The Antichristian Phenomenon
Did Pastor Troy Just Say Religious People are Ignorant?
Posted by: Antichrist in Religion, tags: fodder for followersRecently an acquaintance came to me and told me to check out intelligencesquaredus.org. Specifically citing the previous debate: “The World Would be Better off Without Religion”. He went on to ask me, more or less, to pay attention to the way the guys handle themselves during the debate. (He felt I could learn something from watching people have the debate, I’m always having.) There were a few high points, but personally I thought the substance was lacking. Everyone handled themselves in a respectable way, but I did notice every once and a while it was the “believer” side that kept getting a little excited. Then, during the closing arguments, one of the pastors knew “they” were losing and made a “last ditch” comment about simple minded people, living simple lives, that follow a simple order, and allow them to remain simple (paraphrased of course). *I sit back and sigh*
Lets imagine for a moment that a group of sex offenders in America get together and plan for a massive steal the children campaign around Christmas time. This group comes up with some intricate plots to impersonate Santa Claus all over the country in an effort to gain the trust of key children, so they will convince their friends to sneak away in the middle of the night to “go to the North Pole”. Someone makes some Youtube videos that get online, and the damn things go viral disguised as some kind of joke. Anyway, it turns into a massive threat. So massive in fact that it becomes evident to most parents that they need to just go ahead and blow the lid off the whole Santa conspiracy thing. However, after the parents talk with their kids (much to the parents surprise), the kids’ belief morphs into an even stronger bond because they congregate together in schools everyday. So the PTA decides to have groups of parents come talk to the children together, because individually the children immediately go on the defensive. It has to be a trick or something they are thinking. Their parents are obviously trying to cheat them out of the Christmas rewards they have been good all year to enjoy. – Ok, the point I’m trying to make is: The clarity with which the group of parents collectively knows the fact Santa is not real, the frustration felt when they clearly answer absurd questions with common sense, and the patience they give to each child; Is how every atheist feels about religion as they participate in their daily lives! It is crystal clear standing over her looking in. Standing in there looking out, not to clear is it? Lots of questions, stuff doesn’t make sense, paradoxes? Just continue having blind faith and don’t forget to put some $ in the bowl before you go… Every single question that anyone has about their faith can be answered with the exact same answer. It just happens to be the same answer the parents gave to every one of those children that was hanging on to their belief in Santa. It – is – not – real!
People with simple minds that are distracted from life by a book of absolute nonsense are easily controllable. That is what the whole thing is about. One man controlling the mind, therefore actions, of another. Muslim women have to cover every feature of their body, so that young men can be easily controlled. In some suicide bombing aftermaths, male genitals have been found that were wrapped in protective material prior to the owner blowing themselves up. More or less to keep it useful for the 72 virgins they are about to own… Every Christian will bet their life that Muslims are believing in the wrong thing. Muslims will bet their life that what they believe is the one true belief. The only difference between a Muslim betting their life and a bet similar from a Christian, is that one will actually follow thru on it. The facts, evidence, mathematics, science, and general common sense have personally led me to bet my life, that any deity that requires worship is man made up!
007: Fodder For Followers- (John3:16.5) For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, to be tortured and brutally executed. He created everything, and therefore got Himself bent out of shape, so He needed to appease Himself, with nothing less than the blood and torment, from His only begotten Son…
January 13th, 2012 at 3:03 pm - Edit
Why be want christian when the muslims god allah told them to to go to war on the usually in 9/11? We christians soon worship there god that they call allah. Their prophet muhamnad was a liar, he killed Christians. They hate jewish people, muhammad married a 9 yard old little girl. He’s a murder. The muslim leader osama, He lead that horrible war on america because he believe his god allah told him too. I have a book called “why so many Gods” it talks about the islamic religion and what they are about. They don’t even follow their own book but they ready to call us christians out as being the wrong ones. If anyone should be anti anything it should be anti muslims. We christians dont push like the muslims do, you have freedom to believe as you
desire that’s the christian belief. Muslims will kill if they like if you don’t believe what they do. I don’t serve allah sorry.
.
January 13th, 2012 at 3:06 pm - Edit
I made some typo errors. We christians don’t worship their god.
Their god as osama said,that they were to cause a war on the usa 9/11.
January 18th, 2012 at 11:28 pm - Edit
Ok, so these days half the comments seem to be either random spam that makes no sense or generic posts by christians that are an answer to nothing anyone said.
Anyway, the "simple simpletons" attitude is a bad defensive mechanism. It's like when you correct people's grammar mistakes – many take it as an attack, or accuse you of showing off. Even if it's true, the mistake is still there.
