Poll: Does this make sense to you ?
yes it does on the whole except for perhaps some points
no it doesnt, it takes things completely out of context and distorts them
perhaps if you clarify you arguments some more
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2010, 07:19 PM
a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
first of I’m not a atheist I’m more of a agnostic i just like criticizing anything I can, be it religious or secular. in this case i took some religious claims for granted and tried to deduce some moral characteristics and practical consequences from it. while applying my theory as to what happiness is. and taking quite a ridiculing atheist standpoint. for reference i have not read any atheist book because i prefer thinking up arguments myself rather than copying and reiterating. its more fun Big Grin I want to know if you think it makes any sense or just some gibberish.
feel free to undermine and ridicule as much as you want I like to hear it. And pardon the fucks I wrote it for 18 year olds in mind with a low appetite for anything non superficial. Tried to spice it up seeing it’s become really long. Well I did try it as a thematic starting point to write a own book (same 18year olds recommended I should, I gave it a try, I free styled some reasoning on above points)

For the eyes of agnostics and atheists only religious people beware.
God is insecure and sadistic and we are to suffer because of it.
Gods divine plan revealed for what it is to the dumb masses ( yes that means you )

First of god’s plan is not working up to some grand goal it has already achieved it. No to be more precise it is continuing to achieve it every single day. Why because the goal is for mankind to appreciate the life god gave them. Yes shit does happen for a reason, a fucked up reason but a reason nonetheless. To put it simply you need a balance of good things and bad things in your life to realize how good you have it and therefore be relatively happy about it. Yes we aren’t happy because we have good things. We are happy when we have more good things then the guy next to us. We have a constant desire to be praised and feel good about ourselves. But compliments don’t come for free you got to work for it. No lazy bum will get a good job from anybody. Hence some peoples self loathing. And that’s probably the only sort of provable attribute of god. He makes us pray to him and praise his name and never use it vain. So he has the same human attribute of wanting to be praised. He is as insecure as the rest of us which isn’t surprising as according to the bible we are created in his image. It does tarnish the idea of omnipotent omniscient god. So he isn’t perfect, so what we already knew that.

But back to his plan it comes down to a life of ups and downs relatively speaking. A flat line is a boring life and as you aren’t used to anything better or worse. In your eyes it is either slightly bad or slightly good. Depending on if you see a half empty glass or a half full one. You can go up and down like a rollercoaster and be thrilled or ready to puke. it also depends on your view. So does that mean it doesn’t matter what life you have as long as you have a positive view and god is just fucking with us to make himself feel good. Well maybe but think about this : a spoiled little brat gets everything he wants but is never happy with anything. He holds no value to it because he never had to work for it which equates to a down. So without a down the ups hold no meaning to us.

Therefore I reckon happiness can be expressed in how fast you are climbing that graph (and when you fall you have to take into consideration how many times you fell before. Seeing as a depression has a lasting effect on people. People who were depressed are more likely to become depressed again I think). For example a popular kid gets a compliment which equates to 2 points but she is sitting at a height of 4000 so it doesn’t really make her that much happier. But a non popular kid at a height of 40 does rise significantly. And is therefore happier with the same compliment. Which might also mean that measuring someone’s response to a compliment might also be a way to gauge how happy someone is. But sadly the world is more complicated, not everybody needs to be complimented as badly as others, it also depends on ones mentality. In this case not just how long it has been since one has last been complimented ( the down). but also how much someone values someone else’s opinion about them (determines how high the up is). Which can be quite low as a self defense mechanism due to the fact most of them are negative. They have to brush of the compliment or else they will open themselves up for all the insults too. And naturally everybody’s response can vary in any number of ways. And I cant be bothered to think up complicated formulas to compute the right figures for ups and downs which also takes into account how to measure the input.

So basically we need to have the right mentality and relatively more ups than downs. Well sounds easy enough but how. To have a right mentality you need to have a nice childhood where you are taught to see things positively. But that leaves little room to constantly rise on average. As there is a limit to how many good things one man or women can acquire in his life. Which leads to the phenomenon of reminiscing about the good old days. But to start of low generally leads to a bad mentality, people who grew up in a rough neighborhood are more prone to spiral downwards than upwards because of the mentality. So how can we solve this problem.

