Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakEcY7Z5GU

An, albeit old, video from David Wood I came across. In this video, Wood shows his psychopath self as he talks about how he felt nothing when people died, learned how to make bombs, and then tried to kill his father just to see what it felt like.

He then proceeds to explain how Christianity saved him...

I don't know about you lot, but I'm agnostic and I don't feel the need to bash anyone's head in with a sledge hammer. The scariest part is how the comment section encourages him...

People who don't commit crimes merely because a sky god tells them not to are unhinged psychopaths.

Yeah, I've been an Atheist for as long as I can remember and I have never wanted to kill people for no reason.

Just wait till Jesus starts telling him to kill the whores.

Not gonna comment on this weird shit specifically.

But for most Christians I know, their drive from their faith to be good isn't due to a fear of Hell. It's due to their belief that embodying and acting out love is a redeeming process. In my own experience I can say that the closer I am at any given point to that, the more I feel free from the torture of my own shame and self-deception of my own arrogance, the more each moment in the world lights up around me for my appreciation, the more I feel pulled to act in service to the people around me, and the more I hope I can actually open something up in other people, and the more I seek for other people to open up something good in me.

I certainly can't speak for all Christians, but I can speak for myself in saying I am not primarily driven by a fear of punishment (I'm a universal reconciliationist after all), and I can't speak for but I can speak about most of the Christians I personally know and say I trust from all I've seen of them and all the time I've spent with them that they aren't that way either.

This shouldn't be taken as me arguing for God's existence in this thread, or arguing atheists can't be good and moral people, after all my best friend, the person who was with me in the most defining night of my life for me who comforted me and spoke with me and helped me understand myself and the importance of love was an atheist.

This isn't me trying to incite some pissing contest about religion vs atheism, this is simply me stating that for a decent number of people who have become better people because of their faith, it's an unfair characterization of them to say that everything about that comes from a fear of punishment and that they would be some of the worst people imaginable if they did not believe in that punishment.

DMB would be a child molester if he wasn't afraid of the demon rape after he died.

Yes. There is not Demon Rape DD. Go ahead and Rape Those Kids! You Literally have NOTHING to Fear!

Originally posted by MythLord
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakEcY7Z5GU

An, albeit old, video from David Wood I came across. In this video, Wood shows his psychopath self as he talks about how he felt nothing when people died, learned how to make bombs, and then tried to kill his father just to see what it felt like.

He then proceeds to explain how Christianity saved him...

I don't know about you lot, but I'm agnostic and I don't feel the need to bash anyone's head in with a sledge hammer. The scariest part is how the comment section encourages him...


I'll have to check out the video when I get a chance (just out of morbid curiosity and I'm a glutton for torture sometimes), but...

...it doesn't sound like it has anything to do with whether or not Christianity is true. It could seem like a convincing story, and I'm glad it seems to have worked out for him, but it says nothing at all about whether or not Christianity is true. And it's entirely possible that belief in unsubstantiated religion could help some otherwise psychopath be more moral, but the truth is that people generally do not need such unsubstantiated beliefs to be moral. And to imply otherwise is quite frankly rude and intellectually dishonest.

soo, what exactly happens if god tells you to kill someone?

Like, assuming they're believing he's a thing... is there something that stops him from doing that?

Religion is about social control and moral codes. Simple as, there is no god but don't tell my servant as he will slit my throat in the night and rob me etc.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
soo, what exactly happens if god tells you to kill someone?

Like, assuming they're believing he's a thing... is there something that stops him from doing that?

If someone believes in religion, how would they even be able to be sure that it was God doing the talking and not Satan?

Kinda weird how the guy who tried to kill his father stopped because he turned to the guy who was killed by his father.

And whose father has ordered a father to kill his son.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Kinda weird how the guy who tried to kill his father stopped because he turned to the guy who was killed by his father.

Irony. It's lost on delusional religious folks.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Irony. It's lost on delusional religious folks.

More big claims from the guy sporting horns.

Your claims are baseless.

