Things atheists misunderstand

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
Calilasseia's picture
Oh this is going to be fun ..

Oh this is going to be fun ...

I know it's hard for atheists to grasp the concept of divine wrath

I know it's hard for mythology fanboys to grasp elementary concepts, but one you should be learning quickly, is that the assertions of your mythology do not constitute fact. The assertion that your cartoon magic man even exists, is one we've been waiting for mythology fanboys like you to support with something resembling proper evidence. And by proper evidence, I do NOT mean regurgitating the very same assertions from your mythology we've been waiting to see supported with evidence, or peddling vacuous and risible apologetic fabrications that you've manifestly extracted from your rectal passage.

Another concept you should be learning quickly, is that a favourite discoursive tool of those of us who paid attention in class, is reductio ad absurdum. Namely, take an assertion presented to us, treat that assertion by hypothesis as purportedly constituting fact, then demonstrating that treating that assertion in said manner leads quickly to internal contradiction, absurdity and paradox. Applying this famous and robust discoursive technique, does NOT imply that we regard your assertions as true, when we subject your assertions to said treatment. Indeed, reductio ad absurdum has been a staple method within the world of pure mathematics for centuries, and as a corollary of having been deployed in that discipline, we are assured of the essential soundness of the technique.

As a further corollary of the above, just because you treat a merely asserted concept from your mythology uncritically as fact, doesn't mean anyone else here shares your strange predilection. Indeed, it's precisely because those of us who paid attention in class, learned the proper rules of discourse, as opposed to the bastardised version thereof adopted by pedlars of apologetics, that we regard all assertions as a free-fire zone for the deployment of discoursive weaponry. We don't care how "sacred" you think your assertions are, or how much they should be shielded from scrutiny, they will all receive the same discoursive artillery bombardment here.

As for your assertion that "divine wrath" is hard for us to grasp, those of us who paid attention in class are already laughing at you. The reasons for this will become apparent shortly.

but I at least expect you guys to be capable of some form basic intelligent reasoning.

The irony of being castigated on this matter by a mythology fanboy, is truly delicious to savour.

What you call genocide in the Bible is nothing more than God manifesting His Divine Wrath and punishing nations for their sins/crimes.

Except that, oh wait, what we're dealing with here, is the usual piling of assertion upon assertion by mythology fanboys.

First there is the assertion that your magic man even exists, which on its own is seriously problematic. Not least because your magic man is defined in your mythology, as an entity possessing internally contradictory attributes. The likelihood of any entity thus defined actually existing is vanishingly small for obvious reasons. Which on its own points to "sin" being a synthetic, fabricated offence against an imaginary entity.

Second, there is the assertion that the assorted individuals described as being subject to wholesale slaughter in your mythology, were "deserving" of their fate, an assertion that itself is massively questionable, not least because, if your magic man doesn't actually exist, then the requisite passages of said mythology are nothing more than self-justification propaganda on the part of the raving hordes performing the slaughtering. Even if your magic man does actually exist, your mythology presents two contradictory assertions within its pages, namely [1] that your magic man presented "thou shalt not kill" as a purported "commandment", then followed this by exhorting his raving followers to kill on a large scale. If you cannot recognise this as massively contradictory even on an elementary level, it merely demonstrates that your mythology fanboyism has corrupted and perverted your own reasoning beyond recognition. Then of course, we have the other assertion that mythology fanboys like you are so fond of, namely that your merely asserted magic man is purportedly the source of all morality, an assertion that falls flat on its face the moment said magic man exhorts his followers to commit mass murder.

Returning to the assertion that the victims of said slaughter purportedly "deserved" their fate, well this is both risible and dangerous. Such an assertion can be pressed into duplicitous service by the devious, to "justify" exterminating large numbers of people on the basis of any number of specious pretexts, and indeed, historically, was pressed into this very service by mythology fanboys in the past, frequently for naked personal gain. And indeed, naked personal gain was explicitly dangled in front of the raving followers of your magic man, according to easily referenced assertions in your mythology.