Equal chances to get higher up for starters sounds good but that is a delusion. People aren’t born equal, a dumb person has to work hard so he can have a comfortable life. A smart person doesn’t have to work hard and still live a good life. But then again it doesn’t have to be absolute height it has to be relative height. So perhaps we can limit people’s access to information so they can only learn about people who are worse off. So they don’t subconsciously compare themselves to people who are better off and get jealous or bitter because of it and therefore compute a lower up because they are less satisfied with it because the rest already has it or gets it on a normal basis.
It is after all better to be the biggest fish in the pond than the umpteenth one in the sea. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they want to work and lead a active life, Which equates to sufficient ups and downs. So we need something to drive them forward. The phrases memento mori and carpe diem are suited for this. For elaboration I will briefly explain a little dystopia I read about.

In a country every child at the age of 8 is injected with a capsule. One out of a thousand capsules contains a deadly poison which will be released into the system at a premeditated time. The subject will die instantly. The subject will also receive a 24 hour warning notice so he can die without regrets. And after his death, his last day and a summary of his life is reported in the newspaper. To remind everybody of how precious life is. Luckily though the capsules won’t last longer than 24 years so after that you are safe. Continued exposure to the threat of dying might have negative side effects after all.

The uncertainty of being the one in a thousand person fated to die (yes they aren’t told in advance) propels them to make sure they have no regrets. People won’t live a boring flat line life and risk being told they are going to die with having the feeling they never really lived in the first place. And the newspaper reminds the general public of how lucky they are to not be fated to die. So in short their death contributes to society. One must die for the many. Ones absolute despair is another man’s bliss. Thank you god we can be happy in this life by killing a few people. But by being mass accomplices to this crime. We break the commandment thou shalt not kill, so to obtain temporal bliss in the present life, we need to forfeit bliss in the eternal life. Whoever said the Christian faith wasn’t about suffering. Also we can only be happy if we are ignorant of our responsibility for their deaths because else it will lead to the disintegration of our good mentality. After all we are still sentient conscientious beings . so we need to be misinformed threatened and ignorant to be happy. Funny that might just sum up a atheist definition of a religious person.

But how about god how does he achieve happiness. Seeing as he is a singular entity the only specie close enough for reference is humanity. So god must make himself feel better than humanity to feel good about himself. So build a few churches and other institutes who praise your name on a daily basis. But that isn’t enough for he doesn’t want to be just told he is superior, he wants to also feel it. The downfall of the compliment is that after repeated use it loses it worth so after two thousand years of praying. God isn’t convinced anymore that he is omnipotent. He wants proof and is willing to exercise his power to get it. So he can feel superior the same way we feel when we come in first place at a marathon: it feels good to leave the others in the dust. Only god turns them into dust, negligible difference perhaps?

So he just smites some random john down with a deadly decease or a car crash here and there. And listens to the cries of help for his benevolence to use his godly powers to help them. But seeing as that stops the source of praise of how good god is. Yes a lot of people don’t pray unless they need something . god isn’t exactly inclined to help. So should we or should we not pray when we need his help. Well it’s a given that we should pray when we don’t. just so he doesn’t smite us down out of spite. But do we still after he already smites us. That’s like telling a toddler good boy after he pissed his pants. Rewarding bad behavior never works out in the end, so we just got to brace ourselves and put up with his whining. And for those who don’t think god did or does bad things need to study their bible some more. I quote from the thinkingatheist : the text in-between hackets are my comments
(Some authorized genocides in the name of god)
God commanded Saul to attack the Amalekites and “totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
JOSHUA 8:22-25 – God helped Joshua battle and slaughter 12,000 men and women in the city of Ai. None escaped.
JOSHUA 10:10-27 – God helped Joshua slaughter the Gibeonites.
JOSHUA 10;28 – With God’s approval, Joshua put the city of Makkedah“ to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors.”
JOSHUA 10:30 – The Lord gave the city of Libnah to Joshua. Everyone in the city was “put to the sword.”
JOSHUA 10:32-33 – God gave his approval as Joshua killed every man, woman and child in Lachish with the sword.
JOSHUA 10:34-35 – Everyone in the city of Eglon was killed by the sword of Joshua and his army.
JOSHUA 10:36-37 – God approved as Joshua killed the king of Hebron, its villages and every citizen. “They left no survivors.”
JOSHUA 10:38-39 – Joshua took Israel’s army to attack Debir. They killed everyone.
JOSHUA 11:6 – God commanded Joshua to defeat the enemy at the Waters of Merom. “You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots.”
JOSHUA 11:8-15 – Joshua’s army, under God’s command, did not spare “anyone that breathed.”
JOSHUA 11:20 – “For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded moses.”
2 SAMUEL 6:6-7 – The oxen carrying the Ark of God stumbled, and Uzzah reached out to steady it. God punished his “irreverent act” by killing him where he stood. ( the poor bastard only tried to help)
DEUTERONOMY 21:10-13 – According to God’s law, if an Israelite soldier was at war with an enemy, and he saw a beautiful woman that he found attractive, he could capture her to be his wife. She must then shave her head, trim her nails and discard the clothing she was wearing when captured. She could mourn her father and mother for a month. If the soldier wasn’t pleased with her for any reason, he could “let her go wherever she wishes.” ( yes slavery is divinely approved)

