Phil Robertson Of 'Duck Dynasty' Reveals Bizarre Atheist Rape And Murder Fantasy

[Underseer]

a bizarre speech in which he created a hypothetical scenario about an atheist being forced to watch his "little atheist daughters" get raped

Um....wasn't this Lot's plan to protect his guests?

Obviously, Lot was an atheist!

He also slept with his daughters, which proves that Lot was an atheist!!!!!!!!!! [/conservochristian]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sounds a lot like the 1/2 governor of Alaska jetting around, collecting huge speaking fees for being 'outspoken' (as she reads off her hands.)
Or like Blondie McProstate (Ms. Coulter) launching another of her snotty books.
There's got to be a whole lot of people supporting this stuff. I just don't know any, personally. The Duck Dynasty phenomenon, from the very little I know of it, seems even dopier than those two twats.

I think they're the same crowd that enjoys sharknado, talk shows, Judge Judy and other crappy stuff like that. Am I being too judgmental? Probably. But is it accurate? Yes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think they're the same crowd that enjoys sharknado, talk shows, Judge Judy and other crappy stuff like that.

I loved that Quantum Leap episode where Al looked at the two guys in the bar: "These are the guys that keep those fishing shows on the air...."

 

[Unbeatable]

It's not just a fantasy - it's a depraved one.

What an irrelevant post. Robertson's statement was a thought experiment. Many years ago, before TFT became about politics, people used to do that sort of thing in MF&P all the time. Yes, this guy's thought experiment happens to involve overgeneralizing(there are atheists, such as myself, who don't believe in right or wrong)/strawmanning. That just makes it a thought experiment thought up by a smug, intellectually lazy bigot who thinks he's making a clever point about the flaws of atheism.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's not just a fantasy - it's a depraved one.

What an irrelevant post. Robertson's statement was a thought experiment. Many years ago, before TFT became about politics, people used to do that sort of thing in MF&P all the time. Yes, this guy's thought experiment happens to involve overgeneralizing(there are atheists, such as myself, who don't believe in right or wrong)/strawmanning. That just makes it a thought experiment thought up by a smug, intellectually lazy bigot who thinks he's making a clever point about the flaws of atheism.

Fantasizing about punishment for non-believers is a very common attribute of Christian mentality. In its hell doctrine, the religion takes the believer's mind straight to the most heinous and cruel act imaginable. Eternal torment is a core tenet of the faith. The self-righteousness and superiority complex that are also ingrained into the Christian worldview ensure there is a delicious and visceral payoff in imagining infidels being punished and humiliated.

Every now and then I enjoy the very refreshing and rare incidence of meeting an evangelical Christian who finds this aspect of their faith psychology deplorable.

Sometimes I'm surprised.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Two guys break into Phil's home and tie him up in a chair and gag him.
And then they take a laptop and access his bank accounts in front of him. They quote Bible verses about donating to the poor, about caring for those in need, and about how hard it is for a rich man to get into Heaven. And then they rape all his accounts. Money and company stock goes to literacy programs, sex education programs, job training programs, legal defense accounts for immigrants, National Abortion Rights Action League, Gays for Jesus. Finally, they put his truck on the market for $666.00.
And then they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that God told us to do this? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? Even if your interpretation differs from ours, it's fine because in our view, this is what GOD wants us to do, right, dude?'

Then you take him to a tub of water and throw him in, and baptize him Mormon, and shave off his beard, then donate 10% of everything that's left and say, 'Wouldn't it be something if this was something wrong with this? With making other people live by what I think my God requires of me?"
I wonder if Phil might come to be of the mind that aggressively making others live by your faith may not be the best way to show God's glory.

 

[RavenSky]

Interesting point

I bolded the bit about Phil Robertson’s bizarre fantasy castration because of two things: first, it takes a decidedly creepy personal turn there–notice the shift from third-person to second-person? He’s putting himself into the aggressor’s role with that shift and speaking directly to his victims. He’s no longer speaking about some abstract bit of horrific violence; he’s talking about a very intimate abuse, one that he identifies with very closely. It takes someone “sick in the head” to come up with this kind of fantasy with which to illustrate a standard-issue Pascal’s Wager or to make the tired old point about there supposedly being no atheists in foxholes; he sounds downright giddy as he describes a fantasy that he has doubtless recited many times. Over the years, I’ve gotten pretty good at spotting when a Christian’s shitty analogy-turd has been well-polished, but I’ve never had audio to go along with the text before now; I shuddered at the eager tone clearly present in his voice in that clip.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/excomm...ocking-bet-has-a-simple-answer/#ixzz3VsDKsWME

 

[RavenSky]

<snicker/>

(top image from: http://distractify.com/megan-mccormick/facts-about-beards/ )

 

[Potoooooooo]

even when christians try to be subtle they don't do it well

 

[Underseer]

This argument would sound totally reasonable to other Christians.

