We Should Thank Murderers, Here is Why

[thesummerqueen]

First, you didn't create your children in the same way that God creates.

And thank FSM - I think our way is a hell of a lot more fun.

OP, you're speaking about something many people have noted before - especially comedians, who have become the nation's truth finders, unfortunately. I've never understood this attitude of "better place".

[Minimalist]

I can’t address this as I have no clue what the point is.

You seem to have that problem a lot.

[Darkstar]

This is a simplistic use of “god’s will,” which is usually broken down into at least two types – sovereign and desirous (some use different terminology and additional types). The argument above correctly notes that nothing goes against God’s sovereign will, but incorrectly implies that all things are part of his desirous will.

Care to define either of those?

Huh? I thought god granted us dominion over the earth. I can't remember who said it, but someone did.

Er, yes, but the question was, “On what basis do we have rights apart from those God grants us?”

If god granted us dominion over the earth, then why are you complaining that we eat other animals?

EXACTLY! God created the first two humans, let humanity expand outward for millenia, and then claimed ownership of it all! Wasn't there a parable about reaping what you have sown? I guess that's just more christian hypocrisy, then.

I can’t address this as I have no clue what the point is.

It really isn't that difficult of a concept. but I'll clarify it. Let's say you magically create two errr...something...let's just say foxes. One male and one female. You then release them into the wild. Pretending that inscest doesn't result in birth defects (like the Noah's ark story so graciously does) these foxes reproduce many times, eventually populating a large area. Many years later, you go into that area and claim all of the foxes living there as pets. You didn't create them; you only created the initial two. Yet, you feel entitled to them all. God only created Adam and Eve, everyone else is a result of procreation. The question is this: Why does god claim ownership of all 6 billion+ humans alive if he only ever created two, who are both dead?

[Creed of Heresy]

Bill Maher basically pointed this out in Religulous wherein he is speaking to a man who was convinced that when he will die he will go to a better place:





I love how you can almost see the fatal-feedback-loops playing in that poor fat bastard's brain as he tries to rationalize a reason why he shouldn't at the end there. I swear for a split second you can almost see him thinking "maybe I should...?"

It is what it is, Christians: You have a lot of very convenient explanations all included in your holy book saying why murder is bad and why it's only OK if god does it and all this other double-standard serving shit, but while you're saluting the doubleflag you've run up this double-standard, the rest of us realize how batshit insane and how utterly stupid it is to sit there and say "well if someone on high demands my death I should just totally go along with it." If god WERE real [and no evidence exists to say he does. Also the claim itself is not evidence] it would be necessary to resist him because he is the very definition of a bloodthirsty ego-maniacal tyrant. It's funny how people seem to abhor the idea of a bloodthirsty ego-maniacal human tyrant but the idea of a bloodthirsty ego-maniacal godly tyrant is just fine. Again, double standards. The morality of man has evolved beyond the morality of god yet you venerate him...why?

I don't need an answer, of course, I know of the reason. The reason why is because like any other cultist, you are brainwashed but the unconscious and subconscious parts of your mind are not, and never will be. There is always the voice of reason, and its voice is very soft, but it is always there, never silenced, no matter how deluded you may be about your faith. See, the human mind is a fascinating thing indeed.

We're going to use an example; when you make a purchase of something as compared to the belief of whether or not god exists.

All logic points to a resounding “no,” but an interesting social phenomena is this: Dedication, fanboyism, faith, things of that nature, are an inbuilt human process. Whenever money is spent on a good, especially a luxury item, man has a way of increasing the illusionary worth of that item. Ditto when TIME is spent on an activity.

Imagine buying tickets to see your local team play football, and they lose. It's not even a good game, to be honest. People around the country were disappointed. However, those tickets cost a lot of money, and having spent all that money and time for so little in return makes a person feel stupid. We grope for other things, then, to make the tickets and time worth-while. Yes, it was cold, but your wife was there, so you bonded! The beer was too expensive as well, but they sold your favorite brand! You had an experience! It was fun! Yes, those tickets were worth it in the end.

We'll even do this with soft drinks. Even if brain probes reveal a man likes Pepsi more than Coke, going back and telling the man what he was drinking can actually alter his memory so that he remembers liking the Coke more. It's amazing.

Religions are exactly the same way. You are TELLING yourself that you believe it, to the point your entire conscious being is fully convinced of this as if it is fact. I mean, you've spent so much time thinking it was truth, of COURSE you're not gonna want to admit otherwise despite all the mounting evidence piling up against you, because if you DID it'd mean having to shelve your pride and ego IMMENSELY to say you were wrong for however man seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, DECADES you believed it. It'd mean that those measurements of time basically exist as a towering monolith looming over you, reminding you of all the time you wasted on this belief. You, as individuals of faith, in order to admit you're wrong, have to work against three very large, very powerful facets of being. You have to work against ego [encoded into us by biology through genetics], against your own conscious mind's tendency to work at its hardest to convince itself of its own truth, and against the inexorable juggernaut of time and mortality itself because the more time you put into your belief, the more of it was basically going to waste.

And that last one ESPECIALLY is the most vehement example. The greatest weight on the human mind is the passing of time, of the realization of limitation. See, there's a reason you hear about plenty of people breaking faith and becoming agnostic or atheistic in their teens or 20s, but the longer their faith goes on, the less likely they are to break from it; because the burdens are lighter. The burden of ego, the burden of time, the burden of over-riding the self-convincing...or, rather, self-deluding.