Which all, of course, pales into insignificance alongside the massive and blatant disconnect, between asserting that such behaviours are inexcusably criminal for humans to pursue, but purportedly "righteous" when ordered by your magic man, a hideously obscene piece of special pleading that should be obvious to a five year old.

If anything, the requisite assertions in your mythology point to the enormous dangers inherent, in allowing any entity to act as judge, jury and executioner simultaneously. But we're familiar here with the manner in which mythology fanboys erect convoluted apologetic fabrications, in an attempt to paint a fake veneer of "respectability" to the blatant manufacturing of synthetic excuses to hand-wave away entirely proper objections to the travesty of discourse, that is the entirely arbitrary declaration of special, "privileged" status for your magic man, on the basis of nothing more than mythological fiat. Because, at bottom, that's all you have - blind assertion to the effect that your magic man purported possesses the special, "privileged" status exempting said magic man from the same constraints which are simultaneously asserted to be proper to apply to us. This is nothing more than "one law for the powerful, another for the powerless" writ large. And your inability to recognise, this, points rather to your failure of basic intelligent reasoning.

Genocide on the other hand means the killing of a group of people specifically because of their racial attributes or because they practice a particular religion.

The latter, of course, being one of the assertions presented in your mythology - namely, that the victims of this gleefully pursued mass murder, were subject to said slaughter because they dared to have a religion other than that of their murderers. You didn't think this through very hard, did you?

As for what you call slavery in the Bible, it was more of indentured servitude. In indentured servitude, it is not the human being who is owned, rather it is his ability to work which belongs to his master and it was usually for the purpose of paying off debts.

A specious and mendacious fabricated sophistical elision, to try and hand-wave away the hideous reality of the situation of the slaves in question. Numerous historical examples can be pointed to, demonstrating that hideous reality, which in some cases involved kidnapping, and in many cases lethally brutal exploitation. But I'm aware of the manner in which mythology fanboys ignore inconvenient historical facts that destroy their apologetics.

As for talking snakes and talking donkeys, the Bible doesn't credit snakes or donkeys with a natural ability to talk, rather the talking snake in the book of Genesis is able to speak because it has been possessed by Satan, while the talking donkey received the ability to talk only for one specific purpose on one specific occasion (to warn his master of imminent death).

Either way, the assertions are risible. Oh wait a moment, there is NO mention at all of the "Satan" character in Genesis, and indeed, the earliest explicit reference to such an entity doesn't appear until 1 Chronicles 21:1, so I'm tempted to treat this as another mythology fanboy ex recto fabrication.

Meanwhile, I've dealt elsewhere with the crock that is the Genesi myth, and I'm not inclined to go over old ground in a new post.

There is nowhere in the Bible where it is ever stated that speaking is a natural ability which animals possess like human beings.

Oh really? So why was the snake in the Genesis fairy tale not explicitly described therein as having found its voice in accordance with your apologetic assertion? For that matter, why is there NO explicit mention of the "Satan" character until we reach 1 Chronicles 21:1?

As for misogyny in the Bible, please provide me with specific passages from the Bible where God regards women as being inferior to men.

Others have done my work here in this regard.

LogicFTW's picture
@Thread

@Thread
Hard to tell which is more fantastical but easy to consider both ideas as completely absurd:

1 - A talking snake.

2 - Or A snake inhabited somehow by some sort of god like entity, to make a snake somehow "talk" to adam and eve, even though snake lack the physical structures necessary to talk. And why would a supposed entity like this even bother with this really odd crude method of communication? Why not just inhabit the minds of adam and eve, get them to do what ever it wants, instead of this weird, stupid talking snake thing?

SERIOUSLY! how is this crap not just little children stories meant to scare, to 99.99% of the population? Instead of passing it off as some sort of ultimate truth??

Even the talking snakes in harry potter series makes more sense as a possible reality, then this talking snake in the garden of eden nonsense. How are people not ashamed they believe in this stuff??

Sheldon's picture
"I know it's hard for

"I know it's hard for atheists to grasp the concept of divine wrath, but I at least expect you guys to be capable of some form basic intelligent reasoning."

What a spectacularly stupid claim, I suggest you Google atheism, as you don't seem to understand what it means. Divine wrath is nothing more than a hypothetical concept to an atheist, and for fairly obvious reasons, a bit like discussing unicorn husbandry.

