13 Questions

[Eudaimonia]

These days atheism tends to be built around Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, but for me personally, my heaviests influences were Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell. While I enjoy a good discussion, the celebrity that these guys get is kind of funny. I've read their books, and these guys don't really say much that others haven't said for decades now. Everyone is suddenly interested in these crazies who blaspheme against their creator. :rollseyes: Well, for me, as an atheist, theism is less a blight, and more a juvenile notion that we haven't outgrown yet. I grew up Pentecostal, and believe me, questions are frowned upon even moreso than in lighter denominations. I just couldn't believe, couldn't overlook the glaring holes, couldn't accept the dogma. So I searched for something else. It wasn't until I began listening to Sagan that the universe began to make sense again, and it seemed so obvious. It wasn't complete, but I have more answers than questions now. I've never been into philosophy, so existentialism and purpose of life aren't real questions to me. If you were to ask me what the purpose of life is, my answer would always be securing the future of the next generation. Its simple to me. Life has no purpose, nor needs it because life is the purpose. People get so trapped in the why, they never learn the how, and the next generation is stunted for it. I look at religion as an archaic distraction. I believe our civilization should have outgrown it by now. 3000 years ago, when we knew nothing, believing in such things was acceptable, now it seems nostalgic and quaint.

I have rarely come across an atheist that was not heavily influenced by the *big three* you mentioned.. I also rarely come across an atheist whose anger is not a driving part of their atheism.. That is why I was struck by your post.. It seemed a more comprehensive contemplation rather than the angry albeit intelligent exercise of ego and *smack down*.. that I'm used to on atheist sites..

Perhaps my exposure is limited? I can admit to this if it is true..

BTW: My influences were Hume, Neil Degrasse Tyson and simply being honest with myself that I did not have it within me to subscribe to dogma as if it were true..

I see religion as a distraught witness to a crime.. The witness is so caught up emotionally in their surroundings that despite their best efforts they create grandiose scenarios to cope with what they don't understand or can't articulate.. So the heroes, villains, victims,l nature, purpose and other various players in life become larger than life tales passed along for their principles but in fact retained for their dogma.... It is a psychological coping mechanism for humans..

The crime scene is life.. with all of its complexity, harshness and beauty..

I'm heavily into philosophy.. Ironically not to find a purpose.. but to hone analysis of the present for the benefit of future generations.. The question of "god" is only relevant to me because the human world is consumed with it.. I very much wish for a time when we can get on with building the best possible human society, our best possible selves - how to realize our potential (however that is to be defined) and understanding as much of the world as possible instead of the distractions of whose "god" is bigger etc..

I absolutely loved your post(s).. (at least on this thread - your other threads may be the complete opposite lol)..


ETA RE: #5 "5. If everyone on earth believed that rape were morally right, would it still be morally wrong?"

According to my moral sensibilities - Yes... According to societal sensibilities - No...

Such a heinous crime renders me unable to imagine myself outside of myself accepting something like rape..

However, I do understand societal influence and how one can be raised to accept victimization if it is deemed "right" by one's elders, peers, community etc..

For instance.. Ancient societies MURDERED children in the name of appeasing their god.. The families saw it as an honor.. No one in that society thought it was "wrong".. There are many instances where sacrificial victims consider it an honor to be so...

If women were reared to think of themselves as the playthings of men.. then I can understand how even a woman could be repeatedly raped by her husband (meaning she is unwilling he takes her anyway) if she thought it was her duty..

BTW Rape happens most often by one's family members.. and is often kept silent by the confusion of the victim misunderstanding that they have the right to feel violated.. In those instances if society also thought this way presumably this practice would be considered "normal"...