I have heard many times that one should save oneself for marriage. That keeping your virginity for your spouse is a great gift (this is more often aimed at women, however I will not go into that now as this is a post about general sex and not double standards and misogyny). But I see this as a very unhealthy attitude to hold, both physically and emotionally.
Say you have found the man/woman that you want to marry. You both abstain from sex until after your wedding. Finally the big night comes, but instead of being a wonderful experience, all you can think about is how horrible and disappointing the experience was. This sadly happens more often then we are led to believe. Sex is a great emotional outlet and source of bonding, while bad sex can have the opposite effect. One or both (I am assuming monogamy for this post as most developed countries do not allow polygamy) of the partners will be left feeling unfulfilled sexually which leads to sexual frustration, possible resentment towards their partner (or anger at yourself if you believe it is your fault), both partners will not get the emotional connection sex grants a couple, and they will not have sex as a bonding agent after misunderstandings and arguments.
This leads to a higher divorce rate, a divorce that could have been avoided had the couple simply had sex before the got married. Many of those that do not divorce (usually for religious reasons, the same causative agent of the chastity) are left will a less then satisfactory marriage that leaves them craving emotional closeness.
Some will argue that two people will get better at sex over time and many people do, but that does not address the key issue here. Even if there is an improvement in performance, the two individuals sexual tastes or libido can still be utterly different. These do not change. A person can force themselves to do something they do not truly enjoy for their partners sake, but this leaves both unfulfilled (the one who is forcing themselves for obvious reasons and the partner who wants the encounter as a forced situation is invariably worse or less convincing then honest enjoyment). A person who enjoys a lot of kink during sex will not feel satisfied being monogamous with someone who only enjoys vanilla sex and vice versa.
As long as one practices safe sex, the risks of premarital (or extramarital sex if both married partners are consenting) will be outweighed by the benefits. Both individuals will have most likely gotten over the awkwardness of sexual encounters due to inexperience. Their sexual aptitude will also increase dramatically as by the time these individuals get married they will have begun to understand each others likes and dislikes.
Aside from the emotional reasons not to wait for marriage there is also a physical reason. A person who has sex regularly (in the referred study regularly was only once a week, greater frequency will have better effects) are less likely to get sick, they get over illness quicker and have a stronger memory and critical thinking skills (due to stress relief and greater amounts of neurotransmitters). Another recent study found that individuals who were still virgins after the age of 21 had more health issues then those who have had sex at least once, reinforcing the previous study.
No matter your gender, waiting for marriage to have sex is ill advised. Of course many of the emotional benefits only pertain to sex with an individual you have strong feelings for. Females need not wait out of fear of being considered a whore and males not need wait thinking abstaining somehow shows more respect to their partner (this is another form of misogyny that I will try to get to at a later date). In this post I have mostly used heterosexual monogamous couples as examples, however the concepts will equally apply to those who are homosexual, bisexual or polygamous. Also as to not give the wrong impression, I am not advising having sex before one is ready for it, that is always a must. Just my reasoning against abstaining until marriage.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Naturalistic Beauty
One argument against a naturalistic world view is that it supposedly holds no room for beauty and the euphoric awe that is familiar to many theists. This concept truly saddens me, to think that these people have to believe in the supernatural to be happy with their life and the universe they live within. I believe that humans can find as much, if not more beauty and spiritual fulfillment though naturalism as compared to the supernatural (theism included).
Yes, I said spiritual. When most people hear this word, them begin to think of religiosity or some new age belief. But the supernatural does not hold a monopoly on spiritualism. Freethinkers can have incredibly strong spiritual experiences through an understanding of their universe and their place in it. In fact spirituality is any view though which an understanding leads to betterment and a feeling of oneness.
Any person who truly knows me can tell you that I can be seen as a deeply spiritual person in this sense. When I begin to talk about our understanding of the universe and our place in it, I develop a fervor that would put the most evangelical preacher to shame. The feeling I get from this knowledge is pure ecstasy.
Our universe is more beautiful then we could ever hope to conceive of. Think for the moment that you, and everything you see around you is composed of the remnants of long dead stars. Look at a simple stream of water and conceive of the countless molecules of water in an endless dance with one another through hydrogen bonding. Imagine a simple microbe and know that there are thousands of chemical and atomic reactions going on within that very cell, allowing it to exist. Know that we are not separate from the universe, but an infinitesimal part of it.
Our very existence is amazing, consider that a single change in a single specie in the past could have prevented you (or even the whole human race) from being here. Intelligence is not a necessity for the universe to exist, yet we posses this trait. It is almost as if we, with our complex minds able to think in the abstract, are the universe's attempt to understand itself.
So next time you see an insect, a star, a stone or even your fellow humans, don't pass it off as a trivial thing. Stop and think of everything that had to take place for you to see it, all the complex processes going on within that item and the fact that you are even able to understand this concept to begin with. Think of these things, truly think and you will feel a sense of wonder that can move the most pessimistic of us to tears. This world is beauty, relish your chance to experience it, trivialize no experience and never forget to live your life, you will not get a second chance.
Yes, I said spiritual. When most people hear this word, them begin to think of religiosity or some new age belief. But the supernatural does not hold a monopoly on spiritualism. Freethinkers can have incredibly strong spiritual experiences through an understanding of their universe and their place in it. In fact spirituality is any view though which an understanding leads to betterment and a feeling of oneness.
Any person who truly knows me can tell you that I can be seen as a deeply spiritual person in this sense. When I begin to talk about our understanding of the universe and our place in it, I develop a fervor that would put the most evangelical preacher to shame. The feeling I get from this knowledge is pure ecstasy.
Our universe is more beautiful then we could ever hope to conceive of. Think for the moment that you, and everything you see around you is composed of the remnants of long dead stars. Look at a simple stream of water and conceive of the countless molecules of water in an endless dance with one another through hydrogen bonding. Imagine a simple microbe and know that there are thousands of chemical and atomic reactions going on within that very cell, allowing it to exist. Know that we are not separate from the universe, but an infinitesimal part of it.
Our very existence is amazing, consider that a single change in a single specie in the past could have prevented you (or even the whole human race) from being here. Intelligence is not a necessity for the universe to exist, yet we posses this trait. It is almost as if we, with our complex minds able to think in the abstract, are the universe's attempt to understand itself.
So next time you see an insect, a star, a stone or even your fellow humans, don't pass it off as a trivial thing. Stop and think of everything that had to take place for you to see it, all the complex processes going on within that item and the fact that you are even able to understand this concept to begin with. Think of these things, truly think and you will feel a sense of wonder that can move the most pessimistic of us to tears. This world is beauty, relish your chance to experience it, trivialize no experience and never forget to live your life, you will not get a second chance.
Crazy and Me
I realize I am somewhat unstable. I am not joking about this, nor am I saying this because it is now trendy. I am sometimes utterly nuts (ok, maybe more then sometimes). Nearly everyone who knows me is unaware of this though, I have gotten damn good at hiding it. While those who have seen some of the worst are still unaware of how much it still affects me.
The diagnosis I have received in the past is major depression and dysthymic disorder (a near constant state of 'mild' depression). Together these are often referred to as double depression for breviaries sake. While such diagnoses are useful in a clinical setting for treatment, outside of them, they don't mean much of anything. They do not take into account the psychological effects of having a chronic illness, the temporary insanity brought upon by reliving past memories or the occasional utter highs when the chemicals in my brain just go nuts.
One hour I may be fine, then next too depressed to get out of bed, the next a feeling of utter joy (think of an individual with bi-polar going through a severe depressive and then a manic phase in a matter of hours). But despite these occasional massive swings in mood, I tend to keep a perfectly composed facade up for the world to see. A few may see through, but most know me as a calm, composed individual who seems to be able to see through others issues to get at a heart of the problem. My own 'insanity' has allowed me a very personal view into the problems of others to aid them in ways a 'sane' individual would not be able to.
So if I have gotten so good at hiding my neuroses, why am I writing this now? Why would I share this with random individuals? I am writing this because when people hear the phrase 'mental illness' they run scared. The person with real issues beyond their control is often left alone when they need those around them the most. I am writing this to show that, while I may be completely off my rocker, this does not change that I am an individual. I cannot help my mood swings, my anxiety attacks, or my occasional psychotic moments, but I try. I did not ask for this, nor did those you may know who also have issues.
