6 votes

What If God Is A Brutal Authoritarian?

If you don't pay your taxes you'll go to jail.

If you don't believe in God you'll go to hell.

But of course, each is "voluntary" and you have the "free will" to object?

HMMMM...

If force against peaceful individuals is wrong, then why would God do it to those who peacefully reject him? Just something I've been increasingly thinking about.

The reason we object to the income tax is because it's backed up by force, therefore there's no "free will" or freedom to choose otherwise without the potential for serious repercussions. Thus it's not a choice and is a tyrannical act of force against peaceful individuals and WRONG. We see the reality of the income tax - it's the act of a brute or tyrant, not the act of a peaceful or benevolent person.

Well, when it comes to this belief in a hell - I see the same glaring contradiction, only this one is much bigger.

You have free will to choose to believe in God, but if you don't then you'll be burnt in perpetual agony in a place with no doors and no time. If God cannot even grant his own creation liberty, what makes us think it comes "from God"? And if it does, then why hold the threat of hell over our heads when doing so is basically a shakedown by an intellectually weak or dishonest authoritarian?

This question is posed for those who actually believe there is a physical hell and that God will send us there should we CHOOSE not to believe in him, and that it's a perpetual punishment/pain. If there are any on here... lol



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

True.

yet dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
grant

Yes crumbs that have fallen.

Yes crumbs that have fallen. Not thrown.

Matt 13
47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

that was some good groveling.

that was some good groveling. Ill one-up you! dogs ALSO lick their master's boot and whine to be petted now and then!

PS

Do not tempt the Lord God

donvino

SteveO24's picture

I don't agree...

(The Doctrine of Original Sin) declares that (man) ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being/ He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which (the preachers) damn him are reason, morality, creativeness joy - all the cardinal values of his existence.

The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind.

Ayn Rand.

Love that woman.

Love that woman.

Rand was sometimes full of shi*

Isaac Newton was a profoundly religious man.

So, he must have been deluded when he wrote Pricipia Matematica according to Rand - which of course is ridiculous. Of course he was not deluded nor did he "take a shortcut to knowledge".

Such blanket statements like the one Rand made are collectivist in nature, do you not see that? In other words, she allows NO EXCEPTION for a truly exceptional INDIVIDUAL like Newton.

Which of course makes Rand's statement illogical.

You really need to look up

You really need to look up collectivism in a dictionary FBI. Thats the second time you've misused it.

The sad part of this is, all of you chrisitans hating on Rand.. if it wasn't for the big roadblock called religeon in your brains, you'd agree with nearly every word she says. She's the ultimate libertarian, she simply doesn't believe in your fairytales. She rejects the idea that you can be handed easy answers without the need of your reason.

She's right. You're wrong.

Thanks, but I know what it means.

When you make a COLLECTIVE statement about a group of people, it is a LOGICAL FALLACY by definition, as extrapolation of a group attribute to every individual is not provable. A logically fallible statement is a FALSE one.

So, no, thank you. I know exactly what it means and it is you who needs to do some deep introspection to find an eliminate the collectivism you have been applying through your thoughts and your replies throughout this thread.

I saw what you wrote about your "beliefs" in what you think is libertarianism and yet, you cannot disassociate yourself from collectivist thought. That means you have a serious flaw in your beliefs.

What?

So you're saying if I go into a room where 7 out of 20 people are wearing red shirts, and I declair: "I think 7 out of these 20 people are wearing red shirts, boy I sure wish they were wearing green." that this is a "LOGICAL FALLACY by definition, as extrapolation of a group attribute to every individual is not provable.?"

I mean, I appreciate that you used some good words there, but... seriously? Of COURSE you can lump people into groups by common traits. Infact humans couldn't exist if we didn't have the capacity to catagorise our environments by commonalities. It doesn't mean we are always accurate about who belongs in said category, but to say its a logical falicy is simply incorrect.

But back to collectivism:

I have a stamp collection. Does that make me collectivist?

I aknowledge that many people have orange hair. Does that make me collectivist?

I believe that everyone who thinks that Obama deserves the nobel peace prize is mistaken about that. Does that make me a collectivist?

I believe that everyone who thinks its okay for a god to torture people who don't worship him are buying into an immoral and sadistic viewpoint. Does that make me collectivist?

If your answer to any of these is yes... you need a dictionary. Collectivism has exactly 0 to do with aknowelding that groups which contain simliar traits exist. It also has 0 to do with forming opinions based on opinions/ideas/objective realities which exist in said groups.

Ive already defined collectivism for you once, and its just not seeming to get through. How is it exactly you are not understanding the differance between recognising that groups with common traits exist, and a philosphy of social organization based on group rights and laws which are enforced via coersion? Im not trying to be rude or tricky, im just genuinly concerned that you aren't making this connection. How can we have any sort of debait when one party is unable to accept the definition of a word that plays a fundamental part in the discourse?

Just curious about the downvotes I received.

Does it mean the downvoters agreed with Rand that Isaac Newton was deluded when he wrote Principia Matematica?

Do the downvoters believe that Newton was an atheist?

What was it that the downvoters downvoted on?

Do the downvoters agree with Rand that there should be no exceptions to Rand's statement for exceptional individuals like Newton?

I find the reactions of those atheists who call themselves "libertarians" on this Op to be quite revealing and hypocritical.

Just because your faithful,

Just because your faithful, does not mean you can't be brilliant. Most of you here, in my opinion, and dispite my harsh critisism of your religeon are probably brilliant for finding the wisdom to throw off (earthly) collectivism.

What Rand is saying, and I concur, is that religeon is a handycap. In order to believe it, you must suspend part of your rational mind. This limits you profoundly.

Was Isaac Newton brilliant? Of course. He would have been even more so if he did not have to pass his reason through the filter of religeon where it was neccessarily deminished.

That's not what Rand said.

Nice attempt at a strawman though. Again, you cannot get a way from the fact that extrapolation from a GROUP down to each individual of the group is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

As such it is false. Oh and by the way it is a hallmark of collectivist thought.

whew... please read above

whew... please read above concerning that nosense about extrapolation.

You didn't even get the strawman right. A strawman argument is where you characterize your opponents viewpoint with an exageration or misrepresentation of their view point and then refute it.

For example. A leftest using a "strawman" argument might say something like this:

"Crazy Libertarians think that there shouldn't be any laws so that mega-corporations can just rule everyone and the poor can go @#$% themselves. Thats why we need to elect democrates who will put a stop to these lunitics." (real life strawman that I have personally been hit with before)

Its a strawman, because thats not what libertarians actually believe. Not even close. Therfore basing the need to elect DemocRats in order to combat a view point that does not even exist is a false dychotomy formed through the use of a strawman argument. Get it? If A+B=C... then we must do D. Well the trouble is, B doesn't exist in this case... so that means C & D are bullshit.

When I say what I believe Ayn Rand was trying to say, and that I concur, im not making a strawman. Im stating my opinion of what she was trying to say, and agreeing with it if its true. Nowhere does Ayn Rand say that religeous people are incapable of being intelligent. She says that their reason is supressed by mystisim (Not exact words, but damn close)... I concur.

Well, one thing is for sure, you're no Aristotle.

Sorry, but your demonstration of logic failed. It's called a faulty generalization, something both you and Ayn Rand in the above provided quote are guilty of.

It's ILLOGICAL which means it FAILS the reason test, as do most (if not all) of your replies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Sorry, but you, magwan, cannot "reason" around the hard and evidenced illogic you have been posting.

Twisted concepts.

The lesson of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge has nothing to do with man becoming a rational being. They were already rational. They were told not to eat the fruit, but instead of following God words, they chose to believe the words of a beast and follow a beast. Having the knowledge of good and evil and following a beast leads to death. Had they not eaten the fruit and instead followed God's direction they would have been given the fruit to eat without punishment. Having the knowledge of good and evil and following God leads to life.

Doctrines of men lead to death.

grant

SteveO24's picture

No they were not

more like mindless robots.

Fine

I don't agree Rand was some kind of spiritual expert on faith or God. I would even wager she did not even read the Holy Bible.

I have some of writings and think she was spot on regarding many issues but she was obviously spiritually negatively tainted due to the Russian experiences.

donvino

SteveO24's picture

Not true

She read the bible... the reply sent is from the bible.

Actually.. she simply used

Actually.. she simply used her brain and realized the entire book was a crock of @#$% peddled to enslave sheep.

This Adam and Eve myth... what a joke.

God knows everything. He created Adam and Eve, and understands their strengths and weaknesses. He sees all things, past, present and future, but decides to put a temptation in place which he KNOWS KNOWS KNOWS 100% they will sucumb too.

They sucumb.

He punishes the entire race of humanity for the mistake he KNEW two individuals were going to make a billion years before they made it. Sick @#$%.

Now he forces all of us to take his test where failure to worship him means eternal torture. Only the weak minded who never question authority or dogma are permitted into his servitude, everyone else goes to the blood bath. Yet he already knew, a trillion years ago who would pass, and who would fail. He made YOU to fail, and will torture you forever for doing what you were predestined to do. Wait! Did I say "you" silly me. Every christian knows that everyone else but themselves and their loved ones are going to hell, so relax. Its only a few trillion humans currently on fire and screaming in agony for your loving god. You'll be perfectly fine since you submitted like a good little spinless serf.

How do any of you believe this crap? Moreover, how can you possibly label it as good!? downvote away fanatics.

or else!Spoooky language.

or else!

No thank you. God can ask nicley and in person to be worshiped, and provide me a good reasons for doing so. If he's not willing to, then I won't be worshiping him. If he wants me to check into hell for eternal torture, he's going to have to use force to drag me there, because I am unwilling to go of my own free will.

Heaven is Private Property

If you don't belong to the condo association, you don't get a gate pass.

It's that simple. (wink)

If I own and live on an

If I own and live on an island, and have children, then tell them they are not worthy to live on my island because they won't call me master and follow my rules, I can kick them off, so long as there is someplace to go, and a means of getting there. If there isn't, and I force them to drown in the ocean rather than stay on my island, im not excersizing property rights, im committing murder. Your property rights do not take priority over someone else's right to life, and they would be justified to use deadly force against you before walking into the ocean. You cannot use your property rights to infringe on someone else's right to life, even if you gave birth to them.

God owns heaven, earth and hell. If he evicts us from earth via death, and then tells us we can't come into heaven because we don't worship him.. and forces us to go to hell where we'll be tortured and burned, he's not excersizing property rights... he's torturing and killing innocent people who haven't commited a crime against anyone.

while evil gods can do whatever they like, good gods cannot use their property rights to infringe on someone's right to life, even if they created them. Only sadistic criminals would do this.

try again.

Clue Phone Ringing

Heeeelllllloooooo. You don't have a right to life if you are dead. Get over it.

THANK YOU Kyletownsend.

THANK YOU Kyletownsend. Finally an honest christian. Finally one who doesn't pretend their twisted dictator god is a libertarian or individualist. Its been pretty interesting watching you clowns make excuses for how we send ourselves to his torture chamber and poor widdle gawd is innocent of it all... dispite building the place and filling it with his executioners.

Now, at last, we're getting somewhere.

I love the down votes. Some guy says that if you want to murder your child because you don't want him on your private property, thats cool. He gets upvoted by you fanatics. I make the case that according to natural law (that thing you people are all fighting for here on earth) that property rights don't supercede someone's right to life.. i.e. you can't punish tresspasing with death, and you wonderful humans downvote.

Can we please stop with the illusions? For crying out loud, just fess up to what you are and be proud of it. Stop lying to yourselves and everyone around you. Its so transparent.

If you are a Christian who believes in hell, then you are a collectivist who believes that so long as a leader is powerful enough, he has the right to torture and imprison anyone who does not worship or obey him. You want me to "get over" my right to life being invaded by some cosmic egomaniac? Go @#$% yourself. I don't "get over" my rights being violated by anyone, even cartoons invented by other collectivists for the purpose of controlling peasants.

If some greater god came to town, and kicked the crap out of your god, you'd all switch alliegance in a heartbeat. You'd sanction whatever evil he was peddling and call it "good."

Your dinasaur religeon is under attack because its a brutal collectivist mindset built on coersion and domination that does not belong in a world peopled by reasoning humans. Its a product of the dark ages of humanity and should have remained there.

Return call

What is death ?
For that matter what is life ?
What is conciseness and can it die? Didn't your god say I knew you before you were in the womb?
By his own word I existed in some form before I was in this form

Question with BOLDNESS

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

SteveO24's picture

good for you

its just so funny.

Simple

It has nothing to do with force, it has to do with consequences. Those who reject God and his system of peace accept the opposite, Chaos and disorder.

Which leads to corruption and suffering for billions. Thus those who caused such corruption and suffering on the earth will pay the ultimate price. Or do you think that they should benefit like those who did good in this world?

Simple

It has nothing to do with force, it has to do with consequences. Those who reject paying their taxes and our system of peaceful central banking accept the opposite, choas and disorder.

Which leads to corruption and suffering for billions. Thus those who caused such corruption and suffering in America will do the maximum time in prison. Or do you think that they should benifit like those who were good serfs and paid their taxes for America?

I must admit, this post in particular points out how sick you people are. If you aren't a Christian, you are the cause of all evil in the world and deserve to be tortured forever. Gee, why is the world messed up mommy? Xenophobia, hate, division, sadism. All the fine qualities of the hell-based christian religeon.

You want "consequence?" Our world is a mess because of diseased ways of thinking like this. Institutionalized, hate filled ologarchal collectivism at our very roots thanks to this.

Fallacy of equivocation.

Facts are, chaos and disorder does not come from not from paying your taxes and and not accepting the central banking system. In fact, those policies in themselves fall under the category of evil, specifically, stealing.