I mean I just don't believe but it does work for a lot of people. Dunno why some atheists wanna spin that as a bad thing. If religion gives order to an otherwise unstable person that seems like a good thing to me.

Originally posted by mike brown
I mean I just don't believe but it does work for a lot of people. Dunno why some atheists wanna spin that as a bad thing. If religion gives order to an otherwise unstable person that seems like a good thing to me.

Because that is exactly what an unstable person needs, a set of delusional beliefs to act on.

Every prophet wrestled with god.

Just read any one of the scriptures.

Read about Solomon and why he told the two women to butcher the child.

The good mother applied critical thinking to the kings command. She wrestled with his decision. She generated a positive solution.

Jesus wrestled with his father, his mother, his peers... with a corrupt state.

With his own fears but by every account we have of him he reacted with positive solution after positive solution.

Even when he was technically at fault (like the women before him who technically 'defied' the king) it was always to help people.

People who talk about religion.. you know... religion isn't mentioned at all in the scriptures.

What you will find is multiple references to paths The teachings of: John The Baptist for example who taught people to live well and was killed for it.

Jesus was asked what do you say of John's teachings. If you've read the bible you know the gist of what he said.

Jesus was a great teacher because more than anyone he spoke in such a way that you actually have to (there is no get out option) you have to use your critical thinking skills to work things out for yourself.

Just like old King Sol.

This guy he found something which worked for him and he is trying to be a better person. He believes he spoke to Jesus.

You know...

You will never find any thing in the scriptures... Muslim or Christian about Jesus advising any one to be any thing other than forgiving, patient, kind and generous to other people.

This guy has specifically identified Jesus as a good influence.

What did Jesus teach so often?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because that is exactly what an unstable person needs, a set of delusional beliefs to act on.

personally, I have nothing against trans.

but isn't it hypocritical and biased that you hold this standard for religious people and not trans? I know you're part of the community and my comment is coming from a non-religious person.

mutilating your body because you have a belief you were born the wrong gender...that's a set of delusional beliefs to act on.

soo.

can you see how biased and hypocritical you are being?



Delusion:

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.


And here is from page 12 of the Drag Queens reading to kids thread in general discussion. Your response is under mike browns question




Originally posted by mike brown
Well... Tbh I don't really believe that trans people are "born in the wrong body" either. I think there's probably something wrong with their brain/mind
We just don't know how to fix that part so people opt to change their body instead.


I do not think mental health professionals or transgender people necessarily disagree. However, we are limited to the tools we have. We cannot change the minds of people who are transgender, but we can change their bodies. So we do what we can to bring them more in alignment to ease their dysphoria. I do not think anyone is operating with the belief that cosmetic procedures are literally changing the biological sex of a person. They are making them more comfortable in the vehicles they have to navigate the world in, so they do not harm themselves.





So....for transgenders you believe it's the best thing to let unstable people act on their delusional beliefs by maiming their bodies
but when it comes to religion you say no?

Originally posted by Raisen
personally, I have nothing against trans.

but isn't it hypocritical and biased that you hold this standard for religious people and not trans? I know you're part of the community and my comment is coming from a non-religious person.

mutilating your body because you have a belief you were born the wrong gender...that's a set of delusional beliefs to act on.

soo.

can you see how biased and hypocritical you are being?

. . .

So....for transgenders you believe it's the best thing to let unstable people act on their delusional beliefs by maiming their bodies but when it comes to religion you say no?

The difference is that according to mental health experts, transgender people are not delusional. We can view brain scans of transgender people and see that their brains resemble those of the gender with which they identify and not their biological sex. Their gender is not a "belief" any more than yours is.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because that is exactly what an unstable person needs, a set of delusional beliefs to act on. If it works, then why the **** not? Don't you prefer the Christian version of this guy to what he was before?

Why are atheists (I'm an atheist) so gung-ho about stamping out every religion above every other consideration. It's an insanely dogmatic approach and really closely resembles the character of the religions that Atheism is meant to replace.

Originally posted by mike brown
If it works, then why the **** not? Don't you prefer the Christian version of this guy to what he was before?

Why are atheists (I'm an atheist) so gung-ho about stamping out every religion above every other consideration. It's an insanely dogmatic approach and really closely resembles the character of the religions that Atheism is meant to replace.

The way you say "stamp out religion above every other consideration" is perhaps a little exaggerated, because to me the real harm comes from dogma. We should want dogmas stamped out because it takes certain dogmas of religion for otherwise good people to do evil. There aren't a lot of genuinely "bad people," but there are a lot of bad ideas that are contagious (just think of how ISIS gets recruits).

I'll reiterate part of what I said previously in this thread...

"...it's entirely possible that belief in unsubstantiated religion could help some otherwise psychopath be more moral, but the truth is that people generally do not need such unsubstantiated beliefs to be moral. And to imply otherwise is... intellectually dishonest."

The reason most of the Conservative Christian folks all around me (I live in the Bible belt) are generally moral people is not because they believe certain things from Christianity. They're generally moral because we evolved to be that way. And somehow that general sense of morality gets wrongly attributed to religion.

Who is morally superior, the person who doesn't steal, rape, murder etc because of delusional fear of punishment and hope for reward, or the person who avoids those things from a more inward and practical mindset having no belief of punishment or reward? The latter is more at peace, more grounded, more genuinely moral in my opinion.

Originally posted by mike brown
If it works, then why the **** not? Don't you prefer the Christian version of this guy to what he was before?

Why are atheists (I'm an atheist) so gung-ho about stamping out every religion above every other consideration. It's an insanely dogmatic approach and really closely resembles the character of the religions that Atheism is meant to replace.

Because it only works until it does not. If he only does the right thing for fear of punishment, what happens when he stops being afraid? He and society would be far better if he learned an internal sense of self-regulation. Otherwise, he is relying on external factors to keep him in check, instead of himself.

Why the fck is this guy not behind bars, this is a living breathing psychopath. I made it 11:24 in and almost because it made me sick.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because it only works until it does not. If he only does the right thing for fear of punishment, what happens when he stops being afraid? He and society would be far better if he learned an internal sense of self-regulation. Otherwise, he is relying on external factors to keep him in check, instead of himself. yes but we don't exactly know how to make that happen, do we? So once again.. for pragmatic purposes... Why reject a sub optimal solution because an optimal solution is not available?

"If he only does the right thing for fear of punishment..."

That's not the path Christ walked.

Originally posted by mike brown
yes but we don't exactly know how to make that happen, do we? So once again.. for pragmatic purposes... Why reject a sub optimal solution because an optimal solution is not available?

Why is it not available?

Maybe he should seek therapy and medication to get on the right track instead of delusional notions that could slip out from underneath him at any time like a trap door.



Originally posted by shiv
"If he only does the right thing for fear of punishment..."

That's not the path Christ walked.

That may be debatable, but that's certainly the rules of the game many modern Christians are playing by; or even worse, you can sin, sin, sin, then just accept Jesus and you're forgiven straight to heaven.

What kind of morality is that? A relative one, that's what.

Forgive us our sins As We forgive those who sin against us.

I don't go to church often, but when I do one of my favorite parts is:

Peace be with you!

And everyone says:

And Also With You!


Peace be with you Patient Leach.

Originally posted by shiv
Peace be with you Patient Leech.

Fixed. And also with you!

https://www.indiamike.com/india/attachments/88338d1487977705-itinerary-advice-for-trip-in-march-fast-eddie.gif

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Why is it not available?

Maybe he should seek therapy and medication to get on the right track instead of delusional notions that could slip out from underneath him at any time like a trap door. That's purely hypothetical to assume he would get better results from therapy or meds, or that he's even receptive to or interested in such a path. Where as we know for a fact his conversion seems to be helping. Plus they're not mutually exclusive.

I don't see why you would be so worried about the factual basis of his spiritual beliefs if they are causing him to behave in a more productive manner than he used to. This is where the dogmatic anti religion sentiments start to rear their ugly head.

It's similar to how religious people can sometimes cope with death better based on an after life and atheists will just say yes but they're delusional. Who honestly cares if they are delusional about something like that if it makes then happier or more content in their lives.

Originally posted by mike brown
That's purely hypothetical to assume he would get better results from therapy or meds, or that he's even receptive to or interested in such a path. Where as we know for a fact his conversion seems to be helping. Plus they're not mutually exclusive.

I don't see why you would be so worried about the factual basis of his spiritual beliefs if they are causing him to behave in a more productive manner than he used to. This is where the dogmatic anti religion sentiments start to rear their ugly head.

It's similar to how religious people can sometimes cope with death better based on an after life and atheists will just say yes but they're delusional. Who honestly cares if they are delusional about something like that if it makes then happier or more content in their lives.

Because this... (copying and pasting what I said previously)...

"...it's entirely possible that belief in unsubstantiated religion could help some otherwise psychopath be more moral, but the truth is that people generally do not need such unsubstantiated beliefs to be moral. And to imply otherwise is quite frankly ... intellectually dishonest."

And in regard to this...

Originally posted by mike brown
I don't see why you would be so worried about the factual basis of his spiritual beliefs if they are causing him to behave in a more productive manner

Because as humans we have to collaborate and live in a shared reality.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Because this... (copying and pasting what I said previously)...

"...it's entirely possible that belief in unsubstantiated religion could help some otherwise psychopath be more moral, but the truth is that people generally do not need such unsubstantiated beliefs to be moral. And to imply otherwise is quite frankly ... intellectually dishonest."I didn't suggest that everyone needs religion to be moral. Just that in the case where it makes a person more moral I'm not sure why anyone would frame that as anything other than a positive.

People will always believe different things about the nature of reality. I'm more of a pragmatist, here. If what you believe doesn't adversely affect other people then I couldn't care less for the most part.

Originally posted by mike brown
People will always believe different things about the nature of reality. I'm more of a pragmatist, here. If what you believe doesn't adversely affect other people then I couldn't care less for the most part.

That's just it. Weird dogmas effect everyone's reality in weird and unexpected ways. It's difficult to predict. The big (seemingly innocent) example is the dogma that "souls" live in stem cells. But it's holding back potentially beneficial treatments for myriad medical conditions. No one has every isolated this "soul," but it's "believed" strongly, so yeah, it affects our shared reality.

Sure, this psychopath who is moral one day because of his beliefs might find something else to believe the next day to make him start dissecting children. Who the fu#k knows?

So why not agree on a shared reality to make collaboration smooth and not divisive and potentially dangerous holy books?

It doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable expectation that we can collectively "agree" on a shared reality. It's certainly not my choice what someone else believes. Problematic results can come about from virtually any belief, regardless of whether it's true or not. You can look at the race and IQ stats and use that to justify white nationalism for example.

In this case the results appear to be positive and your rationale for disliking it is that hypothetically it could turn negative?? That doesn't sound very reasonable to me.

Originally posted by mike brown
It doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable expectation that we can collectively "agree" on a shared reality.

I don't necessarily disagree. At least in practice it seems damn near impossible. But it need not be very complicated: if there's not a good reason to believe something... don't.



Originally posted by mike brown
In this case the results appear to be positive and your rationale for disliking it is that hypothetically it could turn negative?? That doesn't sound very reasonable to me.

Well the problem is that if you're making shit up in the first place it's a potentially volatile situation. It can change and change for no good reason.

Whereas if you set out to stick to a shared reality things may change, but not without good reason. Doesn't that seem more reliable and safer?


Originally posted by mike brown
That's purely hypothetical to assume he would get better results from therapy or meds, or that he's even receptive to or interested in such a path. Where as we know for a fact his conversion seems to be helping. Plus they're not mutually exclusive.

Sorry, back to this, but this is a very odd thing to say given all that we know now about modern medicine and mental health. In the medical field they don't prescribe for patients. Just saying.

Irony: arguing about the importance of operating under a shared reality.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Who is morally superior, the person who doesn't steal, rape, murder etc because of delusional fear of punishment and hope for reward, or the person who avoids those things from a more inward and practical mindset having no belief of punishment or reward? Why does one being morally superior to the other matter at all? Morality in of itself is not tangible, though it can be used to provide tangible benefit or harm. In this case, the benefits are exactly the same, so why does it matter? Why is it important for you to be able to look down on this person?

If this dude is truly a psychopath like you seem to believe, then there is no known cure for psychopathy. There is no known way to give empathy to someone who has none. As far as we know I believe, the only way to get them to act right is through rewarding them for good behavior, with which Heaven is the ultimate example of such. It wouldn't be my first choice and I think other forms of positive reinforcement could work with greater success, but I do not get the hate you seem to have for this man overcoming his own evil nature however he could.

Who is morally superior? The man who cares about moral superiority instead of benefits or the man who doesn't?

The latter.

Aw how wonderful another Christian bashing thread. You guys having a good time?

I'm not bashing Christians.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm not bashing Christians.

I didn't single you out.

I was not bashing christians either

Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. I see the usual suspects and the same sort of discussions.

I don't like your tone ahah

Originally posted by Bentley
I don't like your tone ahah

I don't like your either. ahah

Originally posted by NemeBro
Why does one being morally superior to the other matter at all? Morality in of itself is not tangible, though it can be used to provide tangible benefit or harm. In this case, the benefits are exactly the same, so why does it matter? Why is it important for you to be able to look down on this person?

It's not about "feeling superior," it's about what's a stronger moral foundation. What is more likely to crumble at any moment: inward desire to do right for practical purposes of collaboration (our evolution) or fragile strings of religious belief for reward/punishment?

I'm not saying it's impossible for the latter to be effective. It's just not connected to reality.


Originally posted by NemeBro
If this dude is truly a psychopath like you seem to believe, then there is no known cure for psychopathy.

There's no known cure for lots of things. Doesn't mean there aren't treatments and more or less effective methods of managing.


Originally posted by Deadline
Aw how wonderful another Christian bashing thread. You guys having a good time?

No one is harming Christians here. We're discussing ideas. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.

I suppose that your argument is something not connected with reality cannot change by context, so it's obviously superior way to build a lasting morality set?

Originally posted by Bentley
I suppose that your argument is something not connected with reality cannot change by context, so it's obviously superior way to build a lasting morality set?

I'm not arguing that morality disconnected from reality is superior. So I don't know what you're getting at.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I'm not arguing that morality disconnected from reality is superior. So I don't know what you're getting at.

This is not a question of whether something is superior morally but more reliable. And the way it's enonciated here is actually not very strict because you're amassing every potential belief into an afterlife "punishment" or "reward" into the same package disregarding the understanding of each individual on how those are obtained. Disconnected by reality means that reality cannot disrupt it as easily. Religion is almost never disconnected with reality, it's a social pressure and a political tool all at once.

I think we probably agree in the essential part of your assesment but the formulation is sloppy and unnecessarily biased against spiritual beliefs.

Originally posted by Bentley
This is not a question of whether something is superior morally but more reliable. And the way it's enonciated here is actually not very strict because you're amassing every potential belief into an afterlife "punishment" or "reward" into the same package disregarding the understanding of each individual on how those are obtained.

Hm. If something is more reliable, it would seem superior to me. Of course you could go into a lot more nuance with individual cases, but I'm taking it a bit more broadly.


Originally posted by Bentley
Disconnected by reality means that reality cannot disrupt it as easily.

I see that as a bad thing. Inability to adapt is very problematic. Especially in evolutionary terms.


Originally posted by Bentley
Religion is almost never disconnected with reality, it's a social pressure and a political tool all at once.

Sure, but in the religious perspective there is always at least some sense of morality being "handed down by God," separated from its practical reality. The Christian perspective is not "we need to behave well because that's what keeps society functioning and helps us collaborate effectively." No, it's not practical at all. It's we have to behave well because God said so and of course there's these things called "sin," "heaven," and "hell." You can't deny that those things are manipulative and have effects on people who are raised with it from an early age. I grew up in fundamentalist circles, so I know. Even more moderate circles certainly have some semblance of this. I'm not straw-manning.

I really don't think morality is typically something that is based in philosophy. It's more instinctual for most people and we just use philosophy to rationalize it after the fact. For people who instinctively lack morals we have deterrent systems in place to regulate their behavior.

Originally posted by mike brown
I really don't think morality is typically something that is based in philosophy. It's more instinctual for most people and we just use philosophy to rationalize it after the fact. For people who instinctively lack morals we have deterrent systems in place to regulate their behavior.

That for the most part is what I've been saying. However I do believe in God.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Hm. If something is more reliable, it would seem superior to me. Of course you could go into a lot more nuance with individual cases, but I'm taking it a bit more broadly.




I see that as a bad thing. Inability to adapt is very problematic. Especially in evolutionary terms.




Sure, but in the religious perspective there is always at least some sense of morality being "handed down by God," separated from its practical reality. The Christian perspective is not "we need to behave well because that's what keeps society functioning and helps us collaborate effectively." No, it's not practical at all. It's we have to behave well because God said so and of course there's these things called "sin," "heaven," and "hell." You can't deny that those things are manipulative and have effects on people who are raised with it from an early age. I grew up in fundamentalist circles, so I know. Even more moderate circles certainly have some semblance of this. I'm not straw-manning.


Well, we are delving into what I believe is where we agree. Because for me the problem is precisely that religion isn't really "abstract enough", people need a framework in order to relate with God, it's not just about getting vertical knowledge.

Religion can help build up that framework of thought and morality or it can dumb it down and display drastical contradictions. In either case the problem comes from the capacity and the willingness of the individual to create a valid ethical framework to interact with the world. Most religious communication IS manipulation (from a pragmatical standpoint), but some people aren't willing or able to construct a framework by themselves, so they need to be coerced into accepting others to do that work for it. Manipulation is still going to happen despite religion.

So there is one value and one distressing issue with religion at that point:

The advantage: Religion doesn't try to be entirely pragmatical. It adds a different layer of interactions that simply go beyond having a functional society.

The disadvantage: It adds fluff. Scripture can be an stimulating tool for improving upon your own morality and questioning your previous knowledge. Or it can add nothing at all and waste a time better spent in teaching people how to be good.

Originally posted by mike brown
I really don't think morality is typically something that is based in philosophy. It's more instinctual for most people and we just use philosophy to rationalize it after the fact. For people who instinctively lack morals we have deterrent systems in place to regulate their behavior.

I tend to agree. It evolved out of practical necessity and now we talk about it (philosophy).


Originally posted by Bentley
The disadvantage: It adds fluff. Scripture can be an stimulating tool for improving upon your own morality and questioning your previous knowledge. Or it can add nothing at all and waste a time better spent in teaching people how to be good.

You need to have another "Or" in there:

Or it can act as a major obstacle for major moral progress. (i.e. slavery, women's rights, gay rights, etc..)

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I tend to agree. It evolved out of practical necessity and now we talk about it (philosophy).
I agree... That's why I don't see the problem with this guy being motivated by a fear of hell let's say. He clearly lacks the kind of instinctive moral impulses I referred to earlier. So if a deterrent system works in it's place then I see that as a worthy solution. Of course I'm not at all confident that with therapy and meds he can come to feel the instinctive form of morality... And if he isn't deterred by jail then an atheistic world view honestly has nothing to offer in the way of motivation via deterrence.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You need to have another "Or" in there:

Or it can act as a major obstacle for major moral progress. (i.e. slavery, women's rights, gay rights, etc..)

The reason I didn't add that it's because it come from the interpretation of religion so I wouldn't say it's intrinsical (faith will always be interpreted). But you do make an insteresting point: pretending that religious teachings are all encompasing despite the fact tradition obviously couldn't have considered everything leads to potential inconsistencies. Religious morality needs to have a non religious counterpart on the side, because faith cannot consider every potential outcome of injustice at any given time. It's meant to serve as a base and never as an absolute.

"Faithless" morality compliments religion and it's, for people of faith, a necessity.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm not bashing Christians.

I'll bash them: f*ck lent. I had pepperoni pizza's on Friday's. Boom!