"Genocide on the other hand means the killing of a group of people specifically because of their racial attributes or because they practice a particular religion."

Nonsense, genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. Like the Amalekites for instance.

"As for what you call slavery in the Bible, it was more of indentured servitude. "

Oh do fuck off, if you are going to lie blatantly then why should anyone care what you think, read the fucking bible, especially exodus 21, and stop making up lies, And FYI indentured servitude is a completely immoral idea as well.

"As for talking snakes and talking donkeys, the Bible doesn't credit snakes or donkeys with a natural ability to talk, rather the talking snake in the book of Genesis is able to speak because it has been possessed by Satan, "

Who cares, it is still puerile nonsense unsupported by any evidence. If you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity then I will continue to be an atheist, and all the unevidenced claims theists trot out as if they represent cogent argument or evidence are utterly irrelevant.

"As for misogyny in the Bible, please provide me with specific passages from the Bible where God regards women as being inferior to men."

Do your own fucking research, male chauvinism is ubiquitous in the bible. Though again why this is relevant I don't know, all it does is show that the bible was written by male dominated archaic societies, which hardly supports the notion it is a message from a perfectly benevolent deity. .

NewSkeptic's picture
I so admire your God that I

I so admire your God that I like play him using the moral lessons he has taught us, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Here's how you can play at home.

Take 1 pound of lean ground beef, ground chuck is even better. Now, take said beef and place in on the floor, unwrapped and uncooked.

Now, take your dog aside, pull him or her by the collar over to where the beef lies on the floor. Admonish said dog that he/she is not to touch said beef. Feel free to smack or whip said dog until the point is clear. (it's also helpful not to feed the dog for several days before these steps)

Now, take the dog out of the room, carefully leaving the door cracked open.

Now, remove yourself briefly from both meat and dog, maybe watch some football in the other room.

Come back an hour later.

Find the meat which was on the floor eaten with the paper it was on torn and strewn about.

Now, and here's the important part where you really get into your role as God, (perhaps whiten your hair and beard and wear a white robe), grab the dog by the collar and slit its throat while admonishing it that you clearly told it not to eat the ground beef (or ground chuck, you get the idea).

Then, go out and slit the throat of any other dog you can find because they are equally guilty.

Write it all down and sit in proud arrogance. Go back to the football game.

There, you are now as moral as your god, albeit on a smaller scale.

AccretedMinutiae's picture
JACKSON5 said: "What you call

JACKSON5 said: "What you call genocide in the Bible is nothing more than God manifesting His Divine Wrath and punishing nations for their sins/crimes."

Who cares what it is called? This is you trying to duck God out of responsibility for a mass killing of human beings by appealing to the nuances of the definition of one word.

Let's call it "mass murder." Are you happier now? How about "maniacally homicidal temper tantrum"? Does that one work for you?

Do you seriously think God should be excused for the slaughter of human beings wholesale, just because the term "genocide" doesn't fit? I am actually feigning surprise with that question - this type of thinking is entirely too common among theists. And when I say "thinking," I of course mean "not thinking."

Simon Moon's picture
I know it's hard for atheists

I know it's hard for atheists to grasp the concept of divine wrath, but I at least expect you guys to be capable of some form basic intelligent reasoning.What you call genocide in the Bible is nothing more than God manifesting His Divine Wrath and punishing nations for their sins/crimes.

And just what are those 'sins/crimes'?

Praying to the wrong gods.

Why did Yahweh have to order his 'chosen people' to slaughter men, women and children (including running a sword through the belly of pregnant women)? Why couldn't he have just instantly annihilated them?

As for what you call slavery in the Bible, it was more of indentured servitude. In indentured servitude, it is not the human being who is owned, rather it is his ability to work which belongs to his master and it was usually for the purpose of paying off debts.

Absolutely untrue. Blatantly dishonest.

First of all, indentured servitude is also immoral. As bad as slavery? No. Still immoral.

But this passage proves you are lying:

Leviticus 25:44-46

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Please try to tapdance your way out of: "you may purchase male or female slaves", "You may also purchase the children", "You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance".

Andromeda's picture
If the so-called "divine

Answer for me these questions, Jackson5...
How can atheists be happy and content without Christian teachings and Jesus?

Why aren't atheists in agonizing guilt and worrying about going to hell?

Why is God sitting back, allowing atheists to spread their news of fact and logic?

Why isn't God making himself known to non-believers?

Most importantly, where is this "Divine wrath", and why is it not being enacted on non-believers?

Checkmate

Calilasseia's picture
Indeed, one of the more

Indeed, one of the more hilarious observational data sets, centres upon the manner in which various natural disasters are routinely asserted by the usual suspects to be "punishment" from an imaginary magic man for various purported "sins" .... but the disasters in question, instead of being targeted upon places such as the Scandinavian countries (which are among the most avowedly secular and least religious on the planet), are instead targeted on places such as the US Bible Belt. Either their magic man's aim is woeful, or else there's a lot going on in the Bible Belt that the residents aren't telling us about ...

cranky47's picture
@Callilasseia

@Callilasseia

Yair, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy has always been used to justify religious belief, probably going back into pre history--it DOES make a kind of simplistic sense, if one is say a neanderthal.

Here in Australia, we have just experienced the most severe bushfires in living memory . Some are still burning , AFTER the massive rains and floods being experienced in New South Wales. Fortunately Australia a secular nation. It would be a very brave or very stupid religionist who dared claim publicly al that our natural disasters have been caused by the wrath of god.

Below a Youtube clip about the floods in NSW. ,There are a lot more available on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOuBKTxo7sA

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

A favourite pice of grafitto . "Religion; Man's attempt to communicate with the weather" . (Cambridge England 2000)

A favourite film; Billy Connolly in "The Man Who sued God". Premise; his insurer refuses to pay when his fishing boat is hit by lightning because it's an act of god.

Whitefire13's picture
Check out stats as to which

Check out stats as to which areas are avid porn downloaders - it’s sooooo much better and exciting when it’s “bad” (lol)

Whitefire13's picture
https://conquerseries.com

https://conquerseries.com/which-u-s-state-consumes-the-most-porn/

Religious source. Selling help.

Utah and Mississippi highest use. Bible Belt higher than avg for porn and typing “sex” and such Google. Higher in States that defend @marriage”.

Tin-Man's picture
@Whitefire Re: "Utah and

@Whitefire Re: "Utah and Mississippi highest use. Bible Belt higher than avg for porn and typing “sex” and such Google."

Aw, geez. Not THAT again.... Ugh... *defeated sigh*... Listen, for the record, I find it very offensive that I was told my internet searches made up nearly 27% of those total numbers. That is totally ridiculous and highly inaccurate. Quite frankly, it is considerably insulting. Because, based on my own calculations, that percentage should be MUCH higher than 27%. It should easily be within the high 30's to low 40's range. Simple math, folks! It just ain't that complicated.

Whitefire13's picture
You should do some research

You should do some research since your an expert, a paper on the subject... I’m sure you have a few peers that would love to review it...

xenoview's picture
@jackson5

@jackson5
First you have to prove any god exist. You need objective evidence. The bible is the claim, not the evidence.

CyberLN's picture
What I’ve never been able to

What I’ve never been able to figure out is why, if, as so many xtians say, their perfect book actually meant ‘indentured servitude’, why did it not say that instead of ‘slavery’.

Sheldon's picture
@cyberLN

@cyberLN

..if.."their perfect book actually meant ‘indentured servitude’, why did it not say that instead of ‘slavery’."

Very good point and of course any rational person would be equally justified in asking why a perfectly benevolent deity thinks indentured servitude is any more moral than more overt forms of slavery. They usually start to move the goalposts si quickly at this point you get dizzy. What about capitalism then they cry, that's immoral as well, they dont seem to have noticed that if their superstition were true the same perfectly benevolent deity would be allowing that as well, despite allegedly having limitless knowledge and power and therefore choice.

Cue some vapid guff about free will, resulting in the very salient point that their deity is claimed to interfere with free will all the fucking time.

And around and around we go....

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.