January 27th, 2012 at 9:57 am - Edit
I would like to hear all you "enlightened" atheists and humanists speak an opinion about this case : http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4075523…
Why? Because people like you, by the fashion of "champions of liberty" such as Richard Dawkins, are always extremely vocal and speak out in an extremely uncompromising and condemning tone against parents who raise and educate their children in a more traditional manner, with traditional religious values, some, such as the above mentioned Dawkins, even going so far as to label such cases "child abuse".
Yet I never see any of them speak out against such cases, such as the one described in the link above- two lesbians, who clearly abuse "their" child,in a most horrible fashion. So, opinions ?
January 27th, 2012 at 6:29 pm - Edit
Well, in my opinion, this is ridiculous indeed. While I understand not wanting to force boy/girl stereotypes on the kid, this level of exaggeration is paranoid – mostly because this is still the parents' obsession, regardless of whether there are real effects on the child or not. But let's be honest here, how many people do that worldwide? Or are you saying every gay couple would do that?
As for the religious upbringing, a much more common practice, while I personally wouldn't go so far as to call it "abuse", at least not generally, I have to point out that the very fact you're providing a counter-example doesn't help your point; what you're saying is "oh look, they're doing something in the same vein, condemn them too". Ok, I do. Honestly. Do you now accept that trying to force your religion (religion, not "religious values" which is a rather vague and innocent term) on your children is wrong? If yes, we agree. If not, wonder what the difference between the two cases is.
PS: For future reference, please try and post comments somehow relevant to the articles; also, don't generalise. There is an "about" section which should keep you from assuming everyone here's an atheist, or a humanist.
January 30th, 2012 at 5:29 am - Edit
First, the term "enlightened athiest" can pretty loosely be translated into "capable of rational thought". A cult member has come outside their box to ask for opinions. It may not be formatted correctly, but I'll do my best.
In my opinion, the concept of gender neutral raising sounds interesting, Allowing a developing human to make decisions based on true self-interest and not default society structure, seems like a valid decision. However, I feel these women are not allowing the individual true choice. They are clearly biased by instituting certain clothing and restricting others, just to start. Children can be taught to truly believe in anything! Adults funneling children toward choices is how we all become individuals. Morality is dependent upon where and when a person lives. (08: FFF- At one time, it was perfectly acceptable to use the virginity of virgin daughters to make a guest's stay more pleasant.) This idea is transmitted thru the ages, as parents seen fit. Who's responsibility is it to step in and tell a parent they are sending their kid in the wrong direction? Who makes the decision on what is good or bad? People that believe in a higher power, I theorize, are easily persuaded to expand governmental control to manipulate the way people bring up their kids.
Children need to have knowledge of how to interact with other humans. They are given a language and taught manners. This is to prepare them to become an adult. If a parent inhibits a child's ability to expand mentally, they are just screwing up the only person that may be left to help them during their final time. The knowledge children acquire make them who they are. To manipulate that is wrong whether it is physically altering what they do, or conquering their minds for your cult leader. Grown up kids blow themselves up everyday all around the world because of what they believe…
January 30th, 2012 at 7:21 am - Edit
@vampy_ra: I'm afraid that you have a much too distorted opinion regarding children raised in an environment with traditional spiritual values. Most people just have in mind examples of protestant Christianity, which I don't even recognize it as a spiritual path, since it is mere formal moralism and childish literalism. There is more to a traditional education than the degenerate religious forms of today. But that's not the point I was addressing, since I know I will never be able to change your opinion about this particular subject.
I was pointing out to a case where the relativism of the modern secular and atheistic west has reached such an aberrant extreme that it is beyond words.
The fact that I addressed the posters here with "atheists" and "humanists" is because of the content of this site. Every single article posted here is pro-atheist, with an underlying humanist perspective.
@whoisanantichrist:
First of all, that was an ironic remark, taken from this site's "embrace enlightenment" tab. I consider it ironic, because I see it as a fundamental contradiction, since an atheist has such a limited representation of the world around him.
Secondly, I do not take part in any cult and I do not live in any box, but thanks for the labeling.
So, what's interesting about "gender neutral" ? Gender is one of the most objective, rock solid issues. There is no in-between here- either boy or girl. True self-interest ? There is nothing more in one's self-interest than to develop according to his own nature, and to cultivate those in-born abilities specific to him. I don't think that it is in the nature of a boy who one day will become a mature man, to be and act like some sort of hermaphrodite fairy. There is nothing "relative" here. It is crystal clear. However, modern society has truly lost even its most basic direction when it cannot even tell black from white.
Regarding what you said about governmental control and such, no one is better at imposing a totalitarian state than modern liberals with their religion of political correctness. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-489285/Fo…
January 30th, 2012 at 1:35 pm - Edit
No, I don't have only examples of protestant (?) christianity in mind, which is why I said I don't consider "traditional" upbringing generally wrong or abusive. I think parents shouldn't try to force their religious or political, moral, etc views on their children, but that's something most people do more or less. The main problem for me is with people trying to force their views on other people's children by attempting to make school teach their ideas or not teach others.
