Religious values influencing policy?

Apparently some morons need to believe someone is watching to behave morally. What annoys me about this delusional individual is how he implies that atheists are immoral. And not only that, but he implies that the "immoral" (i.e. nonreligious) are somehow a problem in the world. If we actually look at who harms society and who doesn't, it seems fairly obvious that atheists if anything are a good in society (atheist dominated countries have the lowest crime rates). If anything it is the delusional belief that we are moral because a god exists that is causing us problems (we relied on religion way too heavily as a source of values). There are a lot of religious people in prison, and I see a lot of gang members wearing big goofy crosses around their necks...yet atheism is the problem. Believing in absolute "truths" prevents the brain from learning (those that believe they know it all tend to not be the best learners).

Well, I'm rambling now. Rabbi David Saperstein obviously believes what he says, and that is why I believe he is not the brightest bulb in the pack. Leave atheists alone! :(

The demise of sex's forbidden appeal?

As we know all to well, sex sells. Historically people were very conservative with sex-related issues (e.g. clothing, social practices, and other behaviors). This made sex much more desirable (it was the forbidden fruit). Now sex is far from being a forbidden fruit. And what has this done? It has caused a proverbial arms race (in the spirit of $$) to "turn people on" (which has caused sexual desensitization and relationship problems). 

The purpose of this blog post is to bring attention to the psychological forces behind sex, along with what a person can do to bring the "forbidden fruit" back to life. Sex is special because we believe it is special--it is our socialization that has created this perception--and it can be a great tool to facilitate social organization and reproduction. 

Hypothetically, let's say we take two individuals (Bob and John). 

Bob

Bob is raised in a sexually conservative environment. His family tells him that sex is only appropriate when married. Through the grapevine Bob is told (or overhears) that sex is the most pleasurable thing imaginable. The combination of sex being both "special" and "pleasurable" creates a perception of sex as being highly desirable and highly intimate (can only engage in the behavior with one other person, which in-turn makes it the most intimate behavior on earth). This serves as a intensely strong motivator to be successful in finding a long-term relationship (i.e. marriage), as well as a motivator to protect the relationship from inner and outer threats (because it is special). Also, being that sex it is highly intimate and pleasurable in Bob's universe, sex is an incredibly strong bonding tool for his relationship. For Bob, sex is the most intimate act he can do/has done, which has emotionally super-glued him to his wife. Now that they are emotionally "super-glued", they form a social unit fit enough to survive the long haul. 

John

John was raised in a sexually liberal environment. In other words, he is taught that sex is not an intimate experience (between the lines), and that it is "normal" to have sex with multiple partners. Sex is far from being a forbidden fruit in John's universe. John's first sexual encounter is with his girlfriend at the age of 15 (a norm in today's world). Sadly, John and his girlfriend ended up breaking off the relationship after a few weeks because of boredom issues (girlfriend was sexually promiscuous and John wasn't able to keep her attention). Ten years later, and after many sexual encounters, he finds himself alone and frustrated. Sex has become slightly more personal than a handshake and he is alone due to the fact that he has lost his "emotional glue" (can't romantically bond with anyone). 

For John, sex has lost its potential usefulness...

1. Forbidden fruit

2. Intensely strong emotional bonding

3. Pleasurable (which 1&2 amplify)  

4. Long-term relationship (sexual conservatism motivates individuals to seek out long-term relationship goals).

Just because a value is "new" does not make it psychologically healthy, and when it comes to sex, context context context. Otherwise the usefulness of sex (as previously listed) is dissolved. I believe an obvious correlation can be seen with the rise of sexual liberalism and the high divorce rate. We humans psychologically need meaningful relationships to attain emotional equilibrium (and develop a sense of loyalty and trust). On a positive note, I bet the pharmaceutical companies love their billions gotten from anti-depressants (see a trend?). 

The "emotional glue" sex should be providing has become less sticky and much more slimy. But, it's not too late to help remedy this situation. If you have lived a sexually promiscuous lifestyle the best thing you can do is STOP. What this means is....

-Stop having all sex

-Stop thinking sexual thoughts (yes, it can be done)

-Avoid porn

-Don't recall past relationships (and/or cognitively distance yourself from them).

If this is done for a year or more (5 years would cause a near total psychological and physiological cleansing), the intimacy should return (at least as good as it can)

Obama on Atheist Discrimination.

I'm not sure why an atheist would even want to join a faith-based organization. In my opinion the government should not have influence over who hires who. If you run a business/organization you should have full control over who gets hired and who doesn't. In our country we have (typically) no problem allowing people to hire family and friends over strangers, but we have a problem when factors like beliefs or race come about. I believe having a reverse discrimination for race and belief fuels more hatred, it doesn't make it better. No one should be forced to employ anyone they don't want to, and I don't believe a religiously-based organization should be forced to hire an atheist (but the government shouldn't be connected with them either).

Can religion cause paranoia?

Perhaps I'm biased (being an atheist), but I believe religion can cause paranoia, and it has to do with the thought patterns associated with belief. And when I say 'religion' I'm referring to the big religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. In other words, religions that believe in a god. The main thought pattern that I believe leads a believer to paranoia is the belief that "God is always watching". I don't believe a person can escape paranoia with the belief that they are constantly being watched and strictly judged (to determine whether a soul gets tortured forever or rewarded). Personally that would drive me nuts. From what I've seen of religion's influence on people, it seems to be mostly negative, but maybe I'm biased.  

freedom of choice & what its limits should be.

The one thing the vast majority have in common is a belief in freedom of choice. Unfortunately, some people hold a double standard when it comes to personal choice. In other words, they believe in their own freedom to chose what they want for themselves, but don't believe in it for others. I hold this view not out of love for all people, but for the sake of "weeding" out the misfits from the socially productive. Right now it seems that our government (United States) wants to hold everyone's hand, but should this really be the job of the government? To micromanage people's lives/personal choices? If a person wants to behave in a way that is sell destructive, why not let them? Isn't not letting the self-destructive dig their own graves prolonging the inevitable? I believe so. And how hypocritical are we to claim that we live in a free country? This is a country where a person can jump over 20 buses on a motorcycle (probably breaking every bone in their body and/or dying), but get thrown in jail for smoking marijuana. We are a backwards people.

The limits of freedom of choice should be with basic things like: murder, rape, stealing, verbal assault (i.e. threats/intimidation), destruction of property, etc. Politically we are so damn concerned about what other people are doing, and this is not in the spirit of our founding fathers (overseas and at home). 

We need to value values again.

Many atheists don't want to admit it, but the demise of religion (majority of Americans are very casual, and one step away from being atheists/agnostics) has left a gaping hole in our societal values. Not that religion is the only possible source of these values, but the majority of people have no other understanding of the importance of values. Many Christians believe that if God isn't real, there is no purpose to things like ethics, morals, and values. The real problem here is our societies reliance on religion as a source of values. Without religion, we as a society are left with a hole that the culture industry is apparently (and destructively) filling. It's why I believe along with math and science, kids should have a class focus on values and morality. This is going to be a short blog post, this is just food for thought.

How can we create an alternative for religion to formally (a must) teach children how they should behave?

ItsTheSuperFly vs. Thunderf00t (atheist drama on YouTube?)

Here is the video ItsTheSuperFly is referring to....



This doesn't make atheists look bad at all. Thunderf00t was just having some fun with these headcases. And he isn't a  pervert (only a dumb-ass would think he was); he is simply interpreting the King James Bible in a way that most people would—in a modern context. Reality check: The King James Bible IS the bible the Westboro Baptist Church utilizes. Who is to say that the writers of that version didn't intend for it to be euphemistic? To say that two men are lying together in a bed IS inferring that they are having sexual relations. Within the context of the King James Bible, Thunderf00t isn't wrong. A Greek version of the bible is completely irrelevant here, the Westboro Baptist Church DOESN'T USE THAT BIBLE. The problem appears to be with the interpretation of those that wrote the KJV (they are known for their errors).

It's odd how someone that claims to be an atheist has such a reverence for biblical scholars. Someone that "dedicates" (i.e. wastes) that much time studying mythology is a waste of space. If you read this ItsTheSuperFly, perhaps you should use your all-mighty biblical wisdom and attack Christians, not atheists (you're wasting your time). Atheists have better things to do with their time than read the bible. I mean, I like to flip through the book for some laughs from time to time, but to make a serious effort in studying it is a complete waste of time. Christianity shouldn't be debated using scripture, it should be debated using science (an area where Thunderf00t is an expert). Atheists shouldn't strive to be biblical scholars, that would be dumb as hell.