They might not always ask for help, they may even avoid sharing as they might be afraid at how you will react. But they do want you there, they want to feel that they are at least somewhat 'normal'. Because we are normal in most every way, by shunning those with a mental dysfunction, you will only lead to more issues.
Besides, our unpredictability keeps us from getting boring. If you are reading this and you have been made to feel less because of an issue, don't. Every one has their problems, paraphrasing Christopher Titus, it is the dysfunctional ones in the world who the normal turn to when the world goes to hell. While I am not saying mental illness is a positive thing, it is not entirely negative. Just like anything else, it can sometimes be crafted by the individual to gain certain benefits, not always, but in many cases. Do not be ashamed, do get the help you need, but do not feel like you are less. Also remember that asking for help is not a weakness, letting yourself deteriorate is.
The diagnosis I have received in the past is major depression and dysthymic disorder (a near constant state of 'mild' depression). Together these are often referred to as double depression for breviaries sake. While such diagnoses are useful in a clinical setting for treatment, outside of them, they don't mean much of anything. They do not take into account the psychological effects of having a chronic illness, the temporary insanity brought upon by reliving past memories or the occasional utter highs when the chemicals in my brain just go nuts.
One hour I may be fine, then next too depressed to get out of bed, the next a feeling of utter joy (think of an individual with bi-polar going through a severe depressive and then a manic phase in a matter of hours). But despite these occasional massive swings in mood, I tend to keep a perfectly composed facade up for the world to see. A few may see through, but most know me as a calm, composed individual who seems to be able to see through others issues to get at a heart of the problem. My own 'insanity' has allowed me a very personal view into the problems of others to aid them in ways a 'sane' individual would not be able to.
So if I have gotten so good at hiding my neuroses, why am I writing this now? Why would I share this with random individuals? I am writing this because when people hear the phrase 'mental illness' they run scared. The person with real issues beyond their control is often left alone when they need those around them the most. I am writing this to show that, while I may be completely off my rocker, this does not change that I am an individual. I cannot help my mood swings, my anxiety attacks, or my occasional psychotic moments, but I try. I did not ask for this, nor did those you may know who also have issues.
They might not always ask for help, they may even avoid sharing as they might be afraid at how you will react. But they do want you there, they want to feel that they are at least somewhat 'normal'. Because we are normal in most every way, by shunning those with a mental dysfunction, you will only lead to more issues.
Besides, our unpredictability keeps us from getting boring. If you are reading this and you have been made to feel less because of an issue, don't. Every one has their problems, paraphrasing Christopher Titus, it is the dysfunctional ones in the world who the normal turn to when the world goes to hell. While I am not saying mental illness is a positive thing, it is not entirely negative. Just like anything else, it can sometimes be crafted by the individual to gain certain benefits, not always, but in many cases. Do not be ashamed, do get the help you need, but do not feel like you are less. Also remember that asking for help is not a weakness, letting yourself deteriorate is.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Selfish Does Not Always Equal Bad
I have often heard that humans are inherently selfish. Each time I hear this I have to laugh a bit as the comment is almost always stated as a negative, not as a simple observation. It is true that the selfishness intrinsic to humanity has many negative aspects, but its inherent existance itself is not necessarily a negative.
In fact, this trait is one of the key factors that has driven our specie's evolution. Without a certain level of selfishness, our specie would have been doomed before it even emerged. All species must look after their own genes and their propagation, be they direct or those of the individual's family. Humans are no exception, we have had to look after our own descendants and relatives to prosper as a specie (although due to our specie moving from a regional to a semi-global one, this has broadened our scope of 'family' dramatically). Is this to say that one should look after ones direct genetic lineages while ignoring those of others? Of course not, as that would go against basic humanistic principles. What it is simply saying is that our specie required a certain level of selfishness to prosper and evolve in the first place. Due to our enhanced abstract thinking capabilities, this principle can be broadened considerably. This broadening is one of the key reasons why human selfishness (and the selfishness of many other species as well) is not inherently wrong.
When I say selfish, I want to clarify for those who see the word solely as a negative. In this instance, selfish simply means doing an act while thinking that the individual performing the act will get something in return. This return can be a specific as a physical reward or it could be as abstract as an increase in endorphins and other neuro-chemicals (a feel good moment). There is a very good reason for this. When our specie emerged on the plains of Africa, resources were quite limited. As such, any action would have to be gauged carefully to determine if the energy usage would be worth it. With this environmental pressure, the trait of selfishness was evolved to keep our specie from declining.
However, it was not taken to the level where it was harmful to other individuals, as that in itself would be detrimental to the specie (and more particularly, the propagation of the individual's genes). It was offset by a desire to do what would also aid the group (because if the group did not prosper, the individual would have no chance to do so). This is where the desire to do good for those around you most likely came from (it also explains why the desire is so much stronger for those with a genetic or communal link).
So no matter the act, there is a selfish desire behind that act (even if it is self sacrifice, as this would help one's genes, be they direct or family, continue on). This does not lessen the good behind the act, as it will be good regardless. What it does though, is put into context selfishness and its role in our specie's continuation.
Obviously there are many forms of selfishness which are harmful, but those tend to be rather self evident (usually, at least). The point of this post has been to show that selfishness itself is not bad. In fact, it could be viewed as a positive, for if such selfishness did not exist, neither would any of us.
In fact, this trait is one of the key factors that has driven our specie's evolution. Without a certain level of selfishness, our specie would have been doomed before it even emerged. All species must look after their own genes and their propagation, be they direct or those of the individual's family. Humans are no exception, we have had to look after our own descendants and relatives to prosper as a specie (although due to our specie moving from a regional to a semi-global one, this has broadened our scope of 'family' dramatically). Is this to say that one should look after ones direct genetic lineages while ignoring those of others? Of course not, as that would go against basic humanistic principles. What it is simply saying is that our specie required a certain level of selfishness to prosper and evolve in the first place. Due to our enhanced abstract thinking capabilities, this principle can be broadened considerably. This broadening is one of the key reasons why human selfishness (and the selfishness of many other species as well) is not inherently wrong.
When I say selfish, I want to clarify for those who see the word solely as a negative. In this instance, selfish simply means doing an act while thinking that the individual performing the act will get something in return. This return can be a specific as a physical reward or it could be as abstract as an increase in endorphins and other neuro-chemicals (a feel good moment). There is a very good reason for this. When our specie emerged on the plains of Africa, resources were quite limited. As such, any action would have to be gauged carefully to determine if the energy usage would be worth it. With this environmental pressure, the trait of selfishness was evolved to keep our specie from declining.
However, it was not taken to the level where it was harmful to other individuals, as that in itself would be detrimental to the specie (and more particularly, the propagation of the individual's genes). It was offset by a desire to do what would also aid the group (because if the group did not prosper, the individual would have no chance to do so). This is where the desire to do good for those around you most likely came from (it also explains why the desire is so much stronger for those with a genetic or communal link).
So no matter the act, there is a selfish desire behind that act (even if it is self sacrifice, as this would help one's genes, be they direct or family, continue on). This does not lessen the good behind the act, as it will be good regardless. What it does though, is put into context selfishness and its role in our specie's continuation.
Obviously there are many forms of selfishness which are harmful, but those tend to be rather self evident (usually, at least). The point of this post has been to show that selfishness itself is not bad. In fact, it could be viewed as a positive, for if such selfishness did not exist, neither would any of us.
Why Would a God Create?
I have a question for the theistic world. Why would a god create anything in the first place? It is such a simple question, yet I don't think it is one that gets enough attention.
For simplicities sake, I'm going to assume for the moment the common belief of most theists, that a god is a perfect being. If a god is perfect, then it does not need anything to better itself (just like you cannot add anything to infinity to get a larger number). So why would a perfect being create anything at all? The question gets even deeper when you notice the universe is anything but perfect. This imperfection of the universe begs the question of why a perfect creator would intentionally create imperfection. Wouldn't this in itself be a flaw and violate the supposed perfectness of said god?
What would a god stand to gain by creating anything? It obviously wasn't out of boredom as perfection cannot know boredom. Loneliness is right out as well. A perfect god wouldn't need things to worship it unless it had some sort of inferiority complex or was incredibly childish (but if you buy into many holy books, you would be hard pressed not to come to these conclusions). It almost seems that by creating an imperfect universe, god would have to also be imperfect. But if god is so imperfect, what would separate this imperfect god from simply a highly advanced intelligence?
