CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Psychocouch on Religion

Psychocouch on Religion

Started by urbantrucker5 · · 👁 5 views · 22 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants urbantrucker5Roger Martin3analogstag29dustyranger64Daniel Ward87Brenda Cook4dustyfalcon3Jason Clark7Susan Price30Nicholas KingFrank Williams7lonebadger6Anthony Perez9
urbantrucker5 urbantrucker5 NewcomerOP
5 messages
joined Oct 2012
#1 ·
I don't really read the True Crime section. I barely even followed that Paranoia case, mostly because I just don't want to know about stuff like that, nor do I want to spend any time thinking about it. I always skip those pages when I'm going through the paper. I guess I just have no interest in reading about the confessions of some young, eager psychopaths—even if that’s exactly the kind of thing that fills up the columns and keeps the circulation high for your average newspaper.

That’s probably why. I hardly ever check the Psychocouch subforum. I just don't really want to know what goes on inside some people's heads.

It actually means a lot to me when I stumble upon topics from Psychocouch over on Religion.

I was scrolling through the religion subforum yesterday and stumbled upon a thread that really belonged over in Psychocouch, mostly because it was diving deep into the mindset of a psychopath. And look, I’m not afraid to say this, nor am I worried about getting banned—especially since the rules for this specific thread allow people to call the author a "monster," "sick," or a "psychopath" without getting flagged. It seems totally fair to me. Some people were being pretty blunt, telling her straight up, "you're a monster," while others were taking a slightly softer approach by claiming her thought process is pathological. Which, honestly, it is.

This is about the following topic:

The author basically argues that everyone is a sadist. I don't know, I think that’s wrong from the jump. Sadism is actually classified by professionals as a psychological disorder—it's pretty much considered unnatural behavior.

I guess you could technically file this thread under Sociology or Philosophy if you framed it around one question: "Are formal social norms and religion really the only things stopping people from just killing their own kind for no reason at all?" Even then, I think that’s a pretty debatable point.

No, it’s written this way, making these specific claims:

Isolation urbantrucker5 said:If I were an Atheist, I guess nothing would stop me from playing around with him a little bit.
Punch, punch...
Just getting things moving... 😁
It really depends on who you're talking about and what exactly is going on, I guess. But if there aren't any rules on that island—and you're absolutely certain that nothing you do will ever result in any kind of punishment—then most people should probably admit that... They wouldn't be able to resist..

Isolation said:Why did I bring up that island scenario? Well, it’s because a few years back, I had this dream that followed that exact same pattern. I really shouldn't get into the specifics of what actually happened in the dream, though... But there was blood, though.. 😁

Isolation said:If that guy isn't helping me out on this island—basically, if there's no benefit to keeping him around—then I'd probably kill him.
.


I feel like this thread really belongs over in Psychocouch.

When someone describes and admits they’d hurt or kill another person without any real motive, that’s just being a sadist. You don't need to be a psychiatrist to know that kind of sadism is a pathological disorder that needs clinical help.

I guess I have to wonder why a topic like this is even allowed on Religion????

Personally, I can't shake the feeling that this thread is being kept alive just so people can attack believers. It's used to push the idea that, you know, "look how religious people think," painting them all as lunatics or sociopaths who are only kept from killing others by a fear of God. There have been claims like that floating around here in one form or another. I'll set aside how those making such claims aren't exactly using common sense, because a rational, intelligent person wouldn't take a single pathological case like this and generalize it to an entire group of people.

But honestly, I can't help but think this stays on Religion specifically for that reason: to leave room for portraying believers as "pathological and sociopathic." And I felt even more convinced of that after reading a comment from a supermoderator on this thread:

Ego said:In any case, when someone asks me why I think religion is inherently harmful to the human mind, I could either write a twenty-page essay or just point to posts like these, where believers seem genuinely surprised that nothing stops a person from killing besides the threat of divine punishment...

That kind of thing implies this way of thinking is typical for believers. Look, there are pathologists and sadists among both believers and non-believers. But I assume you realize that too, Ego.😉
Anyway, moving on.

Can someone explain to me why this thread is under Religion? Is there some scientific study proving that believers are just sadists by default? Because if not, why are we discussing someone's "bloodthirsty dreams" and their urge to just "kill, kill" in a religious context?

If there isn't, then I really think it's time to close this thread or move it to the right subforum. Otherwise, it's hard not to feel like it's being left open just to target faith and frame believers as sociopaths and sadists, which is exactly what some people here seem happy to do.

And if there is such a study, then please, just open a "Psychocouch" subforum under Religion where you can deal with cases of "crazy believers." That way, the people here who actually care about Religion can avoid these sociopathic threads, since they aren't looking for that stuff in the main forum.

Thanks for understanding.
👋
Roger Martin3 Roger Martin3 Member
24 messages
joined May 2012
#2 ·
To thread left me feeling, to put it mildly, completely shaken when I first laid eyes on it. My takeaway was actually quite the opposite—I walked away thinking that Atheists are essentially sadists who will dissect anyone they please simply because they have the opportunity (largiving them a total lack of any moral restraints due to their atheism).

Now that you’ve opened this discussion, I realize the way the original topic was framed could have been interpreted in a different light altogether.
I still maintain, however, that my interpretation—and I suspect others share it—is the more accurate one; the author's intent seemed to be a direct provocation aimed at Atheists rather than believers (the OP is a person of faith, after all).

The topic itself is poorly constructed and, in my view, quite offensive and downright rude.

What should have happened instead is for the subject to be reframed into a broader, more philosophical question: what is it that truly prevents a person from harming another? Is it religious conviction, or perhaps some internal moral compass that exists independently of faith? In other words, the inquiry should have been expanded to include all groups—religious and non-religious alike. I believe if it had been posed that way, it would have possessed far more substance and potential without being insulting to anyone. 🤷
urbantrucker5 urbantrucker5 NewcomerOP
5 messages
joined Oct 2012
#3 ·
@Brenda Scott/">@@Brenda Scott, I think you're right—the author was being pretty rude, and it definitely felt like she was trying to take a jab at Atheists. But honestly, her whole argument is just plain absurd. She seems to be operating on this idea that everyone is a closet sadist and that religion is the only thing keeping believers from killing people.

That kind of logic is insulting to everyone, whether they're religious or Atheist, so I don't really get how this was even allowed 🤷

It’s just sick. Reading through it felt genuinely twisted. All that stuff about bloody dreams, fighting, and playing games with someone tied up on an island...

I can see why she started the thread, though. It feels like a deliberate insult to Atheists. But letting a topic like this stay up is an insult to believers, too. And really, it's an insult to any decent person who isn't a sadist—and I'm pretty sure most of us aren't. 😉
Roger Martin3 Roger Martin3 Member
24 messages
joined May 2012
#4 ·
urbantrucker5 said:Brenda Scott—I completely agree with you that the author's intent was downright rude—and frankly, her goal seemed to be nothing more than a direct insult to Atheists. But even beyond that, her central thesis is just an absolute absurdity. She operates under this ridiculous assumption that every single person is a born sadist, and that it is only through faith that believers are prevented from killing. It’s quite a leap, isn't it?

That kind of argument is frankly an insult to the entire human race—whether we are talking about people of faith or Atheists—and because of that, I honestly find it baffling how such a notion could even exist in our discourse. 🤷

It’s just sick—honestly, reading that was nothing short of depraved. The bloody nightmares, the constant kicking and punching... it’s just pure madness—playing games with someone bound up on a deserted island. Truly disturbing.

It seems perfectly clear to me why she started this thread—it feels like a direct provocation against atheists. However, keeping a topic like this alive is just as much an insult to believers. In fact, it’s an affront to anyone with a shred of decency—regardless of their faith—who isn't a total sadist; and honestly, I’d like to think most of us fall into that second category. 😉

I actually posted my response back when that thread first opened—but I haven't revisited it since, nor have I spent much time dwelling on it—mostly because it left me feeling quite unsettled (you saw exactly why, too). Now that you've written this, though, I can see how, at its core, the whole thing is just fundamentally insulting to everyone involved.

It is truly a shame—I really mean that—because if the topic had been framed differently, it could have served as a foundation for some genuinely healthy debate (as I mentioned earlier). If the moderation team regarding religion had simply adjusted the premise—shifting it from "what prevents atheists from..." to "what prevents anyone from..."—it would have opened the door for a much broader discussion encompassing faith, atheism, and everything in between.
It is such a shame—truly—that what could have been a genuinely compelling topic has been watered down into something so superficial.
urbantrucker5 urbantrucker5 NewcomerOP
5 messages
joined Oct 2012
#5 ·
Maybe philosophy or sociology? 🤷

Personally, I think using religious themes to fuel sadism is just wrong.

To be honest, though, I wouldn't want to read a sadist's inner thoughts even if they were in a digital file—that sounds more like something for Psychocouch. But if this kind of content is necessary, it definitely shouldn't be placed under religion, where it'll just stir up more tension between Atheists and believers based on the ramblings of a disturbed mind.

The topic didn't really make me angry, it just left me feeling pretty shocked. "Late Night Talks with a Sadist."😲

I'm almost waiting for a thread to pop up on Reddit saying, "Q&A with Paranoia."

"What motivated you to do something like that?"

"Did the smell of blood turn you on?"

"Did God tell you to do it?"
analogstag29 analogstag29 Member
26 messages
joined Mar 2011
#6 ·
Generally speaking, the moderators over at "religion" are pretty fair, and I honestly can’t find much to complain about regarding them since I don't have any real grievance to air; so, for the time being, my take is that they handle things quite honestly and without bias.

I actually ended up getting flagged myself for a comment I made on that thread, where I specifically responded to a post by calling one of the users stupid—and look, I’m perfectly fine with getting a warning for that, I truly am. Anyone who actually knows how I carry myself knows that isn't how I usually act, and it’s definitely not my style to go around throwing insults unless someone’s sheer lack of sense just pushes me over the edge, like it did in this instance. But even so, I found myself a bit surprised by the whole situation, specifically how openly people can discuss sadism in such a way, so I guess I'd have to agree with that sentiment that maybe we all need to stop and think about it for a second.

---------------------------------------

Isolation says:
So the question remains: what would actually stop you?

1.) Nobody is watching you.
2.) You won't get punished.

If I were an Atheist, nothing would stop me from "playing" around with him a little bit.

Punch punch...
Kick kick...

It depends on who and what the target is, obviously, but you really have to ask yourself: if there were absolutely no rules on this island, and you knew for a fact that no matter what you did there wouldn't be any consequences, most people would probably have to admit they wouldn't be able to resist.

At least I'm being honest.

analogstag29 says:

Actually, that says more about you and your complete lack of intelligence in every possible sense and your inability to grasp anything, because the only thing that crosses your mind is killing or maiming someone (you're "being honest," right...), even though you don't need a reason for it. For you, the explanation for why someone would eventually do something like that is simply that an atheist would do it just because they don't believe in God, so therefore, there's no reason. So, in your eyes, an atheist has no morality; they are amoral just by virtue of being an atheist. To you, morality only began when your religion likely started, and before that, there was no morality until your God existed.

Well, may my God protect me from your God, then.

Fine, give me the warning, but you really are just being dense.
dustyranger64 dustyranger64 Active Member
76 messages
joined Jan 2008
#7 ·
urbantrucker5 said:Basically, the author is arguing that everyone is a sadist—which is wrong from the jump because sadism is a psychological disorder classified by experts as unnatural behavior.

You could stretch this topic to fit under Sociology or Philosophy if you asked, "Are formal social norms and religion the only things stopping humans from killing their own kind for no reason?"—but even then, it’s highly debatable.

But written like this, making these specific claims:
this whole thread belongs straight to the Psychocouch.

Anyone describing how they’d torture and kill someone without any motive is a sadist. You don't need to be a psychiatrist to know that sadism in that form is a pathological disorder that needs clinical treatment.

Brenda Scott is right if you ask me. This is just a classic, nothing-out-of-the-box provocation from an Atheist. That tired old "moral arguments come from faith and religion" thing is one of the dumbest arguments ever, and honestly, it just makes the person using it look bad.

