Are Non-Theist Critics Of Christianity Being Unfair or Inconsistent, If They Take Less (or no) Objection To Some Different And Innocuous Other God-Theory?

in the comments section under the blog, if you want to. Today's topic started here:

James Apperson shared a link.

6fMS1arc48h 14 oaaatgng 8uo1340m:160 PeM  · 

Is this similar to what early Stoics had in mind?

(Notice I didn't use the "G" word. The filter auto-rejected my first attempt to post this, for that reason).

BIGTHINK.COM

The universe may be conscious, say prominent scientists

A proto-consciousness field theory could replace the theory of dark matter, one physicist states.

180180

81 Comments

42 Shares

Like

Comment

Share

Write a public comment…

• Fred Weller

  This is my frustration with atheists. They deny / belittle any Christian-Judeo ideology, yet are open to an intelligent design hypothesis such as this. Hypocrite much?

  

  2

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
  • 1h
  • Active

    James Apperson

    Author

    Fred Weller

    re"This is my frustration with atheists. They deny / belittle any Christian-Judeo ideology, yet are open to an intelligent design hypothesis such as this. Hypocrite much?"

    ----
    
    My initial reply:
    
    
    

    I'm not sure why this frustrates you;

    unless maybe you love someone who stubbornly refuses to embrace a belief which you believe they need for their salvation.

    But as the atheist who posted the OP, I should clarify:

    *I neither believe or reject the theory presented in the linked article.

    I would be surprised, if it turned out to be true;

    but not necessarily shocked.

    I find it plausible but not probable.

    *My only reason for posting it was to ask the group if the linked proposition is essentially what early Stoics meant by "God".

    *The idea of it doesn't bother me, because the idea of it isn't being weaponized by any religion.

    If the basic idea of it was being used by many people in my society (or any society) as a premise upon-which to:

    push a Racketeering Scheme/Protection Racket (extorsion),

    being organized by:

    Narcissistic predators

    recruiting and mobilizing:

    flying monkeys (missionaries)

    to leverage for unearned power and privilege over everyone in their society,

    while remaining willfully oblivious to all the ways that harms people, ...

    I wouldn't be neutral about it.

    Ethically speaking, I'd be against it.

    Additionally,

    the linked article is unfalsifiable; at least for now, until our species becomes much more capable of looking into the matter.

    Whereas, the Abrahamic religions are all predicated on the preposition that:

    The Biblical Hebrews were:

    the "true religion".

    We factually know that's not the case.

    So any later religions which claim to be based on that narrative and that authority,

    automatically:

    can't be true.

    So then all the factual, logical, and ethical failings of later Abrahamic religions don't really even matter. Those don't need to be discussed or debated, because they already:

    can't be true;

    - at least, not in any literal sense.

    If someone holds to a modern version of "Christianity" where everything is just metaphors for secular ethics, secular life-observations, and secular philosophy,

    then, ... sure. That can be "true". But that's really only secular enlightenment being expressed through religious language. So it's a non-issue, except that they really shouldn't be speaking under a fundamentalist banner like "Christianity".
    --------------------
    
    Fred Weller's reply:
    • James Apperson "...it isn't being weaponized by any religion." Always comes down to fear, and eventually hate, doesn't it? Some people in a group behave badly. Therefore, everyone in that group is "problematic". You don't like them, you don't trust them. That is bias.

      Pause GIF

      

      GIPHY

      • Like
      • Reply
      • Share
      • 47m

    Active

    
    

    Write a public reply…

 


My next reply:

Fred Weller That's not-at-all what I'm saying.

---

It's funny how your cult coined the phrase "hate the sin, but love the sinner".

We make the same point about how we love the person but hate the religion, and suddenly that entire concept has no coherence. 

That's called having a "double standard".
Christianity is chalked full of those.
[Please do ask me to list those] 

However, ...

 Even if I am WRONG about my views about Christianity, 
and even if it's a WONDERFUL thing and some "ultimate truth"
(for the sake of argument), ...

You only called me out for:
what seemed like a contradiction.

I have already clarified how it's not a contradiction for me 
to be critical of Christian God-theory 
but not critical of some totally different and harmless God-theory. 

There simply ARE things I hate about Christian God-theory.
AND I have a rational basis for those objections.

Whereas, none of those objections to apply to Stoicism's God-theory.

The God-Theory in the linked article 
proposes ZERO doctrines.

It proposes ZERO grounds upon-which anyone is claiming moral authority over the way all humans must think and behave, "or else" Daddy will feel "rejected". And then we'll be discarded like trash (or: worse than trash, in some eternal pit of endless suffering). 

That fact alone 
is a signficant difference between Stoicism and Christianity.

As such, it's not a contradiction for a free man to be:
critical of Christianity  
but
 chill about Stoic God-theory. 

Thus, I can turn to Christians and say "Fuck You! I won't do what you tell me!" .
But I have no cause ... no opportunity to say the same things to Stoics.

Stoics aren't trying to call dibs on my journey, nor my identity. 
Christians are. 
 But they can't even run their own lives.
I'll be damned if they'll run mine. 

They EARN my hate every time they try it.
But I keep refusing to GIVE THEM my hate.
because I only have love for my fellow humans.

It's not hateful to:
evaluate,
decide, 
set,
declare,
explain,
and enforce:
healthy boundaries.

It's also not bullying to stand up to bullies. 

But I understand how it seems like such, 
through a clinically narcissistic lens. 

"How dare we". 
---
Granted, a lot of people think we should respect the beliefs of others.

However,:
1. No. We shouldn't.
and 
2. Christians can't even afford to raise that issue, because they aggressively deny respect for all contrary worldviews. 
[Another Christian hypocrisy]

Meanwhile, 
Consider:

I'm only humoring the assumption that the article I first linked to 
can rightly be called a theory of "God".

  I really don't think of it as-such.

So even if the linked article somehow turned out to be true and proven,
I wouldn't say they proved a "God" exists.

I would merely say they proved something which some people like to think of as a "God" exists.

It also has nothing to go with "intelligent design".

Regardless, ...

I was only asking ABOUT the Stoic's concept of a "God".

I wasn't validating it. 

But if you really want to better understand what I said before about Christianity:
 
It's automatically anti-virtuous
to promote Christianity.
--
It's automatically self-abusing to:
place one's self under that authority
and
to identify within that narrative.
--
It's automatically abusive to indoctrinate one's kids into that.
--
It's automatically abusive to attempt to gain access to other people's kids for that same purpose.
--
It's automatically abusive to attempt to spread that religion to any adults with vulnerable minds.
--
Also,
Notice:

It can only spread by seeking out vulnerability.

It doesn't appeal to emotionally healthy, independent adults who are satisfied with their lives.

Why not?

Because they have no sense of need to be "saved" from anything; let alone from their own humanity, nor from this "wicked world".

Nor do they have any rational reason to think they need to be saved BY a GOD ... FROM the very same God offering to save us from himself 
(only via unsubstantiated rumors).

  Rational and healthy people see right through that game. And it would hold no appeal for them, regardless. 

It does not appeal to any adult who values ownership over their own journey and identity.

So let's see who it DOES target, based on centuries of learning who is DOES work on:

For starters,
their "outreach" targets children.

Why?

Firstly, 
because children are born into vulnerable trust and dependence.

Also,
because their critical thinking skills aren't in place yet.

Hell, their brain won't even be fully formed until their mid-to-late 20s.

And so the indoctrinator can easily bypass their limited filters and PREY upon those vulnerabilities.

It also targets people with a low IQ,

and
the under-educated.

[Seriously, they have to:
 NOT ALREADY KNOW that:

* Humans evolved from less intelligent species, and that humans have existed in their current form for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

* No literal "first Adam" means there wasn't an "original sin".
No "original sin" means there's nothing to atone for by a "second Adam". 

* Christianity's core tenets are a mix of grossly abusive and utterly irrational. But this isn't obvious to anyone with a poor education/understanding of such things. 

*OT and NT get science wrong (again and again). 

* The "prophecies" which "came to pass" fell into three categories:

1. Horoscopic. So cryptic and vague that any "fulfillment" would be equally meaningless.

2. Predicting near-future outcomes to current situations, when there was a good chance such an outcome would occur. 

3. "Prophecies" fraudulently written during and after the events they pretend to predict.

*Their "prophecies" often failed.

*Since day 1, Christians have severely misunderstood the Hebrew religious text they wrongly imagine being an ideological progression from.

*The biblical Hebrews got most of the own history wrong, and ALL of prior human history wrong.

*Biblical Hebrews and differently-biblical Christians got ALL of their religious concepts from other cultures. 
None of it originated with them.
So then none of it was revealed by their conceptualization of "God". 

*Biblical Hebrews and differently-biblical Christians got all of their morally-themed tenets from other/older cultures as well; even the rare actually-healthy and actually-wise bits and pieces.
None of it originated with them.
So then none of it was revealed by their conceptualization of "God". 

etc etc]

It also targets: 
the emotionally-overwhelmed. 
 
This is why Christianity functions like arsonists in a world-on-fire.
[Oh yes. Please DO ask me for a list of examples]

They're afterlife insurance salesmen;
setting and fanning the very flames they blame on "the world", in order to sell people a very expensive and fraudulent policy;
which, of course, they deceptively advertise as "free".  

Those White Knights need horrors to "rescue" people from;
so they can prey on victims desperate to be thrown a lifeline of hope and "help". 

It also targets:
people raised into male-authoritarian families which have stunted their maturity so much that:
 
They can't even imagine life as an autonomous adult who is QUALIFIED to govern their own life.

Those people look around for a larger-than-life "Father"-figure to set their goals,
and
their moral DOs and DON'Ts,
and to VALIDATE them,
and to GIVE them the PURPOSE they aren't prepared to create on their own. 

 Many look to authoritarian govts for that.
Many look to authoritarian religions for that.

 And while I don't mean to kink-shame, ...

Frankly, I find it sad.
 And it's certainly very far from "Stoic". 

   
But sure.
A Christian can spend the rest of their day being a normal human being.
Of course they can. 

I don't think their abusive and irrational religion defines WHO they are as individuals. 
 
*Most* have been duped. 

They're victims. 

They aren't wronging anyone but their own selves
to remain satisfied with it. 

They aren't wronging others EXCEPT when they try to spread it or enforce it on others. 

Even then, I don't "hate the person".

No.

I hate the clinical Narcissism the scam is
 based on,
 attracts,
 fosters,
 empowers,
 justifies,
and shelters.

I hate the way it wrecks lives. 

But I don't hate the people who don't mean any harm by it. 

I also recognize that versions of it are a pretty wide spectrum.
 Some versions are MUCH less bad than others.
And some of the individuals are really good people.

Only some are monsters.
There's no way to know a %. So we'll just say "a small minority". 
But in many such cases, it was the religion which took a lead roll in the abuses which turned them into monsters. 

It's really not safe for kids. 

But NONE OF THIS is even an ISSUE for Stoicism's God-theory.

Thus, I'm not being arbitrary.`
 Nor am I being inconsistent to reject Christianity but take a neutral stand about Stoicism's "God". 

Stoicism's God-theory is kinkless.

Christianity is chalked full of kinks.
And none of those are mine. 
But if those are yours, then fine. 
-------

{All words in BLUE are links to outside articles and/or videos}