Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

In today's chapter of "Dealing with Christians In Stoicism Groups", ... We were discussing the toxic and nonsensical nature of Christian religiosity. Why were we discussing that in a Stoicism group? For the same reason that always comes up. Christian fundamentalists can't resist preaching their religion as the one/only truth path to: a.) moral enlightenment and b.) a life worth living.   They pushed that crap. We pushed back. They pushed some more. And every time they commented,  things got more bizarre (and stupid).    So then we talked about moral intuitions, personal values, and perceptions of reality. They asked where I get mine from.  The Christian Fundamentalists, here, were still trying to claim we need a "God" and a special book for that.  From there, I replied:  So I would need to already believe in some literal gods, before I could rationally justify not believing in any? And I would need to believe in some literal god(s), before I could rationally

  Image reads: Chad 9 hours ago @Stephanie McGuire James has been offended by many of the people who frequent this channel, including Digital Gnosis whom you mentioned. So if anything, offending James just makes you part of the Bread of Life family As for atheists not being receptive to your opinions, it’s difficult to change minds. But just because people don’t always respond to your comments doesn’t mean there aren’t some who read and consider what you have to say. I know I have. Anyways, take care and best of luck in your search for a new community." --- My reply to that: All of that is grossly unfair and even socially abusive. However, I'm not personally offended by that either. Instead, I'm just going to remain chill and walk you through the paces. First, I have never been offended by anyone on Youtube. On the very rare occasion that someone comes after me personally, I will stand up for myself. Whereas, if they are mature enough (instead) to simp

Recently, a Christian said to me "Hi James! Christians don't do acts of kindness because we are being forced to do it. We do it because we love people." --- Ok. [Let's unpack this] "Christians don't do X. (Instead) Christian do Y" . -- Now, you'd probably expect me to quote an entire sentence and then reply to that whole thought. Normally, that would be fair. However, Let's get this out of the way first. -- The implication of "Christians don't X" is this: "No Christian do X". Likewise, the implications of "Christians do Y" is this: "All Christians do Y". This is true both grammatically and in terms of how people just normally casually speak. However, if we really think about it, we realize there isn't anything we could follow that with which has even a chance of being true. Why not? Because there literally isn't anything which is: a.) specific to Christians and yet b.)

As an antitheist, anti-God-ist, rational skeptic, I understand that Evolution of Species is an established fact; at least as much as gravity is a fact. I also realize that the entire matter has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not any "g/Gods" exist. And yet, ... I realize that any Creationist Camp pushing Creationism on Youtube isn't enough of a big deal to get upset about. Being gas-lit by Bad Faith Actors in a debate is cause to feel some irritation. It can even be good cause to GO OFF on someone who keeps playing head games. Gaslighting is a form of abuse. A Zero Tolerance Policy for abuse is reasonable. But it's important to recognize when that is or isn't happening. Most Creationists (like Sal and Rebekah ) simply don't realize how wrong they are. [As always, words in BLUE are links. These are set to open in a new tab] They're not lying. And they're not gaslighting. They're just wrong. And the reasons they a

If a Christian is going to vote, lobby, etc. towards the end-goal of getting abortion criminalized, then they have to stop saying that their God's moral values and highest moral priorities include: The willful choice to refrain from: * interfering in anyone's free will, * in this world, * pre-judgement-day, * no matter how "evil" he thinks any given activity is. You cannot have it both ways. "HE" either believes his people should interfere or "HE" doesn't. If he's AGAINST interfering with "free will", then: you shouldn't be trying to influence ANY legal sanctions against ANY behaviors based on your moral views, as representatives of that "God". [also: no. You don't get to take the God-Rep hat off long enough to vote, and then put it back on again] If He is using YOU to do a thing, it's the SAME: as HIM DOING THE THING. If whichever thing HE is commanding, obligating, or "ins

"A theism is just the lack of a belief in a god or gods. It neither provides nor detracts from any life essentials." -J D Lights. --- It's like being a non-stamp-collector. [in other words: someone who doesn't collect stamps] If we feel that anything is missing from our life, ... (a problem that some atheists have; but which many have already conquered), ... it really just means we have wants and needs that can be met 'somehow'. Clearly, being a non-stamp-collector is never going to provide those things. But then, ... some stamp collector says "you need to become a stamp collector. It has provided much joy, purpose, and a platform of social connections with others who enjoy stamp collecting". Although, in this case, the other persons don't merely collect stamps. They're in a global network of mafia-cults; naively supporting organized leaders who merely use stamp-collecting as a front for their criminal enterprises. Fo

  Everyone has moments when they say something nice or smart. But few ever get so hungry/angry at a fruit tree just because it doesn't have any fruit .. when it isn't even the season for it to have any fruit, ... that they CURSE that tree to whither and die. He was angry and irrational about the laws of NATURE. -the very same laws of nature that his "God" was supposed to have designed. That character (in those stories) was clearly bipolar and schizophrenic. He eventually lost his battle with mental illness; when the voice of his "Father" argued with him ... and talked him into ending his own life; by other people's hands. If that happened to a real person, then my heart cries for him. But such extreme self-abuse is not a virtue. But it's also not a moral failing, because people can't win a battle when: they don't understand the nature of the battle, and when they don't have access to the tools and help they'd need to overcome it.

  Christianity is a predatory scam which seeks to mentally enslave and exploit vulnerable humans. Its teachings run directly contrary to Stoicism. It sabotages people's ability to pursue Stoic virtues and Stoic inner-health. It merely uses some of the same language, in order to disguise the scam. Early Christians heard Stoics teaching about the Stoic Logos. They saw it was popular and respected. So they borrowed the language, gutted the concepts of their actual meaning, and then stuff toxic nonsense into it; totally changing what the "Logos" meant. Bibles do the same thing with "love", "justice", "good", etc.. They try to create the superficial illusion of promoting progressive and universal human values, just by using words that *normally* mean a certain thing (when sane people use those words), but changed the meanings so that they mean either ~nothing~ , ... or something far worse than nothing.  "Good"; for example. What does

[First Draft]    Explaining what the gospels mean in the context of the larger biblical narrative(s). ---- Character: "God" of the Hebrews. Personality: Every Major Personality Disorder; with an emphasis on Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Psychopathy. Writers of that character: Highly dangerous individuals expressing their dangerous minds through religious stories meant to express, justify, and give 'authority' to their dangerous perceptions (what they think is real) and values (what they think is good vs bad). Overarching theme of biblical literature; starting in Genesis: Don't even RISK outgrowing your utter child-state dependence on our violently insecure and always-unaccountable Father; whom speaks through us. So then you better not outgrow us either. This anchors the writers and their cultures against moral progress; slowing them to an infantile and violently-abused crawl. Despite this, they do gradually progress; thanks to a combin