Should we declare gods public enemy # 1.? Do you understand

Post Reply New Topic

Should we declare gods public enemy # 1.? Do you understand why we call immoral gods, “Gods”?

Not all gods are immoral but our mainstream ones are definitely that.

God’s law, should he/she/it ever show up, --- is supposed to become earth’s law, imposed by force, --- as need be, --- and the religious way, --- instead of sound moral arguments.

God is demonstrably not moral.

One of the more important commandments to us is that of not killing humans. God kills humans.

I assume that that law would be high on our commandment list; commands to a slave from a master. Yet God exempts himself from that good law and does this evil will and kills humans.

That commandment is a subjective position and as I can think of a few instances where killing a human would be the moral thing to do. That commandment is thus immoral.

I do not think it’s a good idea to give an obviously and demonstrably immoral Gods respect but many theists do.

The power to make human laws should never be given to our immoral gods. Especially Yahweh and Allah, who I think are the bottom of the barrel on morals.

Human law seeks to be moral and humane and should never be putrefied by the immoral Gods that mankind has create in our image.

To do so would be insane.

So tell me please, --- fellow religionist and believers, --- something I do not understand.

Why you and I call our gods, “God”, --- when he is such an immoral character, --- fictional or not?

Are we such immoral entities ourselves? I am immoral. Are you?

Regards
DL

P.S. When you reply, I might have to do this to those who will not answer from the heart and try to use their holy book of myths and turn to preaching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O1_3zBUKM8
Remember also my fellow religionists and believers, all clergy of all faiths are liars. God himself told me this when he told me to think more demographically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjRy29R4gP8

If you plan on storming Olympus, Valhalla, or whatever the best thing to keep in mind is WWTD - what would Tiamat do.

there's a deathcult set in stone


the blue lotus boys

move your body, go out in the world and check for yourself
do not forget to great the cows

wallz and brainz and the beastz

open mind or closed mind, or mastery of the vessel

Make sure to read Jove, and Jehovah, their Miranda Rights when your posse finally catches those desperados.

This is one of the most senseless threads I have ever read on this board.

I do not plan that.

Did you have an opinion on the moral position of the O.P.?

Regards
DL

I guess some have no life and cannot formulate sentences.

Regards
DL

So many are afraid to make moral judgements.

Regards
DL

Then you have no moral sense and do not care of the harm that religions do.

Regards
DL

well if you believe in "gods", what do you imagine them to be?

they are obviously intangible in the real world.

how can you declare them to be an enemy when you have no mechanism to affect them in any way?

you seem to be a pantheist, and i am a monotheist.

if there is a plethora of "gods", then they would be subsets of the one true god.

if god created the universe (no one knows how the big bang happened), then all you rally against is your own existence.

you may be talking about tough luck, wherein millions of people are suffering, but all suffering comes to an end, and after the end, it does not matter that it happened at all.

suffering is only suffering when one is suffering. not when they stop suffering.

I think it's way more likely that your thread is just stupid and makes no sense whatsoever.

This is another topic. No comment.

Regards
DL

I'd have to give it four levels of analysis.

Ground level - people believing BS. Best to make well-articulated points about parts of their books that are anti-human, how they don't serve the best interest of society today, and most importantly how badly those books contradict themselves - to the point where the deity is just to inconsistent to even be real. No matter what the story is above, humanism is our best attempt at harmony and it's best to steer these people at some form of it whether secular or mystical.

Next level up - egregores. You can try reasoning with people, however if you attack a group sharply enough to arouse attention you'll get the egregore, trying to survive, twisting the subconscious of people in that group to come after you and sometimes as well there'd be plenty of priests, clerics, or whatever declaring you one of their key enemies. Your odds of tangling with such a thing and winning on your own are quite low. Even lower are your odds of actually tripping such a response by yourself. Rather than taking the thing by violence its better to, as in the case of the above, just reason with the believers until they either drop it or the whole thing goes Episcopalian in flavor.

Third level up - actual gods/goddesses. Most people don't know them directly. Most people who they're working with or who their agency is being worked through don't know that its them unless they run into some type of emergency in life (small dream interactions or odd moments in life start to make sense). There isn't a way in at them. If you do declare them enemies and that they must be destroyed they know you have no way in at them, that they have thousands of ways in at you (which they're unlikely to use anything more than the minimum to adjust your attitude), and if you annoy them enough for them to decide to troll you that's a rough spot in that life will likely get very strange and you'll realize just how powerless you are in the face of them.

Top level - what you might call the blazing star, the central I AM, who I think most people wave their fists at when they think they're waving them at Allah, Yahweh, etc. and which is much closer in content and composure to Plotinus's 'The Good' but which, TBH, is the composer of all things. No way in at it, it may well be all of conscious being so you'd be attempting to unravel that, and it simply won't fight you. It might hug-bomb you when you're dead and find yourself before it, that's about it.