JEREMIAH 16:4 – The word of the Lord about the children born in this land says “They will die of deadly diseases. They will not be mourned or buried but will be like refuse lying on the ground. They will perish by sword and famine, and their dead bodies will become food for the birds of the air and the bests of the earth.
ISAIAH 49:26 – God’s punishment on those who come against Israel. “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be be drunk on their own blood, as with wine. Then all mankind will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior…” ( and what a nice savior you are )
(From the new testament some Jesus bashing
My favorite )

MARK 4:10 - In Jesus’ parable of the sower, he told his disciples that he spoke to others in parables so they’d remain confused...”otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.”
(Finally the reason why the original texts are so confusing, straight from the horse’s mouth. )
MATTHEW 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Jesus endorses the mass murder, rape, slavery, torture and incest written about in the Old Testament.
LUKE 12:47 - Jesus warned that a servant of God who does not heed his master will be “beaten with many blows.”
MARK 7:10 - Jesus taught that any child who cursed his parents should be killed according to Old Testament law.
( yes seeing as you probably cussed at your parent once, Jesus does not love you and actually wants you dead. )
LUKE 19:26 - In the parable of the ten minas, the master (God) said of those who chose not to follow him, “...bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
(So it does actually say in the bible to kill all infidels, how about that folks. The crusades wasn’t just the ambition of man who distorted the word of god. No god actually said so, the religious wars were 100 percent biblically justified. )
EPHESIANS 1:4-5 - Despite all of Jesus’ instructions to accept him as savior, Jesus also says God “predestined” those will be saved according to His pleasure.
(Yep even the bible backs up my claim that he smites down whoever he feels like. )
GENESIS 19:26: God, apparently un-offended by the proposed rape of Lot’s virgin daughters, turned Lot’s wife to a pillar of salt for the heinous crime of looking over her shoulder. ( hmm can the killing get more random than that)
JOHN 6:53-66 - Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Despite the metaphorical tone, many disciples were uncomfortable with the idea and chose to walk away.
MATTHEW 11:21-24 – The cities of Korazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum were not impressed with Jesus’ great works, so Jesus said “Woe to you” and cursed them to a fate more unbearable than that of Sodom.

Hmm and who said the bible is less cruel and violent than the Koran. Got to say we got one hell of a whimsical violent god who doesn’t shun a genocide or two to favor some of his children more than his other children. Yes he kills his children without remorse because they didn’t praise his name. imagine some regular guy killing just because people wouldn’t compliment him. Where would he be, that’s right the asylum for the rest of his life. So god is a insecure sadistic person with a tendency to kill at random and tell me now why exactly we are worshipping the guy again. Oh right a unsubstantiated claim that he created us in his image. Well I might thank him if he created us not in his image than the world would not be so fucked up.
But precisely because it is fucked up we need god. As said before we cannot be happy without killing the few and we can’t be saved from eternal damnation by killing a few ourselves. And that’s where god comes in always willing to help a hand if it involves killing his so called children. And make the rest praise his name louder. Only drawback is we don’t get a 24 hour warning notice.

I still assume god is omnipotent but is unwilling to help and actually wants to perpetuate this state so therefore god is malevolent.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ~ Epicurus

if you like this bit i might do another about what jesus is: a human a divine creature or somewhere in between with the angels. it will be shorter. and feel free to ask me to clarify or elaborate some things.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 02:51 PM
RE: a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
Hey Ulfark, just letting you know that I have read your article, and am in the process of reviewing and generating a response to it. It will take me a little while, as there is a fair amount within the piece itself, to cover. Also, for future reference, I would advice placing a conclusion at the end of such a lengthy post.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 03:48 PM
RE: a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
okay take your time and make it long and elaborate leave no stone unturned no topic untouched and bash me into the ground where ever possible. but i did give it a conclusion sort off. i'm just not very good at making a good structure in a article and i did write this in one breath, a six hour breath but still in one go.

i hope for a derisive comment that will expose the weak points in my jumps from one thing to another as i think there are some. and ask for elaboration on assumtions i might have hidden.

if not just give me any feedback i'm really curious to hear some so i can rewrite it in a more logical manner.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 06:27 PM
RE: a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
I have been having difficulty in deciding how I will respond; there are so many ways, but I have chosen the following.

