God, Satan, Religion, History, Delusion

[Kiljaden]

(Note: This thread is directed toward the majority of Christians. I apologize if it's long, if you don't wanna read it then I don't want you to reply)

First of all - to those of you theists that believe in God and Satan. Does Satan follow God's will, is Satan under God's control? If so, then God is evil. If not, then God is not all-powerful and is reduced to lesser diety or demi-god status.

Secondly - most theists claim something along the lines that God cannot (err chooses not to) reveal himself to us because it would violate our free will, and we would then have no choice but to worship him in his Godly greatness. I don't think I need to point out the Orwellian doublethink going on here when we realize that God revealed himself countless times to both believers and nonbelievers throughout the Bible. To the point, Satan knows beyond any shadow of doubt that God exists and the full extent of God's power - but he still chooses to disobey and rebel.

To be entirely honest I must commend the evil little demigod, fighting against the supreme force in the universe. Satan is described as a cunning individual, and surely must know his labor will be for naught in the end, right? Or perhaps Satan actually does have a chance at overthrowing God. Or maybe Satan is really just doing what God wants him to do... This is how religious dogma works. You go in circles, and the only way to escape it is to either make some bold unfounded rationalization, or to realize it's a giant motherwubbing crock of wub.

How is it that you guys rationalize the obvious contradictions and blatantly idiotic dogma that primitive minded men wrote down in a book? Do you simply say "Satan\Hell is allegory"? If so, then what's the point of Jesus\Heaven\Salvation in the first place. Oh, but if you aren't saved then you'll cease to exist or be separated from God... so, what? Seriously, so what? God never changes, right? The God of the New Testament is still the same YHWH\Jehovah as the Old Testament God, right? He just sacrificed himself to himself to make a loophole in order to circumvent laws that he himself made... Even if God did decide to somehow change the rules (as if he didn't know we wouldn't be able to live up to his expectations - also what happened to Moses's and Joseph's souls, they were evil men if you read your bible), he's still the same malicious evil genocidal infantacidal slavery-endorsing prostitute-loving God that he was back then.

Oh but I should love him because he loves me and gave me the chance for salvation through his son... Do you guys seriously not hear yourselves? Honestly, it's the 21st Century people. We should have been rid of this mindless curse of religion a long time ago. But no, you believe it's all true based on faith because God puts emotions in you that tells you it's true. If you were to believe any other outlandish idea based on this rationale, you would be called crazy and be put on meds. Just because it's religion you get a special pass to believe it based on nothing. No reason, no evidence, nothing but a good feeling you get in your gut. That's called believing it because you want it to be true, not because it is something you can demonstrate to be true.

Every time I come back at you with the Catholic evils (medieval and modern) and Crusades\Inquisitions, the Madeline Neumanns, televangelical con artists, social oppression, the iconoclasm and Dark Ages, the guilt of just being human... you know, the blatantly negative things that could not have existed if not for religion, you just say "oh well those were bad apples" or "it's all allegory", it's like you don't even see what this belief system does to our lives on a planetary scale. You don't argue when I point to Muslims who do the same thing, but you simply refuse to look in the damn mirror. How it is that in this day and age people can still waste their minds believing in the most idiotic nonsense ever contrived? Simply because everyone else seems to? (If everyone jumped off a bridge...)

Headlines people: Every time we figure something out about the world that disagrees with religion - we, the humans, are proven right. God is proven wrong, and that passage slips into the ever-ambiguous ever-growing allegory section. Face it, religion is wrong, every time. Earth the center of the universe? Nope. Everything revolves around us? Nope. Pi is 3? Nope. Prayer works more often than lack of prayer? Nope. Earth created 6,000 years ago? Nope. Global flood? Nope. I don't have to go on, but we all know I could.

This is it, gentlemen. I'm sick of "repecting" your beliefs. I reserve the right to mock you and your ridiculous beliefs at every turn. I have tried my damnedest to make you see the flaws and falsehoods of your claims, but you ignore me. You come back with "faith", as if "faith" is actually a good thing in this world. You are willfully ignoring reality. You are believing in ridiculous things simply because you want it to be true - but most importantly expecting me to believe your stupid little fantasy in order to make you feel better. You, sirs, are pathetic.

