Calling out the abusive grifting BS of Authoritarian-Morality and Presuppositional Apologetics
To hear this blog read as a live-streamed podcast, click here:
Mark Robins
"What is Love from an atheistic perspective isn't it just chemistry? Love is meaningless without God."
---
James Apperson
What you said there
echoes the same idea that we hear from Christian-religious fundamentalists all the time.
"Without God, I am nothing".
And, of course, that means "Without an approved relationship and reliance on this specific God, I am nothing".
That automatically means "and neither is anyone else".
That means that anyone who DOES adopt that relationship paradigm
as a premise of identity
and as their premise of worth, ...
then gains infinite value; which they did not have before.
That automatically means that anyone/everyone who has NOT done so (with that specific "God") ... still doesn't have any worth;
- except for their "potential worth" as potential converts into Christianity ... which everyone can graduate INTO if they act before it's too late.
That in turn, justifies the belief that everyone who does NOT become a Christian before it's too late ... must be thrown away like trash forever;
"exactly as they deserve".
As you might expect.
I am un-impressed
by that fact
that you don't see any non-Christian's life, love, or personhood as truly valuable; except as potential converts.
You can't; because you think everyone needs validation from your "God" before they can justify any claim of value.
So let's talk about you're impressively egocentric, narcissistic, and sociopathic ideas about love.
LOVE
is any emotional state of either:
1.) any subjectively valued intensity of feel-good sensation.
or
2.) the pain we feel due to either:
a.) the suffering of
or
b.) loss of
any other entity that we've become dependent on as a source of feeling good.
or
3. A deep personal investment into the value of someone else's existence; born from compassion and/or empathy.
--
EVERY type of "love" has an established list of neurotransmitter chemicals that combine in specific ways, to cause each specific category or type.
Other animals experience it too.
And yet,
you're staking it as a special claim
(reserved for our very special species)
as part of a religious story.
In that story, everything (literally everything) is all about our relationship to some very specific (and abusive) Cosmic Sky Parent.
Unfortunately, that reduces the lived truth of all other creatures into a cartoonish caricature of hardly-sentient meat sacks.
That just helps perpetuate the abuses they must suffer at the hands of our very special species.
It also reduces the truth, beauty, and value of all non-Christians to nothing (or infinitely negative value, if you believe in eternal torment).
- And that includes every one of my adult-age children.
Exactly how flattered, impressed, or even respectful should I be towards something so grossly offensive?
You speak as if I couldn't understand the truth, beauty, and value of love.
But I think you have it backwards.
You don't (yet) rightly see and value love.
If you did, you'd automatically no longer be a Christian-religious fundamentalist.
--
I don't need permission to see beauty or to value that beauty.
You do. But that permission was so limited that you haven't yet seen beyond it.
--
Mark Robins
Can you tell me how you know you exist?
----------------------------
James Apperson
Re "Can you tell me how you know you exist?" [asked in the context of presuppositional apologetics; as addressed in previous discussion]
My reply:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist
Again.
I'm not sure which part of "exists" confuses you.
But to even ask the question,
and (moreover) to even frame the question as an existing questioner, ...
is to admit existence.
In fact,
when you call on me to ask myself that question,
you are asking me
first:
to assume I exist (in order to ask myself the question).
And then
next:
to feel stupid for making the assumption that you needed me to make.
Surely you can see how that's a very special kind of crazy.
Meanwhile,
"A happening" is happening.
That happening includes enough sentience to be an aware and actively-engaged part of this discussion.
--
The "self" could be an illusion.
In fact, it mostly is.
But in any case, Bible writers didn't even attempt to identity the "i"; because they were not deep thinkers.
They weren't even deep enough to realize they absolutely must define it as part of any threat or promise made about it.
And that's what makes the promise of a "resurrection" and eternal life of the "i" ...
a completely hollow/meaningless promise.
But it also didn't really matter in the end, because every "i" (in their view) that makes it into paradise would be gutted and thrown away anyways; to make room for a drop of God's "i" to replace each believer with.
Although, in modern parlance, we'd refer to that as a "copy/paste".
Why?
Because "He" can't love anyone but himself.
And so he only wants (and can only tolerate) reflections of himself to gaze lovingly at.
And how does that "God" (in your favorite stories) know that HE exists?
He grounds that in the assumption that he exists; as supported by the idea of "I think, feel, and act.
Therefore, I AM".
-The very thing you think it's irrational to do.
Although, Bible-God (as written) also wants us to consider "Don't forget how pretty I AM. Because that counts for a lot.
