Evil And Its Judge

            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!).