Don't even try to come at me with atheism does this or atheism does that. Atheism is one singular position, a response to one singular claim. Don't believe me? Look at the stupid Raelians or other religions and dogmas that happen to lack gods. To preempt the inevitable, point to Stalin and Pol Pot if you want, but you know the reality of the situation - atheism didn't do that, malicious dictatorial facsist wubs did that. Use your buzzwords, your mindless statements repeated to make yourself feel justified and better. I wonder how long you can maintain your delusion. For your sake, and the sake of the Earth, I hope it isn't for much longer.

[Ummon]

Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing your effort, but the simplistic and somewhat silly nature of this argument is apparent at row number two.

Many of your implied contradictions are only apparent. It's much more complicated than you think.

[Holger Danske]

Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing your effort, but the simplistic and somewhat silly nature of this argument is apparent at row number two.

Many of your implied contradictions are only apparent. It's much more complicated than you think.

No, it's rather simple...
Either you believe in all the bravo sierra that religion has preached for so long and thus you're nothing more than a laughing stock for the rest of your fellow race, or you don't.

Humans are animals.
Earth is way older than 6000 years and was not created by one 'man' in 7 days.
'God' was created by us. A sign of our fundemental intellectual flaw.
Sex is not evil or the work of Satan.
... Neither is beer!

[Kiljaden]

It is true that most of the arguments I presented deserve many more words than I gave them, and by no means is this my supreme argument against god-belief. I skimmed a few key ideas quickly to draw a conclusion on purpose.

Besides, I wanted to minimize the wall of text while maximizing the directional thought-provokation.

[Tankbuster]

[...]
Oh but I should love him because he loves me and gave me the chance for salvation through his son... Do you guys seriously not hear yourselves? Honestly, it's the 21st Century people. We should have been rid of this mindless curse of religion a long time ago. But no, you believe it's all true based on faith because God puts emotions in you that tells you it's true. If you were to believe any other outlandish idea based on this rationale, you would be called crazy and be put on meds. Just because it's religion you get a special pass to believe it based on nothing. No reason, no evidence, nothing but a good feeling you get in your gut. That's called believing it because you want it to be true, not because it is something you can demonstrate to be true.

[...]

This is it, gentlemen. I'm sick of "repecting" your beliefs. I reserve the right to mock you and your ridiculous beliefs at every turn. I have tried my damnedest to make you see the flaws and falsehoods of your claims, but you ignore me. You come back with "faith", as if "faith" is actually a good thing in this world. You are willfully ignoring reality. You are believing in ridiculous things simply because you want it to be true - but most importantly expecting me to believe your stupid little fantasy in order to make you feel better. You, sirs, are pathetic.

[...]

Good essay, Kiljaden!
I think those are the best two paragraphs

It does oversimplify things a bit, but that's the whole point. Sure, we could put loads of energy in an attempt to make all the contradictions fit in with each other, but the fact alone that we have to try so hard, makes it unlikely to me that there is anything supernatural about the whole thing :hmmm:

[Father Jack]

Great post mate, it was a good effort to minimalise the myriad of ideas not to believe in a god etc and I agree with all of the points against.

[Ummon]

There is nothing thought-provoking in being young. Near the 100% of humanity has been before you.

[Rich86]

If not, then God is not all-powerful and is reduced to lesser diety or demi-god status.

I don't think that follows - It's possible God woudl be able to stop Satan but would choose not to - although this perhaps makes him evil nonetheless.

Secondly - most theists claim something along the lines that God cannot (err chooses not to) reveal himself to us because it would violate our free will, and we would then have no choice but to worship him in his Godly greatness. I don't think I need to point out the Orwellian doublethink going on here when we realize that God revealed himself countless times to both believers and nonbelievers throughout the Bible. To the point, Satan knows beyond any shadow of doubt that God exists and the full extent of God's power - but he still chooses to disobey and rebel.

Very good point!

