God Is A Psychopath

[DrZoidberg]

Lion IRC, since you seem to think that genocide is ok, yet murder is against the commandments. How many people does one have to murder before it becomes morally ok?

Obviously you just need to keep murdering until everyone who thinks it's not morally OK is dead.

Perhaps that's exactly what God did with the flood. Perhaps just an elaborate cover up of God's earlier crimes. Killing all the witnesses

 

[Lion IRC]

...

Again God must make a choice, one of three possible choices. This is about following the logic of a morally perfect, wise, creator God to it's logical conclusion.

No. You have not demonstratied the conclusive, coercive logic which prevents an all powerful God from creating beings with free will. Why can't He do that? He certainly has nothing to fear from humans who choose to disobey Him.

What would be illogical is if God created beings with zero free will who were programmed to worship Him robotically

Why would that be any less logical than creating beings capable of disobeying him, knowing how/when/why they will disobey him, and then meting out punishment to them for disobeying him? It is like the carpenter who curses the hammer for striking his thumb. Repeatedly.

If you think creating pre-programmed automatons and then gushing with pride when they parrot "I love you God" (on cue) is logically/rationally on par with creating beings with free will (free thought) and punishing/rewarding them for obedience/disobedience to known moral commandments, then you are effectively saying nothing is discernably illogical or irrational. Wall to wall gonzo theology.

 

[Lion IRC]

"In the bible ALL killing and violence is instigated by humans (and satan) and then God intervenes. Never the other way around."

Anyone got an example that contradicts my assertion.
Chapter/verse! Quote any translation you like.
No 'paraphrasing' what you think the bible says/means.

Suggestion - start at the beginning of the bible and search for the very first act of killing/war/aggression. Was it God who drew first blood? Look at every instance thereafter and consider whether God's subsequent intervention was intended to hasten an end to the violence/killing and return things to their originally intended state of peace (restorative justice)

 

[DrZoidberg]

"In the bible ALL killing and violence is instigated by humans (and satan) and then God intervenes. Never the other way around."

Anyone got an example that contradicts my assertion.
Chapter/verse! Quote any translation you like.
No 'paraphrasing' what you think the bible says/means.

Suggestion - start at the beginning of the bible and search for the very first act of killing/war/aggression. Was it God who drew first blood? Look at every instance thereafter and consider whether God's subsequent intervention was intended to hasten an end to the violence/killing and return things to their originally intended state of peace (restorative justice)

Except when he kills everyone in the flood.

 

[Lion IRC]

For a morally justifiable reason.
Antibiotics are medically intended to cause mass extermination - for an end justifies the means purpose.
Cancer drugs are intended to have an end justifies the means result.
Nobody says they are pleasant - we say they are the least worst option.

 

[DrZoidberg]

For a morally justifiable reason.
Antibiotics are medically intended to cause mass extermination - for an end justifies the means purpose.
Cancer drugs are intended to have an end justifies the means result.
Nobody says they are pleasant - we say they are the least worst option.

When the hell is genocide morally justifiable? Can you give me an example of something you might do which would give me the right to murder you and your entire family? With what right does God take the right to dish out that "justice"? I somehow doubt all those people he murdered approved

 

[phands]

Hmmmm.....he ignored this post, but reissued the challenge....?

You have studiously ignored evidence from the babble time and again, even as you say there's nothing there you wouldn't defend. So defend.....

I note that, as usual, having been utterly destroyed in his ASSertion that LIRC hurriedly moved on and changed the subject away from his dismal lack of knowledge of the babble.

What utter and complete horseshit. Once again you demonstrate your stunning ignorance of the evil bible. And yet again, you open your mouth and remove all doubt.


