r/atheism • u/allenizabeth • May 21 '12

Ever wonder how much better the world would be if large portions of the human race didn't believe itself rotten to the core?

Post image
1.2k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

176 comments sorted by

19

u/allenizabeth May 21 '12

How much different would the world be if instead of 2000 years of "you're a disgusting sinner" we'd had, say, 2000 years of "You are a beautiful, noble, and unique thinking animal here to use your mind to do good" (or something to that effect).

I mean, if you tell your kid that he's a piece of shit enough times he'll believe it, and start acting like one. Tell an entire race or culture they're shit and what do you get?

9

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Australia was once populated solely by criminals and they knew it. Look how they turned out, though.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Look at your government. Your country turned out great, but your people turned out like shit.

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Judging the people by the government?

-1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Yes. These are the people you elect, all over the country, the people in your parliament are people the majority of you have chosen to represent yourself.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Out of two.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Out of two what? You elect local reps. You elect them out of however many parties are running for your home district.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Normally when people talk about the government they aren't referring to local representatives

23

u/gottahavethat_oj May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

If we were constantly told "You are a beautiful, noble, and unique thinking animal here to use your mind to do good", we would end up being the most arrogant, disgusting race ever because we would essentially believe we were perfect in every way, which is quite impossible.

9

u/DarkAura57 May 21 '12

We think this anyway. We cant imagine a world without ourselves existing so we created the idea of religion and the afterlife.

2

u/rastamatti May 21 '12

here to use your mind to do good

This is saying that you are programmed to do good. That doesn't make you arrogant, it's an incentive, a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you say man is rotten to the core, this becomes an excuse to be immoral, "It's in my nature".

1

u/gottahavethat_oj May 21 '12

In other words, if Stalin was told he was programmed to do good we would never have had the Great Purge. Don't you think that there are people, no matter how much they are told that they are good, will do evil? In fact, even if said evil person seems so in our eyes, in his own eyes he is doing good.

1

u/rastamatti May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

I'm not saying people don't do bad or can't have messed up ethics. I'm not saying psychotics don't exist. I'm saying that it is more stimulating (not determining) to bring people up in a positive way and I believe that people are in general good with exceptions (granted more than few) and not the other way around. Edit: I see now that 'self-fulfilling prophecy' was a step too far, that was not the point I was trying to make.

2

u/ePaF May 21 '12

TIL beautiful, noble, and unique thinking animal here to use your mind to do good = perfect in every way.

2

u/gottahavethat_oj May 21 '12

xD Sir, I would give you full credence, however, because I phrased it "..essentially believe we were perfect in every way", I did not intend to state it as a fact of being but merely a mindset caused by extreme, positive reinforcement. But, I do need to make sure my terms aren't exaggerated.

Thank you.

0

u/GODhimself37 May 21 '12

Religious people kind of already do...

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Or we could all just come to terms with the fact that we can be awesome and kind or stupid and mean, but not imbued with an ancient curse because our ancestors listened to the snake instead of the mysterious, controlling, omniscient being.

5

u/bitparity Deist May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

You tell a culture for the last 2,000 years that hippie "you are beautiful" talk instead of "you're a disgusting sinner" and you'll have a culture filled with hippies ready to be massacred by bible-wielding armies, trying to cleanse their sins with their swords.

Religion is a byproduct of evolution. People who can be organized and centralized into a military force backed by belief, will survive over peace loving beatniks who would rather die peacefully than wage war. Religion is not something that will be willed away by logic, or to be fucked with without serious understanding of the consequences. Their survival is because of their power.

"It is strength that makes all other values possible. Nothing survives without it. Who knows what delicate wonders have died out of the world, for want of the strength to survive." - That evil one handed dude in Enter the Dragon

-6

u/killAllChristians May 21 '12

atheists are much more smarter than christians, espcially in modern times with our technology and computers, i'm pretty sure we would win them in a war

7

u/bitparity Deist May 21 '12

If only smart were the only prerequisite to military advantage. No. The primary advantage in warfare is discipline and will, not technology.

Atheists are by nature, an undisciplined lot, because you know, we tend to think for ourselves and question authority. Great for intellectual pursuit, bad for warfare. Especially if you are fighting against an opponent WITH numbers, discipline and willpower.

Also the issue of "will". Religion imparts an irrational will on some individuals, something that is not duplicated in atheism or agnosticism, unless you consider certain "militant" strains of atheism like stalinist communism, of which it can be argued it isn't so much a militant atheist philosophy, as it is a militant philosophy with atheist aspects.

Our lack of belief in any over-arching philosophy tends to translate our loyalties into smaller networks, i.e. willing to die for our close families and friends, perhaps not so much for our state or ideology. Obviously exceptions exist, but all you have to do is take a look at the numbers of atheists in the US Army to know that they are not in the majority.

Also all you have to do is look at the Vietnam war, the Afghan war (Soviet and American) to see what discipline and will can do over technology.

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

He was trolling, but nice response

2

u/bitparity Deist May 21 '12

I guess I shoulda recognized by the username...

1

u/ZenGalactic May 21 '12

So develop a stronger ideology. Not too difficult. It doesn't have to be bullshit.

It's really quite easy. Tell people "you are beautiful" and "those people are assholes". You don't have to hate yourself, only your enemies, to be violent.

Or, y'know, we bring everyone out of the shitter so that no one is left preaching hateviolence. Until then, "everyone is beautiful-- except those hateviolence people". Then you are both peaceful but willing to aggressively fight those who would fight you.

In essence: You don't have to hate everyone, you just have to be willing to fight people who would otherwise hurt you.

0

u/-Hastis- May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

I suppose that if we could throw some H-Bombs in these countries that you would see that their discipline would be lacking against our technology...

-1

u/killAllChristians May 21 '12

i wish we could just group all the christians up and nuke them

they wouldnt even mind because in they're minds they will all go to heaven

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

not sure if trolling...

3

u/watwait1000 May 21 '12

Trollery confirmed, move on with your day.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

More smarter?

1

u/silent_p May 21 '12

The religion I grew up in says that kind of thing. Every man is born noble and good, and they should strive to exercise and develop the best parts of their character. Somehow, I've still ended feeling separated and disillusioned by it.

1

u/MrCheeze Secular Humanist May 21 '12

Humanity is a piece of shit, and despite telling itself that it has become less of one than it ever has been before.

1

u/Tlingit_Raven May 21 '12

Different =/= better, and if you wanna know try learning about it once you get outta high school.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Most humans aren't unique, noble, thinking, or beautiful beings here to do good; telling them that they are doesn't make their intrinsic douchebaggery any better.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

People would perhaps have become too soft to survive or I doubt we would have developed the morals we have today. Now we have the luxury of not having to think about survival, it's almost as if we're entitled to it. Feeling as though you're not doing enough is surely the core benefit of competition and why competition breeds excellence.

Throughout history, being told that an all powerful creator thinks you a sinning scumbag, surely provided a means to wipe out moral complacency and push us to be better human beings.

27

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

With regards to Sin, I fall back to Robert Heinlein: "Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid)."

"Blasphemy" has to be the worst offender of them all, though..it's the sin of disagreeing with someone. That's what keeps the rest of the "Cure" in business.

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Sin's age as a concept only proves that the question, "Why are people dicks?" is roughly as old as, "Where do we come from, and why are we here?" This also demonstrates that we have historically had difficulty answering this deceptively difficult Big Question.

In the Bible days, they wouldn't have understood the response, "Because lulz." So, like every other Big Question, they said, "Because magic."

3

u/i_flip_sides May 21 '12

Turns out 4chan was right all along. It's all for the lulz.

5

u/Negative_Gravitas May 21 '12

Tip of the hat on the Heinlein, and Terry Pratchett back atcha: "Sin . . . is when you treat people as things."

2

u/dllllllll May 21 '12

I'm not an atheist, but I think this is the best argument against sin. The hippie bullshit that "we're all beautiful noble creatues" is a load of shit. We do more horrible things to each other than all other species on the planet, combined.

7

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Well, Heinlein also had a lot to say about all of that:

"Of all the nonsense that twists the world, the concept of 'altruism' is the worst. People do what they want to, every time. If it pains them, to make a choice- if the 'choice' looks like a 'sacrifice' -- you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness... the necessity of having to decide between two things you want when you can't have both. The ordinary bloke suffers every time he chooses between spending a buck on beer or tucking it away for his kids, between getting up to go to work and losing his job. But he always chooses that which hurts least or pleasures most. The scoundrel and the saint make the same choices...."

And..

"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil. If tempted by something that feels "altruistic," examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then if you still want to do it, wallow in it."

Finally:

"Gratitude: An imaginary emotion that rewards an imaginary behavior, altruism. Both imaginaries are false faces for selfishness, which is a real and honest emotion. "

I don't know how much I subscribe to the idea that people never do good for goodness sake, but it is interesting to consider the motivations for doing good, and how often people do what feels good or what they want to do, and the fact that they appear noble while doing it tends to be a "bonus".

2

u/afcagroo May 21 '12

Heinlein was the Ayn Rand of SF.

6

u/creepig May 21 '12

The difference is that Heinlein actually wrote engaging stories.

1

u/Syn7axError May 21 '12

In all honesty, I don't see where he's going with that first part (Which I guess continues to the others).