Any ideology will have its extremes. It's a question of quantity and effect on others.
Every article (or most anyway) here is anti-religious, not pro-atheist. Taking a look at the authors list I see at least one heathen (and nationalist), and a LaVeyan satanist. Anyway, to be fair, most of the recent posts are only by a handful of people, so I accept that.
How does an atheist have a limited representation of the world around him? I'm not sure I want to hear the answer..
About that link. One child was removed from them for whatever reason, perhaps unfairly. Gay couples in most places don't have the right to adopt one in the first place; this same couple would probably like to prevent homosexuals from having a child. This self-victimisation of christians who try to come off as being discriminated against simply because not everything is shaped according to their morals anymore is truly frustrating.
As for modern society being unable to tell black from white, it's a good first step in realising the world is not black and white. It's mostly grey.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:41 pm - Edit
I'm sure Lea will have a lot more to say here than I do, but I'd like to address your gender point:
"So, what's interesting about "gender neutral" ? Gender is one of the most objective, rock solid issues. There is no in-between here- either boy or girl. True self-interest ? There is nothing more in one's self-interest than to develop according to his own nature, and to cultivate those in-born abilities specific to him. I don't think that it is in the nature of a boy who one day will become a mature man, to be and act like some sort of hermaphrodite fairy. There is nothing "relative" here. It is crystal clear. However, modern society has truly lost even its most basic direction when it cannot even tell black from white."
What you're missing is that gender and sex are different and neither is totally black and white.
Sex: which chromosomes you receive from your parents, either XX or XY, but with room for grey area as some people are XXX and XXY. There are natural hermaphrodites. Sex: which genitals you possess, either penis/testes or vagina/ovaries; but there is still room for error as there are numerous instances of males with uterus/ovaries and ambiguous genitalia where the parents typically decide shortly after birth which gender they'd "like" and this is typically supplemented at puberty with hormones. These instances can be due to developmental or transcription issues and may occur in XX/XY but are also defining of XXX/XXY/etc.
Gender: typically refers to "gender identity" which is defined as your inner sense of male-ness and female-ness. While this is typically most important when discussing transgender cases, it does come into play with non-transgender people. There are lots of people in the world that do not feel comfortable with the gender identity thrust on them by society; boys that don't like trucks and girls that don't like princesses. Rather than make these otherwise "normal" people feel more alienated by demanding they follow societal standards (which are relative by nature) or follow their "nature" (as perceived by YOU, not the person), doesn't it make more sense to open up the definition of what is acceptable within the genders?
January 30th, 2012 at 9:28 pm - Edit
yes, in this particular case of course they were apparently hiding the child's sex and alternating between male-female stereotypes; they could probably use a lesson on what gender-neutral means as well.
[[no one is better at imposing a totalitarian state than modern liberals with their religion of political correctness.]]
While political correctness is something I detest, "Kim Jong-il".
January 30th, 2012 at 9:43 pm - Edit
I agree the people in the article are a bit confused as to gender-neutral. No combat pants? really? Those sort of clothing requirements really pissed me off growing up, and there's no reason for these people to set clothing requirements especially if they want to be "neutral"…
January 31st, 2012 at 7:22 am - Edit
@Anath: In your first response you make a distinction between "sex" and "gender". The first you define it merely in a sort of 'atomistic' manner, where it is only some physical phenomena that defines whether male or female. The second, you define as a mere social construct, where, as all modern philosophies go, "everything is relative".
This shows how everything today is reduced to its most outward form. Like mental phenomena are considered no more then the result of chemical interactions within the body, so is "sex" considered to be nothing more than mere physical appearance. Male-ness and female-ness are much more than then simple chemical reactions and certainly much more than social stereotypes. What I am talking about here are two polarized principles, which in every society prior to ours were intuited. Those "man like trucks" and "Women like fairies" are holywood stereotypes at best or stuff found in crap like "man are from mars, women from venus". I am not going to expand this further, since it is beyond the scope of why I posted in the first place.
Which brings me to your second comment. You say those people there are "a bit confused". Plus, everyone so far seems to thing that this "gender neutral" crap is a fundamentally good idea, but some people tend to be a little off-track when they apply it. Well, I think this has answered my initial question and proved my suspicion. So, religious people, or someone following a spiritual path are seriously deluded individuals, or money hungry, or just want to "control others"- like many articles here suggest- while these kind of cases are in no way deluded or outright insane, they are just a bit confused as to the application of a basically good idea.
