The Sex Bubble

What is the sex bubble? It is an economic bubble (sex is an industry), and as inferred by the use of the word bubble, it will eventually pop. In the United States, among many other places, sex is a big industry. Hell, anyone that regularly uses the internet knows that many businesses are making bank off turning people on. Anyone with eyes has noticed the steady increase in the pervasiveness of the sex industry in our day-to-day lives. While this isn't directly caused by atheism, I believe it perhaps is indirectly caused by the loss of traditional values given by religion (but not exclusively owned by religion). But perhaps what is more responsible is the cultural lag caused the the rapid changes that technology has had upon our socialization. Each generation's socialization has been very different from the last, and this is reflective of a disturbed society that begs for stabilization.

Nearly everyone has sexual desires (it's not a need like water or food). In other words, nearly everyone gets horny in the same way that nearly everyone gets angry, sad, happy, etc. But just because we all experience these things, does not mean we should encourage them to their fullest. For example, I could be angry at something, and could get myself very worked up if that anger is encouraged (by obsessively thinking about it) over a long period of time—doing this will lead to a very deeply rooted cynicism (like that of TheAmazingAtheist). Anger is a useful emotion, when it is used usefully, and the same is true of the sex drive. That said, if a person constantly exposes themselves to things that generate sexual arousal, the brain will rewire itself accordingly (making a person for lack of a better term, perverted).

But don't we already know this? Don't we know that encouraging a particular emotion will cause changes in our worldview? But it doesn't need to be over a long period of time. For example, let's say I had a positive view towards Arnold Schwarzenegger, but after finding out about his scandal, I experienced anger/disgust towards him. Such a change of view is purely driven by emotionally charged thoughts, and those perceptions transcend the knowledge of his affair and pollute the entire view of him (and it would take effort to undo this pollution). This is true of all emotionally charged thinking/labeling. Another example would be woman that have a sexism towards men. If a woman thinks about men as being bad often enough, eventually those negative emotions will transcend their perception of all men. I believe the same principle can be applied to a society that is overexposed to sexually arrousing images. The more sexually arousing images an individual sees, the more they will want to see to get that euphoric high. Traditionally, people were limited to what they could get away with under the law, and typically marriage—and those energies were channeled into single individuals forming closer family bonds. This is part of the reason the divorce rate is so high: people have sexual appetites that are so great that a single individual cannot quench them. Not only that, but the fact that people have many more sexual encounters will multiple individuals, this destroys the amount of intimacy and individual can experience with the person they end up marrying (sex has become slightly more intimate than a handshake). And this is all caused by an emotional state and worldview perpetuating one another. The sex industry is one of the biggest problems our society faces in the future, it has a direct role in destabilizing the family unit.

This trend however is reaching its ceiling, and we are seeing the negative impacts upon the foundation of society (i.e. the family). If you watch TV, see magazine covers, go on the internet, and so on, there really isn't much more sex they can pack in. I believe with the reaching of the ceiling (again, how much more sex can be put out in the open?) coupled with the negative consequences of this hyper-sexuality imposed on our society by corporations, we will see a popping of the sex bubble. What does this have to do with atheism? Well, I believe atheism is eventually going to dominate society, and it is up to the atheists (by default) to establish (or reestablish) sexual values back into society (at the moment sexual values are far weaker than they should be). An example of this is to reestablish the useful disgust towards promiscuity that once existed—sadly it is now a badge of honor for most—and it eventually leads such individuals (i.e. the majority) to experience...or rather not to experience the deep level of intimacy that binds a relationship. Not only is there a lack of intimacy, but the proverbial bar is raised to unreachable heights for what is sexually attractive. The sex industry has weakened the bond that holds the foundation of a society together; let's hope this bubble pops soon so that its destructive (albeit apparently subtle) influence doesn't raise havoc on our values for much longer.

Boycott the sex industry, you and your society will be better for it in the long run. 

Is Sex Addiction Real?

Everyone has the desire to have sex (well, almost everyone) it is all a matter of resisting that urge when it is inappropriate/destructive. Guys like Tiger Woods are not faithful because they want to have sex, and think they can get away with it with no consequences (which, in their minds, eliminates the problem). This is a big problem in our society, we avoid destructive behavior because of our fear of punishment, which shouldn't be the reason for being good. There exist actual reasons for why cheating on a spouse is wrong, not out of fear of getting caught, but because it is wrong (obvious reasons).

Tiger Woods is a Buddhist, and Buddhists believe right and wrong is not black and white, and this creates wiggle room for them to justify their own immoral behavior. This isn't to attack Buddhism, or imply all Buddhists are moral-relativists (many, if not most, are). Moral-relativism creates the wiggle-room needed to rationalize immorally. 

Slavery In The Bible

This is a good documentary that doesn't have nearly enough views.

The bible is filled with slavery. Even Jesus appears to have supported slavery. This just shows that the moral structure layed out in the bible is a little bit outdated (to put it gently). For those bible-thumpers, slavery is not morally wrong (if it was the bible would have condemned it, not endorsed it). Maybe people should create a new religion, with a new set of morality, for believers to latch their faith onto (perhaps with more unicorns and less rape, murder, and slavery).

When I was a Christian, I would read the bible all the time (wanted to know what I was suppose to believe in). What probably threw my faith off the most was the parts that talked about rape and the brutal murdering of babies (that God apparently endorsed), but also slavery. It was easy for me to see that the bible was not a good book to get morality from. It was primarily reading the bible that killed my faith. This is why I believe that all Christians should read the bible from cover-to-cover. Most Christians that actually read the bible are forced to step back and ask themselves a few big, obvious questions. The bible has probably created more atheists than anything else. As a culture, we have out-grown the bible (and other similar holy-books), and that is the cause behind the rise of atheism (many contradictions).

Why Feminism Is BAD! (destruction of the family)

Before I go on with my rant on why feminism is incredibly destructive to the family. Men and women are simply different, to compare men and women is to compare apples and oranges. Women have attributes that make them a vital part of a functioning society, and men the same; however, the the attributes that make them vital are different. Men and women are different, and are utilized within the family in different, however, equally important roles.

What I am implying here is not that women should not have equal rights under the law. Women should realize that they fill different roles in the family (and in society). Women are great, and very very important for society, they play/played a role that is/was so very important, and so unappreciated. Sadly, women are told not to be women, but to be "equal" to men (like an apple trying to be equal to an orange).




destruction of the family


Feminism is trying to make women think and behave like men; women are not men, period. Our society is losing our real-women, the women that are vital for the family to function. There is nothing more important in the world than the family structure. The family is the foundation of a society, and when it goes, so goes the society. The family structure still exists (barely), which is why our society is still hanging on, but given enough time, society will crumble (no structure can stand when its foundation is destroyed).

What are the signs of a crumbling society? Many of which could be argued to be caused by the destruction of the family structure.

-high divorce rates (obviously)
-loss of a sense of morality (highly sexualized culture, lack of honesty/trust, high corruption in politics, crime etc.)
-unemployment
-demoralization of the population
-lost sense of nationalism
-high amount of mental disorders/dysfunctions
-high drug use (stress issues, morality issues contribute)
-high amount of sociopathic behavior within population (linked to the morality, but important within itself)
-paranoia (people feel insecure not having a proper family structure)


I can't address all of the points made in the list (will in later posts). But I'm going to start with divorce. Why are the divorce rates so incredibly high? Well, because women are trying to take on the leadership role in the family, which obviously will create conflict. Feminist do not understand the importance of a good, functioning family. Like any social organisation, it cannot thrive with conflicting leadership. Evolutionarily speaking, men are leaders, is in innate within them. But perhaps equally or more important is the role of nurturer (caring for the young, the sick, etc.); women are just better nurturers than men, period. What we have lost by the feminist movement is the ability for a family to function (conflicted leadership with little or no nurturing and/or broken families). The family needs a strong leader to provide and protect (a shell), and a nurturer that takes care of the wellbeing of everyone (especially the kids). What feminism has done is destroyed the leadership-role that men are naturally suppose to assume (this isn't opinion, this is an accepted concept of evolutionary theory).

All social organisations have a chain of command, the organisations that do the best do not have conflicting leadership. And, an organisation needs more than just good leadership; in the context of the family, the women plays a very important nurturing-role. A family without a nurturer suffers, this has turned our society into a "day-care" society filled with kids that don't know what it feels like to be loved. Many kids today have problems feeling that they belong because of this (a bold claim perhaps, but I have good reason to believe it is true).

I wanted to keep this short and sweet. I will be doing many more posts on why I feel feminism is bad. Men and women are equal as far as both are important in their own unique way within a society (we need both) But, we should end the comparing of apples and oranges, for the sake of our society (feminist seem to want everyone to fit a masculine role). Obviously not all women are interested in having families, and that's fine. But, I also believe that there is a psychological importance of having a good, strong, functioning family. Now-a-days over half the kids have broken families. Broken families cause kids to suffer, and with their suffering comes consequences in the longterm. If we are unable to come to our senses, the future of our society doesn't look very promising.

Perhaps I am wrong however, maybe the family structure isn't that important, maybe women should continue trying to be men (they need to in order to be "equal"). I suppose time will tell. Maybe men need to start a new masculinism movement (a movement concept I will blog about later down the road).

Also, another important thing for women is to get with good men. If a woman gets with a good man, they will be treated as they should. Things like domestic abuse and excessive negativity in general is caused by this. Check out my post on cheaters for example, which talks about the importance of love in a relationship (click me!)

my new blog site on social issues with a new post!

The site is called Social Debate (link at bottom of post). I will be talking about things like abortion, gun-rights, the media, politics, etc. The first real post on the site is about the topic of abortion, and why I view it as being murder. Check it out: abortion is murder.

http://socialdebate.blogspot.com/

I've posted many blogs on social issues (other than religion) on the atheist site, but I feel like it may be more enjoyable to follow my more focused/organised sites. Links to my other blogs are on the right side, check em' out. I'm also going to be  streamlining this website as well. 

religion may not always be a bad thing (from an atheist's perspective)

This is a rant on why I think the world is not quite ready to be completely god-free.  There may be some errors, just read through them if they exist.

Many atheists (I have been guilty of this myself) believe that their set of beliefs are the both the best for themselves and the best for everyone else. This is one big similarity among both believers and nonbelievers. Would the world be a better place if everyone believed in a god (I'm intentionally not be specific)? Would the world be a better place if no one believed in a god and took on a relativism view of morality?

My stance is different than most outspoken atheists. I do think that religion has its place, and that perhaps it should have more of a place in certain people's lives. To focus on atheists for a bit, I believe that atheists can be divided up into two groups (while there is a continuum, it is easier to label). You have atheists that hope that there is no God due to an awareness of their own moral short-comings—hoping they will not be punished by hoping their is no punisher. Then you have the atheists that don't believe in a god, not because they hope that there isn't one, but because they can rationalize that it is very improbable (those atheists typically refer to themselves as 'agnostic'). In other words, you have your open-minded atheists (sadly, some minds are too open), and your close-minded atheists (unable to think outside the box, will cognitively deal only with what is already known). Also, a close-minded atheists has a difficult time understanding subjectivity.

A close-minded atheist is typically a person who came to atheism because they were made aware of that alternative view of the world by someone else (I like to call them 'sheep-atheists'). All people (excluding rare minorities) can be moved towards a view of non-belief, given enough time to soak up the information destructive to their previously held world-view. What I am claiming is that being an atheist alone does not make a person "special" in any way. Some use atheism as a way to escape perceived moral obligation so that they can more easily obey impulsiveness. Such people would probably behave better if they did believe in a god (pain vs. pleasure rational is so easy to understand a mouse can do it).


Much of religion deals with moral questions, and views morality as being objective (oftentimes "created by God". Morality is a set of beliefs that battle harmful impulses for what is perceived as being good. If all humans naturally behaved well, concepts like morality and ethics would not be needed. Oftentimes our beliefs sharply contradict our impulses, and this contradiction is where the concept of morality is formed.

Many atheists claim that "morality is innate", and that may be true in some cases. For example, it is "immoral" to cannibalize (certain obvious exceptions), and that is innate within the vast majority of humans (who may get sick at the mere though of it). But, I would not say that all people that don't eat humans are behaving morally, but naturally instead. But, on the other hand, people that do eat other humans are behaving immorally (immorality = lack of needed morality to prevent harmful impulsiveness).

Religion has caused many individuals to rebel against their nasty impulsiveness (and the reverse could be said as well). Many criminals, for example, have used religion to keep their impulse to harm others in check. But, on the flip-side, there exists religious beliefs that cause people do to behavior that is harmful (to themselves and others) that they wouldn't ordinarily do. The whole point of morality is to benefit the functionality of a society ("point" as in evolutionary purpose). Many people have the impulse to murder, but it is their belief in a god (or belief in the law) that prevents them from doing it (many also use their belief in a god to rationalize murderous impulse).

All of this is to get me to my main point. Religion oftentimes seems to be a vessel that is able to provide unintelligent, thoughtless, impulsive individuals with a moral structure. What must be understood is that some people have a piss-poor ability to empathize with others. The ability of one person to put themselves in another's shoes is the bed-rock of moral reasoning. But, not all people are able to do this (like some people are bad at math).

Empathetical intelligence is a continuum—not a dichotomy of good or bad (even though labeling can be easier, and sometimes more useful); those low on this scale we refer to as sociopaths, while those high on it are viewed as being good, moral individuals. As an example, there are many horrible kids that behave like saints around Christmas because they want presents! These are the sort of people that need religion. Some people will only behave well if they believe that it will be personally beneficial.

To clarify, not all people have an impulsive nature to behave poorly, some people are naturally good; i.e. they are nice for no reason at all. Naturally "good" people are not behaving "morally" per se, they are behaving naturally. Moral behavior is behavior that contradicts a harmful impulse (as previously stated).

So what is the point here? Well, we must accept that some people have an impulsiveness that is destructive (both to themselves and/or society), these people need a moral structure like Christianity (reward/punishment) to keep their behavior in line. I want all people to give a lot of thought to the subject morality, and stop behaving based on impulse, but I also want a billion dollars and a pony. The world should not give up religion until its people are able to improve their empathetical intelligence. The world in its present state not only can't give up religion, it shouldn't, and many atheists should go back to church for the sake of everyone else. In a culture of "me me me" (thanks to the influences of things like Facebook, certain music, Jersey Shore, America's Next Top Model, etc. have on individuals cognitive behavior), empathy is a force that is weak within us.

If you have made it this far, thanks for reading my post.

Tom Leykis - Men Like Low IQ's, Women Like High IQ's (Scientific Evidence)

This doesn't surprise me. Intelligent girls are not as annoying (in my opinion)as this guy makes them out to be. In-fact for me, I am more attracted to women that are above average in intelligence. I do understand, however, that a guy does not want to be with a woman that is smarter than they are—for the same reason that a guy wants to make more money—it is a dominance thing. Men naturally want to be the head of the household, it is hardwired into us. It is all determined based upon how intimidated a particular man is by a woman's intelligence. This is also similar as to why men are not attracted to female body-builders (well most).