(October 3, 2026 at 3:24 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

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

Yeah, it can get cluttered, but you don't have to see our convo as an argument.  Have you come to any new understanding of the question you asked the board in light of your own reactions to these thought experiments?  In my experience, christian people (because who else would be thanking the christian god, right?) have trouble thanking god for things because they do not truly believe god is responsible for those things.  It's cultural, because other people who have a shared belief system constantly remind themselves that everything which happens... happens because it's the will of god.

I suppose there's a question of religiosity underneath this - but it would follow that if we wanted people to remember to credit god more, we would quickly and inevitably arrive at many situations or circumstances that christians would have difficulty thanking god for not because god isn't responsible - or that they do not believe god is responsible.... but because they're not thankful for them.

(October 3, 2026 at 8:03 am)Kitan Etos Wrote:

(October 3, 2026 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.

Me own Da had a habit of lecturing us about our bad behaviour. Personally, I’d rather have had the beating.

Mam, on the other hand, wasn’t a bit shy about walloping us with whatever was handy - a hairbrush, a soup ladle, a Bible…

Boru

(October 3, 2026 at 3:32 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

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

So firstly I was talking about Christian teachings, your words, not any deity as I don't believe any exist. 

You asked why the teachings were toxic, I explained why, NB I never mentioned a deity just the teaching / idea. You also used the words "needing something", I did not. You then listed a string of false equivalences for things that a) are objectively real and b) some that are axiomatically necessary.

"And simply asserting that there is “no objective evidence” for God does not establish that God does not exist."

I know, but since I never claimed no deity exists I wonder why you're telling me this? I can however assert that I can't think of a better reason to disbelieve a claim than that it is unsupported by any objective evidence, what is your criteria for disbelief I wonder?

"historical case surrounding Jesus Christ"

The evidence Jesus existed at all is scant at best, and the canonical gospel myths are of course anonymous second-hand (at best) hearsay. Even were I to accept Jesus existed as an historical figure and that's a reach, we'd have no idea what he did or said, with a bar so low it doesn't even satisfy the criteria for historical claims, let alone claims for supernatural magic, and all from an epoch of extreme ignorance superstition.

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

I give up what? FYI another claim I have not remotely made.

This was your claim that I said described slaves:


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

Which of course it absolutely does, by definition, and it is of course a toxic belief that can and has been used to subjugate murder torture, and enslave both in reality and in the myths within the bible that depicts a deity that advocates all of those, quelle surprise.

(October 5, 2026 at 1:17 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(October 3, 2026 at 3:32 am)Silas Vane Wrote: 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”?

So firstly I was talking about Christian teachings, your words, not any deity as I don't believe any exist. 

You asked why the teachings were toxic, I explained why, NB I never mentioned a deity just the teaching / idea. You also used the words "needing something", I did not. You then listed a string of false equivalences for things that a) are objectively real and b) some that are axiomatically necessary.

"And simply asserting that there is “no objective evidence” for God does not establish that God does not exist."

I know, but since I never claimed no deity exists I wonder why you're telling me this? I can however assert that I can't think of a better reason to disbelieve a claim than that it is unsupported by any objective evidence, what is your criteria for disbelief I wonder?

"historical case surrounding Jesus Christ"

The evidence Jesus existed at all is scant at best, and the canonical gospel myths are of course anonymous second-hand (at best) hearsay. Even were I to accept Jesus existed as an historical figure and that's a reach, we'd have no idea what he did or said, with a bar so low it doesn't even satisfy the criteria for historical claims, let alone claims for supernatural magic, and all from an epoch of extreme ignorance superstition.

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

I give up what? FYI another claim I have not remotely made.

This was your claim that I said described slaves:


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

Which of course it absolutely does, by definition, and it is of course a toxic belief that can and has been used to subjugate murder torture, and enslave both in reality and in the myths within the bible that depicts a deity that advocates all of those, quelle surprise.

For clarity, the phrasing in 2 was not yours but from another poster, but I think it is a sentiment I have heard expressed by Christians, though I'd accept you have not said this. Perhaps you could clarify whether you think this is accurate?

As for dependence on a deity, it doesn't sound very healthy to me, but I don't say it is necessarily toxic, though it certainly can be of course. For me the idea that we owe worship to anything just because we exist, that then threatens consequences if we don't, is certainly a toxic idea. I think our first moral duty should be to living creatures, obviously since I don't believe any deity exists. However even if a deity existed I'd find it toxic if that deity demanded worship with threats, and why would it want it anyway, it all sounds awfully narcissistic. 

I have no problem with people believing anything of course, only that they tend to act on those beliefs and if they're toxic, or might lead to toxic behaviour then this obviously would be a problem for me. 

FWIW, I prefer the word pernicious to toxic, but I can see why someone would describe the belief as toxic, if it leads to pernicious behaviour. 

My apologies if I misunderstood which were your words, and which you were quoting. 

While we're here though, don't you find the deity depicted in the bible pernicious? I mean advocating slavery Genesis 21, advocating ethnic cleansing - take your pick, advocating sex trafficking female prisoners from ethnic cleansing, committing infanticide, indiscriminate mass murder, even global genocide, if a deity is claimed to be perfectly moral, as well as omniscient and omnipotent, and is depicted to behave in that fashion, and that's not toxic behaviour, I think perhaps the word has lost all meaning for me.

(October 5, 2026 at 4:44 am)Sheldon Wrote: As for dependence on a deity

Have you looked into the Aristotelian/Thomist definition of God at all? They both hold that everything in the world depends on a First Cause. 

The word "cause," in this case, has a different definition than in conversational English. It is the translation of the Greek αἰτία (aitia). Since "cause" is misleading, it would in fact be better to say something like "the αἰτία of X is everything that must be the case in order for X to be the case." 

This is an essential dependence, not necessarily temporal. So for example our sun depends for its existence on the existence of hydrogen atoms. But hydrogen atoms don't depend for their existence on the existence of our sun. Therefore hydrogen atoms are an αἰτία of the sun, but not vice versa. (The hydrogen existed before our sun, but we're not talking about temporal order here.) 

So if we were to look into all the αἰτία of your existence, this would include of course your parents, but also the elements of which you are made, the laws of nature, all that. 

Aristotle and Thomas thought that an infinite regress is not possible, so they argued that this chain of dependence must end with one thing that is not dependent on anything else for its existence. This was the First Cause, which of course Thomas called God. 

You'll notice that neither of these men relied on a literal interpretation of the Bible for support. So for Thomist Christians, Neoplatonist Christians, and many others, the argument "the Bible describes God as doing bad things" is irrelevant.

(October 5, 2026 at 6:29 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(October 5, 2026 at 4:44 am)Sheldon Wrote: As for dependence on a deity

Blah blah blah Aristotle blah blah blah..

Another speech that doesn't address my post at all, and appears to be nothing more than yet another attempt at posturing, it just chases irrelevant straw men, by removing almost the entirety of my post, and all context. I warned you my next rebuff would be less polite, so please leave me the fuck alone you showboating clown.

(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 can add homophobia, and endorsing slavery, unless they want to ignore what the bible says of course, and some manage this sort of cognitive dissonance.

If the argument that god does bad things was irrelevant to saint Tommy he probably wouldn’t have spent so much time falling all over himself blaming the victims.

I’m beginning to doubt that you e actually read the guys you’re always yammering about Bel……

For anyone who actually gives a shit, and wants a small glimpse into just how fucking craven our accidental apologist is getting....

Tommy was strongly convinced of a literal interpretation of magic book.  That's why he felt the need to craft a bunch of bullshit about the evils god is described as engaging in.  

He tried this by attempting to define evil as the absence of good, sure.  Just like I could define negligence and endangerment as the absence of a responsible adult.

He tried this by blaming creation.  You know how it is, the grand wizards work is faulty.

He tried this by blaming the fucking trees for burning.  Just their nature, ya know?

He tried this by saying that anything he couldn't zero out those other ways was actually good for us.  Sure that'll take the sting out when you're getting assaulted.

In short. Tommy was a monster, and Bels a goddamned liar.

(October 5, 2026 at 4:56 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If the argument that god does bad things was irrelevant to saint Tommy he probably wouldn’t have spent so much time falling all over himself blaming the victims.  

I’m beginning to doubt that you e actually read the guys you’re always yammering about Bel……

The lack of even a single salient quote, the removal of all context from my post, it certainly looked like another lame pretentious attempt to name drop, he might as well be citing Harry Potter or The Gruffalo. 

In the film A Fish Called Wanda Kev Cline's character Otto, is a knuckle dragging thug, whose pretentions extend to philosophy, when Jamie Lee Curtis calls him an ape, he is outraged and says "Apes don't read Nietzsche" she replies Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it".