Lex naturalis

Natural law theory has been discussed throughout religions and philosophies for millennia. It’s essentially a code of ethics that humans intrinsically possess that are supplied by reason, or faith in god/a depending on one’s stance. Yet a universal moral standard cannot exist by default from human nature, or can it? Aristotle seemed to think so and claimed that it was virtue which influenced the moral actions we’ve acquired from nature, so it is a universal standard that isn’t influenced by politics, society, or faith in divinity. These natural values are governed by reason and it defines our actions. Thomas Aquinas believed it was guided by reason and virtue but these couldn’t exist without divine law as well. And that if you denied god, committed idolatry, atheism or polytheism then it was the ultimate sin and against the principles of natural law.

“Man is a product of nature, a part of the Universe. The Universe is operated under exact natural laws. Man is a product of millions of years of evolution. He adapts himself to the laws of nature or he perishes.” – James Hervey

Deism is a form of acceptance of natural law in which reason and observing the natural world gives sufficient evidence of a creator. Divine revelation and natural reason makes up a term known as natural theology‘ and the start of the 1776 Declaration of Independence acknowledges this. Deism literally believes that a divine creator made everything within the universe and once it was established he never observed his creation again, so the act of miracles, or praying wasn’t taken seriously. Biblical teachings were also not observed as they not only defied reason but wasn’t knowledgeable within the emerging scientific community during the Age of Enlightenment when Deism became popular.

If it wasn’t for the existence of prominent philosophers like Francis Bacon, and René Descartes, then who knows how science would have progressed. Deism encourages reason and whilst Bacon was an Anglican he was extremely liberal for his time and actively discouraged people to claim the Bible was either a source of scientific knowledge, or be used to question scientific findings. He said that to claim god as the first cause belonged to theology, and not science, and people should never combine the two.

“The inclination to goodness is imprinted deeply in the nature of man.” – Sir Francis Bacon

Natural Law theory claims that humans have a universal standard of knowing the difference between good and bad, or wrong or right. We inherently know when something is intentionally cruel, perverse or harmful to others, or is inhumane and is a direct violation against the rights a human has to exist in harmony. Yet try telling this to theists and they simply cannot accept that you can be good without a source of morality supplied by a divine power. I’d comfortably argue that without religious influence you’re more likely to reach the correct conclusion through reason rather than through faith.

Uncompromising views

I’ve decided to write this after reading some arrogant theist claiming that he’d dubunked homosexuality as he misinterpreted what evolution is and confused it with elitist social status; but would you expect anything otherwise? They are often so ill-informed and misguided by the holy books of their faith that they simply cannot see the bigger picture and everything isn’t black and white. He attempts to mock evolution and claim that nature wouldn’t have created homosexuals because we are meant to breed. But hold on; what’s the alternative? God either created homosexuals, or he made a mistake. You know me well enough to know that I’m not suggesting you’re a mistake, but I don’t view the world through god goggles.

They act like homosexuality is a new trend, but the Romans wrote about gay orgies as it wasn’t a crime in their polytheism, but the Roman Empire embraced Christianity and it all became taboo. The biggest issue that arose from it concerning sexual activity is it’s supposed to be between a man and a woman, who are married and create a family. That’s all nice and traditional but it’s not even remotely in the real world. There are a multitude of definitions people use to describe their sexuality and homosexuality is just one of them. What gets me is the Mitzvah’s.. they each have their own command and condemn incest, and two men sleeping together, but it has no mention of two women sleeping together. Why is that? God thought two men was a sin, but he liked a bit of lesbian action so thought he’d let that command slide.

They often claim that it’s unnatural. No one is forcing you to participate, so what’s the problem? What exactly is it of your concern what two, or more consenting adults do in a private location?

“existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

The above quote is the Oxford dictionary’s definition of natural. Homosexuality isn’t a choice, or a lifestyle; it’s genetic. If it’s genetic then it’s natural.

“Numerous studies have established that sex is not just male or female. Rather, it is a continuum that emerges from a person’s genetic makeup. Nonetheless, misconceptions persist that same-sex attraction is a choice that warrants condemnation or conversion, and leads to discrimination and persecution.” – Source

In atheism everything is permissible

This is what the theists think is their victory call as they genuinely believe that without moral guidance you can do whatever you like, as much as you like as you’ve no one to answer to. I’ve read some disturbing claims by theists recently that atheism not only doesn’t condemn, but actively encourages and promotes rape, incest and even acts of bestiality. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but that’s an extremely insensitive accusation. Just because someone has taken the decision to walk alone and face what life delivers without faith in a divine being doesn’t for one moment mean that they have no emotional or moral boundaries. Some things are intrinsically wrong and it’s rational to feel that it’s not normal on every level.

“Compassion is the basis of morality.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

I’ve started suspecting that it’s the theist’s way of talking about taboo subjects without the guilt of committing them, as more often than not they involve some form of perverted sexual activity, murder or hedonistic lifestyle. They tend to focus on the most inhumane actions and it’s quite disturbing to think that they’re willing to attack whatever it is you define atheism as. It’s not a philosophy, or an ideology, it’s not a cult or part of the occult , it’s also not a world view or a religion. It’s rejecting belief in gods. It’s no more than that and to generalise in such a despicable way shows that it’s the theists that struggle with urges and they need their faith to retain the walk along the tightrope between SIN/GLORY.

Before you call yourself a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or any other theology, learn to be human first.” – Shannon L. Alder

What disturbs me the most about this ever-growing mindset is that my only interest in gods is the history of theology. I’m well read of various Eastern philosophies that focus on virtuosity, that’s often being one with nature and embracing all sentient life as we are here just once. Or many times in some philosophies, but somehow they all understand the structure of ethics, and how to determine what’s moral and what isn’t. They mostly do this without any faith in gods. If they have faith in anything it’s that humanity will learn to cohabitate without confrontation for difference of opinions. It’s a person’s own self-interest to question everything, and I mean everything. Just because someone tells you something is good, it may be very bad for someone else. We don’t live in a black and white world where this preset is right and that preset is wrong

“… what you think is right isn’t the same as knowing what is right.” – E.A. Bucchianeri

This notion that theists somehow think that their god who’s existence cannot be ascertained is somehow a universal and objective provider of morality is absolutely nonsensical? Take Yahweh as an example. The levels of brutality he’s responsible for in the Old Testament depicts him as a savage god of its time not someone who you can look up to for guidance. If worshipping a monster gives you a sense of righteousness and purpose then you need to step back and re-evaluate being human.