That aside,
psychiatrists aren't exactly quick to pull the trigger and label someone a psychopath or a sadist based on a sentence or two, especially when there's a utilitarian component in this hypothetical scenario (the island case).
But hey, it's nice that someone is so sure right off the bat that the topic belongs straight to the Psychocouch.

Controversial quotes?

First, "I couldn't resist if I were an Atheist" sounds like total atheist trolling to me.
The dream part? Please.
Third claim: she’d kill him if he was evil and useless for survival on the island? That's pure utilitarianism. No psychiatrist would put someone on meds or lock them up in an asylum for that.
If the "dilemma" had been framed differently—like, if he was evil, unhelpful on the island, and killing him (or ordering his death) saved two other lives—your brain would react exactly like a sadist's or a psychopath's. Basically, on a brain scan, your prefrontal cortex, posterior parietal cortex, cingulate cortex, and superior frontal sulcus would look almost identical to his. If you changed the variables, you might see differences in amygdala activation, but
just changing the way the dilemma is set up isn't nearly enough to justify sending someone to a padded cell, popping pills, or anything out of a psychopath's memoir.

Are there other comments here suggesting someone has psychopathology? Maybe.
But based on what's actually here, the thread might be trolling and provocation, definitely stupid generalizations, and probably questionable values,
but calling for the Psychocouch and straight labeling this as psychopathological behavior? No way.
urbantrucker5 urbantrucker5 NewcomerOP
5 messages
joined Oct 2012
#8 ·
dustyranger64 said:I think Brenda Scott is right here. This feels like a total, nothing-out-of-the-ordinary provocation from an Atheist. That whole "morality comes from faith" argument is pretty much one of the dumbest points ever made, and I guess it just makes whoever uses it look bad.

I'm not saying she didn't have a reason to start such a twisted thread. Honestly, I already admitted that I agree the topic was basically set up to bait Atheists. If you look at her past posts, she’s pretty much been on a crusade against Masons, Atheists, Vuk Jeremić, Silvio Berlusconi, and pretty much everyone else. 😁

What I actually disagree with is this:

Why did the moderators even allow a thread like this on the Religion board? Why let someone try to segregate people by faith while talking about sadism and the motivation to kill or torture random strangers?

My gut feeling—based on that supermod's comment above (who, honestly, is being just as tactless and embarrassing as the author herself)—is that the thread was left up on purpose. Maybe I'm wrong, and it was just a mistake by the admin team, or maybe it wasn't a mistake at all. But if it wasn't a mistake, then I guess someone needs to explain my question above to me. I'd love to understand how religion determines whether or not someone turns into a sadist.

A. is talking about identifying pathological behavior... 😬

Are there any other comments on this thread suggesting someone is psychopathic? Maybe.
But based on what's been said, this thread might just be trolling and provocation. It's definitely a stupid generalization and probably based on questionable values, but bringing up the Psychocouch
without any further proof and claiming someone shows psychopathic behavior based on what's been posted here? Not really.

If it's just trolling and provocation, then the thread should still be locked.

I did consider that she might just be a typical troll rather than some kind of monster. But if those are our only two options, then either the thread gets locked because it's trolling, or it gets moved to the appropriate sub-forum mentioned earlier.

Either way, I don't see why this belongs on the Religion board.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#9 ·
urbantrucker5 said:If there aren't any rules against it, then someone needs to explain that bolded question above so I can wrap my head around how religion actually impacts whether someone turns out to be a sadist or not.

Religion definitely shapes how people act, and sadism has its own behavioral patterns too. So, why shouldn't we dive into whether there’s a real connection there? Plenty of sadists were actually super religious—take Albert Fish, for instance. We don't know exactly how much religion drives sadistic behavior, but it's a fascinating topic to pick apart.

What's the issue with having this kind of debate on a forum built specifically for—you guessed it—discussion?
Roger Martin3 Roger Martin3 Member
24 messages
joined May 2012
#10 ·
urbantrucker5 said:Here is what I find myself disputing—and I do so quite earnestly:

Why on earth did the moderators allow a thread like this to exist within the Religion section? Honestly—I’m struggling to understand the logic here. Why would they permit an attempt at religious segregation, especially when it’s being framed through the lens of sadism and the motivation to murder or torture innocent people? It feels incredibly misplaced.

So, here is my take—based on that comment from the supermod above (who, by the way, is being quite tasteless and almost as embarrassing as her actual thesis)—that this topic was left up for a very good reason. Perhaps my intuition is off, and this was just some unintended oversight by the administration—though I highly doubt that—or perhaps there truly was no mistake at all. If there really wasn't an error, then I would simply ask someone to explain that bolded question above; I’d love to understand exactly how religion dictates whether or not a person turns out to be a sadist.

I am of the opinion—though I might be overthinking things here—that a topic like this really deserves to be examined through sociological, philosophical, and religious lenses. Because of that, I don't see anything wrong with the fact that it was opened in that particular forum.

The problem—and this is just my two cents—is that the argument is fundamentally flimsy. In my view, the author ended up sabotaging herself and all other believers (entirely unintentionally, mind you) by acting in such a way.
dustyranger64 said:The so-called moral argument—the idea that morality itself is derived solely from faith and religion—is quite frankly one of the most foolish arguments ever conceived—and it serves as nothing more than an embarrassment to anyone attempting to use it.

What else was she supposed to say—@ego—and really, what other options did the rest of them have besides giving that exact response? To be honest, an answer like that is pretty much intuitive—if not entirely expected.
And that is precisely why things have devolved into this petty, endless tug-of-war—this desperate scramble to see who can actually claim the title of being the biggest sadist among us. 🤷That is exactly why—after making just one single post over there—I decided I wasn't ever going back.

The subject matter regarding religion actually holds quite a bit of potential—it really does—it just needed to be framed a little more effectively. At least, that is how I see things from my perspective.
Brenda Cook4 Brenda Cook4 Regular
373 messages
joined Sep 2010
#11 ·
The topic itself is perfectly valid. It started out as a hypothetical scenario—maybe not the most polished choice of example, I'll admit—but the goal was to probe the foundations of an Atheist's morality. However, the user went a bit too far in some of her posts, crossing the line by violating our rules against "justifying criminal acts," which is why she was sanctioned.

One thing is certain: we shouldn't walk away from this thread thinking all believers would act just like the person who started it. She’s pretty much standing alone in her viewpoint here.
urbantrucker5 urbantrucker5 NewcomerOP
5 messages
joined Oct 2012
#12 ·
Daniel Ward87, thanks for getting back to me.

😁

Daniel Ward87 said:Religion definitely shapes how people act, and I think sadism has its own behavioral component too. So, I don't really see why we shouldn't talk about whether there's actually a connection there or not. It’s interesting to look at, especially since some notorious sadists were also deeply religious—take Albert Fish, for example. We don't exactly know the extent to which religion influences sadistic behavior, but it seems like a conversation worth having.

Yeah, you're just forgetting that sadism actually gets its name from the Marquis de Sade, who used his pornographic novels to advocate for atheism. 😁

So, I guess it turns out the most famous sadist was actually an Atheist.

Just imagine if someone actually started a thread claiming that being an atheist makes you a sadist, using the Marquis de Sade as their main proof just because he didn't believe in God. I guess people will try to link anything these days.

I mean, come on guys, let's just act like normal people.

I guess I don't quite get what's wrong with having this kind of discussion on a forum that’s actually meant for debating things. It seems like it's exactly what we're here for, right?

Alright, let's make the topic about how religion—whether that's atheism or any other belief system—affects sadistic behavior. But we need to moderate this properly. I don't want to see some super-moderator jumping in and making massive generalizations just because one female user, who everyone knows has pretty "out there" ideas, posted something. That's just not how it should work.I guess some religious people are genuinely baffled by why someone wouldn't just kill. It’s like they can’t wrap their heads around anything stopping a person from committing murder unless there's the threat of divine punishment waiting in the afterlife. Maybe they just don't get it.

One believer. That's just a lazy generalization.

So, what kind of moderation can we actually expect on this thread? In my opening post, I pointed out how certain arguments have already started slipping through—which, honestly, wasn't that surprising given how the whole thing was set up. The way the topic is framed just isn't right, and I don't think it's heading in the right direction either.

I guess you could look at this whole topic as being pretty offensive to everyone involved, in a way. On one hand, you've got religious people who feel like the author is basically sabotaging the conversation—her words are framed as if they represent the views of the entire faith, which then gets echoed in a lot of the replies. Then, on the other hand, there are the Atheists who get labeled here as people lacking any real moral compass without God. And honestly, I'm not sure if acting out of fear of punishment can even be called morality in the first place.
dustyfalcon3 dustyfalcon3 Member
12 messages
joined May 2009
#13 ·
urbantrucker5 said:If we're talking about trolling and provocation, then yeah, the thread probably deserves a lock.
Of course, I did consider the possibility that this individual might just be your run-of-the-mill troll or a provocateur rather than some actual monster.

Well, if we locked every single thread triggered by "mere" provocation from an Atheist, there wouldn't be much left to discuss, would there? 😁
Anyone who follows these boards even remotely closely can see a pattern—a constant stream of these religious posts popping up, all following the exact same script.

This particular instance was a textbook religious attempt to argue that without God, there is no morality—therefore, atheists are inherently immoral. Or, more along the lines of what Bozanic was trying to pull with that hateful Christmas message, suggesting atheists are nothing but "darkness." But did anyone lock Bozanic's thread or suggest he head over to Psychocouch? No.🤣

Naturally, you quickly hit these types of believers with the classic line of questioning: "Would you go around murdering, torturing, or burning things if God didn't exist? Is that what atheists do?" And then you could just pull up the statistics showing prisons are absolutely packed with incredibly sincere believers, while atheists have almost zero representation.

So, when the believer honestly replies, "No, I wouldn't," we arrive at the logical conclusion: clearly, morality doesn't stem from God. In fact, it isn't even necessary to be moral, and perhaps it doesn't even exist. 😲 😁
It’s essentially the same cycle, time and time again.

But this time, something exceptional happened. A believer actually said, "Yes, if there were no God, I would murder and torture people." And that's when the circus started. That's when the outrage began.
We had everything: an Atheist being outraged by the very concept of outrage, people acting like they belong in a psychiatric ward, characters straight out of Alan Ford, Masons... you name it.

So, no, this likely has very little to do with the initial attempt at provocation that the atheists have already seen through. Unfortunately, this seems to be something much more serious.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#14 ·
urbantrucker5 said:Yeah, but you're forgetting that sadism was actually named after Marquis de Sade, who championed atheism in his smutty novels.😁
So, the most famous sadist was an atheist.

One of the most legendary sadists was an atheist. That doesn't really prove anything, just like how one of the most notorious serial killers was a believer.

I agree we shouldn't generalize, so I'd suggest checking out the Book of Complaint regarding religion. You can sort a lot of stuff out with the moderators there.
Jason Clark7 Jason Clark7 Member
33 messages
joined Nov 2012
#15 ·
urbantrucker5 said:...
Indeed, one simply forgets that sadism was actually named after the Marquis de Sade, who championed atheism within his various pornographic novels 😁
...

and, much like the fact that God is most frequently mentioned in adult films, it hardly makes them any more theistic 😍

By the way, mentioning specific forum members reminds me a bit of a targeted clone—but regardless, I am certainly not the only one who gets the impression that the moderation on the Religion board has an anti-theist spirit... 😢
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 Regular
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#16 ·
Daniel Ward87 said:Religion influences how people act, and sadism definitely has its own behavioral component. So, why shouldn't we discuss whether there's actually a connection there? Many sadists were also deeply religious, such as Albert Fish, the notorious serial killer. We don't know exactly how much religion impacts sadistic behavior, but it's an interesting topic to explore.

What’s wrong with having that kind of discussion on a forum specifically designed for—discussions?

Like what, for example?

As for "Albert Fish," as far as I know, he wasn't even religious (in the true sense of the word)... if anything, he was better known as the Brooklyn Vampire... specifically, they called him the 'Werewolf of Wysteria,' the 'Brooklyn Vampire,' the 'Moon Maniac,' and 'The Boogeyman.'

Like most mass murderers, he was someone diagnosed with severe mental illness—he was sick—plus someone who was literally obsessed with the occult, with zero interest in religion or ethics.

I'm saying all this because the parallel you drew doesn't really feel like a solid argument (as a response to the opening post, anyway). NHF.🙂
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 Regular
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#17 ·
the atheist spirit within the moderation of the Religion PDF...

All of that—within discussions, mind you, nowhere else 😁—could easily be countered by solid (theological) arguments from someone who actually knows their stuff.

As for what someone personally believes, that is their own business and their own right. That is perfectly fine, provided that moderator authority isn't being abused due to personal intolerance (or anything else), I assume.
Nicholas King Nicholas King Regular
716 messages
joined Jan 2023
#18 ·
dustyranger64 said:this is nothing more than a standard, textbook provocation from an Atheist.

I’ve always been somewhat clumsy when it comes to applying that whole "we all know what they actually meant by that" logic—so I won't sit here and speculate about any sort of hidden agenda lurking behind this particular post—though, I suppose a little bit of linguistic forensics :lastan: would probably allow one to conclude quite a bit with a high degree of certainty 😬.

However, as it stands, the post isn't really a provocation at all; if anything, it's more of an epochal forum suicide that atheists should actually applaud. You see, the premise—that "it is only my fear of God that keeps me from torturing and killing"—doesn't just offend atheists; it actually places them on a higher pedestal than the author himself—given that atheists don't kill or torture despite having no fear of God to stop them (and, I suppose, I shouldn't need some silly disclaimer to clarify that I am not claiming that no atheist has ever killed or tortured anyone).

What remains as an undeniable fact is that a topic framed this way has absolutely nothing to do with Religion.
dustyranger64 dustyranger64 Active Member
76 messages
joined Jan 2008
#19 ·
Nicholas King said:But honestly, looking at how it’s phrased, this isn't even an attempt at being provocative. If anything, it feels more like a total forum suicide mission and a weird way of praising atheists. The whole idea that "only my fear of God keeps me from torturing and killing" doesn't just insult atheists—it actually puts them on a pedestal above the author. It implies atheists don't kill or torture just because they aren't afraid of God (and yeah, no need for a silly disclaimer here; I'm not claiming no atheist has ever killed or tortured anyone).

Well, it all depends on how you read it. Personally, I pick up on irony in those posts, so I figure it’s actually the exact opposite of praise.
Maybe my take is skewed because I've dealt with people asking things like "so why don't you just go around killing people if you're an atheist and don't fear God?" Or worse, people outright saying, "You atheists are basically amoral, and the only thing stopping you from murdering everyone is the law." It's always some variation of that—treating atheists like wild animals held back from the edge of a cage by nothing but a flimsy paper chain of criminal law.
Still, hey, I could totally be misreading what the author intended.
Brenda Cook4 Brenda Cook4 Regular
373 messages
joined Sep 2010
#20 ·
dustyranger64 said:Well, it all comes down to how you perceive things. Personally, I sense a heavy dose of irony in those posts—and I could very well be wrong—so in my view, it feels more like mockery than admiration.
Maybe my perspective is just skewed because I’ve been hit with questions like "why don't you just go out and kill people if you're an atheist and aren't afraid of God" or even blunt statements like "you atheists are basically amoral; the only thing stopping you from committing crimes is the law." It’s that classic trope where atheists are portrayed as wild animals kept in check by nothing more than a flimsy paper chain of criminal justice.
That said, I’m totally open to the idea that I might have misread the author's intent.

Anyone who keeps an eye on the religion threads will see that this is a textbook false dilemma (the idea being: either you believe in God and live morally, or you don't believe and therefore can't lead a moral life, since belief in God is the only thing restraining your impulses). But, like I mentioned, the OP wrote this somewhat vaguely, and honestly, pretty much everyone—atheists and believers alike—has pushed back on it.
Though, after a few posts, she actually asks:

What stops an atheist from killing or harassing someone if there are absolutely no negative consequences for doing so?
Hopefully, that clears things up for you.

This is such a common, incredibly frequent question. The assumption that "we're only held in check by the legal system" is a massive recurring theme (you can see it right here in the thread), and that’s usually where the fighting and debating starts.

It’s a shame some folks here haven't chimed in on the discussion... I know, I know, we tend to duplicate topics between the archives and the small-scale stuff over on PZK.😁

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads