Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Embracing the bully

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 4:55:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How, in a time when even bullying in the form of text is denounced and prosecuted, can anyone embrace the worst bully of all time - the all-powerful, all-knowing, imaginary being who drowns children, and promotes eternal torture?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 11:15:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 11:07:25 PM, HmblySkTrth wrote:
Is this like the Stockholm Syndrome?

That's an interesting thought. But I would think it's quite different. The Stockholm Syndrome produces bonding because the hostages begin to identify with their captors as going through a similar traumatic event. It's possibly a rough cousin to "misery loves company".

I believe that Embracing the Bully in the case of God, is selfishness, combined with the fallacy of believing one cannot and should not, question authority figures.

- God is (claimed to be) the ultimate authority.
- God is (claimed to be) more knowledgeable than any human.
- And if you oppose God, you will be tortured for eternity.
- Common belief offers the "safety of the herd".

So many people who are less than skilled at critical thought, naturally fall into accepting the horrors and barbarity of the Christian God, and even proclaim to love him.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 11:21:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 11:15:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:07:25 PM, HmblySkTrth wrote:
Is this like the Stockholm Syndrome?

That's an interesting thought. But I would think it's quite different. The Stockholm Syndrome produces bonding because the hostages begin to identify with their captors as going through a similar traumatic event. It's possibly a rough cousin to "misery loves company".

I believe that Embracing the Bully in the case of God, is selfishness, combined with the fallacy of believing one cannot and should not, question authority figures.

- God is (claimed to be) the ultimate authority.
- God is (claimed to be) more knowledgeable than any human.
- And if you oppose God, you will be tortured for eternity.
- Common belief offers the "safety of the herd".

So many people who are less than skilled at critical thought, naturally fall into accepting the horrors and barbarity of the Christian God, and even proclaim to love him.

You can question God all you want Beastt. The problem is that you would have no legitimate basis by which to make your judgments. You need God to argue against Him. You borrow from the Christian worldview.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 11:25:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 11:21:27 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:15:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:07:25 PM, HmblySkTrth wrote:
Is this like the Stockholm Syndrome?

That's an interesting thought. But I would think it's quite different. The Stockholm Syndrome produces bonding because the hostages begin to identify with their captors as going through a similar traumatic event. It's possibly a rough cousin to "misery loves company".

I believe that Embracing the Bully in the case of God, is selfishness, combined with the fallacy of believing one cannot and should not, question authority figures.

- God is (claimed to be) the ultimate authority.
- God is (claimed to be) more knowledgeable than any human.
- And if you oppose God, you will be tortured for eternity.
- Common belief offers the "safety of the herd".

So many people who are less than skilled at critical thought, naturally fall into accepting the horrors and barbarity of the Christian God, and even proclaim to love him.


You can question God all you want Beastt. The problem is that you would have no legitimate basis by which to make your judgments. You need God to argue against Him. You borrow from the Christian worldview.

You also need God to argue for him. Both of us are arguing about a character in a book, not a real entity. Try to remember that you can no more produce evidence of God's existence than I can. (Which is fully consistent with beings which don't exist.)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 11:35:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 11:25:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:21:27 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:15:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:07:25 PM, HmblySkTrth wrote:
Is this like the Stockholm Syndrome?

That's an interesting thought. But I would think it's quite different. The Stockholm Syndrome produces bonding because the hostages begin to identify with their captors as going through a similar traumatic event. It's possibly a rough cousin to "misery loves company".

I believe that Embracing the Bully in the case of God, is selfishness, combined with the fallacy of believing one cannot and should not, question authority figures.

- God is (claimed to be) the ultimate authority.
- God is (claimed to be) more knowledgeable than any human.
- And if you oppose God, you will be tortured for eternity.
- Common belief offers the "safety of the herd".

So many people who are less than skilled at critical thought, naturally fall into accepting the horrors and barbarity of the Christian God, and even proclaim to love him.


You can question God all you want Beastt. The problem is that you would have no legitimate basis by which to make your judgments. You need God to argue against Him. You borrow from the Christian worldview.

You also need God to argue for him. Both of us are arguing about a character in a book, not a real entity. Try to remember that you can no more produce evidence of God's existence than I can. (Which is fully consistent with beings which don't exist.)

