Why does it seem that there are so many atheists who want to go the exact opposite extreme of religion? Maybe I’m more of a humanist then because I do still have a very strong ethical code that I decided on using logic and a true sense of compassion towards others. Moral judgment can be based on the net positives it can provide for the whole of society. Aren’t we all striving to improve ourselves and our communities? Freedom is a wonderful thing worth fighting for, but if those freedoms are not for the betterment of society then we must question if that particular freedom would be best if regulated instead.
Here is the horrible rock bottom...Everything is permissible...Anarchy. There is an opposite of religion which can be just as negative as religion. Everything cannot be permissible without allowing for harm to occur to someone else. Everything needs a proper balance and I just feel as if there are a lot of atheists who are not thinking about this but rather simply want to be the opposite of everything in religion. But not ALL atheist...some do feel that we have to have guidelines to abide by...i never said ALL.
Ugh. Anarchists drive me crazy. Lol, I'm sure that's part of the appeal. It's just so juvenile.
Anarchy has nothing to do with morals.
Its simply a lack of governance. A lack of laws.
I totally agree with your statement we must always think for ourselves, as in figure it out on our own, but i think we need to be compassionate towards what hurts our helps the entirety of civilization as well.
To be honest, I think Atheists on a whole tend to do that much more than any religious person, as a general rule. Religious people are more interested in making their religion supreme, and don't really care whether that would be good for everyone or not. The religious right-wing in this country would prefer xian law imposed on us all, just like islam wants sharia law imposed on everyone. These people are much less interested in freedom than enslavement in the name of their delusional sky-fairy.
I say this with conviction because both my best friend and my brother are religious. They both profess to believe wholeheartedly in freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, blah, blah, blah. By best friend is an evangelical and my brother is a mormon. My best friend believes that "the church" should have complete power over our government and my brother voted yes on prop 8 (California). Both have no problem at all stripping the rights away of adults simply based on their nature, or because they refuse to stop thinking for themselves and don't buy into a particular brand of delusion. They would both be horrified to think that someone thought them unpatriotic.
The only time I have EVER heard a xian talk about "live and let live" is when people are fighting to keep them from shoving their religion down other people's throats. They consider it "live and let live" to force kids to say prayer in school. They consider it "live and let live" to allow them to force young-earth creationist superstition into schools as "science." xians, as a general rule, only believe in freedom if that freedom is in pursuit of and supporting their special brand of superstitious nonsense.
Have you ever considered this:
Maybe humanity has been overly compassionate and that is the reason there are now so bloody many of us here now? We are a society obsessed with compassion, if not doing it, at least talking about it. Compassion makes us feel good, which is why I don't believe in true altruism either. Good actions do benefit us and true altruism is based on doing good without receiving benefits. Do-gooders who don't admit this are simply lying to themselves.
I agree that doing good is hardly ever a selfless action. I had an economics professor drive that one home for me...even the bitter, martyred catholic has to admit their wracking up brownie points with the Big Lie Guy.
I don't think our population explosion can be explained so simply though. The industrialization of agriculture and modern advances in medicine were not totally driven by a compassionate world view but often by profit. However, there are many of us alive today because of the not entirely selfless work of compassionate people.
The biological analogy for the massive human population is bacteria in a petri dish. Our population explosion is a bit of a misnomer. We've been exploding for a very long time.
This is how bacterial growth occurs in a petri dish, their growth rate (reproductive success) has remained the same over the entire time, but the resulting population "seems" to only increase near the end of the graph. So the compassion I speak of dates back to the first major civilisations that gave themselves rules of compassion to help each other stay alive, from the original development of agriculture onward.
Our obsession with the value of a compassionate community life is in my LONG term historical view at the very centre of modern humanity's continued same growth rate. The only difference with these past few centuries is we've unfortunately reached the peak of that curve, we've maxed out our natural resources. In order to continue to grow the population in order to provide cheap labour for growing economies and corporate empires, technologists are now in search of non-natural resources that will ensure a steady supply of profit creating opportunities.
Even though the UN produces three different models for future expected human population growth, I opine that the more conservative models will not happen because market forces have an insatiable appetite for growth, and until this changes, the human population growth will be sustained with all technological means possible, at all costs.
Why does it seem that there are so many atheists who want to go the exact opposite extreme of religion?
Does it? And what is exactly the exact opposite extreme of religion (which in itself it also highly diverse)
Maybe I’m more of a humanist then because I do still have a very strong ethical code that I decided on using logic and a true sense of compassion towards others.
I have the feeling that most atheists (heck, most humans) do this. It's just that several moral depicted in religion overlap with logic morality, but that is not much of a surprise; they are made by humans after all.
Freedom is a wonderful thing worth fighting for, but if those freedoms are not for the betterment of society then we must question if that particular freedom would be best if regulated instead.
I agree with Sassan K. here, could you give an example
"if those freedoms are not for the betterment of society then we must question if that particular freedom would be best if regulated instead." Absolutely not. That kind of totalitarian thinking is not good for anyone.