Everyone disagrees and everyone agrees, it's a single spectrum. A (very marginally) better question would be why some people disagree more or less strongly, and then the reasons would need to be qualified towards that distinction.

Now if I didn't humor anyone else with this disagreement, at least I humored myself. It also helps in sharpening the 'ol sword. Not to mention that you get a glimpse into the working of another mind.

Of course there's a pretty obvious possibility nobody's mentioned yet, that people disagree partly out of humble compassion.

What I don't understand is, if existing primitive tribes where there is no monogamy and children don't know their fathers have happy children, why doesn't Western society?
Does the void actually come from comparing yourself to others, other kids who had a dad show them how to ride a bike? What is to be said of all those missed experiences?
I can agree that the father in a patriarchy does shape masculinity and femininity in his children, but that is because more discipline is needed on top of their genetic femininity and masculinity. Patriarchy is a cooperative system that has to run smoothly through generations.
Probably the darkest thought that crosses my mind is how black children without fathers seem to be more okay than white people without fathers. I don't mean this in terms of their SAT scores or criminality, but in their general confidence. They seem to be keeping it together more than white children who crumble emotionally. White people are more prone to existential anxiety, perhaps due to higher IQ.
I don't want to consider the idea that certain races are biologically hardwired to be used to certain mating schemes, due to different hormones and future/present oriented thinking, and such. It's possible, but I'm just not ready to think about that.

It think you're taking enormous liberties in comparing the environments and realities of primitive tribes with those of modern society. For instance how can you assume that women in primitive tribes are happier? Furthermore at the end of the day it's not all about happiness.

In my experience people who say it's impossible for anyone to be objective about themselves, they are full of contradictions which are blatantly false if analyzed with even the slightest bit of logic, and thus they have learned to ignore logic and truth in favor of subjective relativity.

I fully recognize the real, unavoidable consequences of what's typically understood as 'desire'. However in my view arguing against desire often leads to ignorance because it promotes faith, just like the original post of this thread cautions against the tree of knowledge and instead promotes a concept of 'Love'.

When people hear arguments against desire they almost always think of asceticism, but asceticism is only one possible path beyond desire and people shouldn't (and won't be) forced down it. I believe, as do many others, that desire remains even in enlightenment - but desire of an all-permeating, effortless and light variety.

Today's English vocabulary isn't great at isolating the negative side of desire. You could say desire is bad when it focuses on any one thing in particular and thus obfuscates one's wider vision. For example if you so badly want to hit a bullseye with a bow and arrow then you'll be preoccupied with attaining that slim objective and the personal satisfaction you attribute to it.

The opposite, however, is not to want to hit the bullseye less, nor is it to shift one's intention towards being unconcerned with hitting the bullseye. The act of desire is a two-sided coin involving both the state of desire as well as the individual allowing the state to arise. When one perceives their desire to be terribly specific and intense then they are small because they care for and invest themselves in nothing but that desire and the corresponding outcome; but when one steps back and is mindful of a greater context then the desire seems less, not because it diminishes but because it occupies a proportionally smaller portion of one's attention alongside other higher things.

From a wiser perspective, the act of hitting the bullseye cannot be completely separated from what comes before or after it, as for instance one cannot truly 'slice' time to delineate one action from another since time is infinitely divisible or, more accurately, non-existent (scientifically plank time, by the way, only indicates human limitation to measure time, but does not actually identify constituent units of which time is composed). A matrix of patterns, existence always involves things within things, acts within acts, processes within processes, and I would not want to sully my experience of going to the archery range with the experience of obsessing over a particular shot and forgetting about the beautiful sky overhead or the stillness, playfulness and power within.

I frequently exalt the virtues of long-johns, I find them absolutely necessary in Canadian winter and even wear them in single-digit Celsius temperatures. Many people, however, believe that long-johns are a form of underwear, and I have to assuage their reservations about discussing undergarments by vigorously pointing out that they are not underwear but rather an extra layer to be worn over underwear. Unfortunately it's recently come to my attention that long-johns are, after all, meant to be worn without anything under them, and that I casually talk about underwear quite frequently.

I don't think you understand this religion. Devotion in this tradition is different than what is found in popular Western religion. It is not "faith" in a conventional sense. When the boundaries between subject and object have been erased, and there is no distinction between devotee and deity, what does "faith" mean?

Hmmm, are you suggesting that this religion differentiates itself from other religions on a logical basis? It seems to me that they just have different beliefs, different opinions which are made to pass as logic but which are in reality faith-based doctrine.

Admittedly, there does not have to be only one single interpretation of the divine that is true. Different paths could practice differently, hold different goals and seek different objectives for member self-development. Many can be right simultaneously.

However, when each maintains that it is the truest path by virtue of using logic to assert certain beliefs, certain 'absolute knowledge', then by definition only one can be the truest.

Logic, by its nature, is comparable and debatable. How well can the Aghori argue their views of Lord Bhairava, perfection, reincarnation, etc? How well can they persuade neighboring religions? Most importantly, if they do not possess the answers themselves then their logic is incomplete and they fill in the gaps with faith in their own personal visions.

And partial logic is logical as much as half a bridge can get cars over a river.

There are so many religions in the world. Do all religions see the same thing? Are all religions right? Is the world's religious ecosystem perfect? Could even one religion be wrong? Could two religions be mixed together to any degree and still retain integrity? Can new religions be invented or has it all been said and done countless times? Do humans know everything? Is a logically-perfect religion an end, bringing 100% conversion, or a beginning, offering countless possible sub-varieties of practice, of goals and ultimately of evolution into respectively different types of beings?

Right now, in my view, there's practically no evolution at all.

Consider the possibility that many people who check the believe in god box may not see themselves as sinful but instead as victims as in the article.

Sorry scourge, I had a headache and my reply was jumbled.. I edited out a paragraph now to leave only my main point, which is that I think both views are often held simultaneously.

While I wholeheartedly agree that people's feelings of victimhood is a disgusting epidemic of mental illness, I disagree that innate sinfulness is its polar opposite.

It seems people tend to go around harboring mutually-contradictory theories, bouncing from one to another when temporary circumstances make it convenient. To say that a person can embrace either the conception of victimhood or that of innate sinfulness it so say that in general people have fully digested their beliefs and fully integrated them into their paradigm alongside all their other beliefs, but this would be giving the average person far too much credit. Instead, sometimes believing in victimhood is convenient, other times believing in innate sinfulness is convenient.

Furthermore, I certainly believe other, healthier ways of regarding one's person in terms of success and capability exist beyond the narrow dichotomy considered in this thread, but I assume we all agree on this and are just referring to this dichotomy as an example?