I am not trying to produce evidence to you and leaving you as the judge. That would be sinful. The bible says you already know God exist. I take God's word over yours. You are suppressing the knowledge you have of God.

But my point is that when you judge God or scripture, what standard are you using to judge what is true and what is false. I would argue that truth cannot even exist in a truly atheistic world. But granting that it can, what mechanism do you use to arrive at truth. Whatever answer you give to that question will be viciously circular and cannot be grounded in an atheistic world. That's what I was getting at.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 5:02:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 11:35:51 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:25:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:21:27 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:15:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/15/2014 11:07:25 PM, HmblySkTrth wrote:
Is this like the Stockholm Syndrome?

That's an interesting thought. But I would think it's quite different. The Stockholm Syndrome produces bonding because the hostages begin to identify with their captors as going through a similar traumatic event. It's possibly a rough cousin to "misery loves company".

I believe that Embracing the Bully in the case of God, is selfishness, combined with the fallacy of believing one cannot and should not, question authority figures.

- God is (claimed to be) the ultimate authority.
- God is (claimed to be) more knowledgeable than any human.
- And if you oppose God, you will be tortured for eternity.
- Common belief offers the "safety of the herd".

So many people who are less than skilled at critical thought, naturally fall into accepting the horrors and barbarity of the Christian God, and even proclaim to love him.


You can question God all you want Beastt. The problem is that you would have no legitimate basis by which to make your judgments. You need God to argue against Him. You borrow from the Christian worldview.

You also need God to argue for him. Both of us are arguing about a character in a book, not a real entity. Try to remember that you can no more produce evidence of God's existence than I can. (Which is fully consistent with beings which don't exist.)

I am not trying to produce evidence to you and leaving you as the judge. That would be sinful.
So if Jesus actually existed, and actually produced miracles, he was being sinful?

The bible says you already know God exist.
Which only goes to show that there is a lot of crap in the Bible.

I take God's word over yours. You are suppressing the knowledge you have of God.
I was a theist for 33-years. At that time, i was suppressing reason. When I stopped suppressing, and started practicing intellectual honesty, I found that my belief simply dissolved.

But it's interesting (and sad), that you think you have "God's word". Why in Hell would you think that? Here are a few facts about the Bible.
- God didn't write a single word of it.
- Jesus didn't write a single word of it.
- No one who knew Jesus wrote a single word of it.
- No one knows the names of the men who wrote most of the texts.
- Early Christians were in vast disagreement over what texts were "divine" and which were not.
- This disagreement persisted until the 4th century.
- In the 4th century a group of men, selected by Emperor Constantine, picked out the documents they liked best.
- These men selected writings which we now know contain fables, forgeries and false claims.
- The ONLY reason you believe the Bible is "the word of God", is because these men claimed they selected "divine writings".
- These men fought, argued and disagreed for 42-years before finally selecting a set of texts - and many still disagreed.
- God had NOTHING to do with any of it.

But my point is that when you judge God or scripture, what standard are you using to judge what is true and what is false.
I find reality to be a very good metric. But I'm not judging God. God exists only as a fictional character in your book of ancient stories.

I would argue that truth cannot even exist in a truly atheistic world.
And you would be completely wrong. Secular methods have been the means to produce nearly every truth we've ever confirmed.

But granting that it can, what mechanism do you use to arrive at truth.
Again, I use reality. For example; can plants grow in temperatures so cold that steel shatters like glass? The bible claims they can.
Reality shows they can't. So which is true? Reality is always true. Claims about reality which are contrary to reality, are false. And the Bible makes hundreds of claims about reality, which are contrary to reality. Is the Earth flat? Isaiah 40:22 claims it is. (A "circle" is a flat, round shape. The Hebrew was "chwug" - that which is inscribed by a compass. "Dur" is the Hebrew for "ball-shaped").

The first 17-verses of Genesis make four monstrously false claims about reality.

Whatever answer you give to that question will be viciously circular and cannot be grounded in an atheistic world. That's what I was getting at.
And you were wrong.

All of reality is consistent with an atheistic world-view. Very little of reality fits with a theistic view.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire