Meh if you wish to rape someone go ahead and get it over with, "sooner murder an infant in it's craddle, than nurse unacted desires"
Meh if you wish to rape someone go ahead and get it over with, "sooner murder an infant in it's craddle, than nurse unacted desires"
I think that in exercising discipline and humility, one becomes a stronger human-being with integrity.
Religion has nothing to do with being in control of oneself.
Even if we have an 'urge' to do something, doesn't give us the right to exercise that urge. In being human, we have stumbled upon decision-making and an understanding between what we conceive as being 'right' and 'wrong'. Forcing another human being, or living being, to your will is undoubtedly violent, unethical, and terrible. It is corruption and perversity.
Many atheists have a stronger foundation of ethics and morals than most religious people. In a lot of cases, I think religion just keeps the sheep in line. They would do horrible things if they thought they could get away with it, without going to Hell.
More intelligent religious and non-religious people recognize that acting in violent, reprehensible ways is simply a mark of the insane. People who would willingly do horrible things based upon urges are people who have neurons that aren't connecting quite right, likely due to problems in brain, or moral development.
Let's step back a bit now, and look at basic psychology. A killer, or rapist, when they don't have that moral compass, it may be due to the fact that they are lacking the 'ego'. I believe it's a psychological theory that goes something like this:
'Superego' is the ethics and morals we learn as children from our parents, whether religious or not. The 'id' is the basic urge and desire, and most of it is subconscious. Only the tip of the iceberg is upon our consciousness. 'Ego' balances the two, and decides which we follow when a given decision is upon us. The example I was given in a psychology lecture was a little child in a kitchen wants a cookie. Mom says, ''Don't you dare take a cookie from the cookie jar, because you'll spoil your dinner.'' So the 'ego' goes: Hmm... Well, if I take the cookie, I may be punished, or it's just simply the wrong thing to do. But, if I eat it, my hunger will be satisfied. If knowing what's right is strong enough, then they will not give in to their id, even if they really, really, really want a cookie.
But, if their id is strong enough.... You get the picture.
Without the ego to balance these decisions, there is chaos, and something 'not quite right' in the brain. That's my own interpretation of the theory, anyway.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. ~Oscar Wilde.
First of all I do not know what you mean by human passion.
Do you mean human feelings?
Religion just like politics is dated and need to move on. It is procrastinations of the mind something to fill your time keeps occupied and fills you up with secular old and frankly useless problems.
Ideally none of these concepts would /should last go on because of their very destructive nature.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
What are you doing at work, man? Didn't we make a pact we would never succumb to the toad?
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine...
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
Religion is an expression of human passion. No passion in the Bible? The Iliad? The Koran? The Bhagavad Gita? Hahaha. No, no. Religion is a sublimation of passion.