Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Dangers of Religious Hypnosis and Indoctrination: The genocidal faiths of Christianity & Islam.

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
To summarise the essay, if a victim of religious hypnosis can be made to accept even "one" irrational belief  (such as the Xenu, YHVH or Jesus fictions)," then it is a "slippery slope to accepting "any" irrational belief, and as the "Milgram Experiment" and the "Joshua" experiment show, we human beings are succeptible to being submissive to "authority." 
 
Religious Archons "are" a very dangerous form of authority; submission to religious Archons can often have murderous and genocidal consequences. Unfortunately the victim of religious mind control can be made to carry out the most evil forms of behaviour, while thinking that they are doing "good" and are saving the world; just as it was for the children of the Hitler youth, religious fanatics are often so hypnotised, indoctrinated and submissive to authority that they actually think that they are "saints."

Unfortunately the two largest religions in the world (Christianity and Islam) are both militant, apocalyptic and their adherents have control over nations, armies and nuclear weapons.
 
Lucifer
 
_________________________________________________________
The Dangers of Religious Hypnosis and Indoctrination

Lucifer 2011

_________________________________________________________
 


Contradictory Beliefs and Religous Psychosis. Philosophy and Religion.


A: Religion.

Let us say, hypothetically that you were a policeman (just for the sake of argument), and that you interviewed a suspect and asked him "Where were you when this murder took place?" The suspect may state "I was in Tokyo." However in the notes from a previous interview he may have stated that he was in New York. This is clearly contradictory; he could not have been in both places at the same time.

The victim of religious hypnosis can hold numerous contradictory beliefs, such as that there are three gods but only one god, or that their god is "love," and that their god is also a genocidal tribalist who wants to kill all other tribes who are not part of his favorite tribe, the Israelites, or that you should love your parents, but also that you cannot be a Christian unless you hate your parents (and your wife, children and even your own life), etc. Chistians might also utilise reason to ridicule people who believe in the incredulous myths of Ganesha (the Hindu elephant god), but they will abandon such rational thinking when it comes to their own faith.

If you look at almost any of the primitive religions of the world and their silly myths, they can be turned into a comedy and ridiculed by we modernists of the age of reason and science; however when a person has been subjected to a lifetime of religious hypnosis and indoctrination, they suspend such rational and critical thinking. This problem is compounded in societies where the "majority" of the population are affected by religious hypnosis and indoctrination; thus the person suffering from religious psychosis is perceived as normal and the person critical of religion is perceved as abnormal, a heretic, a blasphemer or a Satanist.

B: Philosophy.

Understanding philosophical method seems to me to be essential in combatting religious hypnosis and indoctrination.

If a philosopher attempts to hold two contradictory positions, then this is usually pointed out to them by other philosophers as being ridiculous. The difference between the philosopher and the religious fanatic is that the philosopher can appeal only to the highest authority of human intuition and "pure reason." Philosophy essentially teaches us how to "think" for ourselves and how to construct arguments. There is simply no room for philosophy in the world's major religons, since the victims of these religions must simply abandon reason and rely on the ramblings of primitive religious fanatics.

Fallacies (false arguments).

One really has to search the scriptures for verifiable historical "facts," and they are very rare.

Generally when non religious historians or scientists come across some fact which seems to verify some Biblical claim, the Biblical fanatics jump on this and use it to present the argument that the Bible must be true.

No scientist that I know of disputes the fact that there was global flooding at the end of the last ice age, so the Biblical fanatics jump on this and conclude "The Bible must be True," and so therefore Jesus really did # his mother, and Noah really did put millions of animal and insect species in his little wooden boat, and so on, and so on. This kind of insanity is unfortunately infectious and it has often been instilled since childhood.

If you can make someone believe something ridiculous which demands that they can suspend critical thinking, then it is a "slippery slope" to the point where they can suspend critical thinking about almost anything or anyone.

The Psychology of a Slave. Submission to the Archons (authority figures).

A: The Milgram Experiment.


Unfortunately the conclusions of what is probably the most famous (and important) psychological study on human "obedience," the Yale University "Milgram Experiment (See: en.wikipedia.org...)" provide conclusive evidence that most human beings are willing to torture other human beings, if they are told by an authority figure to do so, and unfortunately the authors of the Bible are also considered the "highest" authority by Biblical fanatics. In the Milgram experiment the subjects were asked to apply electric shocks to actors who would pretend to cry out in pain; although nobody was really harmed, the subjects did not know that the persons whom they were torturing with electric shocks were actors.

Philosophy is a form of intellectual Anarchism (resistance to authority) which teaches us never to suspend critical thinking. Religion is simply a form of hypnosis and indoctrination which produces a servile, submissive slave; it is the perfect means of social control and the consequences can be genocidal.

The testimonials of children raised in the Hitler youth for example indicate that they did not fight for Hitler because they thought that he was evil, but rather because they thought that he was good; similarly with many of the fanatics of religion whose deities would be considered barbaric and criminally insane by most modern philosophers.

There is a very fine line between accepting what is irrational and inhumane in a text by a religious authority, such as, "It is God's Will to kill all devotees of other gods" and "torture this person."

B: The Joshua Experiment. The Dangers of Religious Indoctrination.

This experiment by an Israeli psychologist is explained in Richard Dawkin's "God Delusion;" it is a very similar experiment to the Milgram Experiment, but it deals ony with "religion," and it is less well known than the Milgram Experiment, but the conclusion is essentially the same, though it applies to "religious authority."

A class room of students in Israel were told the story of Joshua's Biblical holocaust of the Canaanite Tribes. It was essentially a "tribalistic" genocide. The students were then asked if they considered this to be morally justifiable. Most of the students agreed that it was morally justifiable.

The same story was then told about a different occasion of tribalistic genocide which did not involve the Bible or the ancient tribal deity of the Israelites. There are many examples of this in history, such as the recent Rwandan genocide of 1994 which was, just like Joshua's genocide a "tribalistic" genocide. When the students were asked if they considered such a genocide to be morally justifiable, the majority of them expressed the view that it was not.

These experiments show the dangers of religious indoctrination, where people who think themselves to be "good, godly, righteous, moral" are willing to torture people or to support tribalistic genocide just because some Archon (authority figure) tells them that it is OK, and an Archon can be some dead religious fanatic from 1000's of years ago whom most modernists would probably consider to be as ridiculous as the "Life of Brian" prophets, were they not blinded by religious indoctrination. The effects of submission to religious authorities and to the authority of the state are very subtle; probably most of those Israeli students would not consider themselves to be religious fanatics, nor would most of the subjects of the Milgram experiment consider themselves to be psychopaths.

Linguistics 101

Language is a lie. Words are weapons and the tools of mass hypnosis. War is always fought in the name of peace; the peace that follows victory and the defeat of one's enemies. Every war the Americans have fought, every genocide, every military coup seems always to have been justified by the mantra of "peace and freedom."

Peace and Freedom are always defined differently by the slaves and the slavemasters; freedom to a slavemaster is the freedom to keep slaves; "peace" to a slavemaster means that his slaves are not rebelling, and if he whips them and abuses them, he does so to ensure that there is freedom (his freedom to enslave others) and "peace."