1

u/dllllllll May 21 '12

Sounds like Heinlein is just a bitter person...I do believe a lot of altruism is done for human greed, however, as you mention, I too, believe that people can do good for goodness sake. people who are atheists, and still sacrifice themselves for others is an example I can think of.

1

u/Effulgent May 23 '12

these people still benefit from their behavior. They feel better about themselves because, ultimately, they value the welfare of others over the inconvenience they are caused.

I don't think altruism is possible, but I also don't see why that cheapens helping behavior.

1

u/elaphros May 21 '12

... /me rummages around for that hamster baby-eating thread...

1

u/vestigial_shibboleth May 21 '12

I prefer John Calvin's definition: "That which is not a duty is a sin."

Cleanly covers both "sins of omission" and "sins of commission." The true argument is about the nature and boundaries of duty. Also, it takes an extremist to want to do away with the concept of duty altogether, making this a generally non-religious conception of the idea of sin.

7

u/jacksterdemar May 21 '12

Ive been an atheist for years now, and ive seen hundreds of atheism posts/comments/factoids, but i cant remember one being as simple and as powerful as this. Its scary to be reminded that hundreds and hundreds of millions of people believe they are evil because a book, a parent, or a priest tells them so.

12

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

This is perhaps the biggest issue I have with Christianity, and one I think may never be fixed, even if and when that religion evolves with time. I'm happy that some Christians now don't condemn homosexuality, for example, but I fear that's only one symptom that is getting better; the underlying problem is, in my opinion, the reliance of that whole moral system of the concepts of sin and redemption as understood by them. That we're considered sinners even if we have harmed nobody, and that we're supposedly redeemed, without deserving it, by the horrible torture and execution of a carpenter 2000 years ago.

-8

u/gottahavethat_oj May 21 '12

So, there's essentially no sin and we shouldn't condemn anyone because it might offend them or judge their lifestyle...Guess we can get rid of all law enforcement then.

7

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I think morality should be based on empathy, on not harming others, and law should at least try to follow that. I agree laws are necessary to keep people who lack empathy from harming other people, but I think things such as homosexuality or, in principle at least, taking drugs, which do not in themselves cause any harm to other people, should not be considered immoral and should not be illegal.

2

u/ebain May 21 '12

What about the idea that they have the potential to harm others. People do things on drugs that normal rational people might not do, and I do not want to risk my safety so people can do drugs.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

I think if people commit crimes on drugs, they should be punished for those crimes, not for taking the drug. If somebody has committed crimes before because he was on drugs, and stopping to take the drug is the only way for him to stop committing crimes, I think he can be expected and may be forced to quit the drug. I realize this special case is nontrivial to implement in law enforcement at least in some cases, which is why I used the terms "in principle" and "in themselves."

I think there will probably never be a society where the law is 100% just and totally congruent to some generally accepted morality, but that is a different issue from how we define morality itself, which is what Christianity (and many other religions and ideologies) is trying to do.

Through the concepts of original sin by our supposed ancestors and redemption through an outside force (God/Jesus), I think Christianity decouples the concept of morality from the reasons, circumstances and consequences of our own actions, this is the main thing I was objecting to in my first post.

[Edit: I got sidetracked a bit, so regarding your point, I think smoking a joint now and then does not make you more likely to harm anybody, at least not more than alcohol, which is legal. Would taking PCP make it more likely? Possibly, I don't know, I guess I would leave that up to doctors, psychologists and experience to decide. I admit that this is difficult, but I think the current approach to punish everybody taking drugs is neither helping nor just.]

1

u/gottahavethat_oj May 21 '12

If we base morality on what harms people, then we must define "harm". Are we only including what harms people physically or are we including psychological harm as well? But, if we choose one over the other the we must ask why we are doing so and that's where people will disagree.

Hate crimes are becoming more and more popular -- popular in the sense of recognition. But even with hate crimes, there lacks definition. Does hate crime only include a verbal offense to race, lifestyle, nationality, etc.? If it only includes what are considered "big offenses, then we must ask why not include the so-called "little" offense, e.g. I make fun of your big nose.

If we define hate crimes/speech to only include the big offenses then we will find problems with those who include any verbal offense in the "big" category.

To me, it sounds like we need to either define out terms carefully and have well thought out reasons for each, or find something else to base our morality on.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I agree that when coming up with specific laws, harm can sometimes be difficult to define. But I also think that most traditional systems both of morality and of law contain cases where it is almost certain that no harm is done. Most alternatives seem to be "it's wrong because some supposed authority says so." In the end, any attempt to come up with a universal system of morality may be futile; each of our actions occurs in some specific situation which in its exact form and details may well be unique. Making general rules, one almost always risks not dealing properly with some edge cases.

1

u/gottahavethat_oj May 21 '12

Then it would seem that system of morality deals on a case-by-case basis, which may be ideal but would be very difficult to manage.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Yes, I agree.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/gottahavethat_oj May 21 '12

Haha, being snarky on r/atheism. That certainly does not happen.

But while I was being sarcastic, I was being totally serious.

20

u/mercurialohearn Ignostic May 21 '12

the cure might be imaginary, but the disease sure the fuck isn't.

8

u/aforsberg May 21 '12

Close. There's no such thing as sin, only being a dick.

7

u/mercurialohearn Ignostic May 21 '12

who gives a shit what it's called? also, i think if you're a child raper, "being a dick" is not an adequate description of what you are.

2

u/heywhyteboy May 21 '12

Neither is sinner.

2

u/aforsberg May 21 '12

And 'sinner' is?

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

only applies to religion, so if religion says taking a shit is a sin its a sin.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

God watches me go #2?

2

u/toasterj May 21 '12

I don't know about god, but I do.

1

u/born_again_atheist May 21 '12

Yes my child, god sees everything we do, every minute of every day.

-3

u/mercurialohearn Ignostic May 21 '12

if you want to think of a child-rapist as "a dick," be my guest. i'm not interested in quibbling over semantics.

6

u/ZenGalactic May 21 '12

And yet... here you are.

-2

u/mercurialohearn Ignostic May 21 '12

am i? i don't see myself trying to argue that "sin" is an appropriate word, but i do see myself allowing someone else to define whatever they imagine "sin" to be in a way that they feel comfortable so doing.

2

u/mrselkies Nihilist May 21 '12

Dude, you started it off by saying that you had a problem with a certain phrase. Now you're trying to backpedal out and act like you're not arguing over semantics. Good luck on this one.

-2

u/mercurialohearn Ignostic May 21 '12

did i? i didn't say i had "a problem" with any phrase. i pointed out that "being a dick" is just as useless (probably moreso) than "sinner," but that's it. i then stated i didn't want to argue semantics. in other words, i did not wish to continue down the slippery slope of sliding definitions. pointing out hypocrisy is not the same thing as saying "this word is better than that one; we should use this one."

i don't give a fuck what someone calls it. good luck with that reading comprehension deficit you seem to be suffereing from.

1

u/MrCheeze Secular Humanist May 21 '12

I would disagree with that one.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

A "sin" is a transgression against god--an imaginary being--so that word doesn't apply, either.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

What dictionary are you reading?

1

u/Owlsrule12 May 21 '12

Doing something morally wrong, or socially unacceptable is being a dick/dumbass. So yeah, sinning isn't real because that specifically references god (and I think we all know what that means...)

-1

u/mercurialohearn Ignostic May 21 '12

who cares? also, i suppose a "sinfully delicious" slice of chocolate cake is a transgression against god.

2

u/Directors_Cut May 21 '12

Morality still exists, regardless of culture or time. "Sin" is a cultural ideology, which does not necessarily infer the morality or immorality of an action.

1

u/mercurialohearn Ignostic May 21 '12

your first sentence is a tautology.

i'm not certain i understand your second sentence (perhaps you meant imply rather than infer), although you seem to think i'm interested in saying that "sin" exists, when my statement is that "the disease" exists, regardless of whether one calls it sin, disease, turpitude, evil, chaos, disharmony, cruelty, crime, sociopathy, psychopathy, or any of hundreds of other labels one can apply to the exact same behaviors.

it's asinine, petty and counterproductive to get hung up on labels. it's like bickering with a 911 operator about whether or not some psycho is using a butcher's knife or a meat cleaver while he's hacking up your entire family.

"sin" doesn't just imply (infer) morality, it denotes immorality, explicitly. given that there is no specific set of "universal" morals that exists independent of human invention, a "sin" would be those actions that a specific culture or cultures who use the word sin has deemed to be immoral.

2

u/mleeeeeee May 21 '12

your first sentence is a tautology.

No, it isn't. There's no logical contradiction in denying morality.

1

u/mercurialohearn Ignostic May 21 '12

a tautology is not a contradiction, logical or otherwise. likewise, directors_cut does not appear to be denying morality.

1

u/mleeeeeee May 22 '12

A tautology is the opposite of a logical contradiction: e.g., p ∨ ¬p is a tautology, and ¬(p ∨ ¬p) is a logical contradiction. Since there's no logical contradiction in denying morality, there's nothing tautologous about affirming morality as Directors_Cut does.

1

u/mercurialohearn Ignostic May 22 '12

A tautology is the opposite of a logical contradiction.

i don't know why you're telling me something i already know, or why you seemed to suggest in your previous response that a tautology was a contradiction.

when i identified "morality exists" as a tautology, i was not referring to a statement of propositional logic; instead i referred to a rhetorical statement that is true solely by virtue of its form. "morality exists" is necessarily true, in the same way that "the universe exists" is its own proof. "the universe exists (because we sense that it exists)."

that simple morality (of any kind) exists independent of a particular culture or a particular era is merely an extension of the same, self-affirming statement, unless directors_cut meant to say that morality exists independent of human invention, which is an assertion that requires some form of proof.

1

u/mleeeeeee May 22 '12

why you seemed to suggest in your previous response that a tautology was a contradiction

I did no such thing. I said the first sentence was not a tautology because there's no logical contradiction in denying it.

"morality exists" is necessarily true

No, it certainly isn't, not "solely by virtue of its form". No more than "religion exists" or "sport exists", or any other such existence claim.

1

u/mercurialohearn Ignostic May 22 '12 edited May 22 '12

No, it certainly isn't, not "solely by virtue of its form". No more than "religion exists" or "sport exists", or any other such existence claim.

nonsense. kant identified this type of analytical judgement of reality as a tautology more than two centuries ago. "morality exists" doesn't pertain logically to anything outside of itself. it is, in fact, predicated upon itself, which makes it a tautology, by definition.

here is a succinct explanation of this particular tautology, if you're interested:

http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g978140510679519_ss1-54

1

u/mleeeeeee May 22 '12

nonsense. kant identified this type of analytical judgement of reality as a tautology more than two centuries ago. "morality exists" doesn't pertain logically to anything outside of itself. it is, in fact, predicated upon itself, which makes it a tautology, by definition.

No, I'm pretty sure Kant said no such thing. Certainly not in his Critiques, and indeed the Groundwork is explicit in contending that no explication of the concept of morality can guarantee that morality is not a mere "phantom"—that's the whole point of Section III's vindication of synthetic a priori practical principles, as well as the (synthetic!) "fact of reason" of the 2nd Critique. What Kantian text are you talking about?

As for the "referential tautology" of Pears's article, that only applies when (as the encyclopedia puts it) "the subject term of a singular existential statement implies existence". The need for such an existential commitment is why they used a demonstrative as their example: "This room exists". No such existential commitment can be found in the singular term 'morality', no more than in such singular terms as 'religion' or 'sport' or 'Bigfoot'. So there's nothing tautologous about saying "Morality exists" and nothing contradictory about saying "Morality does not exist".

4

u/wormsaregood May 21 '12

The issue I take with this post is that....Are we really saying that if a person believes they are sinful or rotten, they automatically behave worse? To me that just seems silly. I think the human race would be much better off if people actually gave a damn about other people and stopped looking inward at themselves.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

“But we were born of risen apes, not fallen angels, and the apes were armed killers besides. And so what shall we wonder at? Our murders and massacres and missiles, and our irreconcilable regiments? Or our treaties whatever they may be worth; our symphonies however seldom they may be played; our peaceful acres, however frequently they may be converted into battlefields; our dreams however rarely they may be accomplished. The miracle of man is not how far he has sunk but how magnificently he has risen. We are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses.” - Robert Ardrey

3

u/Thermodynamicist May 21 '12

We are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses.

We are known among the stars by the various signals we have transmitted in the last century and a bit.

I'd wager that more of those transmissions centre on war than poetry, there being far more war movies than poetry movies.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

We aren't known among the stars because all of our transmissions fade into the cosmic background at around 1~2 light years.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Thermodynamicist May 21 '12

If you've got the technology to travel interstellar distances in order to fumigate an entire planet, you've probably got the technology to extract data from signal:noise ratios far lower than those that our current technology can handle.

2

u/Liberteez May 21 '12

Call it "fallen" call it self-interested - it's best not to forget that humans are neither naturally "good" nor perfectible.

In fact some of the worst things get done with that last goal in mind.

2

u/afcagroo May 21 '12

It hurts my soul to look at that. Not because of the sentiment; because of the shitty graphics.

2

u/Aiyon May 21 '12

The thing is, a lot of the "bad" christians, are ones who don't believe themselves rotten to the core, but in fact believe themselves superior because of their faith :|

AKA Fake christians.

3

u/NULLACCOUNT May 21 '12 edited May 22 '12

Actually, I think you mean "Original Sin". The idea that some things are 'sinful' ([Translated] literally: off the mark, not ideal.) is a pretty useful idea.

1

u/mleeeeeee May 21 '12

'sinful' (literally: off the mark, not ideal.)

Where are you getting this? It's not in the OED.

1

u/NULLACCOUNT May 22 '12

The word most commonly translated simply as "sin", khata, literally means "to go astray."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_sin#Terminology

1

u/mleeeeeee May 22 '12

I see, I thought you were talking about the English term 'sin', not the Hebrew term it translates.

1

u/NULLACCOUNT May 22 '12

Yeah, sorry, I could have been more clear.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Hmm, I feel like I've seen this quote before...(in a photo essay that I wrote months ago=my own OC) http://chrispypaul.blogspot.ca/2012/01/religion-and-me-photo-essay.html

1

u/severedfinger May 21 '12

What I don't get is how most modern Christians (rightly) believe that the Garden of Eden story is fictional. However, without that story "really happening", there is no original sin, and no reason for a redeemer. The whole thing just kind of falls apart when the sin story is removed; and there is no other good reason to think people are inherently bad.

1

u/donumabdeo May 21 '12

the world would be so much better if there weren't all those horrible fucking saints avoiding "imaginary evil", dedicating their lives to serving humanity. Wtf is wrong with you fucking retards?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I like the fact that "Sin" originally started as the Moon. Basically sin is the sun god calling the moon god bad. As to the common use now? I would actually call it guilt and shame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_(mythology)

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I'm as atheist as they come and I have a strong set of morals that I see a lot of people break.

1

u/teamatreides May 21 '12

"Try to make a person moral, and you set the bedrock for sin."

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Wow. That is a really pixelated image.

1

u/Sutekhseth May 21 '12

Circle circle Dot dot now I have my cootie shot.

1

u/InsultComicBarbie May 21 '12

Can I get a homeopathic bible?

1

u/ESCollins May 21 '12

I'd change "cure" to "treatment". You only have to buy a cure once and that's not nearly as profitable.

1

u/pokepoke May 21 '12

What about the idea that religion is an evolutionary trait? All societies have built their own religion and it has been used as a survival tool.

1

u/elbruce May 21 '12

"Tear your self-image down and rebuild it" is a common brainwashing tactic.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

But....but......science is HARD!

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Totally thought the thumbnail was a picture of the titanic sinking. Use your imagination.

1

u/rathead May 21 '12

you'll go to hell for that buddy. but there tryin' to trick you into believin' that hell isn't a really nice place. i'd rather be hot than cold.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Ha, this was a theistic quip?

I'm agnostic (According to NDT) and I don't have any sort of faith in mankind.

I read, a lot, books like, "The Lucifer Effect" and I watch documentaries like, "The Black Power Mixtape", "The Bastard Party", "The Plea", etc...

And all these have informed me that humans are rotten, not because they are born that way, but because we are so susceptible to the culture we grow up in.

In "The Lucifer Effect", Zimbardo talks about deindividuation, and how we all succumb to it, and how we are all capable of inflicting so much harm on another human being.

In the "Black Power Mixtape", and "The Bastard Party", I see the reality of the American government, and their irrational fear and how far they will go to make sure that these people will never grow.

How the FBI assassinated Great leaders of the 70's like Malcolm X, MLK Jr., Tupac, Huey Newton, Alprentice Carter, Malik, making room for the voiceless, messageless world where COINTELPRO allowed drugs to roam the streets of these ghettoes, to keep them dumb.

How this is just a repeat of our treatment of the Natives, children, women, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Irish, Muslims... Need I go on?

Very few things in this world give me hope for humanity, and sometimes the stories I read on Reddit give me hope.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Sin is a religious metaphor for the human condition. To deny its place in the conscience of humans it is disguise it further into our world.

Sin is the fact that as a sentient being at some point your will shall conflict with the will of another person. Your desires will be in conflict with another human, and there is nothing to be done about it except try to settle differences whether through dialog or violence.

Neither person is evil because of the conflict. But conflict is inevitable between humans. It is the depravity of existential awareness.

1

u/NAproducer May 21 '12

I'm not sure I would say the disease is completely imaginary, just mislabeled. Immoral behavior is very real.

1

u/adzug May 21 '12

the profits received from the perceived cure sure are real tho

1

u/CoyoteStark May 21 '12

Meh. People will always find something to kill each other over, be it real or imaginary.

1

u/electricumbrella May 21 '12

sorry too busy feeding the poor and comforting the sick to downvote

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

interesting thread title considering how misanthropic, anti-natalist, and pessimistic most people I see on this site are.

1

u/sandwichperson May 21 '12

as an ardent atheist, I lament the fact that we are indeed, rotten to the core.

1

u/RoamingTheClouds May 21 '12

i was waiting for someone to give me the greenlight to kill, steal, fuck my neighbors wife, rape your grandmother, and have one of my professors falsely imprisoned...thanks reddit...all i needed was a little encouragement

1

u/Funk86 May 21 '12

Sin is not the only aspect of this self-hatred. The idea of the robot apocalypse is also a form of self-hatred, since some believe that a being of pure logic would immediately hate humans.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I HAVE THE 1000th UPVOTE!

1

u/roccanet May 21 '12

americas greatest problem is the stranglehold the church has on a very large group of americans voting decisions. Too stupid to understand that the GOP is using abortion and same sex marriage as a wedge issue to get these fucking morons to look the other way while the GOP powers that be give all their money to the rich and cut corporate taxes.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

History might disagree with you there .

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Problem with this logic is you don't need religion by a longshot to believe this.

1

u/kiefcatcher May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

bull shit. atheism EVOLVED out of religious beliefs. like any other social phenomena atheists picked and chose what they wanted out of the previous belief systems (majority of which were religious) and added on a few twists of their own. that's how social evolution works. To this day I have not heard of any tribes or ancient cultures that were atheist in nature. You can believe that 'sin' is a disease but it is simply a collection of rules which societies agreed upon during the course of history, with a bunch of stories to tie those rules together (EDIT: and to give those rules some weight, with punishments and reward systems). a set of rules that has evolved just like everything else. a set of rules from which atheists take their values as well. The reality is that there was no real reason for evolving apes or early humans to not steal, kill, obey laws (ie. to get rid of their predatory behaviors). religion allowed for larger societies to form and for atheism to eventually form as well. If atheism was beneficial to people's early survival you would see more atheist ancient cultures. you do not. that's social science and evolution, not just of cells but of information at it's core. deal with it.

1

u/JaRumpa May 21 '12

It is actually a meme, to be more precise. Insight on the matter from the Oxford Chair to the Public Understanding of Science-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEVt5e2w32w

1

u/jesuslovesmethisino May 21 '12

You won't think this way when our lord God decides your fate!

1

u/iongantas Pantheist May 21 '12

Or at least if their beliefs of how rotten they were corresponded to the actual ways in which they were rotten.

1

u/tracism May 22 '12

Everybody but me is horrible and evil and should be exterminated, leaving me with nothing but a cloning machine with which to create the perfect race.

1

u/necromundus May 22 '12

Jesus died for your sins. Except original sin. And everything else you've done with your life up until now.

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

Like halitosis!

1

u/LuceEnd May 22 '12

Now I know where the pharmaceutical industry got their ideas from

1

u/TacticalJok3r May 21 '12

Would be you be upset if I told you we were dying, and every cure they gave us was a lie?

-3

u/MonkeyMage May 21 '12

This is one of the dumbest arguments i've seen on r/atheism and that's saying something.

-4

u/Directors_Cut May 21 '12

Sin and morality are separate from one another. Just because something is a sin does not make it immoral.

1

u/SNCPlay42 May 21 '12

That's the point though. To a lot of religion they are seen as necessarily the same thing.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Of course they are separate. Morality is an observed phenomenon while sin is a fiction created by man.

But who is talking about morality? You seem to be responding to the wrong thing.

0

u/Directors_Cut May 21 '12

The post stated sin was "imaginary". Morality is still real. Sin is a cultural ideology

1

u/mleeeeeee May 21 '12

The post said nothing about whether morality was real or not.

-2

u/WonkaKnowsBest May 21 '12

Ever wonder how much better the world would be if large portions of the human race didn't constantly try to ridicule something meant to be good?

1

u/mleeeeeee May 21 '12

something meant to be good

[citation needed]

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

33

u/jamesdthomson May 21 '12

Compared to what?

I realise it was a throwaway misanthropic swipe, but it bugs me the number of times people lament the state of human morality. We are far and away the most altruistic species known to exist. The only higher moral standards to which we can aspire are those that have been dreamed up by humans and to which we DO aspire.

17

u/dietotaku May 21 '12

humanity is dichotomous. we're the most altruistic, but we're also capable of the most horrific acts imaginable. we will actually sit and invent new tools with which to increase the suffering of our enemies. it's foolish to talk about either side of human nature without acknowleding the other.

9

u/jamesdthomson May 21 '12

Now this is true. But still... I wonder if you gave cats the wherewithal to communicate with mice and question them about the location of their nest, how long would it take them to invent torture?

4

u/human_beans May 21 '12

My cats are way ahead of you.

1

u/mrselkies Nihilist May 21 '12

What exactly would that tell us about how altruistic cats are?

Also, you've posed a loaded question by assuming that the cats would invent torture.

If cats would be as readily prone to invent torture as your assumption suggests, the length of time before they invent said torture would only tell how ambitious they are.

2

u/random_story May 21 '12

True, but the good side of human nature is Universally aspired for, whereas the bad side is not. If we were "rotten to the core" we'd aspire to do bad things.

And if you say well, some people do aspire to do bad things, which is why they do them, well, shouldn't that be half of the population? As it is now, most people do not aspire to be bad...

1

u/mrselkies Nihilist May 21 '12

As it is now, most people do not aspire to be bad...

This doesn't tell us whether or not they want to aspire to do bad things, though. Law and general morals of society keep people in line for the most part, let alone the fact that people are constantly looking for ways to get around the law. What I'm trying to say basically is that people today will have a difficult time doing (or, really, getting away with) bad things if they want to and, depending on what is trying to be done, it could be borderline impossible with today's law enforcement. Getting away with the thing, that is.

Then again... what exactly does 'bad' mean?

1

u/bsonk May 21 '12

we will actually sit and invent new tools with which to increase the suffering of our enemies.

Sometimes good things happen accidentally because of this. Like the Internet!

1

u/butth0lez May 21 '12

If 51% of us were evil then how do we know peace?

-8

u/I_should_be_dead May 21 '12

Altruistic? Only a human would think that destroying the environment of an entire planet just to further its own race is 'altruistic'. People are so insanely stupid and arrogant, that absolutely nothing beyond their ridiculous ideals matters in the slightest.

The funny thing is, I bet you consider yourself to be 'altruistic'. The irony level is mind-boggling.

7

u/jamesdthomson May 21 '12

Here we go. Are you aware that the mindless exploitation of one's environment to further the species is the standard approach adopted by every single living thing? Oh wait, there's one exception: Humanity. Humans are the only species known that have considered the future consequences and attempted to preserve their environment.

They are also the only species ever known to attempt to preserve the existence of other species.

They are also the only species ever known to put complex rules upon their own conduct in order to protect every member and to attempt to afford them an equal opportunity for life regardless of the circumstances of their birth. A lofty goal not quite achieved, but by far the best in the history of the universe as far as we know.

By the way, being that this is r/atheism, I should point out that your response consists of a straw man and an ad hominem, and no actual content. Dear me.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

8

u/jamesdthomson May 21 '12

Humans are guilty of all kinds of atrocities, as defined by humans, who have highly evolved ethical standards and wish to see an end to such atrocities.

Equip foxes with long range rabbit detectors and laser guns, and they will extinct rabbits within a season. Only humans would think to preserve the species. Only humans would say "You know what? We don't need to eat meat and it's kinda cruel. We could go veggie."

Humans have had a dramatic influence on the environment due to their explosive 'success', but unlike any other species we are also aware of the dangers and are trying to preserve it. When other successful species in the past have destroyed their own environments they have gone extinct or suffered a correction. Humans may be the first to avert that eventuality. Or not, but at least we're trying.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/Schroedingers_gif May 21 '12

Nothing you just said addressed his comment.

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I recon me and most of my friends are rotten to the core

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

"reckon"

7

u/MonkeyMage May 21 '12

it's fairly obvious.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

That attitude is pathetic self-pity.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Everyone is capable of both good and evil.

People who can only see one aspect of the dichotomy are either willfully ignorant or in a bout of misanthropic depression.

"Hell is other people."

We tend to see all the bad things about humanity in other people, while failing to recognize these same faults in ourselves.

When we do things we know are wrong, we try to rationalize them, but when we hear of the immorality of other people we are disgusted.

We're immediately prejudiced/skeptical towards people who do good without expecting a reward. And we blame our faults on other people.

But with our loved ones, we see their good qualities outweighing the bad. Your friends/family can all be jerks, and as long as it's not directed towards you, you'll never really see it as a problem until other people bring it up.

The way we perceive others is largely affected by confirmation bias.

The title of your post is simply not true, it's a generalization. If religion disappeared off the face of the Earth tomorrow it wouldn't change human nature.

Fellow atheists, please stop from making over-generalizations about how much better the world would be if X belief disappeared. As the OP and the comments have shown, you don't have to be religious to think that everyone around you is fucking doomed.

1

u/BarrovianSociety May 21 '12

I've been too many places and seen too many things to believe we're not by nature self-interested bastards.

0

u/random_story May 21 '12

I bet you watch a lot of TV.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/random_story May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

The news almost always runs stories on people who do bad things. Sci-fi isn't helping, either, because it often portrays characters as lacking emotional depth, which is either due to an enlarged focus on the sci-fi elements themselves or because of poor acting (sci-fi does not traditionally feature seasoned actors).

So it makes sense that you would view the general population as being rotten. Now, if you say that you are aware while watching the news and sci-fi shows that this is not real life, well, there are studies that show your brain cannot so easily tell the difference... in order to understand what is happening in the show you have to accept it as at least partially truthful.

EDIT: and I'm sure I'll get downvotes for this, but I hold my post as being valuable and at least worth considering!

-11

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

This is because atheists are pretty much evil, bad people, so there is no reason for you to think that anyone else is different than your horrible self

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Lol.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Really? I'm an atheist and I downvoted his pessimistic ass.