Oh evil, my
loath, let me count the ways, one big meat hook two big meat hook… Lets see, oh
right, we were talking about theism and such. Right, so why does evil exist?
Well evil is an abstract concept created by humans to describe painfully
antisocial behavior that results in; I mean sin is the problem. Evil is a
natural occurrence when seen from a societal lenses, think about it, why is it
that when we see violence perpetrated anywhere, be it in the human or animal
(People are animals, why do we keep separating them, I mean go team!) kingdom,
we feel a certain repulsion (Well not everyone feels this, but screw them, am I
right?), almost as if we are asking ourselves ‘Why?’ But why are we asking why?
Stupid question, I know, but I believe it is telling for this reason, people
like people, I mean really like people, I mean they really, really, really like
people, like in ‘that’ way, if you know what I’m saying, and because we are herd
animals we tend to like to stay that way. Conversely, if we were more loner
type creatures, perhaps we would care much less for our fellows, and we would
certainly only get together for ‘that’ reason just for the sake of relieving
our ‘urges’ if you get what I mean. But this is what I’m getting at, because we
tend to live in groups, and we wish to be accepted by groups, and feel
horrifically ostracized to the point of suicide if we cannot achieve these
things (Oh depression, such a pal, you are always there for me), then I must
say that our view of evil is pretty simple, what is evil is that which hurts
society, and what is good is that which promotes it in the forms of acceptance,
creativity, diversity and love; as evil and good are more conceptual descriptions of things rather than a tangible physical force.
Here we are
again, god damned circular logic, but I dare the theist to retort, I double
dare him, I triple dog dare him with spaghetti and a chicken wing on top. You
cannot argue against the promotion of the wellbeing of human society, you can
either accept that which works, or attempt to impose what you believe must be
obeyed, but you cannot do both. We can see the cracks in theological society
(Cracks, more like gaping black holes), repression both sexually and socially
runs rampant, oppression of females is the norm, circumcision is in and science
education is out, devotion repudiates criticism, and you have to put the name
Stan at the end of your country (The horror!).
But I can here the critics now “But God’s law is perfect, just because
we cannot follow it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try” yea, and by perfect you
mean that you can’t follow it, so that means it cannot be unreasonable or (God
forbid) antiquated. Why is appealing to perfection a copout that works? I mean,
why can’t I say “Oh, so you don’t like my soufflé, well that’s just because
you’re taste buds haven’t yet been molded to appreciate the brilliance of it’s
charcoaled exterior, perhaps one day you will know of it’s true flavor.” I
think I’ll use that one later.
But when we
speak of evil we speak of it in social contexts, violence in society is not
normally seen as a positive (Unless you’re a zealot, then you can treat the
infidels however you want in public, I mean those unbelieving kaffir’s and
goyim aren’t going to lynch themselves), and so we give a prerogative amount of
distain to those who would dare disrupt the peace of society at large. But,
what is ‘good’ is determined by the society, so how can we judge what a society
does to be bad if society is the only guiding star by which we travel? Again,
by seeing what works.
We,
unfortunately, will always be a step behind progress, and thereby condone the
wretched blights of uncivil activity within our society in the naïve belief
that it is the right thing to do. We do not have this excuse anymore. We can
cite perfect examples of this in modern times, and we must take heed to them,
the American civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the gay rights
movement, we can see what bigotry and phobic attitudes bring to the table (And
to tell you the truth, it’s a bit stale and has some mold on it), and we know
they are wrong. (Digression in three, two, one…) I once heard an atheist argue
that the concept of ‘objective truth’ was a purely subjective thing, I must
disagree on the grounds that the concept of ‘objectivity’ is based upon the descriptive data gathered,
and while the facts may change and thereby change the ‘objectivity’ of the
fact, this does not mean that the thing was not able to be descriptively known in an objectively sense,
it but means that we only can know when we look at the thing to discover it, to
know one must search, we cannot hold something as true by default, and yet if
we do not know the answer we thereby must discover it, the answer however does
exist, and if the answer exists that means that we can know the object, and
thereby it’s objectivity. Holding persons liable to undiscovered truths is a
waist of time, that would mean that Darwin would have to be considered a liar
because he didn’t get every descriptive evolutionary concept right, but to hold him
accountable for the lack of technology is asinine, evolution is still
objectively true, and creationism is still objectively false, to believe in
creationism is just to not look at the world and see what it has to offer. An
object can be known, and when it is not know we do not know it objectively, our
subjectivity may inform us otherwise of an object, but that doesn’t replace the
objective knowledge of the object, rather it just blinds us from it. These descriptions I have given only apply to the physical world of course, in the metaphysical plain of ideas systems of trial and error and checks and balances apply in the face of the reality of nihilism. (What the
hell am I saying, I’ve lost my place) The point is that we, objectively, now do
have a semblance of what works, that’s it, what is true must descriptively function as described; thusly
we can utilize this as another standard.
But
societies run by religion work (Sot of), so they must contain truth in them.
The same basic pro-social truths within most societies and a whole lot of
antisocial ones that make it a less desirable place to live. Should women cover
themselves from head to toe because to reveal their rabid femininity would only
entice the rape that they so obviously deserve for such erection educing
attractiveness? Well I mean, she’s really out of my league, and it’s not like
I’ll get another chance… NO! What in the name of sphincters bassoon are people
thinking!? I have never (Well there was that one time on the beach) ever
contemplated such crazy activity, much less acted it out, I mean how much
self-control do these people have? Modesty, ha what a joke, more like enforced
modesty, I wouldn’t wear a bikini either if I knew Mr. Johnson could just pop
on in whenever he wanted to because it showed a bit too much skin. Why is that
a bad thing? Not Mr. Johnson popping in whenever he wants (He has to ask
first), the bikini showing too much skin I mean. It’s no wonder everyone’s so
rape happy, I mean just imagine the porn “Man her burka is so big I can’t even
see her” “I know man, right” I could just take that off all day” “I know what
you mean” and then they masturbate ferociously with sandpaper wrapped with
barbwire because life sucks that much. This is both horrifically repressive of women and viciously belittling of men; who the fuck would want to be seen/stereotyped as a mindless raping machine?
Is
this healthy? Can this society sustain itself without inevitably resorting to
violence so as to relieve its repression? I think not. You cannot do this to
such vast quantities of persons, they’ll find other ways to vent their
frustrations, and those other ways may not be too conducive to a healthy
citizenry. “How is it wrong” asks the troll “Prove to me that such a state is
unequivocally bad. How can you judge their culture against your own you
imperialist pig?” Fair question my humble troll, fair question indeed. Your
quarrel is with the philosophy of postmodernism, the idea that one culture
cannot be more right or wrong than another based upon their moral norms and
values, thus rendering everything a matter of opinion or personal taste. I
agree that this style of thinking is meaningless, it’s like saying murder, if
approved by cultural context, is fine, and yet we do not see societies where
murder is just ok under any circumstance, we see that such actions are for the
most part frowned upon, thusly we can thereby derive that its functionality is
unhelpful in a broad sense in forming a stable society; as it is not widely distributed throughout most social circles. However, to argue against postmodernism, as most
theists do (And why wouldn’t they?), seems to be a trick, the critic of
postmodernism says “Are their moral absolutes?” and the atheist find’s
themselves in a bit of a pickle (How he got inside a pickle in the first place
remains a mystery, oh how religious people love their mysteries) on the one
hand he cannot say ‘yes’ why, because morality isn’t a thing in itself, it
exists only within the minds of humans, but on the other hand he could say
‘yes’ because we have example after example of the normal pro-social activities
which form a society. So which is it? Are their moral absolutes or not you indecisive
prick!? Yes, and they are that which allows humans to form societies in the
first place, with out them society would not have formed and so moral absolutes
must therefore exist because they are the first pillars of society by which we
set up our camp beneath. What I mean to say is, society is made up of building blocks, a functional pro-social morality (The only functional morality that can exist) is required in order have a society at all. The all too human systems of checks and balances required in a society is what holds the whole thing together; proving the nihilistic prospective as true. But this comes back to the observation that morality
is based around the idea of society and not any handed down precepts, if we
were not moral we would not have a society and without a society religion as we
know it would not have formed in the first place.
Our
basic societal outline is that of safety, sex, nourishment, community and the
ability to garner possessions without the fear of losing them to others. These
are the basics, but they are in no way optimal, I mean what would life be like
without mind numbing amusement? No real rights are guaranteed under this
framework beyond the most simple of them “But aren’t these all one needs?”
inquires the child “Yes, but life is just not that simple” if everyone got
those things, then perhaps life would be relatively enjoyable, but this isn’t
so. For once we as humans have congregated, all manner of ethereal abstractions
start to emerge like a tapeworm from a colon. Who’s in charge, by what right,
and who cannot be in charge? The arbitrary answers fly in rather quickly men
are in charge and everyone else isn’t, from women (Of course), other races (Why
not?), people who don’t agree (Just because), and any other random group that
can be thrown in as well just for good measure (Why not the gays?). The point
being, once we start piling on the abstract, we forget about what promotes
society and we start just trying to engineer humanity rather than understand
and work with it. Morality is made for man rather that from him, we think of a
perfect world (Whichever depraved utopia you can grab at, I like the one with
the brain boring starfish, but that’s just me) and then hold everyone to
whatever depraved unreasonable standard we just stet up for them in our heads,
but in no way take into account the persons we now hold accountable the
demands.
This
brings us back to the concept of ‘evil’ being an inevitable societal byproduct.
When people gather, all manner of things happen, from sex and art, to sex and business,
and sex with food, you know, all manner of things, but violence and cruelty are
going to happen, pile on enough of anything and eventually there is one too
many. We are evolved creatures, shaped by our genes and environment, life is
not as we wish it, it is as it is, sucks I know. We are stuck with the problem
of being gigantic biological emoters, our brains are flooded with chemicals
without our knowledge or choice and we then act accordingly, like punching your
brother in the face because you stubbed your toe, completely rational response
when it’s a family member because, lets face it, they all deserve to be punched
in the face. Now just picture it, everyone’s mind is constantly under the
influence of chemical impulse, it’s the ultimate high and no one knows it and
the question is who might be getting too little or too much? You can’t know
just by looking at them, they could be a body-snatcher! At this rate, it is
inevitable that someone’s going to blow their top to astronomical heights, and
it’s all your fault!
If
evil is just that, antisocial behavior, then we must look at the ways of
combating such attitudes and actions. If chemical imbalance is the reason for a
person’s bad behavior, medication is on hand to attempt to deal with it, it’s
not perfect, but it is certainly better than nothing. If it is an activity,
then we can create laws to combat it, again imperfect but…aw you get it. The
point is that we must look at the problem and (First determine if it’s a
problem) then act in accordance within a reasonable human framework, this
doesn’t mean that you should not curb excesses because their activity may
indeed be inevitable, rather just examine it and determine its affect on
society and then act accordingly.
Sounds
simple right? Well, it never goes that way. The thud and scrape of the shovel
of inquiry against the bedrock of stupidity in the form of a question never
seems to stop. “Well who says?” Why is it that when ‘God’ says, strict
obedience is totally fine, but when a human says it (Except when he says God’s
saying it) then “Who says?” seems to creep out faster than a cockroach to a
crumb. Why must we always act in such childish ways? If your brother says it,
screw him, if your dad says it, ok. Really, we must imagine a big daddy in the
sky, and that is how we shall keep track of ourselves? This is foolishness,
when you grow up, guess what, you find out that your parents don’t know
everything, that there are smarter people than them who are much more attuned
to certain subjects than your parents could ever hope to be, and so you look to
those who know more as better sources than those who know less. Who would have
thought, and yet, we are plagued with persons who just want one authority to
appeal to, that is just unrealistic, no one can know everything, one could
devote ones entire life to study (What a loser!) and still know next to
nothing, we must appeal to those who do these very things, for even they know
that what they know is not even the smallest drop in the pool of eternity that
spreads out before us.
