Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 1:55:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This was just something I was thinking about the other day and I just wanted some opinions or criticisms on it.
I have to read these books for my history class and one of the book's I have to read is Uncle Tom's Cabin and as I read the introduction and the first few pages (all of which majorily discussed how the ideaology behind humanity had been twisted into such a sense that Christians were able to still be Christians while exploiting Africans to be their slaves; it was mostly saying that humanity is showing compassion for every other human being [or something along those lines] and humanity is a large aspect of Christianity and that all slave owners were being hypocrits, etc. etc. etc.) and I started to think about some other things related to religion.
One popular idea behind how humankind started off and what led to the creation of religion, law, and government states that in the primitive state, humans lived in a state similar to that of Darwin's survival of the fittest, which basically means that anyone who could not withstand the harsh conditions of nature would die. However, since humans are capable of complex thinking, those humans that would not normally survive due to their body size and strength began to think of other ways to outsmart their conditions as well as their larger foes (in this time humans killed just because it satisfied them; another theory is that humans used to eat each other and would hunt down the weaker ones and use them for food). Popular idea states that these humans who would not normally have survived created the ideas of law and religion in order to protect and preserve themselves. They stated that it is "wrong" to kill another human along with the ideas that if you do not kill humans, do not rape, do not pillage, etc. you will go to a "magical land when you die where you will be happy for all eternity. Simply put, these weaker humans created the ideas of morals, values, and humanity which ultimately led to religion, law, and government. (Note: some of this may be incorrect because it has been awhile since I have studied this concept but I believe I have covered the bulk of it and explained it well enough so that everyone can catch my drift; if anyone else if familiar with this concept and feels the need to elaborate or explain or correct please do so)
Eventually, humans came to rely upon the idea of an afterlife, the promise of eternity, and the ability to depend on a superior being. Despite the fact the religion has a very rocky background and has been used simply as a money scandel in the past before, people still continue to hold on to the beliefs they do because they need the illusion of a god and the promise of eternity to make them hold fast to their morals and their values and prevent them from committing crimes that are see as immoral or as actions against humanity. (Note: even though I am not speaking towards each individual religion, this idea behind it can hold for most religions; it is the promise of something that makes them either follow morals/values or follow the very complex rules of their religion, at least this is how I see it in my mind)
Now, this is what I was thinking and I thought this mainly because someone had said to me that they had always assumed Atheists and any other anti-god religion (however you want to put it) were a bunch of heathens or people associated with the worng-side of the law; just "bad" people in general (there are two definitions for bad and good, which I will explain in a moment). I was thinking that another reason why I am an Atheist besides all of the obvious reasons is that I can still have morals and values and not need the promise of eternity to make me follow those morals and values. I can still have humanity and not be a Christian or any other religion.
But I digress. The point I am trying to make is that as an Atheist I have morals and values (which can be considered religious to some extent as morals and values are the basis of religion as said before) and I do not need the promise of eternity to follow these rules as well as the law (which has also been imposed on humankind to help preserve those who would normally not survive in humankind's primitive state). The fact that I do not need the promise of eternity has nothing to do with the validity or credidentials of religion or God. At this point, it would almost seem optional to be an Atheist or a Christian with the choice being: do you need the promsie of eternity to make you stay in line or are you strong enough to follow these preset guidelines on your own? However, there are other aspects that make me choose Atheism over Christianity but that is not the point I am trying to discuss. My point is that even godless people usually have some sense of humanity and morals, and that the belief of Christianity that everyone who does not know God is automatically a heathen, a troublemaker, a ruffamuggin, etc. (And I know that this belief exists somewhere because I have to go to youth group and they talked about it last week). But what I mean to say is that knowing what I do, I believe that an Atheist who still retains morals shows strength by overcoming the dependency of an afterlife (even though some will say it was logic and reason) while all others who hold on to this dependency are not particularly strong of mind and if humankind were suddenly reverted to its primitive state these people may not survive because they will not be able to adapt and understand that killing another human is part of survival. (Now an Atheist might not also be able to adapt because he may firmly believe in the morals that he holds while others may only hold to these morals and obey the law to avoid jail and the like and in doing so they will be able to adapt easier.)
One last quick thing, I mentioned that there are two definitions of good and bad.
In the primitive state (or well, anybody can really think this way, it's a lifestyle choice)-good is anything that pleases you, satisfies you, or makes you happy. So if clobbering someone to death makes you feel happy then that must be good.
In the moralistic state (can't think of a better way to phrase that)-good is based upon right and wrong and morals, and clobbering someone to death is considered bad according to the moralistic state.
In the primitive state-bad is anything that displeases, upsets, distrubs you, or causes pain/distress. So if someone singing or something upsets you then it must be bad! Or if a rose pricks you then all roses are bad!
In the moralistic state-bad is the wrong according to humanity and morals. Stealing is considered bad in the moralistic state while in the primitive state it may be considered good if stealing made you happy.
(Note: primitive state def. basically make good and bad personal things.)
But basically, I was just kind of thinking about this and as said before I just wanted someone else's opinion/criticism on my thought process, and perhaps I could develop my ideas further until it is perfectly sound and makes complete sense.
It is now 2:55 am...Eastern time.