Some would argue that the universe would have to be imperfect for us to understand it. This question misses the point of my statement entirely. My question, in asking why an imperfect universe was created also asks why we were created (as we are a part of the universe, not separate from it). Why would a god even bother creating something so violent as humans? I've already gone over the worshiping part and why that really isn't a viable answer. So why create us? Some may say because god wanted to bestow the gift of life on something in its own image (essentially, an urge to procreate). But such an urge itself requires imperfection. Not to mention the shoddy job. If a perfect god was able to want to create a being, wouldn't its inherent perfection require it to create perfection. If this were true, then we would have been created as perfect and not be limited to understanding an imperfect universe. Obviously perfection is not limited, but by creating imperfection the perfect being is limiting itself drastically.
This is a question I've never had satisfactorily answered (or really answered at all). It is also a question that I believe needs to be asked more frequently. It seems to be one of the larger holes in a theistic belief that holds a perfect being.
For simplicities sake, I'm going to assume for the moment the common belief of most theists, that a god is a perfect being. If a god is perfect, then it does not need anything to better itself (just like you cannot add anything to infinity to get a larger number). So why would a perfect being create anything at all? The question gets even deeper when you notice the universe is anything but perfect. This imperfection of the universe begs the question of why a perfect creator would intentionally create imperfection. Wouldn't this in itself be a flaw and violate the supposed perfectness of said god?
What would a god stand to gain by creating anything? It obviously wasn't out of boredom as perfection cannot know boredom. Loneliness is right out as well. A perfect god wouldn't need things to worship it unless it had some sort of inferiority complex or was incredibly childish (but if you buy into many holy books, you would be hard pressed not to come to these conclusions). It almost seems that by creating an imperfect universe, god would have to also be imperfect. But if god is so imperfect, what would separate this imperfect god from simply a highly advanced intelligence?
Some would argue that the universe would have to be imperfect for us to understand it. This question misses the point of my statement entirely. My question, in asking why an imperfect universe was created also asks why we were created (as we are a part of the universe, not separate from it). Why would a god even bother creating something so violent as humans? I've already gone over the worshiping part and why that really isn't a viable answer. So why create us? Some may say because god wanted to bestow the gift of life on something in its own image (essentially, an urge to procreate). But such an urge itself requires imperfection. Not to mention the shoddy job. If a perfect god was able to want to create a being, wouldn't its inherent perfection require it to create perfection. If this were true, then we would have been created as perfect and not be limited to understanding an imperfect universe. Obviously perfection is not limited, but by creating imperfection the perfect being is limiting itself drastically.
This is a question I've never had satisfactorily answered (or really answered at all). It is also a question that I believe needs to be asked more frequently. It seems to be one of the larger holes in a theistic belief that holds a perfect being.
Evolution=Good
By a show of hands, how many of you have heard the annoying whining of fundamentalists who say evolution should not be taught in schools (OK, you can put your hands down now, did you honestly think I would be able to see them?). For the few out there who have not heard about this, the argument is usually something along the lines that evolution is not real science or is just one of many 'theories' (showing their ignorance of the scientific term theory). This concept has been pushed especially hard in the states by the IDiots (those that believe the concept of intelligent design is anything other than completely laughable and an insult to rational thought).
I have to ask, have any of these people ever actually studied evolution and why it is such a damn good concept (not to mention a necessary one for modern biology)? It is supported by so much evidence from so many fields that to say it isn't science only proves how moronic the individual spouting the phrase is.
So what does evolution offer that creationism and its deformed hell spawn, intelligent design, cannot? Well for one, it explains why all of life on this planet uses the same molecules for its genetic material. It explains the diversity of life, it explains ecology perfectly. It makes wonderful predictions that are tested and proven time and time again. It explains why the human body is so damn convoluted and how modern medicine should develop. Oh, and it is also falsifiable, if some new piece of information comes along that would force us to re-write or throw out evolution (this hasn't happened), then it can happen. It is kind of hard to disprove a concept that revolves around 'goddidit', as such, creationism and ID are not science (or even rational thought for that matter).
Why is evolution so important to education? Well as I already said, biology would not make a whole lot of sense without it. It would also leave students woefully inept if they decide they want to go into any scientific field (including medicine). It would be like trying to train a physicist who believes gravity isn't real.