http://www.evilbible.com/

or



or



or

Drunk With Blood includes a separate account for each of God's 158 killings. These stories fill the pages of the Bible, yet they are seldom read in church and are ignored by most Bible believers, which is a shame because God is so proud of his killings:
"I kill ... I wound ... I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour flesh." Deuteronomy 32:39-42
You've probably hear of a few of God's killings. Noah's Flood,Sodom and Gomorrah, David and Goliath, maybe. But there are over 150 others that are unknown to pretty much everyone, believer and nonbeliever alike.
Did you know, for example, that God:
*Forced friends and family to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf?
*Burned Aaron's sons to death for offering him strange fire?
*Burned complainers to death, forced the survivors to eat quail until it literally came out their noses, sent "fiery serpents" to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water, and killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings?
*Buried alive those that opposed Moses (along with their families)?
*Burned 250 men to death for burning incense?
*Rewarded Phinehas for throwing a spear though the bellies of an inter-tribal couple while they were having sex?
*Ordered, assisted in, or approved of dozens of complete genocides?
*Accepted human sacrifice in the cases of Jephthah's daughter and Saul's seven sons?
*Helped Samson murder thirty men for their clothes, slaughter 1000 with the jawbone of an ass, and kill 3000 civilians in a a suicide terrorist attack?
*Smote the Philistines of several cities with hemorrhoids in their secret parts?
*Killed a man for trying to keep the ark of the covenant from falling and 50,070 for looking into the ark?
*Approved when David bought his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins?
*Killed King Saul for not killing every Amalekite as he told him to do?
*Slowly killed a baby to punish King David for committing adultery?
*Killed 70,000 because David had a census that he (or Satan) told him to do?
*Sent a lion to kill a prophet for believing another prophet's lie, another lion to kill a man for not smiting a prophet, and some more lions to kill people that didn't fear him enough?
*Killed 450 religious leaders who lost a prayer contest with Elijah and burned 102 men to death for asking Elijah to come down from his hill?
*Sent two bears to rip apart 42 boys for making fun of Elisha's bald head?
*Killed 27,000 Syrians by having a wall fall on them, sent an angel to kill 185,000 sleeping soldiers, interfered in human battles to kill a half million Israelite and a million Ethiopian soldiers?
*Killed King Ahab for not killing a captured king, and then sent King Jehu on a series of mass murders to kill all of Ahab's family and friends who had ever "pissed against a wall?"
*Killed Job's ten children in a bet with Satan?
All of these killings, and more, are found in the Bible

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GCYPUTO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1


I await some logical fallacies and blame-shifting...

 

[Jobar]

For a morally justifiable reason.

Want me to quote Isa. 45:7 again?

Lion, God flat-out states he creates evil. There can be no moral justification of that.

 

[Jobar]

In general, accusations of cowardice, trolling, or lying aren't much tolerated in this forum. I suggest everyone chill a bit.


But Lion, you're bringing most of such things down upon your own head. If you tried harder to live up to that 'gentle as a dove and wise as a serpent' standard, you'd catch a whole lot less crap.

In this forum, you have few arguing with you, and many arguing against you; we know you can't answer everyone. My advice to believers has always been to pick the most difficult questions, from the most civil questioners, and try to answer those first. That method may not get atheists to agree with you, but it does tend to get you more respect, and less contempt.

 

[steve_bank]

In general, accusations of cowardice, trolling, or lying aren't much tolerated in this forum. I suggest everyone chill a bit.


But Lion, you're bringing most of such things down upon your own head. If you tried harder to live up to that 'gentle as a dove and wise as a serpent' standard, you'd catch a whole lot less crap.

In this forum, you have few arguing with you, and many arguing against you; we know you can't answer everyone. My advice to believers has always been to pick the most difficult questions, from the most civil questioners, and try to answer those first. That method may not get atheists to agree with you, but it does tend to get you more respect, and less contempt.

Well, moral posturing and lecturing on how one should post is in general allowed on the forum.

I tries the rational approach with Christians most of my life, but not anymore. It is pointless. The responses fall into general categories.

God works in mysterious ways.

It is all part of god's plan but we do not understand it. Child birth defects have a purpose in god's plan.

Finding ways of picking a biblical passage to justify actions, such as slavery.

Ignoring the negative history of religion.

Ignoring science.


There is is never a rational response, and to a great many Christians we are the embodiment of evil, and that is no exaggeration. Faith is not rational in the objective logical sense.

Back in the early 20th century over here overt atheist faced persecution and physical violence especially when confronting forced religion in public schools.

It is a long list. Most of don't care about an individual's faith. Until it is forced upon is in a number of ways.

Consider that if you introduced yourself to a group of evangelicals over here as a
pantheist you would not get a good response or respect.There is no defense as to what appears as god's actions and directions in the bible. In the alleged flood god is unhappy with the way his human creation went and drown all air breathers but for a few. The bible is considered inspired by god. There is a passage directing Hebrews to enact genocide on a group. Kill gays in Leviticus.

There is no defense and that is the point.

