(September 30, 2026 at 7:59 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(September 9, 2026 at 4:27 am)Twiggy Wrote: The toxic negative aspects of Christianity rarely talked about, even by atheists:

1. You cannot do life on your own strength

2. You do not own yourself or your own body, you are property of god

It is beyond me, how a system that teaches this, is seen as "good" by so many people.

You’ve listed two Christian teachings, but you haven’t actually shown why either one is toxic.

Let’s start with #1: why is “you cannot do life entirely on your own strength” inherently harmful?

Make the argument. What exactly makes dependence on God toxic?

It implies we are inadequate slaves that have a supernatural curse we are born with, and can only be cured / forgiven by blindly accepting archaic moral standards that are themselves often deeply pernicious. 

The second one is unequivocally describing slaves. 

Luckily there is no objective evidence any deity exists.

(September 30, 2026 at 8:39 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(September 9, 2026 at 7:17 am)emjay Wrote: Yes, as I've said elsewhere, it angers me very much how parasite-like in nature Christianity is, in that it parasitically redirects praise, both received and given, away from the people involved, and only onto 'God'... eg giving praise only to God for what people do, ie thanking only God for saving someone's life, when it was doctors, science, and medicine that did OR on the flip side of the same coin, never taking praise for their (Christian's) own achievements, in what must be a very self-esteem lowering way, by thanking only God for everything they achieve, in a state of willing or learned helplessness. I know some Christians who regularly do both flip sides of this coin, and I feel very sorry for them, and wish they could free themselves from this parasite-like delusion, that only God is responsible for everything, including everyone else's and their own actions and decisions... which in itself makes no sense in a world where God is supposed/claimed to have given free will to everybody, and therefore cannot be held responsible for their decisions and actions, but that's a separate issue. My main anger is with the first issue.

I'll give you part of your argument: if a Christian thanks only God after doctors have worked to save someone's life, while giving those doctors no recognition for their skill, effort and decisions, I can understand your criticism.
But you've made a much bigger claim than that. You've gone from “I know Christians who behave this way” to claiming Christianity itself takes praise away from humans and redirects it to God.
And your doctor example cuts both ways.
Doctors deserve credit when their skill and decisions contribute to saving someone's life. But doctors also make mistakes. Operations go wrong. Treatments fail. Patients sometimes survive despite medical errors or terrible odds, just as patients sometimes die despite doctors doing everything correctly.
So simply saying, “It was the doctors, science and medicine that saved them” can be just as simplistic as the position you're criticizing.
As a Christian, if someone survives despite an operation going badly, I can thank God for their survival without pretending the doctors did nothing. Likewise, when an operation goes perfectly, I can praise the surgeon's skill while still thanking God.
Your argument therefore depends on something you haven't established: that giving God credit necessarily takes deserved credit away from human beings.
Why must it be one or the other?
Before jumping to “parasites,” damaged self-esteem and learned helplessness, establish the foundation first:
Why can't human effort receive its proper credit while God also receives thanks?

Because it is an objective fact that the efforts of fallible doctors and scientists have saved lives, there is none that any deity exists, or is even possible, if it did exist and was infallible then it it is either indifferent t human suffering or malevolent, so your argument seems to be using more than one false equivalence.

(October 2, 2026 at 9:47 am)Silas Vane Wrote: I didn't ask whether the doctors gave them cancer, and I didn't ask whether you believe God exists.
You claimed “God kills your loved one.”
Make the argument to prove that claim. How did you establish that God killed the person?
Stay with your own claim. 

And what if the person's own choices substantially increased their cancer risk? People smoke, abuse alcohol, expose themselves to carcinogens, ignore symptoms and take known risks. Are you still going to skip over every human and natural cause and simply announce, “God killed them”?

You don't get to erase personal responsibility where it exists just because blaming God suits your argument.

Come on, baby boi. You made the claim. Give me a rational argument establishing “God gave them cancer.” So far you've given me hollow arguments except evidence for the claim you actually made.

I see that you continue having trouble thanking god.

Work on your quotes my man. You keep demanding that I respond to comments others posted to me. Nightmare trying to clean it up.

(October 2, 2026 at 12:55 pm)awty Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 12:38 pm)Silas Vane Wrote: Interesting. Now I’m apparently “yelling” and “calling people names.”


Let’s take those one at a time.

First, what exactly did I write that constitutes “yelling”?

And since you brought up name-calling, does calling someone “Big Boi” qualify?

Commit to your standard first.

I was just repeating your dumb ass lashing out...big boi, are you 12?

Keep on with your big boi bad bold words.  You sure have made an impression.  

You are just one of many who come here to get mad because we don't share your little friend.

(my bold)

Oh, they're making an impression, all right. Probably not the one they think they're making, though.

(October 2, 2026 at 1:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 12:56 pm)Silas Vane Wrote: “Yes,” “wrong,” and “I did” aren't arguments—they're assertions.

You agreed that if someone can prevent harm, they have a moral duty to step in. God can prevent the harm, so by your own principle, God has a moral duty to step in.

But when I said, “You've assumed God must intervene,” your answer was “I don't.”

Those two positions are contradictory. If your principle gives God a moral duty to intervene, how can you then say you don't assume God must intervene?

Which part are you rejecting? Make the argument.

Response #3 includes two of your paragraphs. Sorry, I should have been clearer. #4 is directed at 

Quote:You can't simultaneously demand human freedom and then declare God morally guilty whenever He doesn't override it.

I don’t demand human freedom. But again, that’s the ‘free will’ question.
Boru

Thanks for clarifying #4. That clears that part up.

So let's leave free will aside and return to your actual claim.

You agreed that your principle is: if someone has the means and opportunity to prevent harm, they have a moral duty to intervene.

So here's the question: what makes God's ability and opportunity to prevent harm a reason that He is morally obligated to prevent it?

Your conclusion that God morally failed by not intervening to save the patient depends on establishing "He is morally obligated to prevent it" connection.

So establish it: why does “God could have prevented it” necessarily mean “God was morally obligated to prevent it”?

(October 2, 2026 at 7:33 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 9:47 am)Silas Vane Wrote: I didn't ask whether the doctors gave them cancer, and I didn't ask whether you believe God exists.
You claimed “God kills your loved one.”
Make the argument to prove that claim. How did you establish that God killed the person?
Stay with your own claim. 

And what if the person's own choices substantially increased their cancer risk? People smoke, abuse alcohol, expose themselves to carcinogens, ignore symptoms and take known risks. Are you still going to skip over every human and natural cause and simply announce, “God killed them”?

You don't get to erase personal responsibility where it exists just because blaming God suits your argument.

Come on, baby boi. You made the claim. Give me a rational argument establishing “God gave them cancer.” So far you've given me hollow arguments except evidence for the claim you actually made.

I see that you continue having trouble thanking god.

Work on your quotes my man.  You keep demanding that I respond to comments others posted to me.  Nightmare trying to clean it up.

Thanks, new to this posting and "multiple arguments at once" scenario. I will work on it, and You will see more of me. I guarantee it my friend.

(October 2, 2026 at 4:01 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(September 30, 2026 at 7:59 am)Silas Vane Wrote: You’ve listed two Christian teachings, but you haven’t actually shown why either one is toxic.

Let’s start with #1: why is “you cannot do life entirely on your own strength” inherently harmful?

Make the argument. What exactly makes dependence on God toxic?

It implies we are inadequate slaves that have a supernatural curse we are born with, and can only be cured / forgiven by blindly accepting archaic moral standards that are themselves often deeply pernicious. 

The second one is unequivocally describing slaves. 

Luckily there is no objective evidence any deity exists.

You’ve just piled several new claims on top of the original one without establishing the first. We can deal with those other claims later—one at a time.

You said dependence on God is toxic because it implies we are “inadequate slaves.”

Why?

Needing something outside yourself does not make you a slave to it. Human beings depend on food, other people, medicine, social cooperation and countless things beyond their own individual strength.

And simply asserting that there is “no objective evidence” for God does not establish that God does not exist. That is a separate claim, and we can examine the evidence for God—including the historical case surrounding Jesus Christ—when we get there.

For now, stay with the claim you made:

What logically turns “I cannot do everything entirely through my own strength” into “I am therefore an inadequate slave”?

Silas Vane Wrote:So establish it: why does “God could have prevented it” necessarily mean “God was morally obligated to prevent it”?

The whole idea of God is that there is a loving and caring omnipotent being instead of an indifferent universe. If you have a god who does nothing, you automatically diminish her role to the indifferent universe and thus nonexistence. At least that is the idea of God in Christianity, but there are agnostic ideas that god is completely indifferent and is just an observer and that is why agnostics are usually lumped together with atheists because their idea of God is pretty much equal to the idea of non-existence of God. But with the invention of science, Christian god has been pretty much relegated to the one of agnosticism.

That's all because there is no objective definition of what god is, which also makes the God hypothesis non-falsifiable, which is the main characteristic of pseudoscience or, in other words, frauds. You can always think up some ad hoc excuse why your God behaves a certain way to save your god hypothesis—just like you can in astrology, palmistry, tarot, and etc.

Silas Vane Wrote:And simply asserting that there is “no objective evidence” for God does not establish that God does not exist. That is a separate claim, and we can examine the evidence for God—including the historical case surrounding Jesus Christ—when we get there.

Establishing the existence of historical Jesus does not mean establishing evidence that god exists.

(Yesterday at 3:22 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 1:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Response #3 includes two of your paragraphs. Sorry, I should have been clearer. #4 is directed at 


I don’t demand human freedom. But again, that’s the ‘free will’ question.
Boru

Thanks for clarifying #4. That clears that part up.

So let's leave free will aside and return to your actual claim.

You agreed that your principle is: if someone has the means and opportunity to prevent harm, they have a moral duty to intervene.

So here's the question: what makes God's ability and opportunity to prevent harm a reason that He is morally obligated to prevent it?

Your conclusion that God morally failed by not intervening to save the patient depends on establishing "He is morally obligated to prevent it" connection.

So establish it: why does “God could have prevented it” necessarily mean “God was morally obligated to prevent it”?

The Godly attribute of maximal benevolence.  Your rule, not mine.

Boru

(Yesterday at 5:57 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The Godly attribute of maximal benevolence.  Your rule, not mine.

Boru

I suppose the concept could be the same as a dad throwing your ass down the stairs when you don't listen to him. But, hey, since he loves you that means he's a good dad.