And all of my writers agree.
Thus, I must surely BE.".
And in the end,
you still can't define the "i".
---
Meanwhile,
Our memories could be false in any way (or every way).
Time could be an illusion.
We could be the metaphorical "blind men" incorrectly identifying an elephant by subjectively limited sensory input of its separate legs, trunk, and tail.
etc..
But our sensation OF empirical sense ... is happening;
no matter how much of that perception is objectively false.
A HAPPENING is happening.
If that happening is illusory, then the illusion is happening.
If, as you suggest, I'm supposed to doubt everything to the point where I stop asserting my own challenges
but (at the same time) stop doubting YOUR assertions,
then:
I should also doubt the same assertions that I'm un-doubting.
And then I should also doubt my doubt.
And then I should doubt my doubt about the initial doubt;
into infinity.
We cannot solve the problem of "hard solipsism".
Not even presuppositional apologetics can solve that, because:
1. )
It's arbitrary.
2.)
It's inescapably hypocritical;
as *** special pleading*** that denies an infinity of (mutually exclusive) alterative presuppositions.
3.)
It violates its own premise,
as an assumption that it can't ground in anything but itself;
the very thing the presupper was trying to escape being guilty of.
Bonus point:
4.
It's GASLIGHTING; taking the furthest possible extreme.
How so?
Because it directly attempts to fast-forward/short-cut to the same goal of all gaslighting.
The idea is to get a victim to utterly doubt (abandon all confidence in) their own cognitive functions;
- while then defaulting to reliance on:
a,) the gaslighter's cognitions.
and
b.) the gaslighter's narcissistic premise of special (greater) authority;
coupled with exemption from scrutiny.
-------
Surely you must have already realized I was too smart, too experienced with your cult's nonsense, and too articulate to be someone who would just throw their hands up and say "You got me. I'm stumped. Good point. Damn. Now I gotta go wonder if fundamentalist Christianity might be legit".
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Robins re "You assume something is offensive,"
--
James Apperson
... is exactly what a Narcissist abuser/gaslighter would say
after saying something directly abusive and being called out for it.
Seriously. Can you really not hear yourself?
-------------------------------
Mark Robins " given a Universe that just doesn't care and natural selection (survival of the fittest) why does it matter?"
---
James Apperson
I explained all of this already
in the blog-replies that you never intended to read or engage with.
--
It matters
for exactly the same reasons it would matter
even if there really WAS/is a Super-Daddy who wanted to give us written PERMISSION to care about the difference between:
things that promote health
vs
things that threaten and ruin health.
--
We care about our own wellbeing
because we enjoy wellbeing.
We anti-enjoy anti-wellbeing.
Additionally,
we (some of us) care about other people's wellbeing.
Why?
Because of compassion and empathy.
Compassion and empathy are biological.
That's how we can 100% predict that someone's brain-scan won't light up in certain place (like the right side of their supramarginal gyrus)... if they don't have any compassion or empathy.
This is also why I hope to see your cult gone someday,
It suppresses people's natural empathy and compassion;
-along with their ability to reason logically.
--
Meanwhile,
humans try to build and maintain:
as safe a society as we can.
Why?
Because a society that is unsafe for others is automatically unsafe for our self and anyone else we care about.
We enjoy the benefits of a well society.
We anti-enjoy the consequences of an unwell society.
----
Even sociopaths and psychopaths have ample logical reason to behave consistently pro-socially.
Most just haven't really thought it through in terms of how cause and effect will come back to bite them in the ass if they keep mistreating others.
----
Meanwhile,
I value my health.
I don't need written permission from a magical Daddy in the sky ... to value my health.
If such a Daddy exists,
and if they are a GOOD parent, then they wouldn't want their children (anyone they brought into this world) to remain forever in a helplessly dependent child-state.
Nor would they be impressed by a child who doesn't even know HOW to value their own health for their own sake, nor for the sake of their earthly family.
- And thus needs to always just defer to whatever value Magic-Daddy places on it.
But the writer/creator's of the primary "God" of Genesis
were hyper-dysfunctional humans.
They were SO awful ...
they were "God"awful.
So they created a very bad "Father".
And then they looked upon what they had created.
And they said that it was "good".
--
Seriously, there isn't even a word that can truly capture the extremes of how ridiculous you're being.
But I'm not mad.
Whoever did that to your head
is just part of a chain;
for an ever-mutating virus
that takes over people's brains.
It must keep spreading and adapting,
in order to survive.
Viruses never need a "reason".
And that's why no reasons I ever share with you
will ever matter.
Mark Robins
"What is Love from an atheistic perspective isn't it just chemistry? Love is meaningless without God."
---
James Apperson
What you said there
echoes the same idea that we hear from Christian-religious fundamentalists all the time.
"Without God, I am nothing".
And, of course, that means "Without an approved relationship and reliance on this specific God, I am nothing".
That automatically means "and neither is anyone else".
That means that anyone who DOES adopt that relationship paradigm
as a premise of identity
and as their premise of worth, ...
then gains infinite value; which they did not have before.
That automatically means that anyone/everyone who has NOT done so (with that specific "God") ... still doesn't have any worth;
- except for their "potential worth" as potential converts into Christianity ... which everyone can graduate INTO if they act before it's too late.
That in turn, justifies the belief that everyone who does NOT become a Christian before it's too late ... must be thrown away like trash forever;
"exactly as they deserve".
As you might expect.
I am un-impressed
by that fact
that you don't see any non-Christian's life, love, or personhood as truly valuable; except as potential converts.
You can't; because you think everyone needs validation from your "God" before they can justify any claim of value.
So let's talk about you're impressively egocentric, narcissistic, and sociopathic ideas about love.
LOVE
is any emotional state of either:
1.) any subjectively valued intensity of feel-good sensation.
or
2.) the pain we feel due to either:
a.) the suffering of
or
b.) loss of
any other entity that we've become dependent on as a source of feeling good.
or
3. A deep personal investment into the value of someone else's existence; born from compassion and/or empathy.
--
EVERY type of "love" has an established list of neurotransmitter chemicals that combine in specific ways, to cause each specific category or type.
Other animals experience it too.
And yet,
you're staking it as a special claim
(reserved for our very special species)
as part of a religious story.
In that story, everything (literally everything) is all about our relationship to some very specific (and abusive) Cosmic Sky Parent.
Unfortunately, that reduces the lived truth of all other creatures into a cartoonish caricature of hardly-sentient meat sacks.
That just helps perpetuate the abuses they must suffer at the hands of our very special species.
It also reduces the truth, beauty, and value of all non-Christians to nothing (or infinitely negative value, if you believe in eternal torment).
- And that includes every one of my adult-age children.
Exactly how flattered, impressed, or even respectful should I be towards something so grossly offensive?
You speak as if I couldn't understand the truth, beauty, and value of love.
But I think you have it backwards.
You don't (yet) rightly see and value love.
If you did, you'd automatically no longer be a Christian-religious fundamentalist.
--
I don't need permission to see beauty or to value that beauty.
You do. But that permission was so limited that you haven't yet seen beyond it.
--
Mark Robins
Can you tell me how you know you exist?
----------------------------
James Apperson
Re "Can you tell me how you know you exist?" [asked in the context of presuppositional apologetics; as addressed in previous discussion]
My reply:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist
Again.
I'm not sure which part of "exists" confuses you.
But to even ask the question,
and (moreover) to even frame the question as an existing questioner, ...
is to admit existence.
In fact,
when you call on me to ask myself that question,
you are asking me
first:
to assume I exist (in order to ask myself the question).
And then
next:
to feel stupid for making the assumption that you needed me to make.
Surely you can see how that's a very special kind of crazy.
Meanwhile,
"A happening" is happening.
That happening includes enough sentience to be an aware and actively-engaged part of this discussion.
--
The "self" could be an illusion.
In fact, it mostly is.
But in any case, Bible writers didn't even attempt to identity the "i"; because they were not deep thinkers.
They weren't even deep enough to realize they absolutely must define it as part of any threat or promise made about it.
And that's what makes the promise of a "resurrection" and eternal life of the "i" ...
a completely hollow/meaningless promise.
But it also didn't really matter in the end, because every "i" (in their view) that makes it into paradise would be gutted and thrown away anyways; to make room for a drop of God's "i" to replace each believer with.
Although, in modern parlance, we'd refer to that as a "copy/paste".
Why?
Because "He" can't love anyone but himself.
And so he only wants (and can only tolerate) reflections of himself to gaze lovingly at.
And how does that "God" (in your favorite stories) know that HE exists?
He grounds that in the assumption that he exists; as supported by the idea of "I think, feel, and act.
Therefore, I AM".
-The very thing you think it's irrational to do.
Although, Bible-God (as written) also wants us to consider "Don't forget how pretty I AM. Because that counts for a lot.
And all of my writers agree.
Thus, I must surely BE.".