 

[atrib]

For a morally justifiable reason.
Antibiotics are medically intended to cause mass extermination - for an end justifies the means purpose.
Cancer drugs are intended to have an end justifies the means result.
Nobody says they are pleasant - we say they are the least worst option.

So you are saying that to Biblegod, humans are like bacteria; the harmful ones get exterminated, the harmless ones are merely tolerated until they get exterminated with the harmful ones. I couldn't agree more. Antibiotics, like the flood, doesn't distinguish between good and bad, it just kills everything.

But to us humans there are two problems with this picture:

1. Humans are not bacteria. Humans are sophisticated, self-aware, intelligent organisms, with lives filled with rich, diverse experiences, while bacteria are single celled organisms with no nervous system. Most humans, as imperfect as we are, can distinguish between the value of human life and bacteria. Biblegod apparently cannot. That is what makes him a genocidal psychopath.
Wiki define psychopathy as follows:

Psychopathy is traditionally a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits

Biblegod exhibits all these traits. It is all there in black and white in the Bible.

2. I assume the end to the means you are referring to is the protection of humanity from evil. But how the fuck do you protect humanity by killing everybody? Biblegod: "I will kill all humans in order to protect humanity from evil". It makes no sense. This is obvious for many of us to see, but apparently not to you. That is, if you are actually serious, which you are obviously not. But I'm bored, so I will play along.

 

[Copernicus]

What would be illogical is if God created beings with zero free will who were programmed to worship Him robotically

Why would that be any less logical than creating beings capable of disobeying him, knowing how/when/why they will disobey him, and then meting out punishment to them for disobeying him? It is like the carpenter who curses the hammer for striking his thumb. Repeatedly.

If you think creating pre-programmed automatons and then gushing with pride when they parrot "I love you God" (on cue) is logically/rationally on par with creating beings with free will (free thought) and punishing/rewarding them for obedience/disobedience to known moral commandments, then you are effectively saying nothing is discernably illogical or irrational. Wall to wall gonzo theology.

What is illogical is for God to do something that is logically impossible. You have taken the position in the past that he can, I believe. You wrote the above as if people could choose to behave in any way other than that God knew they would behave. Being omniscient, he cannot logically create beings whose future behavior he is ignorant of. God has no need to run tests like a human scientist in order to discover how they will behave. He knows it before he ever creates them. Therefore, why punish them for doing what he knew they were going to do in the first place? As I put it in my last post:

 

[atrib]

For a morally justifiable reason.
Antibiotics are medically intended to cause mass extermination - for an end justifies the means purpose.
Cancer drugs are intended to have an end justifies the means result.
Nobody says they are pleasant - we say they are the least worst option.

If killing everybody is the best option available to god, then I shudder to think what the other options might have been.

"I want to protect you from evil. Therefore I will kill you". This might sound like a line from a bad horror movie, but for many Christians this is the fundamental reality their lives are built on. Fear of an invisible god, who watches you all the time, will smite you if you kiss the boy next door (especially if you are also a boy), and will roast you over a fire for eternity in a special basement playroom if he doesn't like you. What a horrifying way to be raised, always afraid. No wonder so many Christians are fucked up, and will lie through their back teeth to defend their invisible "friend", even as they wet their pants in terror.

 

[Lion IRC]

For a morally justifiable reason.

Want me to quote Isa. 45:7 again?

Lion, God flat-out states he creates evil. There can be no moral justification of that.

Does the existence of 'good' ontologically create a category called...the opposite of good?
Yes. In that sense - and that sense only - does God create evil.

If that's the linguistic/hermenutic aerial acrobatics you want to rely on to justify calling God a psychopath, (meanwhile ignoring hundreds of bible verses showing that God hates evil, punishes evil, wants to save people from evil,) then by all means, give yourself a high-5 for 'proving' that God deliberately creates evil.

 

[Lion IRC]

For a morally justifiable reason.
Antibiotics are medically intended to cause mass extermination - for an end justifies the means purpose.
Cancer drugs are intended to have an end justifies the means result.
Nobody says they are pleasant - we say they are the least worst option.

If killing everybody is the best option available to god, then I shudder to think what the other options might have been...

Firstly, (since Jobar insists on literalism) He didn't kill everybody.
Secondly, the other worse option was to let humans continue the violence.

 

[Elixir]

For a morally justifiable reason.
Antibiotics are medically intended to cause mass extermination - for an end justifies the means purpose.
Cancer drugs are intended to have an end justifies the means result.
Nobody says they are pleasant - we say they are the least worst option.

If killing everybody is the best option available to god, then I shudder to think what the other options might have been...

Firstly, (since Jobar insists on literalism) He didn't kill everybody.
Secondly, the other worse option was to let humans continue the violence.

Firstly, to be literal, your god caused ALMOST everyone to die/drown (not the most pleasant form of demise) when he could have simply caused them to cease to exist - the cruel bastard!
Secondly, human violence was not at a point where ALMOST everyone was going to die, so your evaluation of "worse option" has no basis.

 

[Lion IRC]

Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
Sheesh! There's nothing about God in the Old Testament I wouldn't defend.

So how do you account for verses that clearly describe God ordering executions, ordering murder?

Pick one.
And I will show you my rationale.
Use one of phands' examples.

From phands' spammy cut-and-paste wall of text
Let's start with the first - Deuteronomy 32:39-42

No Christian apologist I have ever read, disputes that bible verses dealing with God's wrath aren't for the feint-hearted. If you are on the wrong side in a war against God's will then you should be very afraid. Because God is not squeamish.
But God is no more a psychopath than the pilot of the Enola Gay.

How many people every year honor the military personnel who kill thousands, tens of thousands of human beings in order to SAVE the lives of millions?

phands thinks that God's willingness - His determination - to shed blood if and when needed in His war against evil, is some sort counter-apologetic gotcha. But I say enforcement of justice is a benevolent act. If God showed a psychopathic cold-hearted indifference or apathy, that would be the opposite of what we see in Deuteronomy 32:39-42

 

[bilby]

Pick one.
And I will show you my rationale.
Use one of phands' examples.

From phands' spammy cut-and-paste wall of text
Let's start with the first - Deuteronomy 32:39-42

No Christian apologist I have ever read, disputes that bible verses dealing with God's wrath aren't for the feint-hearted. If you are on the wrong side in a war against God's will then you should be very afraid. Because God is not squeamish.
But God is no more a psychopath than the pilot of the Enola Gay.

How many people every year honor the military personnel who kill thousands, tens of thousands of human beings in order to SAVE the lives of millions?

phands thinks that God's willingness - His determination - to shed blood if and when needed in His war against evil, is some sort counter-apologetic gotcha. But I say enforcement of justice is a benevolent act. If God showed a psychopathic cold-hearted indifference or apathy, that would be the opposite of what we see in Deuteronomy 32:39-42

But oddly exactly what we see in the last few centuries. Why didn't this determination to protect people by the use of violence continue? Are the millions of infants killed in the last few centuries somehow unworthy of this protection? Why does god no longer strike down evildoers? Did he finally twig that the collateral damage was moraly outrageous from an omnipotent being? What took him so long?

Your god appears to only be more capable of precision than the pilot of the Enola Gay when it suits your story for him to be. A perfect god should not be permitted the same excuses for bad aim and overkill that we might allow an imperfect human to employ.

God, if he is omnipotent, always has the option to kill ALL the bad guys, and ONLY the bad guys.

As you think his actions in Deuteronomy were appropriate, presumably you think his inaction in recent history is inappropriate. No?

"Psychopathic cold-hearted indifference or apathy" seems to have been in plentiful supply during WWI, the holocaust, Pol Pot's genocidal rampage, the famines of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Boxing Day Taunami, etc, etc, etc...

 

[phands]

From phands' spammy cut-and-paste wall of text
Let's start with the first - Deuteronomy 32:39-42

No Christian apologist I have ever read, disputes that bible verses dealing with God's wrath aren't for the feint-hearted. If you are on the wrong side in a war against God's will then you should be very afraid. Because God is not squeamish.
But God is no more a psychopath than the pilot of the Enola Gay.

"feint" hearted? And that wasn't spam - it was direct evidence that your claim of gawd not instigating death or violence - ever - was a pile of steaming dingo's kidneys. Which you yet again somehow manage to not address. If the bible is true - which you assert - then by any sane measure, gawd is a complete psychopath. Just as well gawd doesn't exist. Man is bad enough alone.

 

[steve_bank]

We can focus on one clear event that Christians take literally. The flood.

God killed all surface life by drowning except for the Ark.

Where is the morality, godly compassion, and godly love in that?

It is the kind of behaviour we associate with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Absolute loyalty or torture and death.