Lucifer
Blasphemy, Heresy, War, Revolution, etc.
edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: formatting
edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Great thread!! A very rare sight on ATS to see such a balanced and detailed critique regarding the dangers and irrationality of religious dogma. Thanks for all the information too.

Although i do believe all mono-theistic religions promote exclusivity and discrimination, especially the abrahamic religions; i believe there are fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam in terms of their severity of harm. I believe there are many contrasts between moral and ethical philosophy; Especially compared with the moral and ethical values of your average "vague faith" Christian.

The Koran discriminates against non-believers. Genocide and violence can be easily justified by abiding the scriptures of "God". It's evident that Islamic bombers act under concepts of Jihad and Matyrdom, i guess this ideology could be used to achieve a political or personal agenda through violence, but ultimately - they DO truly believe in the reward of paradise. ...But that's typical religion; false hope and blind fear.

I believe the Koran to be very sinister and wicked, more totalitarian than the bible and many other doctrines; it's essense is motivated by conversion, submission and expansion. Again, especially aggressive in comparison to the majority of religions.

A few of my influences and admired philosophers/free thinkers are Bertrand Russell and Alan Watts:



Alan Watts


In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.


Russel's Teapot

This was his response to religions Argument from ignorance

This is the reason i am an Gnostic Atheist in regards to a descriptive effort by man in regards to God, but an Agnostic Atheist in regards to a creator/source, i definetly don't believe "faith" (belief without evidence) to be a virtue.

How did you arrive at Atheism? Or like many others did you just gradually outgrow the dogma similar to beginning to doubt Santa claus? What's your fundamental reasoning for being an Atheist?

Apologies if you have another position like Pantheism or Deism, i wouldn't have any concerns anyway as they are non-dogmatic


Again, thanks for spreading the good word and passing on this valuable information for all.

Your comrade,

A&A

PS. Maybe you'd like to read some of my threads; i always appreciate criticism or advice.
edit on 9/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Although i do believe all mono-theistic religions promote exclusivity and discrimination, especially the abrahamic religions; i believe there are fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam in terms of their severity of harm. I believe there are many contrasts between moral and ethical philosophy; Especially compared with the moral and ethical values of your average "vague faith" Christian.

The Koran discriminates against non-believers. Genocide and violence can be easily justified by abiding the scriptures of "God". It's evident that Islamic bombers act under concepts of Jihad and Matyrdom, i guess this ideology could be used to achieve a political or personal agenda through violence, but ultimately - they DO truly believe in the reward of paradise. ...But that's typical religion; false hope and blind fear.

I believe the Koran to be very sinister and wicked, more totalitarian than the bible and many other doctrines; it's essense is motivated by conversion, submission and expansion. Again, especially aggressive in comparison to the majority of religions.


I was looking at your thread "Islam promotes Terrorism," and of course there is no question that Islam is a genocidal faith which demands the eradication or enslavement of all non Muslims, and which has an end time prophecy which predicts the total military conquest of humankind.

However....I think that there are memetic reasons as to why most people in nations where Christianity is the main religion would be shocked by such genocidal quotations from the Koran, and yet they are less shocked by similar genocidal quotations in the Bible; I think it is simply because the Biblical faith is accepted and "established," and the "model" of an ideal human being is a 2000 year old fake healer, fake miracle worker and religious schitzophrenic (nb., it has been estimated that 25% of all schitzophrenics are suffering from "religious" schizopherenia; i.e., they hear voices from god, etc.), the Jesus of the Gospels.

If you take a look at www.evilbible.com... I think that you will find that all the genocidal quotations of the Koran, the justifications for slavery and Holy War against the devotees of competing deities, etc., are also present in the Bible.

Further, just as with the Koran, the End Times prophecies of the Bible predict the coming of a conquering military dictator, which in Christianity is the "King of Kings (i.e., a global tyrant) who rules with a "rod of iron," who commits total genocide against not only his enemies but of "unbelievers," and is essentially a theocratic fascist.

Here in the UK, the same people who might be disgusted by the quotations of the Koran, may well support the current military campaigns of the Queen's army (our monarch is also Jesus' alleged representative on earth to all Anglicans) and the dropping of thousands of tons of depleted uranium on the Islamic colonies.

Clearly Islam will have to be both intellectually "and" miltiarily defeated, however Judeo-Christianity is equally genocidal and has had a long and bloody history which establishes this.

There seems to be a popular conspiracy theory held by both Islamic "and" Christian fanatics that our current economic and military establishment are dedicated to alleged "Luciferian ideals" (i.e., the rationalist, anti-religionist and ultimately Nietzscheian ideals of the Enlightenment philosophers)," however it is my judgement that this is entirely a positive, progressive and necessary.

Personally I tend to believe that higher echelons of the current "International Dictatorship of Capitalism," which is a very real economc dictatorship, and the military elites, are fortunately predominately both anti-Christian "and" anti-Islamic and are intent on eradicating these two religions, as are the Chinese, who are also a major nuclear, economic and military power. It is thus unlikley that Christianity and Islam will be part of the world of the distant future, but before then, it is entirely possible that apocalyptic Holy War will break out between Islam and Christianity.

In America, it is quite acceptable for many Christians to have a president who hears voices from God telling him to wage war (such as George "God told me to invade Iraq" Bush), and really all it would take to initiate an Armageddon style scenario is an Islamic religious fanatic who thinks in a similar vein. Thus I believe that the intellectual war against organised religion is a war for the salvation of humankind; and that the success of the Internet campaigns against the ancient and savage religions of the past is of the greatest importance.

Propaganda is the first stage of war. Religious propaganda is often the first stage of Holy War.


This is the reason i am an Gnostic Atheist in regards to a descriptive effort by man in regards to God, but an Agnostic Atheist in regards to a creator/source, i definetly don't believe "faith" (belief without evidence) to be a virtue.

How did you arrive at Atheism? Or like many others did you just gradually outgrow the dogma similar to beginning to doubt Santa claus? What's your fundamental reasoning for being an Atheist?

Apologies if you have another position like Pantheism or Deism, i wouldn't have any concerns anyway as they are non-dogmatic


I am certainly more of a Deist and Thelemite; I tend to interpret reality in somewhat mystical or spiritual terms. This has nothing to do with organised religion however; I think that it is just a consequence of years of psychoactive experimentation and experiences,and also in the past "production" which gave me access to almost unlimted quantities of psychoactives. I am not an atheist probably for similar reasons to Timothy Leary, Aleister Crowley and most Neopagans; my past has never been one of involvement with Christianity, but rather with Learyanity, Crowleyianity and in the distant past, OSHO.

The problem with the ancient organised religions is that they are not just about the philosophical question of "God" and whether She exists or not, they also involve laws and edicts which are allegedly "revealed" and which restrict natural human behaviour and which create a psychological and legislative hell on earth, and which often demand the genocide of adherents of opposing views. Unfortunately most religious fanatics are willing to be unquestioning about the ramblings of the prophets of a tribe of Bronze Age primitives, or that of a 7th century Arabic slave trader.



PS. Maybe you'd like to read some of my threads; i always appreciate criticise or advice.


Yes, I will have a look; I am quite new to the forum and have not yet had a chance to fully explore every sub forum.

Lucifer.

edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 



If you take a look at www.evilbible.com... I think that you will find that all the genocidal quotations of the Koran, the justifications for slavery and Holy War against the devotees of competing deities, etc., are also present in the Bible.


Seriously??? You do know that, the alleged site is promoting Atheism and then claims to spread the truth???


This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes.



EvilBible.com is a non-profit web site which was developed to promote atheism by revealing the wicked truth about the Bible and religion.




Peace
edit on 9-2-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
Seriously??? You do know that, the alleged site is promoting Atheism and then claims to spread the truth???


This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes.



EvilBible.com is a non-profit web site which was developed to promote atheism by revealing the wicked truth about the Bible and religion.




Yes I think that the author of the site "is" attempting to explain the "vicious" truth about the Bible; the fact that the author is an atheist is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

Even an agnostic humanist who does not take any position on the philosophical question of whether the Creator exists or whether She does not exist, could not fail to recognise that the psychotic anthropomorphic (a human projection) tribal deity of the ancient Bronze Age Israelites can be accurately defined, as RIchard Dawkins states, as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

If a Biblical fanatic disputes this definition of the savage Israelite deity, it is simply further evidence of the "Joshua Syndrome (see the OP)" and the dangers of religious fanaticism.

While it is unsurpising that an ancient tribe of relatively primitive, savage, illiterate and superstitious blood sacrifice cultists would have such a genocidal warrior tribal deity, it is also remarkable that many modern, educated, scientific persons in the 21st century would also accept such a definition; however this can be explained by memetic transference and a lifetime of religious hypnosis and indoctrination.

Since you apparently object to the site author of www.evilbible.com... being an atheist, I should point out that the ancient deity of the Israelites (YHVH) was not a monotheistic deity anyway; he was just one of many tribal war gods; the projection of the definition of this tribal deity onto the idea of a monotheistic deity is a much later development, and thus most people are anyway atheists when it comes to the numerous gods of the ancient world, of whom YHVH was just one of many.

Lucfer



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Thank you for your cogent reply. I have been unable to articulate a proper counter-argument to Awake and Aware on this issue. It seems dishonest to me when someone focuses all of their criticism on Islam and covers for it by saying "Oh but all faiths are bad. Except that Christianity is benign." Either stand by your anti-Theism and criticise both religions for their genocidaires, or admit that you're a closeted Christian!

Sorry for the miniature rant, I don't want to derail the thread further.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap

It seems dishonest to me when someone focuses all of their criticism on Islam and covers for it by saying "Oh but all faiths are bad. Except that Christianity is benign." Either stand by your anti-Theism and criticise both religions for their genocidaires, or admit that you're a closeted Christian!


I have travelled widely throughout the Islamic world, and I would unashamedly consider myself to be a European cultural supremacist; I always feel a sigh of relief when I am back in Europe; I despise the paternalism, mysoginy, human slavery, homophobia, tyranny and religious fanaticism of the Islamic world where women are little more than sex slaves and are often subjected to genital mutilation. However my "European cultural supremacism" has nothing to do with Christianity; it is in "spite" of Christianity.

Europeans have also been affected by the Enlightenment philosophers, the attack on organised religion, the modern feminist and sexual revolution, scientific and secular mass education and lliteracy, the trade union movement, the Marxist and Anarchist Left, etc., etc.

It is the "absence" of religion and the existence of humanist opposition to religion which has in part produced our modern, civillized society; so much so that anyone who suggested implimenting Biblical Law would be widely ridiculed; not so in the Islamic world where Sharia Law is implimented to some degree or other. The advantages of living in Europe as opposed to the Islamic world are not "because" of Christianity, but on the contrary, it is partly because of the widespread rejection of Christianity and of religious values and the "slave morality" of the religionists.

Thus I would argue that modern Western post Enlightenment values are light years ahead of "both" the primitive and savage religious morality of the Bible, the Koran and the Vedas which are the texts of the three major religions.

I think that there is a tendency to be less critical of Biblical fanatics in the West than Islamic fanatics; this is partly I think because even the Biblical fanatics are memetically influenced by modern humanist values, and it is partly because we are memetically adjusted to Christianity as being part of the "establishment" and being "respectible," despite the Biblical texts being from a more savage and primitive ancient world.

Europe is not America however, and the rational and humanist opposition to Christianity in the US is mostly from the highly educated classes, while opinion polls show that the Biblical faith is still very much a part of the American psyche, with 40% of the population convinced that a 2000 year old religious fanatic (i.e., Jesus) is soon going to return; this belief is also held by the possible future US president, Sarah Palin. While in Europe I think it would be almost impossible for any head of state to be elected if he or she claimed to be hearing voices from Jesus, it seems to be the American way, and religious psychosis is apparently considered perfectly normal.

Lux



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 



I always feel a sigh of relief when I am back in Europe
And yet, all of those bad things are prevalent in Western society as well. They're just hidden and sanitized, so that the public doesn't recognize them as crimes. Consider the sex industry; most prostitutes are little more than chattel slaves, but the common liberal myth is that they are free labourers and that their profession deserves respect! The conservative position is no better - they volunteer to be prostitutes and are wholly responsible for anything bad that happens to them and, because prostitution is sinful, they deserve to be treated like slaves.

tbh I am a 'cultural supremacist' too, but I understand that it's only because I favour the cultural forms that I grew up in. Nevertheless I can come to understand and appreciate cultural forms that I find repellant - and find something admirable and respectable in it, even if I dislike it.

In my opinion, the Enlightenment wasn't really anything novel. It retained most of the structure of the Christian civilization and metaphysics and ethics and so on, but regrounded them in a secular foundation. As a revolutionary wave, it was too diverse to say that it had any particular direction or goals. However, it did generally succeed in overthrowing the tyranny of God and liberating the Intelligensia of Europe, if nobody else. I still think that the enlightenment's successors in the present day are by and large following in the shadow of Christianity, though. I do not believe that it was a new beginning for culture.

Biblical Law enthusiasts are well received and unpleasantly popular in Israel and the United States, and probably in other countries as well. It's a latent social movement that has been dormant for some time and is gradually waking up again, as the historical circumstances which make a theocratic revolution possible are coming again. Remember that a mere century before the American Revolution began, the Puritanical forebears of Americanism staged a theocratic revolution in England.

The Enlightenment has reached the Muslim world before. In the Abbasid period, the Caliphs had Greek philosophical texts translated into Arabic, and Arabs produced novel works that eventually trickled into Europe. During the 19th Century, the Turks and Persians and other Muslim leaders attempted modernist reforms and introduced European-style education. The only distinction between the Xian and Muslim worlds on the issue of enlightenment seems to be the extent of it. Europe appears to be much more 'enlightened' (modernized) than the Muslim world, where there is a small number of educated elites and a very large number of conservative peasants. However, I think that this too is a matter of optics. The West only appears to be more modernized. I do not believe that the majority of Americans or Europeans are any more civilized than the majority of Muslims. They're all bigots and ignoramuses because they're all peasants, no matter what the present political myth of equality says. If they are not peasants in terms of wealth, they are absolutely impoverished spiritually and intellectually. God, how I loathe the masses.

I definitely agree with you about the perception of Biblical nutjobs. The recurring theme in this post is that Christians have consistently hidden and obscured their true views from the liberals among them (like taqiyyah in Shi'a Islam, how ironic). They are able to sanitize their rhetoric so that it does not seem incendiary. Their real triumph is in the control of language, not media or information. They don't even need resources to control language - it's all a matter of choosing one's words wisely, so that those not in the know do not understand the hidden message that is meant for your armies of sleeper agents (Christians).

Continental Europe may be different from America and Israel thanks to decades of atheist revolutions, but the UK is just as bad as the Jan Kees.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 



Yes I think that the author of the site "is" attempting to explain the "vicious" truth about the Bible; the fact that the author is an atheist is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

However is not irrelevant that the author of the site claims that "...was developed to promote atheism...". Does atheism really needs to be promoted?

Even an agnostic humanist who does not take any position on the philosophical question of whether the Creator exists or whether She does not exist, could not fail to recognise that the psychotic anthropomorphic (a human projection) tribal deity of the ancient Bronze Age Israelites can be accurately defined, as RIchard Dawkins states, as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Have you ever pondered the question : why does a smart guy like Richard Dawkins regularly give atheists a bad name by putting his foot in his mouth with his inane and ridiculous pronouncements about God and religion?


If a Biblical fanatic disputes this definition of the savage Israelite deity, it is simply further evidence of the "Joshua Syndrome (see the OP)" and the dangers of religious fanaticism.

So basically according to your definition i am a "Biblical" Fanatic and having the "Joshua Sydrome" because i believe in God??? Don´t you know that fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness? or you feel justified on bashing God and labeling those who believe in something that you don´t believe that exists?

While it is unsurpising that an ancient tribe of relatively primitive, savage, illiterate and superstitious blood sacrifice cultists would have such a genocidal warrior tribal deity, it is also remarkable that many modern, educated, scientific persons in the 21st century would also accept such a definition;

The remarkable is that the educated scientific person of the 21st century, is willingly forgetting that upon the "so called" relative "Primitive" "Savage" "Illiterate" cultures our "so called" Great-Western civilisation rest upon.

The Ancient Near East: Mesoptamia, Egypt, Phoenicia,Israel

Western civlization rests upon the achievements of far more ancient societies. Long before the Greeks or Romans, the peoples of the ancient NearEast had learned to domesticate animals, grow crops,and produce useful articles of pottery and metal.

The ancient Mesoptamians and Egyptians developed writing, mathematics, and sophisticated methods of engineering while contributing a rich variety of legal,scientific, and religious ideas to those who would come after them.

The Phoenicians invented the alphabet andfacilitated cultural borrowing by trading throughout the known world, and ancient Israel gave birth to religious concepts that form the basis of modern Judaism,Christianity, and Islam.



however this can be explained by memetic transference and a lifetime of religious hypnosis and indoctrination.

Can be really explained, when reffering to Christianity & Islam as a 'virulent memeplex' and that atheism is the 'cure.'?? A very "rational" approach.

Peace
edit on 9-2-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Lucifer777
 



I always feel a sigh of relief when I am back in Europe
And yet, all of those bad things are prevalent in Western society as well. They're just hidden and sanitized, so that the public doesn't recognize them as crimes. Consider the sex industry; most prostitutes are little more than chattel slaves, but the common liberal myth is that they are free labourers and that their profession deserves respect! The conservative position is no better - they volunteer to be prostitutes and are wholly responsible for anything bad that happens to them and, because prostitution is sinful, they deserve to be treated like slaves.


I think that both prostitution and actual sex slavery will probably always exist as long as the Capitalist system exists. I have never personally had to "pay" for sex, but I have been involved with the sex industry. There is quite a big difference between the sex workers of Amsterdam, who have their own trade union, full legal protection, mandatory health checks, and where the police patrol the Red Light areas to protect the prostitutes, not to to prosecute them, compared to the existence of international sex traffickers whose victims are not really "sex workers" in the traditional sense, since they are often just literal slaves.

In Capitalism, almost everything is for sale, and sex is something which there will always be a demand for. If the sex industry was criminalised, it would continue to exist in an illegal and more dangerous subculture.



tbh I am a 'cultural supremacist' too, but I understand that it's only because I favour the cultural forms that I grew up in. Nevertheless I can come to understand and appreciate cultural forms that I find repellant - and find something admirable and respectable in it, even if I dislike it.


I am certainly fascinated by the world and have been a world traveller, but frankly much of the world's population are still living with age old barbaric customs of the past; probably what they need most, apart from improvements in their material conditions is "feminism."




In my opinion, the Enlightenment wasn't really anything novel. It retained most of the structure of the Christian civilization and metaphysics and ethics and so on, but regrounded them in a secular foundation. As a revolutionary wave, it was too diverse to say that it had any particular direction or goals. However, it did generally succeed in overthrowing the tyranny of God and liberating the Intelligensia of Europe, if nobody else. I still think that the enlightenment's successors in the present day are by and large following in the shadow of Christianity, though. I do not believe that it was a new beginning for culture.


Well the Age of Enlightenment seems to have been an awakening from centuries of mass religious hypnosis and indoctrination, feudalism (salvery essentiall) and the economic exploitation of the masses, with the rise of new political philosophies which challenged tyranny (monarchy) such as Republicanism, Marxism and Anarchism; it seems quite appropriate to me that the medieval world was called the "Dark Ages" and that the the last few centuries are referred to as the Age of Enlightenment.



Biblical Law enthusiasts are well received and unpleasantly popular in Israel and the United States, and probably in other countries as well.


I used to work for the Israeli government and it seems to me that the military, economic and intellectual elites are mostly entirely secular and could not care less about Judaic religious fanaticism; they are mostly just interested in money, sex, drugs, drug trafficking, arm's trafficking etc, If you are up for a good read, you can read the entirety of "By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer" by Victor Ostrovsky on: www.solargeneral.com... You will find by reading this, that the Israeli elites could not care less about religion; it is just a disguise they hide behind; they are certainly militant, genocidal and potentially apocalyptic (I would not put it past them to anonymously nuke the entire Islamic world), but it does not seem to be out of any religious motivation; their values and culture are predominately that of modern Euoropeans, which is unsurprising since they mostly "are" Europeans.



It's a latent social movement that has been dormant for some time and is gradually waking up again, as the historical circumstances which make a theocratic revolution possible are coming again. Remember that a mere century before the American Revolution began, the Puritanical forebears of Americanism staged a theocratic revolution in England.


Well the monarch Charles the First, was both the absolute dictator and also the head of the Church; Cromwell was certainly a Christian, but in terms of political philosophy he was a Republican (a Parliamentarian). Unfortunately when you have a Republic of Christians, then it will probably be a theocratic republic, since their beliefs will be enshrined in law.

Iran is today often referred to as a "theocracy" but that is because it is a republic where the elected representatives are mostly Muslims. England for example is a monarchy whose parliament only exists by the consent (permission) of the monarch and we have unelected Anglican bishops in the House of Lords. Despite our dictator being the head of the Church, and being technically a theocracy (God government), most of the parliamentarians are modernists, not religious fanatics; whereas the Iranians do not have an unelected religious tyrant as we British do, nor do they have the equivalent of unelected bishops (Islamic clerics) in their legislature; never the less it is a theocratic republic because most of the legislature are Muslims and there are elements of Sharia Law in their legal system.

Unfortunately "Republicanism" is limited as a political ideal by the members of the Republic's legislature; if they are mostly Muslims, Christians, Hindus or whatever their beliefs will probably be enshrined in Law; this is why Republicanism in Europe is mostly a secular and humanist phenomenon and a religious phenomenon in Iran; thus it seems to me that the humanist and anti-religionist revolutions are a prerequsite for modern government.



Europe appears to be much more 'enlightened' (modernized) than the Muslim world, where there is a small number of educated elites and a very large number of conservative peasants. However, I think that this too is a matter of optics. The West only appears to be more modernized. I do not believe that the majority of Americans or Europeans are any more civilized than the majority of Muslims. They're all bigots and ignoramuses because they're all peasants, no matter what the present political myth of equality says. If they are not peasants in terms of wealth, they are absolutely impoverished spiritually and intellectually. God, how I loathe the masses.


Well I do certainly think that most Europeans are more "civilized" than the Muslims, but it depends on ones' definition of civilisation; in Europe one must consider not just the "football hooligan" element, but also the intelligensia, the educated classes, the economic middle classes, progressive elements of popular youth culture, the feminists, the gays and the political Leftists (who are in their millions in Europe, compared to America where they are a tiny mnority); however despite the fact that I am ideologically a Communist, I would have to agree with you that "much" of the European proletariat are a dumbed down "lost generation;" many are either totally depoliticised or have rather far right views, however this is only a certain section of society.



I definitely agree with you about the perception of Biblical nutjobs. The recurring theme in this post is that Christians have consistently hidden and obscured their true views from the liberals among them (like taqiyyah in Shi'a Islam, how ironic). They are able to sanitize their rhetoric so that it does not seem incendiary. Their real triumph is in the control of language, not media or information. They don't even need resources to control language - it's all a matter of choosing one's words wisely, so that those not in the know do not understand the hidden message that is meant for your armies of sleeper agents (Christians).


Yes it is very Orwellian. The Christians use the same language as everyone else, but they define their terms differently on very important terms such as "good" and "evil;" thus a "good God" and a "good Christian" is really most humanist's definition of an evil deity and an evil person.



Continental Europe may be different from America and Israel thanks to decades of atheist revolutions, but the UK is just as bad as the Jan Kees.


I have lived in the US for about 5 years in the 80's and frankly I was glad to be back in Europe; there is of course a very positive American subculture which reflects the European subculture, but my impression of America is that religious fanaticism is endemic; it is not so in Europe; it is really a minority disease and mostly does not exist in the younger generation; probably one of the main causes for the decline of religion in Europe is the permissive sexual subculture, which in the younger generation is no longer a subculture, but is rather mainstream; I find that to be very progressive and indicative of the shedding of "slave morality (i.e., religious morality) and a rejection of the "sins of restriction."

Lux
edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
reply to post by Lucifer777
 



Yes I think that the author of the site "is" attempting to explain the "vicious" truth about the Bible; the fact that the author is an atheist is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

However is not irrelevant that the author of the site claims that "...was developed to promote atheism...". Does atheism really needs to be promoted?


The author of www.evilbible.com... is clearly an atheist; he does not "need" to promote atheism to attack the Bible, but it is his choice to do so; it does not make any difference to me whether he is an atheist or merely an opponent of the anthropomorphic (a human projection) deity of the Bible; his criticisms are anyway based on numerous Biblical texts which I think almost any modern, educated, scientific, ethical person would be offended by. That you are "not" offended by such texts says a great deal about you..

I am anyway not strictly speaking an atheist; I am probably more of a Deist; however this should not be confused with a belief in the ancient Bronze Age tribal deity of a tribe of genocidal savages.




Have you ever pondered the question : why does a smart guy like Richard Dawkins regularly give atheists a bad name by putting his foot in his mouth with his inane and ridiculous pronouncements about God and religion?


"Inane" means "stupid, irrelevant." I don't find Dawkin's attacks on the ancient biblical deity to be either stupid and irrelevant. I have read his "God Delusion" and I consider it to be one of the most important works in the history of "Philosophy of Religion;" I entirely suspect that in the future world it will be mandatory reading for all students as an introduction to the study of religion.

Abuse and contradiction are anyway poor substitutes for intelligent argument. Any football hooligan or a drunk at a bus stop can shower a philosopher wth abuse and contradiction; you will need to do much better than that to refute the genius of Richard Dawkins.




So basically according to your definition i am a "Biblical" Fanatic and having the "Joshua Sydrome" because i believe in God???


No, not at all; consider for example a person who is a theist and who defines "God" as a black, lesbian. Jewish Communist. Not all theists are sadistic psychopaths whose definition of a deity is the Biblical deity. My judgement of you is nothing to do with whether you believe that the universe has a Creator or does not have a Creator, but if you chose the Biblical deity out of the numerous definitions of a deity, then obviously I would have to judge you as a deranged psychopath, just as I judge your "god" as a deranged psychopath.



Don´t you know that fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness? or you feel justified on bashing God and labeling those who believe in something that you don´t believe that exists?


I can assure you that I am not "bashing God;" if the Universe has a Creator (i.e., a god), then She clearly does not lend Herself to empirical observation, thus I have limited myself to "bashing" various anthropomorphic (human projections) definitions of a deity, such as the sadistic and genocidal Biblical deity.

With regards to whether such a sadistic deity exists or not, then yes I do believe that this Biblical deity exists as a concept in the minds of Biblical fanatics; it is a natural consequence of defining a deity in such genocidal, sadistic, psychopathic terms that the religious fanatic will seek to emulate such qualities, thus I am ultimately judging the religious fanatics and the the god which exists as a concept in their mind. This sadistic god does not speak to me or address me in any way, and I am thus limited to "bashing" the fanatics who claim to represent Her,



The remarkable is that the educated scientific person of the 21st century, is willingly forgetting that upon the "so called" relative "Primitive" "Savage" "Illiterate" cultures our "so called" Great-Western civilisation rest upon.


We are the most educated, scientific, literate generation in all of human history and if you revere "Jewish prophets" there are much more modern "Jewish prophets" such as Karl Marx, Trotsky, Alexander Berkman and Neom Chomsky whom I tend to have much more admiration for that some Bronze Age, pre-scientfic religious fanatics; but there will always be those who look back to the past and will revere the metaphysical ramblings of some ancient fanatic rather than their contemporaries.

I submit only to the highest authority of human reason (i.e., my own and that of others who can explain themselves in a rational way); I sit in judgement (my personal subjective discernment of good and evil) on the living and the dead, and I judge your dead god as a psychopath; whereas you seem to be unable to think for yourself and are dependent on the ramblings of ancient religious fanatics for your discernment of good and evil.



however this can be explained by memetic transference and a lifetime of religious hypnosis and indoctrination.

Can be really explained, when reffering to Christianity & Islam as a 'virulent memeplex' and that atheism is the 'cure.'?? A very "rational" approach.


I am not an atheist, but I find that I have a great deal in common with atheists since they are able to think for themselves and respect no higher authority than human reason, human intution and science. Yes, according to the modern moral Zeitgeist of humanists, Christianity are virulent memetic diseases; atheism is a cure, but so also is humanism, which requires neither a theistic nor atheistic approach; you merely have to be able to think for yourself.


Peace


Coming from a person who defends the Biblical deity "peace" is entirely innapropriate and merely a term of Orwellian Newspeak; there is nothing "peaceful" about the Biblical deity, unless you define peace as the state that exists after the genocide of all non believers.

Lux
edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 




Straight to the point, made all the right hits, and extremely logical OP.

I've never heard of the Milgram nor the Joshua experiments. I will definitely look into those.
With hindsight, I can personally attest to the effects displayed in the Joshua Experiment. During the time I was a Baptisit (Protestant) Christian, I started to learn of the oppression of the Palestinians. As a Christian, the Bible had me believe that the Jews were God's specially anointed people. I read about the first genocides of the natives of the Promised Land by the Hebrew Israelites according to the Old Testament. My firm belief in the Bible as God's literal word made me justify the situation in Palestine today, although initially my heart wept for the Palestinians. My faith blinded me to the Israeli/Palestinian situation and coerced me into morally supporting Palestinian Diaspora. Any acts of violence or aggression on behalf of Israel was justified to me.
Similarly, when I converted to Islam, my moral compass blindly sided with Hamas and jihad fisbillah (Holy War for the sake of Allah).

And I can't tell you how many times I forcefully shut off my logic and moral compass of Love in the name of Faith, and simply submitted to religious doctrine. When things didn't feel right, I told myself to just obey and trust religion. When I found things in the religious texts that made no logical sense, I told myself to not doubt and believed I just didn't reach a high enough understanding yet. Excuses and forceful suppression of logic and love were common characteristics of my time as a religious adherent.

Now, what has fully driven me away from both Islam and Christianity is this firm realization of Truth:
A Loving, Almighty God would never tell us to murder in His name, in absolutely no capacity or justification.

As a recently liberated man from mainstream religion, I fully understand and support the body of this OP.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Is the slavery or colonialism, and the absolute destruction of millions of people and destruction of cultures by white European Christians on practically ALL non-white people since Columbus’s 1492 voyage, count in your genocidal map?

How does that fit in.?
Does that count Lucifer?

BTW Lucifer I commend you for joining the Hate Islam club with the bigot “Awake and Aware” who I have refuted many times and pointed out his errors and falsehoods.

BTW many philosophers from the west respect Islam particularly it’s mystical content that exists in Sufism.

Did you know that Lucifer?
edit on 9-2-2011 by inforeal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sahabi

And I can't tell you how many times I forcefully shut off my logic and moral compass of Love in the name of Faith, and simply submitted to religious doctrine. When things didn't feel right, I told myself to just obey and trust religion. When I found things in the religious texts that made no logical sense, I told myself to not doubt and believed I just didn't reach a high enough understanding yet. Excuses and forceful suppression of logic and love were common characteristics of my time as a religious adherent.

Now, what has fully driven me away from both Islam and Christianity is this firm realization of Truth:
A Loving, Almighty God would never tell us to murder in His name, in absolutely no capacity or justification.



“If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.”

If there is a God, She must have designed us with human reason, intelligence, and an intuitive understanding of human ethics for some reason. To simply abandon reason would seem to be blasphemous and heretical to the Goddess of Reason, and so I and so many others like us have by necessity become evangelically and militantly intolerant towards the proponents of religious hypnosis and indoctrination; it is a Holy War and the salvation of humankind is at stake; this "salvation" is not the salvation "of" religion; on the contrary it is the salvation of the human soul "from" the disease of religion. If there is a God, and She is not the enemy of religion, then She is evil and She is of no use to humankind.

Words are weapons. Propaganda is War,

Lux



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Furthermore:

It’s not easy understanding or relating to people like Dawkins and Harris and like this Lucifer chap—the OP, that religion like any ideology will and can have evil in it because there is something inside humans that transcends ideology and that is psychology. Read the founder of Spiral Dynamics, Clair Graves on the subject and find out that there is positives and negatives in developmental stages of growth that has nothing to do directly with ideology.

Indeed a Black Muslim [follower of Elijah Muhammad] in his racist ideology has everything in the world in common with a Klansmen; indeed they are both on the same low level of developmental awareness, though they would ideologically appear to be enemies.

That’s why, on the other hand, one can have a Bin Laden in Islam along with a Muslim Sufi saint who recognize and believe in the same lore.

That’s why we can have a Martin Luther King and a Jim Jones at the same time.
It's called duality!
edit on 9-2-2011 by inforeal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Is the slavery or colonialism, and the absolute destruction of millions of people and destruction of cultures by white European Christians on practically ALL non-white people since Columbus’s 1492 voyage, count in your genocidal map?

How does that fit in.?
Does that count Lucifer?


Yes of course, but slavery, genocide and the conquest of non-believers are all mandatory as far as the Biblical deity is concerned. I consider Islam and Christanity to be the two most dangerous forms of the religion disease in the world; my comments should not be "merely" taken as attacks upon Islam exclusively, but on organised religion in general.


BTW Lucifer I commend you for joining the Hate Islam club with the bigot “Awake and Aware” who I have refuted many times and pointed out his errors and falsehoods.


Well "contradiction" is not refutation; there are just as many justifications for genocide, slavery and sex slavery in the Koran as there are in the Bible, and you cannot simply "refute" them without discarding the Koran and the history of Islam.

The imperialism, genocide and enslavement of populations by the Christians seems to bother you, but this has also been part of Islamic history. The Islamic slave trade has been going on since the 7th century and it continues today; the Islamic slave trade was actually far more brutal and long term than the Christian slave trade; it was a common practice to castrate male Africans and remove their tongues, and the Mulsims were probably the most barbaric of the slave traders of Africa.

There is simply no justification for anti-slavery in the Koran; Mohammad's first wife was a professional slaver trader, Mohammad himself kept slaves including numerous concubines (sex slaves); he encouraged his armies to take prisioners as slaves and the women as sex slaves.

I suggest that you take a look at www.jihadwatch.org... on the Islamic slave trade in Africa which your prophet approved of.

www.youtube.com...
Video above: the Islamic slave trade

If there is a Creator and She was going to send a Final Prophet, I think that She
could do much better than an illiterate Arabic slave trader.

With regards to me being part of a "Hate Islam" club, I am unashamedly guilty, however bear in mind that my hatred and revulsion for that vile religion is not that of a devotee of a competing religion; my contempt for Hinduism, Christianity and Islam is the same contempt which is shared by all ideological Communists throughout the Hindu, Christian and Islamic regions.



BTW many philosophers from the west respect Islam particularly it’s mystical content that exists in Sufism.

Did you know that Lucifer?


Suifism does not reject the teachings of Mohammad; on the contrary. Their poetical ramblings and "mysticism" do not impress me one iota, any more than the "mysticism" and poetry of Biblical fanatics. I am not a "mystic." There is no knowledge of human nature and human psychology that is important to me which is mysterious or which can be explained by religious fanaticism.

You are either an apologist for Islam or you are against Islam. Since you are obviously literate and active on the Internet, you can choose to promote your genocidal religion or you can oppose it and seek to wake up those who are still victims of Islamic indoctrination. You have a limited time.

The economic and military establishment of the modern world are not "liberals" of the kind who will write Islamic apologetics and promote inter-religious dialogue; they are equally as genocidal as their Islamic enemies and have long prepared for apocalyptic warfare. Islam can be destroyed by revolutionary propaganda (education) or by fire, plague, poisoned waters and the rod of iron; the choice is yours and your time is short.

I should point out that I have travelled through many Islamic countries over the course of my life; I just returned a few weeks ago from a month in Africa (Senegal) for example; I have not lived my life in cultural isolation from the Islamic world, but I have nothing but contempt for African Muslims; they genitally mutilate their daughters, treat their women as virtual salves, they consider themselves righteous and loved by their sadistic, misogynistic god and they wish to spread their disease of religion to all nations. It shall not be so; in time there shall come an end to their maddness.

Lux
No mercy on they who deserve none.




edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 



The author of www.evilbible.com... is clearly an atheist;


Yeap. We clear that up on the previous posts. We do not need to repeat that.


he does not "need" to promote atheism to attack the Bible, but it is his choice to do so;


Yeap. We agree on that his website was designed to promote atheism, while clearly atheism needs no promotion at all, since every logical person is free to choose what he/she wants to believe.


it does not make any difference to me whether he is an atheist or merely an opponent of the anthropomorphic (a human projection) deity of the Bible;


His beliefs are irrelevant. But, not irrelevant when he tries to push those beliefs as the "Truth".


his criticisms are anyway based on numerous Biblical texts which I think almost any modern, educated, scientific, ethical person would be offended by.


His criticisms are based on his own interpretation, and nothing more.


That you are "not" offended by such texts says a great deal about you..


Yeah, it does says a great deal about me.


"Inane" means "stupid, irrelevant." I don't find Dawkin's attacks on the ancient biblical deity to be either stupid and irrelevant.


Then why is he fighting and attacking a Deity, that he does not believe at first place?


I have read his "God Delusion" and I consider it to be one of the most important works in the history of "Philosophy of Religion;" I entirely suspect that in the future world it will be mandatory reading for all students as an introduction to the study of religion.


The future world my friend, will be one big global prison. Where "Faith" "Hope" and "Belief" will be obselete, if humanity does not change it´s course of self-destruction.


Abuse and contradiction are anyway poor substitutes for intelligent argument. Any football hooligan or a drunk at a bus stop can shower a philosopher wth abuse and contradiction; you will need to do much better than that to refute the genius of Richard Dawkins.


It´s a fine line between "genius" and "insanity". And to pick a fight against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness.


With regards to whether such a sadistic deity exists or not, then yes I do believe that this Biblical deity exists as a concept in the minds of Biblical fanatics; it is a natural consequence of defining a deity in such genocidal, sadistic, psychopathic terms that the religious fanatic will seek to emulate such qualities, thus I am ultimately judging the religious fanatics and the the god which exists as a concept in their mind. This sadistic god does not speak to me or address me in any way, and I am thus limited to "bashing" the fanatics who claim to represent Her,


Do you really think that by criticizing a God belief (i.e. theism) that you are somehow, aiding in the destruction of religion and leading an optimistic future?



I submit only to the highest authority of human reason (i.e., my own and that of others who can explain themselves in a rational way);


Yeap, as i submit to the highest authority of all which is called "Love".


I sit in judgement (my personal subjective discernment of good and evil) on the living and the dead, and I judge your dead god as a psychopath;


Do not forget to include Flying-Spaggeti-Monsters or Pink Unicorns or whatever else, suits your needs. I only hope, that you will understand how pointless that is, to spend time and effort, with things you do not believe.


whereas you seem to be unable to think for yourself and are dependent on the ramblings of ancient religious fanatics for your discernment of good and evil.


You are entitled to your own opinion of course. But, i do not blame God for the starvation, sickness, pain and suffering in the world...when, indeed, it is MAN's greed, politics, selfishness and apathy that not only causes, but also ignores the sick and the starving masses. To put it in "Biblical-Term", we aren't our brothers' keepers....but we should be.


I am not an atheist, but I find that I have a great deal in common with atheists since they are able to think for themselves and respect no higher authority than human reason, human intution and science.


Yeap, and we poor delusional Christians cannot think for our selfs, just because we believe in a God



Yes, according to the modern moral Zeitgeist of humanists, Christianity are virulent memetic diseases; atheism is a cure,


Now, that is called "Dogmatic-Belief".


but so also is humanism, which requires neither a theistic nor atheistic approach;


Yes, the blind leads the blind.


you merely have to be able to think for yourself.


I do actually.


Coming from a person who defends the Biblical deity "peace" is entirely innapropriate and merely a term of Orwellian Newspeak;


I have made my choice.


there is nothing "peaceful" about the Biblical deity, unless you define peace as the state that exists after the genocide of all non believers.


It´s always convient to point the finger to the one side and ignoring the other. Do i need to remind you, that millions of people lost their lives in wars/genocides during the last century, created by non-believers like Stalin, Lenin, Mao etc, to name only a few.

So, how can you contend that no war/genocide in history has ever been created by non-belief.??




Peace


edit on 10-2-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-2-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
1) the 'genocidal' accusation is based on a one-time situation when Israel went into Canaan and was instructed to eliminate all the extant population (which they never did). this remains one of the most difficult accounts to defend/justify to non-believers (and, yes, troubling to believers as myself). my best explanation is that the Canaanites were so far gone in their pagan morality (up to and including child sacrifice) that God had no choice but to remove them in toto. the surviving Canaanites would trouble and spiritually contaminate Israel through it's history.

2) aside from this one instance both Christian and Jew are encouraged--even commanded--to 'live at peace, as far as possible' with fellow men. (yes, this is OT as well as NT). 'love your neighbor as yourself' and 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' are both Biblical/Christian/Judaic principles.

removing religion from one's world view brings the question of moral foundations. it's easy to say 'don't steal, it's wrong' to a Christian/Jew, but how does one justify this to a non-believer? 'why is it wrong to procure something I want, if I'm able?' is the nonbeliever's argument, and how does one counter it? I appreciate the concept of 'universal values' but ultimately what basis can there be for them without God?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76His criticisms are based on his own interpretation, and nothing more.