I know from past interactions on these topics that you seem to buy into materialism/physicalism, or at least you blur the lines between 'these things are evil' and 'these things can't exist' and using Gnosticism as a metaphor the way a LaVeyan would use Satan as an atheist, it's a point you might want to research more and at least consider some possibility of agnosticism on. The body of evidence that we live in a conscious universe or at least much more conscious in its composition that we've believed under physicalism seems to be growing, not retracting, and by this point - after 20 or 30 years of NDE's and the like and now for the past 10 magicians having big channels on Youtube about their work with grimoires, the shem ha mephorash, etc. sunlight should have absolutely killed all of this if it was silly superstition or - at a minimum - killed funding for groups like the doctors at the University of Virginia who have authors running around talking to people with NDE's, interviewing children with past life memories, and rather than 2008's Irreducible Mind being a flop they've just written a follow-up. Add to that a lot of mainstream scientists and philosophers embracing some variant of panpsychism - it's because eliminative materialism tells us we're not having this conversation (we just think we are) and strong emergence tells us that neurons, and only neurons, are magick. We're moving toward a new paradigm, we may move several before we get it right, but it's looking increasingly more obvious those paradigms will sequentially move away from reductive materialism as an ontology and just leave it to be what it's best at - a way of analyzing strictly physical aspects of phenomena.


Point being - we know human human ignorance, we have ideas on how to deal with human ignorance that don't cause them to double-down in the wrong direction (polite persuasion being the key on not having the later happen), when ignorance meets stupidity it gets more complicated because they're also vibrantly sure of themselves or simply can't hand their minds over to someone else to mold unless the environment so radically changes that it's the only safe way to go. For the actual 'divine' we have no clue. Plenty of reason to believe that at least something approximating what we'd call angels, gods, goddesses, etc. exist although we've never had a clue what they were and our definitions tend to be very vague, theological, etc. and we won't be able to say much on them until we consider them natural phenomena. As for the All - I try not to think about it most days anymore. It was morally easier to be an atheist and believe that this all evolved by chance (physical and otherwise), if it wasn't - or worse, was knowingly built by a theistic deity - I'd say there are just too many knives to dig at my soul and too few answers. My hope is that it evolved with us and allows this because it had no power over it (being a product of it rather than its creator) but that could be wishful thinking.

I did not catch your moral position. Where did you land?

"Point being - we know human ignorance, we have ideas on how to deal with human ignorance that don't cause them to double-down in the wrong direction (polite persuasion being the key on not having the later happen),

We have ideas, sure, but I have seen them fail more than win out.

People are belligerent and stand by their 2 + 2 = 5 regardless of how persuasive the argument that 2 + 2 = 4 is.

Sheeple are sheeple regardless of the religion. Their bubbles are impregnable to logic and reason as their morals have been corrupted by their religious beliefs.

That is why, in Christianity's case, they can justify in their own twisted thinking the adoration of a genocidal son murdering prick of a god.

I have seen too many soft spoken good hearted people get s**t on by brainwashed sheeple, but if you have an example somewhere where you have seen a successful communication as you suggest is possible, I would be pleased to see your method at work. I am always eager to see a good intelligent dialog.

Regards
DL

P.S.
I have had a good number of lurkers tell me that their thinking changed after reading an exchange between myself and an interlocutor, but I have only a few examples where the interlocutor came to my side. I have not seen any other posters fare any better.

Hi GnosticBishop, have you read any Krishnamurti? He had a dim view of organised religion.

That question doesn't make sense to me.

Something's either true or it's not true.

Past that there's the problem of cultural grandfathering of untruths, ie. most people either don't have the intellectual strength or the interest to sort things out for themselves and so they say 'If authority tells me x then its okay and safer for me to go with'. You have that with mainstream religion, you have that with mainstream media, you have it anywhere with anything that still acts as the vanguards of yesterday's knowledge or yesterdays way of seeing the world and it's a problem when that way of seeing the world is dangerously inadequate in that it's either too low resolution (great example - utopianism, where it all boils down to one thing like power, money, etc.) or based too much on taboos, stigmas, etc. rather than fact.

Things like that don't collapse in five or ten years. When you deal with people in them they've either abdicated thinking or can't make the connections other people have. If you scold them they double down and get worse.

There's a saying in the science world, Max Planck was credited with it but I think someone else reformulated it to make it snappier - ie. that sciences progresses one funeral at a time (ie. as the old guard dies). It's the same thing with culture, we've got a great example of a 1980's Reefer Madness drug war dinosaur for attorney general who doesn't care what the science says - good people don't smoke marijuana. It's the same thing with widely spread cultural beliefs as well. You can wish in one hand, sh-- in the other, and see which hand fills up faster.