If
a scientist contradicts the bible, who are you going to believe? The scientist
says that the earth is millions of years old, the bible says thousands, the
scientist says that evolutions is responsible for the great diversity of life upon
the planet, the bible says that all life was made as it was from the get go,
which is more plausible, that the scientist (And all of his colleagues) are
willfully lying about their subject (Peer review bitch!), or that the bible is
a book of ancient myths written and espoused during times that far predate
science? I know, stupid question, but I just thought I’d ask.
So
what does this have to do with judging evil, and who’s judging by the way? Well
we are evil’s judge, and therefore we must discover it’s whereabouts and fix
it’s dismal attitude, I mean seriously, not everything has to be miserable. How
do we do such a venerable thing? As I’ve said, by suppressing antisocial
behavior and enhancing pro-social behavior. “You keep saying that, but how do we
do that in the now? Everything cannot be solved so easily, can it?” Interesting
point, let me see, can there be something that is antisocial that cannot be
socially legislated away? You almost got
me, but I think the answer to the question is in the negative, the object in
question must be known and in gaining said knowledge we can make a judgment,
see, easy! It is all about testing and reviewing the results, if an action
leads to an undesirable outcome consistently, we thereby should note the issue
and work with that information, we have no right to tamper with the results
because it does not agree with our desires, we certainly may run more tests to
see if it was done reliably, but we must allow the facts derived to stand
before the eyes of review and be judged worthy or unworthy. That is how science
works, why is its application seen as terror or worse, an invasion of the space
of our precious taboos (Science may say eating your face is a bad idea, but
what do they know!).
What
is against society? Actions taken willfully against it, the intent to do
something in violation of societal law for selfish gain or reasons, accidents
are not evil because they lack any form of intent, unless that action be under
the guise of negligence, we do not judge an accident as harshly as a willful
action. Now I know the problem here “But you, and all those other atheists,
talk about the genetic, social, and chemical reasons why we as humans are
seemingly unable to control our actions completely, so how can you judge anyone
at all?” Clever, my ever mustache twirling evil twin, quite clever indeed, but
even these facts do not preclude the justice system. Let us take for example
this idea, a man is raised a racist his whole life, he believes intensely that
he is above all other races, and even more radically that all other races
should be expunged from existence so as not to dilute the gene pool. He then
goes on a terrible killing spree, taking the lives of many and injuring
countless more, until he was gunned down himself. Now, knowing that his mind
has been infested with these memes of racist ramblings from the cradle to say his
eighteenth year, what would you expect? Now I know some may say “Not all
racists are violent sociopaths!” (And that’s what makes it ok) but does this
situation now somehow seem less evil and more pitiful? Do you not see the mad
racist more as a rabid dog frothing with bad ideas about the world, only to be
put down because he had no control over his mind’s sick devotion to an ideology
that bore no real resemblance to life as it is, but rather superimposed itself
upon reality like a oddly tinted lens?
A bad idea can metastasize,
malignancy is just as real in the mind as it is in any other part of the body,
memes are parasites, some dangerous, others benign, and a few can even be
beneficial, but they feed off of your psyche, without you they could not
survive. Now I know what you are thinking “Ideas aren’t alive! Who’s the crazy
one now?” For the record, I never said I was sane, you just assumed it, and I
must disagree with your statement. An idea is a living thing, we make real our
thoughts the moment they come into being, it just depends how long it takes for
them to die. If what you say is quickly forgotten, then said idea’s lifespan
was short, but if not, we then must ask how long will it go on? Parasites need
hosts to survive (Oh ring worm, you’re so cute), and without them, well you get
the idea. How many human idea’s and inventions would exist without us? Oh yea,
if there were no people, then there are no ideas, so… none. There you go; we
give life to our concepts by putting them into practice. Creepy isn’t it (IT”S
ALIVE!). Now of course, they aren’t alive in the physical sense, but alive in
the idea that they are present and thereby affecting reality in a very physical
way. If the idea of not killing other humans is put into practice broadly, then
there are going to be a lot more humans walking around, this would therefore
mean that the idea of ‘not killing’ is alive and well, this of course doesn’t
preclude the rule breakers from the equation, for they are just not following
the idea, but since the concept has taken hold in such a far reaching way their
actions are negligible in comparison. Ideas are strong, they are much more
powerful then we like to think, and their durability is outstanding to say the
least.
“So if our minds can be taken
over by bad ideas, then aren’t we still out of control of ourselves to some
extent?” Annoying isn’t it? But like the rabid dog example, we cannot control the
initial infection and later terminal stages, we can only combat bad ideas with
the fact’s at hand, and we can only remain relatively immunized by keeping an
open mind and not allowing ourselves to get overtaken by the used car sales man
(Make lemonade out of those lemons, it’s a car you idiot!). This, like the
price of liberty, requires vigilance, patience, skepticism, and a willingness
to accept that which may not be comforting but is none the less true. We are
always at odds with our feelings and the facts, life is hard and the last thing
we want is to be ‘without hope’ and feel alone in the world. But, I don’t like
certain things either; this doesn’t mean that I can get what I want because I
do not like it. No one (Well, not no one, because some do, and for good reason)
wants to die. We like consciousness; in fact, our only real conscious
experience is with consciousness, so leaving such a state is certainly not
considered optimal. But let us joke, why is consciousness good? I mean,
none-consciousness isn’t so bad. Since when have you heard of rock on rock
violence or the crimes against subatomic particles, or those fiendish rumors
about black hole bigotry! You haven’t, inanimate matter cannot suffer, that
without consciousness is free from crime, pain, and injustice, I thereby
conclude that it is better to be none-conscious rather than conscious, because
only conscious creatures can suffer and create said suffering. (Take that you
moral mongers! You only wish you could be adamant in your resolve!) Now of
course I am not so eager to join my fellow inanimate objects, but rest assured
I hold them blameless for the evil’s we endure. (What intent can a rock possess
of its own will? Rocks don’t have will stupid!)
But let us look at the other
side, can religious minds be taken over, oh yes they can, by demons! (Excuse me
while I clutch my crucifix) Demons… really, I mean I don’t mean to be rude but
how cartoonish can you get, even the most creepy pop culture possession movie
seems laughable no matter how bad it gets. Why is it (Seriously, why?), that
when demons possess people they turn them into contortionists, or make them
sound like a smoker with emphysema, and makes them say funny sounding things
while cutting themselves, and worst of all, it only seems to happen when they
are wearing a white nightgown, or maybe it's just me, but I always feel odd when
I wear one, and everyone looks at me as if something’s wrong, but I’ve yet to
be able to touch my toes, so probably not. But is that it? Is this Satan’s
master plan, to make everyone self loathing smokers with a passion for gym and
body modification? I must say, I am more
then unimpressed, at least from the sound of him I would have thought he was
more creative, or at least ambitious, but it seems he’s in it for the cheap
thrills, I don’t think I’ll call him back, I mean it was nice and all but I
just don’t see a future for us.
Let us contrast this, one is a
bad idea that if left to its own devises will taint a person’s outlook on life
by informing his actions through a very narrow ideological lens, the other is a
(Very theatrical, Oscar worthy really) demonic possession. Do I really have to
say much more (No, but I’m going to any way, so there, put that in your pipe
and smoke it!), how plausible is the idea of demonic possession? Are there
instances where people (With horrifying mental illness) do terrible things to
themselves and others due to a brain diffidently, or a chemical imbalance, or
after having ingested certain compounds, or after being forced to hear another
ghost story, that is just like the last one, and everybody knows it was the
hook-man in the closet with the neon green dildo, I mean who couldn’t have seen
that coming? In both instances we are confronted with the scary notion that we
may indeed not be in complete control of our conscious state, but one is an
understandable and very physical problem, the other is (What other words can I
use to describe this?) demonic possession. The idea of another consciousness
coming in and overriding our own is certainly an unnerving thought (But was I
the one who was unnerved, OR WAS IT THE DEMON!), but if we are dealing with the
idea of a meme, this means that the idea doesn’t just kick open the door and
declare that “There’s a new sheriff in town!” rather we acclimate ourselves
over time to conform to the belief, and then before you know it (Insert
ghoulish undertone), your mind is not your own. Well it actually still is, it’s
just that, you know, you’re obeying the principles of the meme, and the meme’s
dictations are considered more important than, oh forget it!
This seems to be the place where
the concept of temptation comes in. To believe or not believe, that is the
question? Or, put more aptly, to act or not to act. The idea of temptation
seems to me to be a strange phenomenon, seeing as how it links up to both body
and mind. What is it to be tempted? To see, want, desire, and resist taking
said thing. Easy! (In a pig’s eye) But then the theists come in and before you
know it, even desiring, wanting or even seeing is something to be avoided, one
shouldn’t even be tempted in the first place, this must make going anywhere the
most miserable experience in the world “Hey, let’s go to the mall” “I can’t”
“Why not” “Because there’s stuff there I want, but I don’t have enough money to
buy it, and if I see it I might be tempted to want it more, and then I’ll want
to buy it, and then I’ll be tempted to buy it but I have no money to buy it…”
For God’s sake (Excuse the pun), what the hell is wrong with you? But not every
theist is so stingy, the mall’s ok, just not certain types of music, or
dancing, or movies, or school subjects, and especially the porn, you know how
they are, missionary, no exceptions, except you can’t look at it until you do
it, so there (Sex is pretty easy, they’ll figure it out, but how will they know
it’s missionary or not, we’ll never know).
But have you seen where I’ve gone
with this, how the conflation of temptation (HA! That rhymes) is taken to such
an extreme that it becomes neurotic. Porn is a temptation (Bet your sweet ass
it is) to engage sexual intercourse, but is utilized for the self gratifying
means of personal sexual expression (Is it so hard to just say masturbation?)
and thereby relieve pent up sexual tension within the individual. It’s healthy.
But, to hear tell from a theist, it’s a gigantic prostitution industry that
encourages wanton selfishness at the expense of the objectified, but don’t
worry you’re pretty little heads my objectified brothers and sisters, they hate
you to (So do I, I mean twelve inches! Life’s so unfair, curse you genetics!)
because it is you who is single handedly (Both hands for that one guy)
destroying the moral fabric of the youth these days, see everyone get’s shit on,
such a generous bunch to give away all the corrupting power to pornography, way
to go people, keep up the good work. But this is a very strange way to argue
against porn. For example, if you were to take the rout that the
objectification of others is wrong and dehumanizing to the opposite gender (Yes
my transsexual friends, you’re in here too, see I don’t forget), then you may
indeed have a good social point. Objectification can create problems, if you
don’t see people as people, but rather fancy sex toys, then you are in for a
rude awakening when your life-size sex doll isn’t in the mood for skin slapping
and would rather sleep in because the night before was miserable, and they have
a headache. Any other argument, however, seems to smell (I sure hope it
doesn’t, to the shower with you!) of a peculiar ‘because sex is sacred’ odor,
and this is not an argument, rather it is a statement without reason, and
should therefore be suspect.
But how does this factor in to
temptation? Isn’t temptation a feeling, and thereby we may feel tempted but not
act on it. Let us swap out temptation with something else, anger. We get angry,
but our anger does not rule us. Violence is a byproduct of anger, but we are
not always violent when we are angry, just as stealing is a product of wanting,
but we do not always steal when we want. Wanting is not wrong, in fact, desire
is the driving force of life, for if we wanted not we would never aspire, and
as such progress would never occur. Most people want sex, but only a minority
are willing to rape for it, many more are willing to pay for it, and a majority
are willing to work for it. What does this say? Wanting and having are two
different things, and there are right and wrong ways to go about them, but the
wanting part isn’t the problem, it’s the having part. The action is what
matters, thinking about it doesn’t count, for a court on thought crime is
asinine (I’m getting good at this, rhyming that is), it purports that your
thoughts, in and of themselves, translate to actions. This is a
misunderstanding, your thoughts lead to actions, but only if you act on them, I
may really want to beat my children, but unless I do the police cannot accuse
me of doing so, and as such my mind and my actions are separated. If I refuse
to make real my thoughts, they may as well have never existed.
Is temptation wrong? No, it is a
normal part of life, and not every temptation is in the negative. What if I
were to say “I am really tempted to give to charity.” Such a temptation surly
is not evil, and if you carry out the action to ‘give’ you have done no wrong
on either front. But this gets us into a deeper question, one I touched upon
earlier, is the thinking part wrong? To think of nefarious things sounds like
an evil (Oh if only I could kill Steve and wear his face, just saying, he has a
very pretty face) but is it an evil? Let’s look at it this way, should an
author be held accountable for the crimes committed in his fiction? The answer
seems self evident (He put his what in where now!), of course not. A fictional
account occurs in the mind, it is brought forth through a storytelling medium,
and it has no physical composition other than that, crazies who act out the
deranged deeds aside, there is no reason to hold the author in account with
anything other than writing it.
But how does this jive with the notion of memes, how
can some bad ideas take control, while others seemingly stay the product of
human fantasy? This is puzzling (I hope it’s not one of those big ones, I hate
them.), but let me take a crack at it. Firstly, I feel it has to do with order,
if it gives the user a sense of control and comfort, regardless of its
actuality, it will take root much easier. Secondly, a feeling of community must
arise from it, others must take part in the wellspring of the meme’s existence,
and seeing as how it may give a sense of control and comfort the battle is half
over already. Thirdly, these things must be maintained, a cast of persons
assigned to the meme’s propagation and continuation must arise so as to
proliferate the followers and thereby the meme’s existence. And fourthly, these
things must be done as early as possible, thusly leading to the proselytizing
of the youth and thereby the next generation. If these things are carried out
the meme will survive undeterminable lengths of time, for the reason that it
creates a sense of (Get ready for it) society. Oh look, we’re back to society
again, back to pro and anti social, back to asking the questions “What will
promote society?” versus “What will harm society?” it’s one big circle and I’m
getting dizzy!
Now perhaps the theist will say “Well, you just see
everything through your ‘social’ lens, while I see everything through God’s
lens.” Fair enough, but it seems ‘God’s’ lens has an eye for social
institutions (See what I did there?). The church is one great big meeting place
for people of similar viewpoints to congregate and ferment together. The theist
doesn’t seem to see that the ‘social’ enterprise of the church is the reason
for its existence, not the other way around. We’d see how immutable and all
encompassing ‘God’s’ word really was if no one was speaking it, or should I say
around to hear it, but that’s the point, the church is a social institution,
and as such it follows the basic tenants of all societies, with a bunch of
unnecessary additions. Imagine, for a moment, a society where personal
preference did not affect the law? What do I mean by that? (Because I’d sure
prefer not to die, so…) A society, this is the part that matters, a society
would not allow those things viewed as repellent, cruel or evil. Now, can you
imagine a society that is not informed by personal preference? I don’t like
milk chocolate, and yet milk chocolate exists and I am no worse for it, in
fact, society is enhanced by the fact that there are many who do like milk
chocolate that’ll eat and enjoy it. What is my point (Yea man because I don’t
have a clue. By the way, how many people are writing this?)? My point is,
a society who makes laws based upon ‘moral’ objection must be able to prove
harm. Much like a court of law, you can’t just take anyone you don’t like in
there, they have to have done a justifiable misdeed to you, along with the
intent to have done so. If we look at it this way, some laws seem to crack
beneath the weight of reason, and yet not all laws against ‘unintentional’ or
‘personal’ misdeeds are destroyed.
Now, no one in the religious camp probably see’s too
much of a problem with my reasoning (Except for the porn part, and the ‘no god’
part, and the ‘morality is a man made structure’ part, or the...) and I trust
that it has gotten through well enough. The point being, that when the atheist
asks “Why?” the answer should not be just “Because!” rather it should have a
bit more of a backing behind it, reasons as they say. What good is a rule if
you cannot articulate its principles? You shouldn’t eat poop, why? Because it
has bacteria in it that could cause you a whole host of health problems like
blood poisoning. Now, if the answer is, because it’s disgusting, I’ll agree,
but that isn’t a very good reason. This seems to be the way theists win
arguments “Well we both think it’s wrong” they say “Yea, but you just say it’s
wrong, I know why it is, and I’ll explain” “Isn’t it the same thing?” They’d
ask, and the answer is no. Getting a right behavior by accident, so that’s how
religion has survived for so long, I mean, toss enough darts at the dart board
and you’re bound to hit a bull’s-eye.
The ‘unattractive’ nature of a thing equates no
moral weight. Let us say we were to view some very intense German porn (For
those of you not initiated in such a unique cuisine of pleasure punctuated by
screams, please see the internet as a reference, I’ll wait… go on… DID YOU SEE
WHAT THEY DID! I mean, I had no idea you could fit a cactus into your…), now
can we ascribe morality to such excessive instances of S&M? Well, only
based upon the intent of the practitioners. If the sadist is not truly
intending to cause lasting harm to his or her partner, and the masochist is
voluntarily participating in the event, we may then conclude that no harm is
being done, two individuals sexual expression is merely being released and said
practice results in a healthy outcome (In a pig’s eye!). Now that I am done
thoroughly stereotyping an entire cultures sexual practices and by default
degrading one of their expressions of love (I’m not concerned, the Germans are
a tolerant people. I mean, now they are), I must emphasize the importance of
the ‘reasons’ being so crucial.
You walk up to someone and you notice that they are
crying, why are they crying? The answer will make all the difference to your
response to them. If they say “My mother died” then you will know they are
experiencing the extreme grief attributed to the loss of a loved one and
comfort them accordingly, but if they say “The severed head in my backyard
won’t speak to me anymore” you should appropriately back away slowly while
saying thing’s like “I’m sure he just needs some time to collect himself”
before running away while appropriately flailing your arms and screaming. Each
of these scenarios gives a reason, one seems legitimate, the other crazy, but
your response is predicated on the reason, and it can be no other way. What if
you didn’t care about the reason? What if you just walked on up to just any
crying person and started comforting them without asking why they were crying?
Well one things for sure (There’s going to be one more severed head in
someone’s backyard), you will quite possibly respond in the wrong way. What if
they are crying because they just got the news that their loved one had just
emerged from emergency surgery after receiving an injury that would have
otherwise proved fatal, but they have survived. Their tears are of relief, joy
and a release of built up tension, they may be inconsolable, but not because of
sorrowful news. This is important, we must understand the reasons for things,
but we cannot settle for a blanket ‘reason’ they must be specific reasons, this
is why intelligent design is not taken seriously, the answer is always ‘because
God’ and that seems to be the blanket reason for everything in existence
(Because it is, for the theist). But this form of reasoning isn’t reasoning,
it’s like me saying “Spaghetti has meatballs, meatballs exist, therefore
spaghetti!” it presupposes a thing without having to prove it, why could the
meatball not exist without spaghetti, who says the noodle must accommodate
sphere shaped ground beef, such a clam must be contested (I refuse to yield my
meatballs to your narrow rules on consumption!).