The position you are arguing from, makes sense. As the famous quote from Epicurus goes, in order for the doctrine of this faith, to remain consistent, then Yahweh, as described in the testaments, etc., would need to be malevolent.

I would have a considerably more different position to argue from, if the supporters of this faith, were arguing that their god is not the way he is described.

The trouble though, is that he is not described that way. Yahweh is depicted as an ultimatum of sorts, if we are to view it in the form of an organism. It is everything, that ever was, is or will be. However, it is also described as being all loving, and benevolent; an obvious contradiction.

This is the difficulty of arguing from a theological perspective, when one has a faith composed of the detritus remains of others. It is a glaring cess-pool of inconsistencies, if it is not filtered through an intelligent sieve. The Christianity of today, is a composite meme, or organism if you will. One could almost think of it as a man o' war. It is so successful, because it grows, and continues to grow, by rehearsing what has worked before, and when it does not work, when it runs up against a wall, it attempts to either wear it down, or eat its way through the cracks.

Even with multiple known deliberate occurrences of filtration and dilution, we are still left with fused holidays such as Easter; easily one of the more convoluted ones out there, or perhaps better yet, Christmas.

Both of these presented holidays, or 'holy days' are in todays world, a fusion of a plethora of both living and dead mythos; this is why we have bunny rabbits sitting next to colored eggs, and the rebirth of Christ. This festivity in particular draws most of its background from a Germanic base. It is no coincidence that the spring equinox occurs in a timely manner with this 'moving' holiday, either.

Incidentally, if you're wondering why the image of the devil looks kind of like a bipedal goat, it's because of Pan.

Halos? Cute, but the original halo was superior in my eyes; Cuchulain will always be king of the hero-halo in my eyes. ^_^

So, as a recap. What you are saying, makes sense, if it is isolated from the rest of this mythos culture. It will never be widely accepted though, without drastic reform heading towards this conceptualization of Yahweh. Also, in regards to writing in a more logical manner; I would recommend structuring your article in the same manner as you might a research paper. I.e. thesis, core argument, discussion, resolution, and conclusion; or some other variation of the sort. And...no offense, but try to keep away from the lower quality language, as it not only degrades the overall quality of what it is that you are saying, but also simply makes it less pleasant to read.

Nice job by the way. It was certainly worth reading.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 08:10 PM
RE: a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
ok where to start hmm lets go with cuchulain a great irish hero mythological i think what does he have to do with halo's and than who or what is pan.

and than third i'm aware that saying fuck makes it less convincing but as said before these 18teen year olds dont have the appetite and for some strange reason love it when i insult them in a grave a manner as possible. a fuck you bitch is a quite normal response, makes them giggle a bit. just last friday they wanted me to sum up all the insults i mostly used for one dude because they thought they were so funny.

and as to the contradictions in the bible i know them to a extent. it took the church about a thousand years to compile all the gospels and make the bible. many were left out or perhaps made long afer jesus died. and the concilies added a lot of extra things among other they declared jesus to be the son of god. might be worth the time to find out what they added, what wasnt orginally there. and that they added other heathen religions traditions to make it more easy to digest for foreign countries i also knew. i just tried to work between the parameters of universally accepted claims, arriving at the conclusion god must be insecure and tacked on the sadism part for fun.

the claims were:
god made us in his image, and therefore we are alike
god is a singular entity and therefore we only come close as a neighbouring species
my happines theory holds true and can be applied to all manner of creatures
and so on
i didnt assume god was malevolent i just arrived at that conclusion after exploring the possibility that god might make our lives miserable for his own gain. if i left that out and only stated he did it so we would appreciate life i could claim that he was benevolent. as it did have similarities with the dystopia i just naturally swayed the other way

but i want something undermining my content not my approach for instance if god only got tired of hearing us pray now why did he do worse stuff when he was still listening or does that mean he doesnt care anymore and does nothing at all anymore. the dieu horloger idea.or pose the question he could just go on a daytrip to hell and meet with lucifer a fallen angel i think and watch some people get tortured. it doesnt undermine the claim he is insecure but does undermine why he would have to make our lives bad in this life.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2010, 08:23 PM
RE: a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
This is the issue of attempting to apply logic, to an illogical position. You are trying to piece together multiple concepts that do not bind. The content in and of itself is invalid to begin with, because the nature of god, as elaborated upon in the Christian theology, is not as you have depicted; as such, this could only be a hypothetical venture. Incidentally, if Yahweh were everywhere, then he would also be in hell...everywhere....as far as a metaphysical locations can get I suppose.

Yes, Cucuhlain is mostly from the Irish mythos. A hero-halo, or hero-light, is an illuminary projection from the brow, often generated during the midst of battle. And only from noteworthy individuals, in particular, mostly those who have had divine interactions.

Who is Pan? He was/is the Greek and Roman god of dance and merriment. He was particularly favored in the waning days of the Roman pantheon, and as a coordinated effort to drive out the opposition to the newly formed Christian church, the imagery of the devil was given the form of Pan.

Around the same time, various other deities were reformed in the Christian mythos as demons and fallen angels. Does the name Baal sound familiar to you?
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2010, 07:37 AM
RE: a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
it strikes me as one of the lesser devils or greater demons who had great influence in hell under lucifer. somewhat like belial.

okay i looked it up and was right ( yeah ) i'm not that familiar with greek mythology and ones from surrounding areas i had a greater interest in norse and egyptian mythology when i was a kid.

but because of you being a atheist you can never take these claims for granted so it would never make sense to you because the base is flawed and as you put it illogical and doesnt bind. but i make the assumption it is logical and does bind and yes i only intended it to be hypothetical.i thought a theoretical exploration meant that it was hypothetical, need to brush up on my english. but to seriously declare god as insecure with that little bit is impossible i would need to do more research and bring my arguments less haphazard and that would take time to distill. for now it is only a rough draft, i did to make my fellow clasmates laugh before we graduated.

as stated before my philosophy teacher and clasmates recommended i should write a book because i often ask weird questions during class that corner my teacher who doesnt have a ready made answer. this is just a first step to a short possible book i probably will never write. but i still indulge in the possibility.
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2010, 07:57 AM
RE: a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
No, no, your English is perfectly fine, there are a few bits here and there, but I would be one of the first to say that you are entirely fluent in English.

Baal is one of the seven princes of hell in the Christian mythos, however, he is just a stolen deity from Semitic lore.

As for myself being an atheist, and the willingness to understand or adopt positions that would undermine my own argument, with the aim of better understanding what is being said?

Actually, I do that fairly often. I freely adopt a different viewpoint, offhandedly, and remake the universe as I see it, into what someone else sees it as. As such, I can just as easily piece in new information, to such a modified viewpoint, and think in terms of say a Christian, or a pagan, so long as I understand the boundaries of that thought.

To the point though, yes I do state that it is illogical and does not bind, even more so than it already doesn't. However, what I was truly pertaining to was the Christian culture. As it stands, Yahweh is an omnibenevolent deity, and to argue otherwise would be an uphill and fruitless endeavor. Just as I declare the entire concept to be grounded in hypothetical postulations, so to would your standard Christian disregard the same argument; as that is not how Yahweh is depicted. You will rarely if ever find agreement to this point, no matter the evidence you bring forth, purely because Yahweh does not exist in such a manner, in the minds of so many; not to mention if agreement did occur, that it would effectively undermine a significant portion of their position.
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2010, 08:54 AM
RE: a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
well i never expected true believers of christianity to agree heck i would have a tough time agreeing at first glance. thats why i posted it on a atheist site to just check the logic of it i assumed you could look past the fact that it doesnt agree with the standpoint of the church or culture. i did try a radical view to make it more memorable to just sum up all the criticisms i have for berkeleys view would be boring. for reference that dude thought things only existed if you saw it and ceased to exist if you didnt see it. and said everything can exist at the same time because god sees them. he was a cardinal or something and i had a really long list of things that didnt make sense in modern days from that standpoint. some of them quite original i think.

and i'm still waiting for some content bashing
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2010, 09:20 AM
RE: a theoretical exploration which deduces god as insecure and sadistic.
Gah, yes, I am still haunted by that five hour long discourse with a friend of mine who fell head over heals into such logic. There's not much quite as tentative as determining where to begin in a conversation, when your opposition holds firm that the universe does not exist outside of their mind.

I suppose I'll restate it here, as it certainly may have become lost in the plethora of dialogue; but I do agree with what you are saying. As it stands I think that the only reasonable assertion one could make, while remaining as consistent as possible within the Christian mythos, would be that Yahweh is in fact malevolent.

Either an entity such as that, just doesn't care about crap happening, or it is malevolent; assuming that it is omnibenevolent, as well as omnipotent.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: