21-Dumb-Solute; For a Moral-Dunning-Kruger Who Likes Milkshakes
This discussion started under this video:
To that video, I replied:
It is really rare, these days, for any of my fellow rational skeptics to point out something significant that I hadn't already heard elsewhere or realized on my own. This is one of those rare times. Damn great point! Thanks, Shannon! --- Sharing to FB. Will share on my next stream. In reply (many months later), a Dunning-Kruger moralist replied. However, please note, there's no need to read his thick wall of bad grammar and worse arguments. I'll be re-quoting each part, in the order his assertions appear.
@milkshakeplease46964 hours ago (edited)
this is you not properly understanding how to interpret scripture. when it comes to what is written on our hearts, we refer to the innate understanding and inclination towards goodness, truth, and beauty that humans possess because of being made in God's image. This doesn't mean omniscience about all the intricacies of good and evil. His commandment to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a test of obedience for obedience's sake. Rather, it was a boundary set by God to protect humanity. The knowledge represented by the tree was not evil in itself; it was the manner and timing of acquiring that specific knowledge that was problematic. It was before they were ready for it and they went against this inclination God put in us to know it's good to follow him. And again, they did it when they weren't ready for it, It's like exposing a child to fornication before they're mentally and psychologically ready for it. Adam and Eve sought to gain knowledge apart from God, seeking independence rather than communion with Him, the very beginnings of pride. And even secular psychology finds many negative psychological traits that pride is either correlated with or gives rise to. And now since everyone is a hyper individualist, you got issues with narcissism, psychopathy, pride, etc. Also under atheism, there is the is-ought fallacy, which you guys have no solution for. Can't get an ought from an is, yet you're making value judgements constantly and you think they're true. People are waking up to the fact atheism is dumb. i see it more and more.
My reply begins with this:
Greetings, random person on the interwebz who enjoys a nice milkshake.
Taking these in order:
1.
I don't call any religious texts "scripture".
They are only scripture in the same sense that Marvel and DC comics are script.
Today, when most people use the word, it carries an implied reverence that isn't due.
------------------------------------------
2.
You have not personally cracked the code to true interpretation of modern bibles.
There is no code to crack.
Every oral-story originator (most of whom were copying ideas from other/older religious cultures),
along with
every story-repeater,
and
every eventual person who wrote down their own understanding of the stories they heard (probably often taking liberties with the content and meaning of those stories),
and
every later scribe,
and
every mutually warring church who argued and conspired to decide which old stories would become part of a "Bible",
and
every later translator from those dead languages and dead cultures,
and
every self-appointed apologist who subjectively interprets and "explains" the parts they care about,
and
|every student of some rando-apologist,
and
every freelance wannabe code-cracker (heavily influenced by others; but still trying to somewhat forge their own path)
who "figures it all out" and then says "it's so obvious", ...
each had their own lens through-which to read and reason.
"No Two People Have Ever Read The Same Book".
The closest we can get to objectively reasoned and well-informed readings is:
Deferring to leading qualified (secular) scholars and majority consensus among their peers.
With that, we should reason on what they say;
to the best of our respective abilities.
Qualified historians and textual critics disagree with your view on these issues.
My own reading and applied logic also determine that your reading is unsupported by available data.
There is nothing in any bible that says laws of good and bad were written on Adam and Eve's heart; nor all people's heart.
["Heart", of course, today
is a metaphor for the emotional parts of our brain.
However, back then, they meant it literally.
Why?
Because very strong emotions cause a sensation at-and-near a person's physical heart.
So they honestly believed that the heart houses strong emotions
(or "emotional truths"; aka "spiritual truths").
They felt very strongly about their subjective feelings about right and wrong.
So they imagined that a super-being put those opinions (as his own) into their literal hearts; forcing them (against their will) to feel how he wants them to feel about various things]
Meanwhile, ...
The story says
Adam and Eve did not understand the difference between right and wrong until *after* they ate the fruit.
The only passages that talk about laws written on anyone's heart are when:
* Jeremiah says the Mosaic laws were written there for only the Hebrews who were under that law-set.
And
* when Paul says the next covenant was written there for all converts to (his version of) Christianity.
Also, Bibles are not Univocal.
So even if you can find some relevant passage in a different book, it would have no weight on what anything in Genesis means.
Different authors = different morally-themed, subjective opinions.
Each person thinks whatever they think.
There is nothing (absolutely nothing) that you consider right or wrong that all humans agree with you about.
So then we know for fact that we do not share a common moral intuition;
not even on one single issue;
not even faintly.
So the moment anyone says a magical Sky-Parent gave everyone a common moral intuition (about anything at all; no matter how faintly),
...
they are automatically defaming their magical Sky-Parent by painting him as a failure as a moral-tattoo artist.
How so?
Because it would mean that moral-ink faded (into nothing) for a great multitude of people;
through no fault of their own.
----------------------------------------------
3. "made in God's image."
--
Nobody knows what that means.
Everyone is left to guess and read their own meanings into it, because the author was bad at communicating their ideas.
-----------------------------------------------
4.
"This doesn't mean omniscience about all the intricacies of good and evil. "
--
Nobody (except you) has said
anything about
any humans being all-knowing/omniscient about everything pertaining to good and evil.
-----------------------------------------------
5.
"His commandment to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a test of obedience for obedience's sake."
--
Then why place it there at all?
----------------------------------------------
6.
"Rather, it was a boundary set by God to protect humanity. "
--
Placing a poisoned tree in a garden home where only two naïve children live, ...
in order to porrect them FROM eating from that very same tree?
You really haven't finished thinking this through.
-----------------------------------------------
7.
"The knowledge represented by the tree was not evil in itself; "
--
Translation error then?
For all bibles?
Really?
Every time (yes; every time) a translator chooses his words wrongly or poorly,
or even when a reader simply but earnestly misunderstands,
that means the alleged Super-Author was unwise to rely on those men to communicate essential truths to humanity.
So then what?
He sent you to tell the world how to read it properly?
I hope he gave you a way to tell literally everyone before it's too late, and a way to prove he sent you. Because right now, you just seem like some random milkshake and cult-text fan on the internet; who hasn't finished thinking about these issues.
----------------------------------------
8.
"it was the manner and timing of acquiring that specific knowledge that was problematic. "
--
then don't put such a tree they yet.
------------------------------------------
9.
"It was before they were ready for it "
--
then don't put such a tree there yet.
-------------------------------------------
10.
"and they went against this inclination God put in us to know it's good to follow him."
--
No matter those characters in that story did, the real problem was:
They WERE following whatever inclinations they were designed to have.
Nobody (not even a clever snake) can appeal to a desire that their target doesn't already have.
--------------------------------------------
11.
"And again, they did it when they weren't ready for it, "
--
then don't plant such a tree there yet.
----------------------------------------------
12.
"It's like exposing a child to fornication before they're mentally and psychologically ready for it."
--
You sure you want to word it that way?
In any case, then don't plant such a tree there yet;
not until they are ready (to be exposed to whatever you think they were being exposed to).
-----------------------------------------------
13.
"Adam and Eve sought to gain knowledge apart from God, seeking independence rather than communion with Him,"
--
No. That's the opposite of what the story paints.
Eve wanted to be more like/mutually-relatable with "God";
-just as every loving daughter feels about the father she loves.
Adam acted impulsively out of LOVE for Eve.
It was a love so intense (per design) that he would rather risk whatever "death" is ... than to see Eve suffer that fate alone.
Although, Adam (in that story) did second-guess that decision when Super(neglectful) Father came from a hard day of not-working.
That's when Super(neglectful) Father lied (or honestly admitted?) to not being all-knowing, when he wanted to know what those two kids had been up to.
-------------------------------------
14.
"the very beginnings of pride."
--
No.
That's not there at all.
---------------------------------------
15.
"And even secular psychology finds many negative psychological traits that pride is either correlated with or gives rise to"
--
Citation needed.
Also, no. It doesn't.
Pride just means we feel good about ourselves.
It's actually a very healthy and healthy-necessary feeling.
Christian-religions denounce "pride" because they can only prey on people who suffer from a lack of feeling good about themselves.
Granted, extremes of pride are off-putting and a "Red Flag" for possible underlying problems.
But when taken to such extremes, it's not really pride anymore. It's arrogance.
Although, there's plenty of room to argue what counts as arrogance.
For example, very-religious people accuse non-religious people of being arrogant.
And non-religious people say that very-religious people are being arrogant.
I happen to agree with the non-religious people about this. But we could talk about that later.
In any case, pride neither creates narcissism nor worsens it.
Anyone who thinks it does
doesn't understand that personality disorder.
They are motivated and trapped by secret self-emptiness and self-loathing.
They are trying to compensate for that.
They build and cling to an *external locus of identity*.
They become hostage to that externalized mask of "self", as the thing that keeps people from seeing behind that mask and into their then-exposed void of self and worth.
It's like a gaping hole where their soul should be (metaphorically speaking).
And that chasm is oozing yucky faults and failings.
They don't know how to take real pride in their best attributes or accomplishments.
Why not?
Because they don't know how to connect with those for their identity.
All that stuff gets wrongly ascribed to their mask instead.
So then they don't feel nearly as good about those things as they pretend to.
Bible writers were men with Major Personality Disorders writing "How To" guides for getting away with it.
Biblical religions are modeled on Narcisisstic Personality Disorder, sociopathy, psychopathy, histrionics, BPD, etc..
That's what the writers were disabled with. So that's how they saw the world.
This is why fundamentalist versions of Christianity attract and create predators.
Much *less* guilty of that are the most left-progressive/metaphorical versions of Christianity; along with only the most casually "barely even thinks about it" versions.
In other words, I am only indicting the versions with the most literal and authoritarian interpretations; versions with the most reverence for the entirety of it; as an authoritative, univocal, and perfect message.
Those versions:
* attract predators,
* gives special access to potential victims,
* romanticize the personality traits and values of predators,
* camouflage predators by training all members to emulate those disorders,
and
* create more of the same (as often as they can).
So you can IMAGINE that your political cult that hides behind a religious mask
is gaining respect in our world.
And you can IMAGINE that that CRITICS are losing respect.
But that's the opposite of reality.
This, in turn, is why today's "Conservative" political parties are so God-awful.
It's a pervasive un-wellness that spread from those religions.
[not that I'm aligning myself with the furthest-left/liberal political factions either. But that's a different topic for another time]
Abrahamic "Religion" (or "faith") is really just authoritarian politics with a fantasy theme.
Authoritarian views and values are emergent from narcisisstic entitlement, paranoia, and aggression.
We should expect serious problems (from such worldviews) to manifest, worsen, and persist.
---------------------------------------
16,
"Also under atheism, "
--
My reply:
I don't wear the "atheist" label.
It's a meaningless word because the word "theist" is meaningless.
The word "theist" is meaningless because the word "god" is meaningless.
Or, to be more precise, it means whatever anyone wants it to mean.
So then it doesn't help clarify anything.
So we're better off not using it.
Meanwhile, "under" implies submission to authority.
But there's no such thing as an "atheist authority". Nor do all self-labeled "atheists" participate in group-think.
The label "atheist" (however silly I may think that label is) does not refer to a worldview; nor any specific set of values.
The only thing all self-identified "atheists" have in common which they do NOT share with all self-identified "theists" is:
They do not (in any seriousness) call anything (or, at least, not anything literal) a "god".
-------------------------------------------------------------
17.
"there is the is-ought fallacy, which you guys have no solution for."
--
Again, there is no "you guys" here to refer to; unless you means everyone who is NOT an authoritarian. But then that would include a LOT of theists.
*The lines in the ideological sand are not drawn where you think they are* .
-------------------------------------------------------------
18.
"Can't get an ought from an is,"
--
Sam Harris and Scott Clifton (respectively) certainly tried.
Did they fail? Yea. Technically. Because we can't get an entirely objective "aught" from an is.
But only a truly insane person
would disagree that the health and safety within human social systems = good.
That is literally how our society(ies) identify the criminally insane.
And the reasoning people USE to arrive at:
healthy and safety = good
is the reasoning that rational Christians and rational non-God-ists share in common.
So they absolutely nailed the real issues.
Most Christians already do agree with their way of thinking about it.
They just add the extra step of "God gave us that ability to reason on moral issues with such great clarity".
Curiously, Somehow, their "God" failed to GIFT you with that same ability.
So if someone asked you if it's wrong to kick puppies, you'd have to ask your religious leaders what the Bible says about it.
And then you'd have to hope some random Bible-writers had an opinion about it;
because your entire premise of morality is an appeal to authority.
So whenever a Bible doesn't TELL you what to think (as an artificial HEART; the thing your GOD wrote on, in place of the natural heart he never gave you) ...
then you can't even arrive at an opinion about it unless you hypocritically think for yourself.
That's quite an unfortunate and bizarre corner you've painted yourself into.
It's true that NOBODY (not even authoritarians who have an imaginary magic-dad) can get an entirely objective moral "aught" from an objectively factual "is".
But we don't really need to.
All we really need is a common set of goals,
based on:
objectively rational reasons to define, care about, and prioritize good health and good function.
We don't need an imaginary Sky-Parent for that.
In fact, that entire idea only gets in the way. Because then all the God-fans just argue endlessly about what Sky Daddy really thinks.
----------------------------------------------------------
19.
" yet you're making value judgements constantly"
--
That can't actually be avoided while we are conscious.
So let's try to be fair about this.
Plus, it's *not* as if religious Sky-Parent-ism is useful as a unifying force to align people's moral compass with.
In fact, it has the opposite effect.
Why do you advocate for a solution to the world's moral disagreements
that we factually know doesn't work?
In fact, that stupid religion was actually DESIGNED to divide people.
------------------------------------------------------------
20.
" and you think they're true."
--
Some of it is "true".
In fact, Bible-writers usually used the term "evil" as a way to say tragedy or suffering (calamity).
So they were invoking a *secular* meaning for "evil".
And with that, they were inferring their God ALSO defers to secular thinking when it comes to identifying "evil(s)".
The Bible-story character called "God"
always STARTS with secular morality.
But then he goes off the rails due to his narcissism and psychopathy.
"He" felt like it was always a tragedy when his own feelings were hurt.
So he demanded that everyone agree;
"or else" (Psycho-Dad will do Psycho-things).
It's like Christopher Hitchens said.
"Humanity doesn't get its morals from religion. Religion gets its morals from us".
It what those religions do (at times) to avoid secular morality (whenever it's inconvenient)
and
(at other times) to TWIST the morality they get from secular thinkers
that really becomes a problem.
Consider:
It is, for example, true that certain actions cause harm.
And it is true that harm is harmful.
And it is true that compassion and empathy exist.
And it's true that people who experience those things tend to act on those things.
And it's true that people who do NOT experience those things do NOT act on those things.
And it's true that we all have a common set of objectively rational reasons to care and enforce limits on harms.
Even narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths have objectively rational reasons which EXIST for behaving well towards others.
Most of them just don't realize it because they haven't finished thinking it through rationally.
So they keep doing things that cause their own selves problems later.
Meanwhile, Some of it is preference.
But even preferences are a truth.
For example:
I really do prefer to NOT be tied up while hot wax is dripped onto my nipples by a dominatrix
My preferences are real.
So they are "true".
And if those are forcibly violated against my will, then I would experience harm.
And that harm would have ripple-effects in my psyche.
That, in turn, would cause ripple-effects of consequence for others eventually (in some form) unless I heal quickly from whatever caused my psyche injury.
That, in turn, gives society reason to care.
Why?
Because they have rational reasons to want to LIVE in a society that is maximally safe for them and the people they care about.
A society that isn't safe for me
isn't safe for anyone.
Like everything else, you just haven't fully thought it through.
------------------------------------------
21.
" People are waking up to the fact atheism is dumb. i see it more and more."
--
There is a scientifically verified negative correlation between fundamentalist religiosity and IQ.
The smarter someone is, the less likely they are to be a person of faith in a literal, personal, magical Super-Parent.
Meanwhile,
Christianity, in developed countries,
is losing members at a record pace.
The non-Sky-Parent-ists are rising at a record pace.
The Great Awakening (as I call it) is really happening.
And it's the opposite of what you think is happening.
Do I think "atheism" has all the answers?
No.
It doesn't have ANY answers; because it's not a worldview.
Asking if "a-theists" have all the answers is like asking if I think Non-Leprechaun-ism has all the answers.
Not-believing in Leprechauns doesn't do anything to provide answers to life's infinite questions.
They certainly don't know who stole my lucky charms.
Speaking of which, I do believe it's time for breakfast.
To that video, I replied:
It is really rare, these days, for any of my fellow rational skeptics to point out something significant that I hadn't already heard elsewhere or realized on my own. This is one of those rare times. Damn great point! Thanks, Shannon! --- Sharing to FB. Will share on my next stream. In reply (many months later), a Dunning-Kruger moralist replied. However, please note, there's no need to read his thick wall of bad grammar and worse arguments. I'll be re-quoting each part, in the order his assertions appear.
@milkshakeplease46964 hours ago (edited)
this is you not properly understanding how to interpret scripture. when it comes to what is written on our hearts, we refer to the innate understanding and inclination towards goodness, truth, and beauty that humans possess because of being made in God's image. This doesn't mean omniscience about all the intricacies of good and evil. His commandment to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a test of obedience for obedience's sake. Rather, it was a boundary set by God to protect humanity. The knowledge represented by the tree was not evil in itself; it was the manner and timing of acquiring that specific knowledge that was problematic. It was before they were ready for it and they went against this inclination God put in us to know it's good to follow him. And again, they did it when they weren't ready for it, It's like exposing a child to fornication before they're mentally and psychologically ready for it. Adam and Eve sought to gain knowledge apart from God, seeking independence rather than communion with Him, the very beginnings of pride. And even secular psychology finds many negative psychological traits that pride is either correlated with or gives rise to. And now since everyone is a hyper individualist, you got issues with narcissism, psychopathy, pride, etc. Also under atheism, there is the is-ought fallacy, which you guys have no solution for. Can't get an ought from an is, yet you're making value judgements constantly and you think they're true. People are waking up to the fact atheism is dumb. i see it more and more.
My reply begins with this:
Greetings, random person on the interwebz who enjoys a nice milkshake.
Taking these in order:
1.
I don't call any religious texts "scripture".
They are only scripture in the same sense that Marvel and DC comics are script.
Today, when most people use the word, it carries an implied reverence that isn't due.
------------------------------------------
2.
You have not personally cracked the code to true interpretation of modern bibles.
There is no code to crack.
Every oral-story originator (most of whom were copying ideas from other/older religious cultures),
along with
every story-repeater,
and
every eventual person who wrote down their own understanding of the stories they heard (probably often taking liberties with the content and meaning of those stories),
and
every later scribe,
and
every mutually warring church who argued and conspired to decide which old stories would become part of a "Bible",
and
every later translator from those dead languages and dead cultures,
and
every self-appointed apologist who subjectively interprets and "explains" the parts they care about,
and
|every student of some rando-apologist,
and
every freelance wannabe code-cracker (heavily influenced by others; but still trying to somewhat forge their own path)
who "figures it all out" and then says "it's so obvious", ...
each had their own lens through-which to read and reason.
"No Two People Have Ever Read The Same Book".
The closest we can get to objectively reasoned and well-informed readings is:
Deferring to leading qualified (secular) scholars and majority consensus among their peers.
With that, we should reason on what they say;
to the best of our respective abilities.
Qualified historians and textual critics disagree with your view on these issues.
My own reading and applied logic also determine that your reading is unsupported by available data.
There is nothing in any bible that says laws of good and bad were written on Adam and Eve's heart; nor all people's heart.
["Heart", of course, today
is a metaphor for the emotional parts of our brain.
However, back then, they meant it literally.
Why?
Because very strong emotions cause a sensation at-and-near a person's physical heart.
So they honestly believed that the heart houses strong emotions
(or "emotional truths"; aka "spiritual truths").
They felt very strongly about their subjective feelings about right and wrong.
So they imagined that a super-being put those opinions (as his own) into their literal hearts; forcing them (against their will) to feel how he wants them to feel about various things]
Meanwhile, ...
The story says
Adam and Eve did not understand the difference between right and wrong until *after* they ate the fruit.
The only passages that talk about laws written on anyone's heart are when:
* Jeremiah says the Mosaic laws were written there for only the Hebrews who were under that law-set.
And
* when Paul says the next covenant was written there for all converts to (his version of) Christianity.
Also, Bibles are not Univocal.
So even if you can find some relevant passage in a different book, it would have no weight on what anything in Genesis means.
Different authors = different morally-themed, subjective opinions.
Each person thinks whatever they think.
There is nothing (absolutely nothing) that you consider right or wrong that all humans agree with you about.
So then we know for fact that we do not share a common moral intuition;
not even on one single issue;
not even faintly.
So the moment anyone says a magical Sky-Parent gave everyone a common moral intuition (about anything at all; no matter how faintly),
...
they are automatically defaming their magical Sky-Parent by painting him as a failure as a moral-tattoo artist.
How so?
Because it would mean that moral-ink faded (into nothing) for a great multitude of people;
through no fault of their own.
----------------------------------------------
3. "made in God's image."
--
Nobody knows what that means.
Everyone is left to guess and read their own meanings into it, because the author was bad at communicating their ideas.
-----------------------------------------------
4.
"This doesn't mean omniscience about all the intricacies of good and evil. "
--
Nobody (except you) has said
anything about
any humans being all-knowing/omniscient about everything pertaining to good and evil.
-----------------------------------------------
5.
"His commandment to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a test of obedience for obedience's sake."
--
Then why place it there at all?
----------------------------------------------
6.
"Rather, it was a boundary set by God to protect humanity. "
--
Placing a poisoned tree in a garden home where only two naïve children live, ...
in order to porrect them FROM eating from that very same tree?
You really haven't finished thinking this through.
-----------------------------------------------
7.
"The knowledge represented by the tree was not evil in itself; "
--
Translation error then?
For all bibles?
Really?
Every time (yes; every time) a translator chooses his words wrongly or poorly,
or even when a reader simply but earnestly misunderstands,
that means the alleged Super-Author was unwise to rely on those men to communicate essential truths to humanity.
So then what?
He sent you to tell the world how to read it properly?
I hope he gave you a way to tell literally everyone before it's too late, and a way to prove he sent you. Because right now, you just seem like some random milkshake and cult-text fan on the internet; who hasn't finished thinking about these issues.
----------------------------------------
8.
"it was the manner and timing of acquiring that specific knowledge that was problematic. "
--
then don't put such a tree they yet.
------------------------------------------
9.
"It was before they were ready for it "
--
then don't put such a tree there yet.
-------------------------------------------
10.
"and they went against this inclination God put in us to know it's good to follow him."
--
No matter those characters in that story did, the real problem was:
They WERE following whatever inclinations they were designed to have.
Nobody (not even a clever snake) can appeal to a desire that their target doesn't already have.
--------------------------------------------
11.
"And again, they did it when they weren't ready for it, "
--
then don't plant such a tree there yet.
----------------------------------------------
12.
"It's like exposing a child to fornication before they're mentally and psychologically ready for it."
--
You sure you want to word it that way?
In any case, then don't plant such a tree there yet;
not until they are ready (to be exposed to whatever you think they were being exposed to).
-----------------------------------------------
13.
"Adam and Eve sought to gain knowledge apart from God, seeking independence rather than communion with Him,"
--
No. That's the opposite of what the story paints.
Eve wanted to be more like/mutually-relatable with "God";
-just as every loving daughter feels about the father she loves.
Adam acted impulsively out of LOVE for Eve.
It was a love so intense (per design) that he would rather risk whatever "death" is ... than to see Eve suffer that fate alone.
Although, Adam (in that story) did second-guess that decision when Super(neglectful) Father came from a hard day of not-working.
That's when Super(neglectful) Father lied (or honestly admitted?) to not being all-knowing, when he wanted to know what those two kids had been up to.
-------------------------------------
14.
"the very beginnings of pride."
--
No.
That's not there at all.
---------------------------------------
15.
"And even secular psychology finds many negative psychological traits that pride is either correlated with or gives rise to"
--
Citation needed.
Also, no. It doesn't.
Pride just means we feel good about ourselves.
It's actually a very healthy and healthy-necessary feeling.
Christian-religions denounce "pride" because they can only prey on people who suffer from a lack of feeling good about themselves.
Granted, extremes of pride are off-putting and a "Red Flag" for possible underlying problems.
But when taken to such extremes, it's not really pride anymore. It's arrogance.
Although, there's plenty of room to argue what counts as arrogance.
For example, very-religious people accuse non-religious people of being arrogant.
And non-religious people say that very-religious people are being arrogant.
I happen to agree with the non-religious people about this. But we could talk about that later.
In any case, pride neither creates narcissism nor worsens it.
Anyone who thinks it does
doesn't understand that personality disorder.
They are motivated and trapped by secret self-emptiness and self-loathing.
They are trying to compensate for that.
They build and cling to an *external locus of identity*.
They become hostage to that externalized mask of "self", as the thing that keeps people from seeing behind that mask and into their then-exposed void of self and worth.
It's like a gaping hole where their soul should be (metaphorically speaking).
And that chasm is oozing yucky faults and failings.
They don't know how to take real pride in their best attributes or accomplishments.
Why not?
Because they don't know how to connect with those for their identity.
All that stuff gets wrongly ascribed to their mask instead.
So then they don't feel nearly as good about those things as they pretend to.
Bible writers were men with Major Personality Disorders writing "How To" guides for getting away with it.
Biblical religions are modeled on Narcisisstic Personality Disorder, sociopathy, psychopathy, histrionics, BPD, etc..
That's what the writers were disabled with. So that's how they saw the world.
This is why fundamentalist versions of Christianity attract and create predators.
Much *less* guilty of that are the most left-progressive/metaphorical versions of Christianity; along with only the most casually "barely even thinks about it" versions.
In other words, I am only indicting the versions with the most literal and authoritarian interpretations; versions with the most reverence for the entirety of it; as an authoritative, univocal, and perfect message.
Those versions:
* attract predators,
* gives special access to potential victims,
* romanticize the personality traits and values of predators,
* camouflage predators by training all members to emulate those disorders,
and
* create more of the same (as often as they can).
So you can IMAGINE that your political cult that hides behind a religious mask
is gaining respect in our world.
And you can IMAGINE that that CRITICS are losing respect.
But that's the opposite of reality.
This, in turn, is why today's "Conservative" political parties are so God-awful.
It's a pervasive un-wellness that spread from those religions.
[not that I'm aligning myself with the furthest-left/liberal political factions either. But that's a different topic for another time]
Abrahamic "Religion" (or "faith") is really just authoritarian politics with a fantasy theme.
Authoritarian views and values are emergent from narcisisstic entitlement, paranoia, and aggression.
We should expect serious problems (from such worldviews) to manifest, worsen, and persist.
---------------------------------------
16,
"Also under atheism, "
--
My reply:
I don't wear the "atheist" label.
It's a meaningless word because the word "theist" is meaningless.
The word "theist" is meaningless because the word "god" is meaningless.
Or, to be more precise, it means whatever anyone wants it to mean.
So then it doesn't help clarify anything.
So we're better off not using it.
Meanwhile, "under" implies submission to authority.
But there's no such thing as an "atheist authority". Nor do all self-labeled "atheists" participate in group-think.
The label "atheist" (however silly I may think that label is) does not refer to a worldview; nor any specific set of values.
The only thing all self-identified "atheists" have in common which they do NOT share with all self-identified "theists" is:
They do not (in any seriousness) call anything (or, at least, not anything literal) a "god".
-------------------------------------------------------------
17.
"there is the is-ought fallacy, which you guys have no solution for."
--
Again, there is no "you guys" here to refer to; unless you means everyone who is NOT an authoritarian. But then that would include a LOT of theists.
*The lines in the ideological sand are not drawn where you think they are* .
-------------------------------------------------------------
18.
"Can't get an ought from an is,"
--
Sam Harris and Scott Clifton (respectively) certainly tried.
Did they fail? Yea. Technically. Because we can't get an entirely objective "aught" from an is.
But only a truly insane person
would disagree that the health and safety within human social systems = good.
That is literally how our society(ies) identify the criminally insane.
And the reasoning people USE to arrive at:
healthy and safety = good
is the reasoning that rational Christians and rational non-God-ists share in common.
So they absolutely nailed the real issues.
Most Christians already do agree with their way of thinking about it.
They just add the extra step of "God gave us that ability to reason on moral issues with such great clarity".
Curiously, Somehow, their "God" failed to GIFT you with that same ability.
So if someone asked you if it's wrong to kick puppies, you'd have to ask your religious leaders what the Bible says about it.
And then you'd have to hope some random Bible-writers had an opinion about it;
because your entire premise of morality is an appeal to authority.
So whenever a Bible doesn't TELL you what to think (as an artificial HEART; the thing your GOD wrote on, in place of the natural heart he never gave you) ...
then you can't even arrive at an opinion about it unless you hypocritically think for yourself.
That's quite an unfortunate and bizarre corner you've painted yourself into.
It's true that NOBODY (not even authoritarians who have an imaginary magic-dad) can get an entirely objective moral "aught" from an objectively factual "is".
But we don't really need to.
All we really need is a common set of goals,
based on:
objectively rational reasons to define, care about, and prioritize good health and good function.
We don't need an imaginary Sky-Parent for that.
In fact, that entire idea only gets in the way. Because then all the God-fans just argue endlessly about what Sky Daddy really thinks.
----------------------------------------------------------
19.
" yet you're making value judgements constantly"
--
That can't actually be avoided while we are conscious.
So let's try to be fair about this.
Plus, it's *not* as if religious Sky-Parent-ism is useful as a unifying force to align people's moral compass with.
In fact, it has the opposite effect.
Why do you advocate for a solution to the world's moral disagreements
that we factually know doesn't work?
In fact, that stupid religion was actually DESIGNED to divide people.
------------------------------------------------------------
20.
" and you think they're true."
--
Some of it is "true".
In fact, Bible-writers usually used the term "evil" as a way to say tragedy or suffering (calamity).
So they were invoking a *secular* meaning for "evil".
And with that, they were inferring their God ALSO defers to secular thinking when it comes to identifying "evil(s)".
The Bible-story character called "God"
always STARTS with secular morality.
But then he goes off the rails due to his narcissism and psychopathy.
"He" felt like it was always a tragedy when his own feelings were hurt.
So he demanded that everyone agree;
"or else" (Psycho-Dad will do Psycho-things).
It's like Christopher Hitchens said.
"Humanity doesn't get its morals from religion. Religion gets its morals from us".
It what those religions do (at times) to avoid secular morality (whenever it's inconvenient)
and
(at other times) to TWIST the morality they get from secular thinkers
that really becomes a problem.
Consider:
It is, for example, true that certain actions cause harm.
And it is true that harm is harmful.
And it is true that compassion and empathy exist.
And it's true that people who experience those things tend to act on those things.
And it's true that people who do NOT experience those things do NOT act on those things.
And it's true that we all have a common set of objectively rational reasons to care and enforce limits on harms.
Even narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths have objectively rational reasons which EXIST for behaving well towards others.
Most of them just don't realize it because they haven't finished thinking it through rationally.
So they keep doing things that cause their own selves problems later.
Meanwhile, Some of it is preference.
But even preferences are a truth.
For example:
I really do prefer to NOT be tied up while hot wax is dripped onto my nipples by a dominatrix
My preferences are real.
So they are "true".
And if those are forcibly violated against my will, then I would experience harm.
And that harm would have ripple-effects in my psyche.
That, in turn, would cause ripple-effects of consequence for others eventually (in some form) unless I heal quickly from whatever caused my psyche injury.
That, in turn, gives society reason to care.
Why?
Because they have rational reasons to want to LIVE in a society that is maximally safe for them and the people they care about.
A society that isn't safe for me
isn't safe for anyone.
Like everything else, you just haven't fully thought it through.
------------------------------------------
21.
" People are waking up to the fact atheism is dumb. i see it more and more."
--
There is a scientifically verified negative correlation between fundamentalist religiosity and IQ.
The smarter someone is, the less likely they are to be a person of faith in a literal, personal, magical Super-Parent.
Meanwhile,
Christianity, in developed countries,
is losing members at a record pace.
The non-Sky-Parent-ists are rising at a record pace.
The Great Awakening (as I call it) is really happening.
And it's the opposite of what you think is happening.
Do I think "atheism" has all the answers?
No.
It doesn't have ANY answers; because it's not a worldview.
Asking if "a-theists" have all the answers is like asking if I think Non-Leprechaun-ism has all the answers.
Not-believing in Leprechauns doesn't do anything to provide answers to life's infinite questions.
They certainly don't know who stole my lucky charms.
Speaking of which, I do believe it's time for breakfast.
Comments
Post a Comment