@vampy_ra: "As for modern society being unable to tell black from white, it's a good first step in realising the world is not black and white. It's mostly grey. "
Substitute black and white with up and down. I refrained from using "up" and "down" because than it would have been possible of being accused of promoting some kind of gender supremacy or superiority. Basically what I am saying is that modern civilization is so confused and chaotic that it doesn't understand anything about anything. "grey" is a good word here- for that's what modern civilization is- an undifferentiated, leveled, amorphous mass of grey mediocrity.
"While political correctness is something I detest, "Kim Jong-il". "
Yes, that's a more brutal and clear case of totalitarism. Here in the west things are more subtle. Here people believe they are free, they believe in progress and think that their civilization is the best that history has ever seen.
Marxism and liberalism have always been two sides of the same coin – two products of the french revolution.
Well, that concludes my stay here. Have fun spreading enlightenment.
January 31st, 2012 at 9:20 am - Edit
[[as all modern philosophies go, "everything is relative". ]]
You need to read more modern philosophy.
Also, stop accusing the "modern" anything for all you disagree with. Relativism was introduced by Protagoras and other sophists 2500 years ago.
[[everyone so far seems to thing that this "gender neutral" crap is a fundamentally good idea]]
You're still thinking of gender-neutral as what this couple in the article did; in a fundamental form of "boys don't need to play with toy cars if they don't want to, nor girls with dolls" do you find it so bad? I don't think it's a great idea: trying to apply 'neutrality' and not enforcing stereotypes aren't quite the same, but it's no disaster either.
In a nutshell, you asked us our opinion on this case; no one praised it, but it was pointed out you shouldn't judge the entire idea of gender-neutral upbringing based on this case. You found that to be an appaling answer. In a completely unrelated case, you implored us not to judge "traditional" upbringing based on a few instances of what you called "protestant" examples.
Connect the dots.
[[I think this has answered my initial question and proved my suspicion]]
oooof course.
[[someone following a spiritual path are seriously deluded individuals, blah blah]]
No. Some are, most are not. Organised religion is the problem, not individual believers. Hate the sin, not the sinner?
[[Basically what I am saying is that modern civilization is so confused and chaotic that it doesn't understand anything about anything]]
Ah, at least this returns to the OP: simple minded people, living simple lives, that follow a simple order, and allow them to remain simple.
If you don't understand something, do not assume other people don't either; all you need to do is try harder.
January 31st, 2012 at 7:32 pm - Edit
"I consider it ironic, because I see it as a fundamental contradiction, since an atheist has such a limited representation of the world around him."
I'm not the one believing in flying people, talking snakes, and some god that created and knows everything that has ever happened or will ever happen, yet somehow keeps getting itself bent out of shape. Once rational thought kicks in, you will understand you have been duped. I'm gonna step out on a limb and say the only evidence you have from your particular cult is a bible?! In that case, the first page destroys rational thought, common sense, and physical science. There is no actual evidence for a god anywhere. I've been searching my whole life. However there is evidence regarding how civilizations work and create the systems they live in. This is actual evidence of why/how people have formulated all theses different kinds of religions thru out time.Once you have the facts and a rational outlook, everything gets clearer. When a person is locked inside a belief, THEY in turn receive the limited representation of the world around them. Or is that only true for every single other cult man has ever created to control other men, except yours? God is not real boss, You are brainwashed. This site is here to help you…
FYI- The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is offering a one million dollar reward to anyone in the world that can prove Jesus is not actually the FSM's son…
February 1st, 2012 at 2:59 am - Edit
"The second, you define as a mere social construct"
Actually I did not define it as a social construct. I defined it as "an inner sense of male-ness and female-ness." This is as much determined by body chemistry as it is by environment. You can find this true especially in transgender people, but others as well, where despite a childhood of reinforced stereotypes, they "felt" otherwise. Sex/Gender is also fundamentally tied up in body chemistry aside from external appearance. I don't really know what you think these things could be besides a combination of body chemistry and social constructs, and I find it highly suspect to claim that other societies completely accepted and enforced sex/gender as polar opposites until our own.
"everyone so far seems to thing that this "gender neutral" crap is a fundamentally good idea"
As a victim of constant gender stereotyping, I do think it is a good idea. However, the parents here did not actually do much that was "gender neutral", they seemed too insistent on girl-stereotyped things rather than true freedom of choice. I also do not think there is a good way to apply gender neutral in reality. Its a theory that works better on paper.
"they are just a bit confused as to the application of a basically good idea."
I sort of kind of maybe agreed, but then I thought a bit more and realized that I do not think that religious ideas tend to be good. I've read the Bible, and to follow it literally or even as guidelines without ignoring the vast majority of it is a really bad idea. However, I agree with Vampy above that usually the problem does not lie with the individuals, and I do believe that they believe they are doing good things and supporting good causes, and therein lies the confusion.