In closing; deep down there's probably no real, actual believer, somewhere at your cores there's some disbelief and realization that nothing of what you believe stacks up with reality but then, you'll probably continue to self-delude yourselves by convincing yourselves its satan or some demon or some silly shit trying to pry away your TOTALLY-INVALUABLE-AND-NOT-LIKE-THE-OTHER-TENS-OF-BILLIONS-THAT-HAVE-EXISTED soul.

Which is why the feeble arguments you toss up are so casually dismissed with little more than a snort and a smirk; my attempt to hide my laugh of pity.

[John V]

Care to define either of those?

Sure. His desirous will is what he wants. His sovereign will is what he permits (and is called permissive will by some).

When someone murders another, that’s within god’s sovereign will, but against his desirous will.

If god granted us dominion over the earth, then why are you complaining that we eat other animals?

I’m not. I recognize that we have rights over lesser creatures. I likewise recognize that God, as the greater being and creator, has rights over us. If you recognize the first, on what basis do you deny the second?

It really isn't that difficult of a concept.

Obviously, if you’re using it.

but I'll clarify it.

Yes, lack of clarity is the problem.

Let's say you magically create two errr...something...let's just say foxes. One male and one female. You then release them into the wild. Pretending that inscest doesn't result in birth defects (like the Noah's ark story so graciously does) these foxes reproduce many times, eventually populating a large area. Many years later, you go into that area and claim all of the foxes living there as pets. You didn't create them; you only created the initial two. Yet, you feel entitled to them all. God only created Adam and Eve, everyone else is a result of procreation. The question is this: Why does god claim ownership of all 6 billion+ humans alive if he only ever created two, who are both dead?

We haven’t created any animals. On what basis do we claim rights to their lives?

[Darkstar]

Sure. His desirous will is what he wants. His sovereign will is what he permits (and is called permissive will by some).

When someone murders another, that’s within god’s sovereign will, but against his desirous will.

So then, god does not choose when it is someone's 'time'?

If god granted us dominion over the earth, then why are you complaining that we eat other animals?

I’m not. I recognize that we have rights over lesser creatures. I likewise recognize that God, as the greater being and creator, has rights over us. If you recognize the first, on what basis do you deny the second?

Well, we don't really have inherent 'rights' over lesser creatures; we hunted them for survival, and now eat them for sustenance. God is all powerful, so I don't see why he would need to control us.

It really isn't that difficult of a concept.

Obviously, if you’re using it.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you incorrectly concluded that I was calling you stupid by this; I was not.

We haven’t created any animals. On what basis do we claim rights to their lives?

I guess that depends how you define 'create'. We claim them either as pets, or for sustenance. Unless you'd like to become a vegan... Now, the main difference would be that most of the animals we eat were raised for the purpose; they were fed and cared for. God has been kind of absent for the last few millenia. Whenever god intervened, he only killed us, whether it was the Israelites killing everyone else, or everyone dying. God has no reason to control us other than want of control; he doesn't need to eat, and if he does he can procure food from nothing. Now, one could argue for us all to be vegans, but plants are technically alive too. I understand your points, and actually agree with them to an extent. The difference between us and him is that he has nothing to gain from controlling us when he already has infinite power, whereas we would be hindered to an extent if we did nothing about animals, and I'm not just talking about eating (rat infestations, anyone?).

[Aractus]

Do you believe in a God? If your answer is yes, then yes, I think you are primative and narrowminded.

As you get to know me you'll realize I'm not narrow minded or uninformed or anything of the sort.

[John V]

Sure. His desirous will is what he wants. His sovereign will is what he permits (and is called permissive will by some).

When someone murders another, that’s within god’s sovereign will, but against his desirous will.

So then, god does not choose when it is someone's 'time'?

That’s a non sequitur. Those definitions do not imply that someone’s “time” is a function of one or the other, or that it is consistently one or the other for all people.

Well, we don't really have inherent 'rights' over lesser creatures; we hunted them for survival, and now eat them for sustenance. God is all powerful, so I don't see why he would need to control us.

If we don’t have rights over lesser creatures, then we’re using them without right for our own selfish purposes. If we don’t need justification, why does God?

I guess that depends how you define 'create'. We claim them either as pets, or for sustenance. Unless you'd like to become a vegan...

Yes, unless you condemn everyone but vegans, you’re going to run into hypocrisy if you make charges against god for his treatment of us.

[Darkstar]

If we don’t have rights over lesser creatures, then we’re using them without right for our own selfish purposes. If we don’t need justification, why does God?

What is a 'right'? Do rights objectively exist? If by selfish you mean for the species as a whole, and not helping other animals directly, then in a way yes. Our justification was survival and now is dietary. We could live without meat, it would just be harder. However, god cannot encouter hardship, so why does he need us? We raise livestock, and if we kill animals during hunting, the animal had a chance. We don't order all the animals in a forest to line up so we can eat some of them to satisfy our non-existant hunger. Note that I'm comparing our 'need' for meat with god's 'need' to manipulate us. Also, we can't communicate with lesser animals.

Yes, unless you condemn everyone but vegans, you’re going to run into hypocrisy if you make charges against god for his treatment of us.

Plants are still technically alive, so it depends on how far down you are willing to go. Humans are sentient, but not all powerful. If we were all powerful we would just be thinking steaks into existence, rather than killiing animals to get them.

[LastPoet]

In simplier words, we need food to survive, and consuming other living beings is the only way for us to survive. What kind of a prick does that make of your god?