[Ummon]

God can reveal Himself, obviously, He chooses not to do so beyond evidence because, doing so, everyone would obey out of fear.

Satan is a very peculiar creature. It serves a purpose, and yet he is a rebel. He obeys by disobeying.

Mysteries, are not something a man can understand in a morning, nor in a month. Reality is never obvious, and the underlying processes, or the metaphors which describe them, are even less so.

[Bovril]

I think the OP has little or no understanding of the modern theological conception of what faith is, or the difference between the theological claims made by relgion and the historical and physical claims that get tacked on to them. Since most religious people don't understand these things either, who can blame him?

[motiv-8]

It's stuff like this that makes atheists look bad. I mean, come on people, we're in the twenty-first century. If you're going to mock something, at least have the intestinal fortitude and self-respect to educate yourself on what you're mocking first. This reminds me more of the prepubescent diatribe of an ignorant child than anything that came about as a result of critical analysis or an attempt at understanding. But hey, jump on it as a shining example of why theism is a failure if you reaaally want to.. You're just selling yourself short while the other side gets a good laugh.

[Winter]

I don't know why my fellow non believers feel that not believing in god gives them a license to be totally insulting to those who do.

[Ciabhán]

Probably because of people like Ummon, Bovril, and Motiv-8, who manage to casually act superior to and insult entire group of people. People have a tendency to give what they get. It is of course oddly non-Christian(for those that are Christian) to act that way but then again they are only humans and who can blame them for being hypocrits.

[Bovril]

Which would be a legitimate criticism if it weren't for the fact I only stated a mildly insulting but very true fact about most religious people, and am not a Christian myself. Or maybe you think both the OP and most religious people are conversant in the works of Bultman, Tillich, Jung and the like, and that both religious eople and their critics have no problem sepperating the temporal and metaphysical/theological doctrines assosiated with various religious systems.

And anyway, why shouldn't I act superior when I so clearly am.

[motiv-8]

Probably because of people like Ummon, Bovril, and Motiv-8, who manage to casually act superior too and insult entire group of people. People have a tendency to give what they get. It is of course oddly non-Christian(for those that are Christian) to act that way but then again they are only humans and who can blame them for being hypocrits.

Lollerfail.

I suppose it's acting superior to request someone to educate themselves before they make foolish assumptions and belittle an entire category of people. It must be hypocritical to say I feel sorry for the atheists who have to see such a childish mis-characterization of their entire viewpoint from someone claiming to be of the same view. It is of course absolutely non-Christian to ask for a well thought-out attack upon one's personal philosophical view rather than blind polemics.

Oh, you know, on that last point, I would absolutely be thrilled if you could tell me, oh ye morally-superior-in-argument, what it is to be properly 'Christian' in this regard. Or perhaps you would like to 'take up the cross', so to speak, of putting together a valid argument of what Christianity, or the theistic positions, actually entails.

[Ciabhán]

Lollerfail.

I suppose it's acting superior to request someone to educate themselves before they make foolish assumptions and belittle an entire category of people. It must be hypocritical to say I feel sorry for the atheists who have to see such a childish mis-characterization of their entire viewpoint from someone claiming to be of the same view. It is of course absolutely non-Christian to ask for a well thought-out attack upon one's personal philosophical view rather than blind polemics.

Oh, you know, on that last point, I would absolutely be thrilled if you could tell me, oh ye morally-superior-in-argument, what it is to be properly 'Christian' in this regard. Or perhaps you would like to 'take up the cross', so to speak, of putting together a valid argument of what Christianity, or the theistic positions, actually entails.

As soon as you stop acting like a chastised child when someone does put forth an argument you can call other folks arguments childish........I never claimed to be morally superior, I don't have myself locked into following one specific set of morals so I readily admit that my morals are of convenience. In reference to the last part I would assume that if you are calling yourself Christian that means you are supposed to emulate Christ, who from what I can remember after a few decades of non-belief was never a hypocrit and was always humble(outside of one incident in the Temple). Then again we don't have any true historic evidence of the way Christ acted, just the story that the early church wanted passed forward.

[motiv-8]

Then again we don't have any true historic evidence of the way Christ acted, just the story that the early church wanted passed forward.

Oh, we don't? Then I suppose the entire class that I'm taking on the New Testament and Christian Origins is all in my head. I'm suffering from mass-delusion!

I'm willing to bet you've never even heard of the Qvelle. Remind me to make a thread on biblical source analysis so you can learn something about this.

As soon as you stop acting like a chastised child when someone does put forth an argument

What argument? I have seen no argument in this thread.

[Ciabhán]

Oh, we don't? Then I suppose the entire class that I'm taking on the New Testament and Christian Origins is all in my head. I'm suffering from mass-delusion!

I'm willing to bet you've never even heard of the Qvelle. Remind me to make a thread on biblical source analysis so you can learn something about this.

You mean the "lost" source document? The one that no one has ever found? The one that there is nothing more than prima facie argument for? The one that is postulated in some circles to actually be oral tradition and not written? Even taking that into account the Bible was translated, interpreted, and edited by the Church and made at least in part to say what they wanted it to. This does not mean that none of it is factual but it does mean that there are HUGE gaps in the information. So much for assumptions. By the way I have seen university courses based on the Matrix, Star Wars, and Harry Potter. Don't assume because you can take a class on it that it makes it real(although I would lend more credence to the Bible than the above).

[motiv-8]

You mean the "lost" source document? The one that no one has ever found? The one that there is nothing more than prima facie argument for? The one that is postulated in some circles to actually be oral tradition and not written?

Well, when 95% of the religious studies departments in the United States take it to be a once-existing collection of the teachings of Rabbi Jeshua , the likes of which are so common in antique Judaism, it's pretty agreeable that not only did the document exist alone, but still exists embedded in the Bible.

Even taking that into account the Bible was translated, interpreted, and edited by the Church and made at least in part to say what they wanted it to. This does not mean that none of it is factual but it does mean that there are HUGE gaps in the information. So much for assumptions.

Well, like I said, one day I will put together a topic on Biblical source study so you don't make such silly comments. We have manuscripts of all the Gospels before there was ever a Church to compile the New Testament (aside from the original, now forgotten church at Jerusalem which was headed by Jesus's brother James). I'd also like to know what HUUGE gaps you're referring to? Perhaps you mean the life of Jesus before he was 30? A period of which is irrelevant to the point of the Gospels.

[Ciabhán]

Well, when 95% of the religious studies departments in the United States take it to be a once-existing collection of the teachings of Rabbi Jeshua , the likes of which are so common in antique Judaism, it's pretty agreeable that not only did the document exist alone, but still exists embedded in the Bible.



Well, like I said, one day I will put together a topic on Biblical source study so you don't make such silly comments. We have manuscripts of all the Gospels before there was ever a Church to compile the New Testament (aside from the original, now forgotten church at Jerusalem which was headed by Jesus's brother James). I'd also like to know what HUUGE gaps you're referring to? Perhaps you mean the life of Jesus before he was 30? A period of which is irrelevant to the point of the Gospels.

Ok well by that vein I am going to found a religion similar to the one my ancestors followed. I have an unbroken chain of oral tradition going back to it, I have a bunch of books written by people from many different time periods that I can put together and make a "history" of my new religion. So who's up for some human sacrifice? All praise Crom Dubh an avatar of the Great Creator, holy holy sidhe sing on high. Since the Christian faith is directed at the masses and the masses are mostly uneducated in that faith beyond the 1 hour each Sunday approach then the stories the priest chooses to tell are the ones that everyone knows. That is not history it is story-telling. That means that for all we do know maybe Jesus spent his unrecorded time drinking himself silly and hating everything and everyone in private. So who knows maybe he was just a regular fella and subject to hypocrisy himself.


Have you ever translated something written in another language to whatever your native tongue is? If so you realise that many things can be lost in translation, slang, dialect, older meanings, different meanings, irony, etc are hard to translate. I never said that the Bible does not have some history in it.......I said that it has been translated and edited then compiled by folks that lived a LONG time after the people who wrote the original sources and therefore there might just be a disconnect between them.