After all, Christianity is the only possible source of morality, therefore only Christians can be moral, therefore atheists just walk around raping and murdering everything in sight. Makes sense, doesn't it?

So if Christians are the only ones that can possibly be moral and atheists are inherently immoral, we would expect to see this reflected in the evidence. For example, if we compare all the nations to each other, we should notice that nations with more atheists would have more rape and murder, while nations with more devout religious people will have less rape and murder. Unfortunately, when we compare the nations of the world with each other, we find exactly the opposite: religiosity positively correlates with violent crime statistics. The more devout a nation is, the more crime it has, and the more atheists a nation has, the less crime it has.

If we examine the religion of prison inmates, we see more or less the same thing. Most religions (with the exception of four Asian religions) are statistically more likely than atheists to commit violent crimes.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. Plato proposed the Euthyphro dilemma thousands of years ago and showed that you can't get morality from an authority. An authority can only demand your obedience, not give you morality.

And lastly, the most bizarre thing about this assumption is that the most commonly accepted interpretation of the Samaritan parable in the New Testament is that Christians should not assume moral superiority.

This assumption is simply delusional on every possible level. The evidence shows that it's not true, philosophy/logic shows that their claimed source of morality cannot possibly provide them with morality of any kind, and their own magic book warns them against the assumption of moral superiority. So why do they do it in contravention of the evidence, logic, and their own magic book?

As Dan Dennett says, religion is a trap baited with people's desire to be good.

As with most religions, the followers are told that their religion is the only possible way they can be good people, or at least that following the religion causes them to become better people. The implication is that if they ever leave the religion, they will suddenly become more immoral, and you don't want to become immoral, do you? If you don't want to turn into a serial killer, you'd better not ever question the teachings of your religion! Nosiree! If you ever question the religion, you might leave the religion, and if you leave the religion, you will instantly become a monster just like the famous serial killer Richard Dawkins, who roasts babies and worships Satan.

*sigh*

 

[Bullmoose Too]

Speaking at a Christian event in Florida on Friday, Robertson was apparently trying to "prove" that having no belief in the afterlife and its consequences would make any level of violence acceptable. [/B]

He's got that backwards. The absence of an afterlife makes the life you have the only one and should not be wasted. Believing in an afterlife renders everything that you have done while alive acceptable given that you would just get to life again. Especially if you have the correct God on your side. (The correct god is the one you happen belief in, of course.)

 

[Atheos]

Speaking at a Christian event in Florida on Friday, Robertson was apparently trying to "prove" that having no belief in the afterlife and its consequences would make any level of violence acceptable.

He's got that backwards. The absence of an afterlife makes the life you have the only one and should not be wasted. Believing in an afterlife renders everything that you have done while alive acceptable given that you would just get to life again. Especially if you have the correct God on your side. (The correct god is the one you happen belief in, of course.)

I'd like to add that it gives each of us a better perspective on how important it is to respect the lives of other people, knowing that this is also their only shot at existence. Believers in an afterlife have been known to downplay the importance of "this life" to the extent that atrocities like the inquisitions came to pass.

The evidence, however, is clear. Humans are but one of many species of animal life who have evolved along a social survival strategy, using cooperation as a means to survive and thrive. As but one of many examples, primate species such as orangutans, gorillas and chimps do not require belief in some god to avoid degenerating into violent societies. There are many species who have adapted more reclusive survival strategies, and who upon encountering another of their species will fight to the death rather than share resources. Humans aren't one of those species. There are individuals of our species who may lack such social code, and that characteristic may be one with which they were born. But believing in a god doesn't give them a social instinct anymore than believing in a god would make them 10 inches taller.

 

[Playball40]

Sounds a lot like the 1/2 governor of Alaska jetting around, collecting huge speaking fees for being 'outspoken' (as she reads off her hands.)
Or like Blondie McProstate (Ms. Coulter) launching another of her snotty books.
There's got to be a whole lot of people supporting this stuff. I just don't know any, personally. The Duck Dynasty phenomenon, from the very little I know of it, seems even dopier than those two twats.

I think they're the same crowd that enjoys sharknado, talk shows, Judge Judy and other crappy stuff like that. Am I being too judgmental? Probably. But is it accurate? Yes.

Come on.....Sharknado is at least FUNNY! (not as funny as GHOST SHARK) but still meant to be farce.

 

[braces_for_impact]

It's not just a fantasy - it's a depraved one.

What an irrelevant post. Robertson's statement was a thought experiment. Many years ago, before TFT became about politics, people used to do that sort of thing in MF&P all the time. Yes, this guy's thought experiment happens to involve overgeneralizing(there are atheists, such as myself, who don't believe in right or wrong)/strawmanning. That just makes it a thought experiment thought up by a smug, intellectually lazy bigot who thinks he's making a clever point about the flaws of atheism.

I don't believe so. I find it interesting how changes from third to first person point of view during his story.

 

[Potoooooooo]