as riding a bike. If not more safe. It wasn't 2000 years ago. People can have sex for pleasure without negative consequences. Moderation is not a religious idea. Read Niccomachean Ethics. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're hugh hefner.
NO sex (not moderation) if you're gay, or if you don't want to marry is extremely unhealthy: Depression, hostility, lack of concentration, anxiety, etc... that's just psychological.
How successful have the celibate preists really been? We've heard of a lot of terrible behaviour. I can only imagine what the church has managed to cover up (Not so much a conspiracy theory. They have covered things up a lot in the past.).
Also, this sort of utilitarian logic of religion you point out is not appealing to me at all. If I have to attempt to use it, I would say... How woul focusing all of our lives energies to this world possible have terrible consequences over an extended period of time. A lot of Christians, Jews, etc... that first become atheists might turn to hedonism, but I don't think this will persist over their entire lives.
Society in general (which is afterall made up of people some of whom take the loss of faith harder than others) may experiences a downturn at first. I admit that. I'm looking to the future.
Desire for sex could lead to rape, but it could also lead to writing a beautiful love song.
Desire to have something you do not possess could lead to stealing it and could lead to saving up to buy it.
It's not the desires that are the problem. It's their circumvention.
If this is harder for people to understand (as compared to don't do ____) it may very well lead to rape, murder, stealing, etc... I can't do anything other than keep explaining it. I am confident that humanity on the whole will eventually understand how beautiful worldly ethics could be.
My point is not that any particular religious restrictions are right or wrong, I am not attempting to judge them here. My point is that all moral or ethical codes place restrictions upon desires and wants to some extent or another, or for one reason or another. Attributing restriction of desires or wants to solely religion is wrong. Because with or without religion you will have restrictions. What those restrictions are vary from religion to religion, moral code to moral code, civil law to civil law.
You attempt to "fault" religion for a perceived restriction on your (or anyones) ability to fulfill your wants and desires. But aside from total anarchy, you shall never be free of such restrictions. Society, religious or secular, will always place some restrictions on the fulfillment of your desires.
My point is that religious restrictions such as "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife" have a positive value in any moral or ethical code within or outside the context of religion.
You pick and choose perceived flaws that you find in a, or some, religions, i.e celibacy, and apply them in broad generalizations against all religions.
Civil laws may say not to do something, but they're quite different from religious 'laws'.
As Dostoyevsky points out, without god, everything is permitted (I can tell from your responses that you don't quite get this. What I am talking about has no particular political (civil) dimension.).
I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm advocating personal self-rule (something I would think conservatives would like.). Choosing your morality so that it is healthy for you and those around you. You seem to admit that a whole bunch of moralities are pretty good (not that all are good of course, e.g. naziism, egoism, etc...). Aside from maybe baha'i, don't all religions restrict people to a single ethical code?
There is celibacy or some restrictions on sex in almost all the big religion (C, J, I). I fail to see how I am generalizing.
"Thou shalt not..." does not have any positive value. If there is a pie and you are told you can't have one of the pieces, despite the fact that you can eat the rest, "thou shalt not eat the big slice" is still completely negative.
I would guess that most religions accept the 'golden rule'. What if you're a sadist? If someone enjoys being smacked around they should smack others around?
Dostoyevsky? Yes, I am familiar with Dostoyevsky, are you? Try focusing on his character explorations of self-destructive nihilists, like Pavlov Smerdyakov in The Brothers Karamazov, or Nikolai Stavrogin in The Possessed, or Svidrigailov in Crime and Punishment.
The problem is that the quote "without god, everything is permitted" is not a quote. The phrase does not appear in any of his books, nor can it be linked directly to him. It is a summary of an implied concept of the character Ivan, and even then, Ivan never utters it in the book. The correct quote is:
"'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?' 'Didn't you know?' he said laughing, 'a clever man can do what he likes,' he said. 'A clever man knows his way about, but you've put your foot in it, committing a murder, and now you are rotting in prison."
Quite a little bit different in context than paraphrased and taken out of context. No?
Advocate personal self-rule? Everyone already has it...you act according to your internal value structure, influenced somewhat perhaps by the external threat of consequences for the socially agreed upon rules of your nation. Still, it is that internal value structure that determines whether or not you will steal, when you know you will not be seen or caught.
What I find intriguing is that you seem so caught up in a voluntary rule set. You don't believe in God, so there is no enforcement or consequence to disregarding religious rules. You seem to have a problem with other people choosing to follow them, and perhaps judging your behavior based upon their values. But that will happen with or without religion, unless of course you can get everyone to believe as you do.
The problem with freedom, is that not everyone will think as you do. What's the problem with people freely choosing to believe or not? Our conversation here proves that you are free to believe as you do, and to attempt to persuade me to change my beliefs.
I fail to see why there is even an issue.
~Finntann~
It's interesting that you mentioned Oedipus complex along with the topic that you chose because my father is the same way with religion. I think that the reason is that it's the basis for his relationship with my mother. His mom made him go to church, and his wife did the same. When she switched beliefs on him she brought him into that too. I was taught the new belief and now if I try to talk to him about any of it he gets uncomfortable. I'm his son.
I think it's fairly common that someone changes their religion for marriage.
Religion is also a subject many are uncomfortable talking about
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.