Evolution is vastly important to our understanding of life (oh, and it is right too, kind of an important part there). To try to ignore it or say it isn't real science only makes the person say it look like an ignorant fool from the 14th century. So next time you hear someone spouting such garbage, do me a favor, hit them over the head with the evidence (since a bat is made out of wood that comes from a tree which evolved, it counts as evidence).
I have to ask, have any of these people ever actually studied evolution and why it is such a damn good concept (not to mention a necessary one for modern biology)? It is supported by so much evidence from so many fields that to say it isn't science only proves how moronic the individual spouting the phrase is.
So what does evolution offer that creationism and its deformed hell spawn, intelligent design, cannot? Well for one, it explains why all of life on this planet uses the same molecules for its genetic material. It explains the diversity of life, it explains ecology perfectly. It makes wonderful predictions that are tested and proven time and time again. It explains why the human body is so damn convoluted and how modern medicine should develop. Oh, and it is also falsifiable, if some new piece of information comes along that would force us to re-write or throw out evolution (this hasn't happened), then it can happen. It is kind of hard to disprove a concept that revolves around 'goddidit', as such, creationism and ID are not science (or even rational thought for that matter).
Why is evolution so important to education? Well as I already said, biology would not make a whole lot of sense without it. It would also leave students woefully inept if they decide they want to go into any scientific field (including medicine). It would be like trying to train a physicist who believes gravity isn't real.
Evolution is vastly important to our understanding of life (oh, and it is right too, kind of an important part there). To try to ignore it or say it isn't real science only makes the person say it look like an ignorant fool from the 14th century. So next time you hear someone spouting such garbage, do me a favor, hit them over the head with the evidence (since a bat is made out of wood that comes from a tree which evolved, it counts as evidence).
Hell, not just a great expletive
Hell, other then being one of my favorite curses when preceded by the word bloody, is an interesting concept held in many religions, especially strong in the Abrahamic religions (the three ‘one true’ religions).
For those lucky enough not to be introduced to this terrible concept, it is the idea that if you don’t behave right or you don’t say the magic words before you die or even if a god doesn’t like you, you will be cast into this place of eternal torment. Sounds like such a benevolent god right?
Now what I find rather interesting about this hell place is that, other then the occasional vague reference of brimstone and fire, most people cannot tell you what it is like other then that it is less than pleasant. Sure, there are plenty of crazies claiming they have been there or that their god has told them (and only them) what it is like, but unless you are rather gullible (read hyper-religious), they will seem like the kind of person you want to keep a wide berth from. Other then the generic talk, the only thing that is elaborated upon is suffering, lots and lots of suffering.
So I have to ask, why the obsession with suffering? It seems to be mostly a scare tactic. As if the religious are saying “act like us or else”. Whenever a group resorts to threats you know to be wary. I believe a lot of this obsession can also be traced to the origins of the religion. When most of these started, a person’s life tended to be less then enjoyable more often then not. Life was hard, death was frequent, suffering was a constant thing. Then a group arrives claiming enlightenment. They tell the squalled masses that if they worship this groups invisible sky daddy (or daddies or mommies or flying mass of pasta), the masses will have a chance at a good life after their death. But to make sure the masses agree, they also threaten them as well as give them empty hope. They claim that if they do not believe, they will be sent to a place of torment, a locale where the suffering of this life is not only continued, but intensified. Now for your average ignorant desert dweller, believing seems a lot better then not (the idea of agnosticism and atheism was not very common in this time).
However this threat ignores a few key questions. One, why would an omnipotent and supposedly omnibenevolent being want any of its creations to suffer endlessly? This seems more of a human reaction, namely wrath. But wait, isn’t wrath one of the seven deadly sins? So does this mean that god is breaking his own rules? I guess if you make the rules you can break them. The second question asks, if god is omniscient, then doesn’t he already know who will go to hell and who won’t? Well there goes free will as well as makes god a bit more of an ass. It means those who will go to hell have no way of changing the matter, they are screwed either way. Even better, they don’t know who they are till it’s to late. Seems a bit off, doesn’t it?
This leaves us with two prime possibilities, either religions use the idea of hell as a scare tactic to get the ignorant masses to follow them or god is a pissy child getting angry at his toys. Obviously the first makes a bit more sense (and is far less terrifying). If it is only a scare tactic, then it can be safely ignored as anything even remotely close to truthful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)