And in the end,
you still can't define the "i".
---
Meanwhile,
Our memories could be false in any way (or every way).
Time could be an illusion.
We could be the metaphorical "blind men" incorrectly identifying an elephant by subjectively limited sensory input of its separate legs, trunk, and tail.
etc..
But our sensation OF empirical sense ... is happening;
no matter how much of that perception is objectively false.
A HAPPENING is happening.
If that happening is illusory, then the illusion is happening.
If, as you suggest, I'm supposed to doubt everything to the point where I stop asserting my own challenges
but (at the same time) stop doubting YOUR assertions,
then:
I should also doubt the same assertions that I'm un-doubting.
And then I should also doubt my doubt.
And then I should doubt my doubt about the initial doubt;
into infinity.
We cannot solve the problem of "hard solipsism".
Not even presuppositional apologetics can solve that, because:
1. )
It's arbitrary.
2.)
It's inescapably hypocritical;
as *** special pleading*** that denies an infinity of (mutually exclusive) alterative presuppositions.
3.)
It violates its own premise,
as an assumption that it can't ground in anything but itself;
the very thing the presupper was trying to escape being guilty of.
Bonus point:
4.
It's GASLIGHTING; taking the furthest possible extreme.
How so?
Because it directly attempts to fast-forward/short-cut to the same goal of all gaslighting.
The idea is to get a victim to utterly doubt (abandon all confidence in) their own cognitive functions;
- while then defaulting to reliance on:
a,) the gaslighter's cognitions.
and
b.) the gaslighter's narcissistic premise of special (greater) authority;
coupled with exemption from scrutiny.
-------
Surely you must have already realized I was too smart, too experienced with your cult's nonsense, and too articulate to be someone who would just throw their hands up and say "You got me. I'm stumped. Good point. Damn. Now I gotta go wonder if fundamentalist Christianity might be legit".
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Robins re "You assume something is offensive,"
--
James Apperson
... is exactly what a Narcissist abuser/gaslighter would say
after saying something directly abusive and being called out for it.
Seriously. Can you really not hear yourself?
-------------------------------
Mark Robins " given a Universe that just doesn't care and natural selection (survival of the fittest) why does it matter?"
---
James Apperson
I explained all of this already
in the blog-replies that you never intended to read or engage with.
--
It matters
for exactly the same reasons it would matter
even if there really WAS/is a Super-Daddy who wanted to give us written PERMISSION to care about the difference between:
things that promote health
vs
things that threaten and ruin health.
--
We care about our own wellbeing
because we enjoy wellbeing.
We anti-enjoy anti-wellbeing.
Additionally,
we (some of us) care about other people's wellbeing.
Why?
Because of compassion and empathy.
Compassion and empathy are biological.
That's how we can 100% predict that someone's brain-scan won't light up in certain place (like the right side of their supramarginal gyrus)... if they don't have any compassion or empathy.
This is also why I hope to see your cult gone someday,
It suppresses people's natural empathy and compassion;
-along with their ability to reason logically.
--
Meanwhile,
humans try to build and maintain:
as safe a society as we can.
Why?
Because a society that is unsafe for others is automatically unsafe for our self and anyone else we care about.
We enjoy the benefits of a well society.
We anti-enjoy the consequences of an unwell society.
----
Even sociopaths and psychopaths have ample logical reason to behave consistently pro-socially.
Most just haven't really thought it through in terms of how cause and effect will come back to bite them in the ass if they keep mistreating others.
----
Meanwhile,
I value my health.
I don't need written permission from a magical Daddy in the sky ... to value my health.
If such a Daddy exists,
and if they are a GOOD parent, then they wouldn't want their children (anyone they brought into this world) to remain forever in a helplessly dependent child-state.
Nor would they be impressed by a child who doesn't even know HOW to value their own health for their own sake, nor for the sake of their earthly family.
- And thus needs to always just defer to whatever value Magic-Daddy places on it.
But the writer/creator's of the primary "God" of Genesis
were hyper-dysfunctional humans.
They were SO awful ...
they were "God"awful.
So they created a very bad "Father".
And then they looked upon what they had created.
And they said that it was "good".
--
Seriously, there isn't even a word that can truly capture the extremes of how ridiculous you're being.
But I'm not mad.
Whoever did that to your head
is just part of a chain;
for an ever-mutating virus
that takes over people's brains.
It must keep spreading and adapting,
in order to survive.
Viruses never need a "reason".
And that's why no reasons I ever share with you
will ever matter.
Comments
Post a Comment