Contradiction is not a valid form of argument. An argument would state "why" you disagree with his interpretations. For example, you might argue that the Biblical quotations inciting genocide, infanticide and mass executions for numerous silly offences (like working on a Saturday) are false interpretations or false translations, but you need to construct an argument to this extent; it is not succificent to merely claim "I don't agree with that interpretation;" any child in a playground or any football hooligan can do that.





That you are "not" offended by such texts says a great deal about you..


Yeah, it does says a great deal about me.



You position tends to support my argument in the OP that persons who accept a psychopathic definition of a deity are likely to become psychopaths themselves, and who will justify all manner of human evil in the name of their chosen deity.




"Inane" means "stupid, irrelevant." I don't find Dawkin's attacks on the ancient biblical deity to be either stupid and irrelevant.


Then why is he fighting and attacking a Deity, that he does not believe at first place?



The problem is not the non-existence or existence of the particular tribal deity of the Bible which you have chosen from a variety of ancient primitive dieties; the problem is you and other persons who are devotees of that particular deity. I think I have made it clear in the OP that the "Joshua" and "Milgram" experiments for example are not studies of "god;" they are studies on the effect of authority (religious authority in the former case and government authority in the latter case); it is entirely irrelevant if your psychopathic definition of a deity exists or not; what is relevant is you believe it and that clearly if you choose a genocidal and psychopathic definition of a deity, that it will affect you psychologically and behaviourally and transform you into the raving psychopath that you are; for why else would you defend the Biblical definition of a psychopathic deity.





I have read his "God Delusion" and I consider it to be one of the most important works in the history of "Philosophy of Religion;" I entirely suspect that in the future world it will be mandatory reading for all students as an introduction to the study of religion.


The future world my friend, will be one big global prison. Where "Faith" "Hope" and "Belief" will be obselete, if humanity does not change it´s course of self-destruction.


I am an Anarchist and I have no wish for human human kind to live in a "Prison Planet" or a global dictatorship; however the political philosophy of Christianity "is" that of theocratic monarchy (dictatorship); after all your prophesied "Kings of Kings" is the definition of a genocidal global dictator who will eradicate his enemies militarily, impose Biblical law and eradicate all non believers.

Any objections which Christians make regarding objections to a global dictatorship are entirely disingenuous (false, hypocritical, lacking in sincerity) since the political philosophy of Christianity is essentially theocratic fascism and has nothing to do with opposition to dictatorship; on the contrary; Christians are awaiting the coming of a prophesied genoccidal global.dictator.




Abuse and contradiction are anyway poor substitutes for intelligent argument. Any football hooligan or a drunk at a bus stop can shower a philosopher wth abuse and contradiction; you will need to do much better than that to refute the genius of Richard Dawkins.


It´s a fine line between "genius" and "insanity". And to pick a fight against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness.


You and other Christians are not "non-existant;" your psychopathic Biblical deity may be merely a concept of your mind, but you most certainly exist; the enemy of humankind is not merely the anthropomorphic projections of religious fanatics but the religious fanatics themselves.




With regards to whether such a sadistic deity exists or not, then yes I do believe that this Biblical deity exists as a concept in the minds of Biblical fanatics; it is a natural consequence of defining a deity in such genocidal, sadistic, psychopathic terms that the religious fanatic will seek to emulate such qualities, thus I am ultimately judging the religious fanatics and the the god which exists as a concept in their mind. This sadistic god does not speak to me or address me in any way, and I am thus limited to "bashing" the fanatics who claim to represent Her,


Do you really think that by criticizing a God belief (i.e. theism) that you are somehow, aiding in the destruction of religion and leading an optimistic future?


If you were honest about it, and admitted that your deity is just an anthropomorphic projection of your own mind, and the minds of the Biblical authors, you could just make your religion up as you go along and you could define your god in any way you wish and just have conversations with Her in your own padded cell, but you have chosen the psychopathic Biblical defintion of a deity, and since there are tens of millions of Biblical fanatics, that is a threat to humankind.




I submit only to the highest authority of human reason (i.e., my own and that of others who can explain themselves in a rational way);


Yeap, as i submit to the highest authority of all which is called "Love".


Love is probably the most misused world in religious hypnosis and indoctrination. The Biblical definition of a deity is hardly a god of love; it is a sadistic, genocidal war deity; the fact that you define such a psychopathic deity as "love" is part of the problem of religious fanaticism and religious hypnosis.

Not only do you suffer from religous psychosis, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others, much like some Hollywood zombie movie; you are not content to be infected yourself, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others; this is part of the "Trolls for Jesus" Internet phenomenon which I and many others of my ilk are attempting to combat; unfortunately your disease is both lethal and genocidal, and I suspect that eventually the only "cure" will also be that of genocide.

Genocidal, militant, apocalyptic religious fanaticism will eventually demand a militant, apoclayptic, genocidal response.



whereas you seem to be unable to think for yourself and are dependent on the ramblings of ancient religious fanatics for your discernment of good and evil........I am not an atheist, but I find that I have a great deal in common with atheists since they are able to think for themselves and respect no higher authority than human reason, human intution and science.


Yeap, and we poor delusional Christians cannot think for our selfs, just because we believe in a God





you merely have to be able to think for yourself.


I do actually.


Well I was already aware that Christians have an inability to think for themselves, "and" that they are able to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, such as that they "can" think for themselves and that they "cannot" think for themselves; these are points which I have made in the OP essay; however this has nothing to do with the philosophical question of the whether the universe has a Ceator or not, it has to do with your particular form of Biblical fanaticism and the Biblical definition of a psychopathic and genocidal deity



So, how can you contend that no war/genocide in history has ever been created by non-belief.??


I would never claim that all wars are "religious belief" wars; on the contrary most wars are probably motivated by economic reasons, and religion is just a means by which miltary elites can control and motivate the masses to wage war; however the Biblical deity does demand war against all non believers and those who are not part of his tribe, the ancient Israelites (who no longer exist anyway).



Peace


For a Biblical fanatic to end his posts with "peace" is entirely disingenuous and hypocriotcal. Peace is a state which is reached after the devotees of your psychopathic war god have subjected all opponents to genocide, with the exception of the young virgin females (female children) of course, whom you may keep as sex slaves and gag rape.


Lucifer
Blasphemy, Heresy, War, Revolution, etc.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Lucifer777 - Lucifer Angel of Death - Judge of the Living and the Dead - The Morning Star. Dictator of all Law for the coming New Age of Light, the Return to Year Zero.

"Christians are Psychopaths"

Really?

Have you looked in the mirror lately?

Seems to me that you spend a great deal of time and energy denegrating others beliefs, specifically those who believe in the God of Abraham.

Why?

You have made it clear that those beliefs are akin to a childs belief in Santa Claus. Do you go around attacking children and accusing them of being psychopaths as well?

Honestly, the voracity of your arguments makes it seem as though you are trying to convince others that God does not exist, when in fact it you is who needs convincing.

Peace!
edit on 10-2-2011 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join