Christianity as Deliberate Lie and Political Dominance Strategy
Scott H
Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) that purports to explain
Christianity as a systematically manipulative lie used to derive free
labor from its target group and reduce the target group's power of
resistance. According to this theory, members of the target group,
including people who are naturally unhappy or less attractive, are
turned into meek, defenseless workers called 'Christian servants' for
the benefit of manipulators and enjoyers. The promise of heavenly
reward is used as an incentive to get the servants to work harder and
sacrifice more.
God, according to the theory, does not exist, and the story of
creation as well as the afterlife and resurrection are deliberate lies
used to manipulate those who are desperate for reward into submissive
servitude. To support this theory, I have quoted numerous passages of
the New Testament whose aim appears to be the disempowerment of the
Christian servant.
Included in the essay are a critical examination of the Golden Rule, a
moral comparison of the idea of reincarnation to that of eternal
afterlife, and refutations of seven arguments for God's existence.
THE BORG
"Scott H" <zinite...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8242c495-ab16-423b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
They do say that the ORIGINAL teachings of Christ were on
reincarnation and the Church altered these for better
control over the populace.
As you say, threats of punishment or bad places are more
likely to force the mass populace into better behaviour.
And the idea of teaching that being meek and weak and none
violent, again are useful to cause better general behaviour.
Fear of death and fear of God also force the populace into
better behaviour.
The whole of religion could be fabricated for this purpose.
THE BORG
Robert Cohen
> "Scott H" <zinites_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I think the ultra fascinating point that the "early Christians were
socialists"
is not disputed by many/most scholars (Jewish and Christian
theologians-historians)
I had read of such, though am not now prepared to argue (by citation
of an exact document)
such a no-doubt highly controversial allegation (or "fact")
John Jones
> I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
> Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) that purports to explain
> Christianity as a systematically manipulative lie
If by "lie" you claim that nobody believes in Christianity including the
Christians, then your claim looks like a lie.
THE BORG
"Robert Cohen" <robt...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1b762645-ecaf-4408...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
****
Maybe so, but many sources also cite that early Christians
were fed to the lions!
I thought this also was a none disputed fact!
But then when you look at the theories on "Jesus was an
alien", or the story was fabricated by the Romans for
control of the populace, or Jesus was the son of a God but
not the son of the God of Abraham, Jesus was the Devil,
Jesus was a rampant schizophrenic, Jesus did exist but the
story was a cover up of true events, and so on and on and
on, until basically you wonder if even planet Earth
exists!!!
Seems sometimes you can trust nothing and no one but your
own eyes and ears and personal experiences.
THE BORG
THE BORG
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:heph7o$7sv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Now THINK Mr Jones before you engage your hyper active
ninety million miles per second brain!
He says he purports to EXPLAIN.
Thus if his theory is true - THEN there will be no
Christians.
But as yet, he has not explained?
OK - now go eat 20 elephants and nine octopus to feed your
hyper active body and don't forget to psychoanalyze and
dissect and come up with some incredible new theory that no
one has ever heard before about the spider in your bath tub.
THE BORG
Roger Pearse
> I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
Um, read the next thread. It boasts that atheists are about to
persecute the hell out of Christians. Far from having "political
dominance", they don't have any actual power in America at all. So
your theory isn't very intelligent, if you haven't grasped that!
Scott H
> Um, read the next thread. It boasts that atheists are about to
> persecute the hell out of Christians. Far from having "political
> dominance", they don't have any actual power in America at all.
> So your theory isn't very intelligent, if you haven't grasped that!
Did I say it was the atheists who did the lying? You just strawmanned
me.
According to my theory, Christians are roughly divided into three
groups:
1. Servants
2. Enjoyers
3. Manipulators
It is not the atheists, but the Christian manipulators who do most of
the lying, the servants who fall prey to the lie, and the enjoyers who
benefit. Many atheists just want to put an end to the whole scam --
if, as the theory states, Christianity is a scam, and we have evidence
that it is.
Scott H
> If by "lie" you claim that nobody believes in Christianity including the
> Christians, then your claim looks like a lie.
According to CPD, a fraction of Christians truly believe in God and a
fraction of them don't. Christians are roughly divided into three
groups in the theory:
1. Servants
2. Enjoyers
3. Manipulators
Manipulators lie to the servants for the benefit of the enjoyers.
Scott H
> But then when you look at the theories on "Jesus was an
> alien", or the story was fabricated by the Romans for
> control of the populace, or Jesus was the son of a God but
> not the son of the God of Abraham, Jesus was the Devil,
> Jesus was a rampant schizophrenic, Jesus did exist but the
> story was a cover up of true events, and so on and on and
If CPD is real, then Jesus was what we nowadays call a 'Machiavellian'
-- someone who practices deceit for personal gain, as might a
corporation attempting to maximize profit in their advertisement
schemes -- or, if Jesus didn't exist, Christians themselves are
Machiavellians.
THE BORG
Yes, we have written some messages along these lines.
The personal gain of Jesus being to threaten and terrorize
some of the human population into worshipping this
particular God who he called his "father".
But many humans these days are abandoning Christianity, as
reincarnation becomes more and more proven each day, and
Hinduism and Buddhism are increasing hugely in popularity
and numbers.
Many view Krisna as a far nicer and more loving and
benevolent "God" or Supreme Being than the one written of in
the Bible, and many view the Hindu religion and the Hindu
Gods as a much nicer and far better option than the terrors
and fears of Biblical threats and horrors.
Some almost RUN away from the Bible and Biblical religions
toward the Hindu Gods to seek refuge and sanctuary from what
is basically an X-rated and very evil book that has caused
some equally X-rated and very evil religions and behaviour
and people.
THE BORG
David Canzi
Roger Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 27, 8:31�pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
>> Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) ...
>
>Um, read the next thread.
Your article is in 3 newgroups. The "next thread" you're
referring to may not be present in the newsgroup that somebody
else is reading your article in. Even if somebody is reading the
same newsgroup as you, the order in which threads are displayed
depends on what software they're using to read news: Google,
trn, pan, xnews, agent, etc. And the order changes: it depends
on when you/they look.
A reference to "the next thread" is as useless as the compiler
message "syntax error at or before end of file". Maybe worse,
because with the compiler you at least know *which* file it's
referring to.
>It boasts that atheists are about to
>persecute the hell out of Christians. Far from having "political
>dominance", they don't have any actual power in America at all. So
>your theory isn't very intelligent, if you haven't grasped that!
--
David Canzi
hypa...@comcast.net
> "Scott H" <zinites_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
What they probably did was take some earlier Gnostic
writings and change them to fit their agenda.
Giga
"Scott H" <zinite...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8242c495-ab16-423b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I suspect you are seeing Intelligent Design where only survival of the
fittest is at work. The Christian Church is just the surviver among perhaps
millions of theological systems, some of which also still survive to some
extent, but perhaps are not as popular or well known. There are various
reasons why the CC has survived and grown where the others mostly have not.
One of those is the power and control it is able to exert over its followers
(as you discuss). Another is its ability to work with the secular power
structures, and serve their interests as well (such as supporting wars etc).
Another is its power to disable people's ability to function well without
its support, by undermining their self-esteem and critical thinking, as well
as repressing their sexuality, undermining women and repressing secular
science (which itcan no longer really do). This can all seem like some evil
conspiraracy, like some kind of demonic intelligence has put forward this
murderously manipulative organoisation as the paragon of virtue! However I
think it is probably just because it is this organisation that has survived
and thrived, and has self-selected itself and its ideas.
Roger Pearse
> On Nov 27, 5:08 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
> >>Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) ...
> > Um, read the next thread. It boasts that atheists are about to
> > persecute the hell out of Christians. Far from having "political
> > dominance", they don't have any actual power in America at all.
> > So your theory isn't very intelligent, if you haven't grasped that!
>
> Did I say it was the atheists who did the lying?
Curiously you snipped the remark to which I replied (restored),
thereby losing the context. And your "reply" doesn't address mine,
and consists of shrieking accusations against Christians.
This conduct makes you seem either functionally illiterate, or else
too full of hate to be honest. You may not want to behave in such a
manner.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse
> In article <2cfb36b3-48fb-4e58-a3d7-2f7f6802f...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 27, 8:31 pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
> >> Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) ...
>
> >Um, read the next thread.
>
Actually it isn't. This thread is in three ngs. Try alt.atheism.
ZerkonXXXX
"Due to their decreased fitness and desirability as mating partners, less
attractive people, in general, have been found in the lower classes and
have possibly been considered less useful for tasks such as parenting
than more attractive people. In addition to being romantically rejected
more often than usual, they are, according to CPD, the primary targets of
Christian manipulation."
A lot more thought is needed. Possibly along the lines of personal
detachment.
It is interesting you design this "CPD" then immediately start
referencing it as if it were scripture or a given principle.
"As we have seen, CPD states ...."
Proving CPD with CPD? Like a bible believer?
Scott H
> On Nov 27, 10:49 pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 5:08 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Um, read the next thread. It boasts that atheists are about to
> > > persecute the hell out of Christians. Far from having "political
> > > dominance", they don't have any actual power in America at all.
> > > So your theory isn't very intelligent, if you haven't grasped that!
>
> > Did I say it was the atheists who did the lying?
>
> Curiously you snipped the remark to which I replied (restored),
> thereby losing the context.
Fair enough; I replied too quickly. I hope you understand that I've
been living in anguish for five years.
In response to your real remark: as stated by the theory, Christianity
is only a political dominance *strategy*. Agnostics and atheists may
very well succeed in overcoming Christian cruelty and oppression, in
which case, their 'strategy' would no longer work.
> And your "reply" doesn't address mine,
> and consists of shrieking accusations against Christians.
When you retch for three years after nightmares of God calling you a
loser, you tend to do a lot of shrieking.
> This conduct makes you seem either functionally illiterate,
I admit I read your post wrong. Let's not fight.
> or else too full of hate to be honest.
You're suggesting that hatred makes one prone to dishonesty. On the
contrary, I have carefully practiced lie-avoidance in my day-to-day
life and I imagine that many other victims of suffering would do the
same.
Scott H
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:31:06 -0800, Scott H wrote:
> "Due to their decreased fitness and desirability as mating partners, less
> attractive people, in general, have been found in the lower classes and
> have possibly been considered less useful for tasks such as parenting
> than more attractive people. In addition to being romantically rejected
> more often than usual, they are, according to CPD, the primary targets of
> Christian manipulation."
>
> A lot more thought is needed. Possibly along the lines of personal
> detachment.
Personal detachment of whom: manipulators, or members of the target
group? I would imagine the former.
> It is interesting you design this "CPD" then immediately start
> referencing it as if it were scripture or a given principle.
>
> "As we have seen, CPD states ...."
> Proving CPD with CPD? Like a bible believer?
I haven't proven CPD, however great its explanatory power may be.
raven1
<roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 27, 8:31�pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
>> Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) ...
>
>Um, read the next thread. It boasts that atheists are about to
>persecute the hell out of Christians. Far from having "political
>dominance", they don't have any actual power in America at all.
I take it you slept through the last Administration...
Christopher A. Lee
Christians need to feel persecuted. - it makes them feel closer to
Jesus.
And they're so stupid they accuse people who react negatively when
they can't live and let live, of persecuting them.
raven1
Roger isn't stupid, he's dishonest.
Scott H
> And they're so stupid they accuse people who react negatively when
> they can't live and let live, of persecuting them.
Indeed, Jesus blesses the persecuted and pronounces woe unto those of
whom all others speak well:
"Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter
all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be
glad, for your reward is great in Heaven ..." -Matthew 5:11
"Woe to you, when all people speak well of you ..." -Luke 6:26
Christopher A. Lee
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:16:03 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:52:51 -0500, raven1
>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:08:34 -0800 (PST), Roger Pearse
>>><roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Nov 27, 8:31�pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
>>>>> Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) ...
>>>>
>>>>Um, read the next thread. It boasts that atheists are about to
>>>>persecute the hell out of Christians. Far from having "political
>>>>dominance", they don't have any actual power in America at all.
>>>
>>>I take it you slept through the last Administration...
>>
>>Christians need to feel persecuted. - it makes them feel closer to
>>Jesus.
>>
>>And they're so stupid they accuse people who react negatively when
>>they can't live and let live, of persecuting them.
>
>Roger isn't stupid, he's dishonest.
He's both.
He's a classic narcissist who isn't dishonest in his own mind. It's
just the way the rules work in his own little fantasy world.
He knows everything better than anybody else including what they
"really" think as well as "why" because everything gets rationalised
around him.
That is over and above the other lies which in his mind are simply ad
hoc responses, the next move in a game where anything goes as long as
he is the victor. It's the same mentality as the false DMCAs the
fundies use on youtube to silence videos critical of them.
He gets grossly offended when either of these are treated as the lies
they are.
Robert Cohen
This is from a shoddy-butthead of an encyclopedia from a backward
fifth world educational
level btw aka a lunatic-like perspective:
"...Early Christian communities also practiced the sharing of goods
and labour, a simple form of socialism subsequently followed in
certain forms of monasticism..."
My cconviction as per this sub-shitty encyclopedia kinduv splains:
'socialism may be defined in however the degrees of Paradise-Hades a
flippant demagogic & pswaydo-intellectual semi-prevaricator
styles sublime quasi-nonsense'
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism
The Whistle-blower
> I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
> Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) that purports to explain
> Christianity as a systematically manipulative lie used to derive free
> labor from its target group and reduce the target group's power of
> resistance. According to this theory, members of the target group,
> including people who are naturally unhappy or less attractive, are
> turned into meek, defenseless workers called 'Christian servants' for
> the benefit of manipulators and enjoyers. The promise of heavenly
> reward is used as an incentive to get the servants to work harder and
> sacrifice more.
>
> God, according to the theory, does not exist, and the story of
> creation as well as the afterlife and resurrection are deliberate lies
> used to manipulate those who are desperate for reward into submissive
> servitude. To support this theory, I have quoted numerous passages of
> the New Testament whose aim appears to be the disempowerment of the
> Christian servant.
Christianity preceded the canon of the books of
the NEW TESTAMENT, therefore your theory is
flawed and you come off as a son of a bitch
Scott H
wrote:
> Christianity preceded the canon of the books of
> the NEW TESTAMENT, therefore your theory is
> flawed and you come off as a son of a bitch
If I wanted to and if I truly needed, I could just change one word of
the theory. Your remark is therefore a red herring.
John Jones
>
> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:heph7o$7sv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Scott H wrote:
>>> I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
>>> Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) that purports to explain
>>> Christianity as a systematically manipulative lie
>>
>> If by "lie" you claim that nobody believes in Christianity including
>> the Christians, then your claim looks like a lie.
>
> Now THINK Mr Jones before you engage your hyper active ninety million
> miles per second brain!
> He says he purports to EXPLAIN.
Yes, and..
> Thus if his theory is true - THEN there will be no Christians.
There's no "then" about it. He assumes that "Christians don't believe in
what they say", as an ASSUMPTION of his theory!
John Jones
> On Nov 27, 4:44 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> If by "lie" you claim that nobody believes in Christianity including the
>> Christians, then your claim looks like a lie.
>
> According to CPD, a fraction of Christians truly believe in God and a
> fraction of them don't.
Then, pray tell me, how could they all be telling lies!
Fool!
David Canzi
That perception is an artifact of the way Google Groups displays
USENET. USENET is the reality and Google Groups is an illusion.
>Try alt.atheism.
So it's in the roughly 870 articles posted to alt.atheism on the
27th, assuming (optimistically) that it wasn't actually posted
before the 27th.
You claimed, as evidence if Christians' lack of power, that a
boast of planned oppression of Christians by atheists was in
"the next thread" -- a description that is useless to anybody
actually trying to find the article.
If there really was such evidence in your favour you would make
it easy to find. Your repeated failure to do so indicates that
the evidence isn't really there.
--
David Canzi
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
>Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) that purports to explain
>Christianity as a systematically manipulative lie used to derive free
>labor from its target group and reduce the target group's power of
Conspiracy theories abound.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Scott H
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:31:06 -0800 (PST), Scott H <zinites_p...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
> >Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) that purports to explain
> >Christianity as a systematically manipulative lie used to derive free
> >labor from its target group and reduce the target group's power of
>
> Conspiracy theories abound.
See also:
Scott H
> Scott H wrote:
> > According to CPD, a fraction of Christians truly believe in God and a
> > fraction of them don't.
>
> Then, pray tell me, how could they all be telling lies!
> Fool!
Free labor and dominance over the worker are the two primary
incentives of Christian manipulators.
raven1
Wow. Just *wow*! You're in "Full Canvas Jacket" territory with that
one.
Here's a free clue: non-kooks normally don't create web pages to
proclaim "I am not delusional", "I am not a psychopath", and "I am not
a masochist", with reference to "various labels I've been branded with
by the psychiatric community".
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Nov 28, 11:26�pm, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Like I said.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://khanya.wordpress.com
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
The instruments of the churl are evil: he deviseth
wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words,
even when the needy speaketh right.
But the liberal deviseth liberal things;
and by liberal things shall he stand (Isaiah 32:7-8).
Scott H
> Wow. Just *wow*! You're in "Full Canvas Jacket" territory with that
> one.
>
> Here's a free clue: non-kooks normally don't create web pages to
> proclaim "I am not delusional", "I am not a psychopath", and "I am not
> a masochist", with reference to "various labels I've been branded with
> by the psychiatric community".
Argumentum ad hominem. You lose.
raven1
Wrong. It's not an argument at all. I have no idea what issue you're
discussing, nor any interest in it. I'm just pointing out that your
own website reveals you to be completely bonkers.
>You lose.
I didn't say that your position was wrong because you're a stark
raving kook, I just noted the fact that you're displaying classic kook
red flags. You might want to get back in touch with "the psychiatric
community" for appropriate treatment.
Scott H
> I didn't say that your position was wrong because you're a stark
> raving kook, I just noted the fact that you're displaying classic kook
> red flags. You might want to get back in touch with "the psychiatric
> community" for appropriate treatment.
I've already written about the consequences of such 'treatment' in
another essay, Expected Reward and Psychosis:
http://www.hoge-essays.com/psychosis.html
You are clearly stepping on my turf with your inane remarks. Now, if
you please, I'm doing what I can to make the world a happier place.
Scott H
> There's no "then" about it. He assumes that "Christians don't believe in
> what they say", as an ASSUMPTION of his theory!
Remember that only *some* Christians deliberately lie with the promise
of a personal afterlife according to the theory. A significant
fraction of other Christians do most of the following and believing.
We must be careful not to lump them all into one conceptually
indistinct category. There is more than one kind of Christian.
raven1
Appropriate treatment might help you in your goal. Just sayin'...
Scott H
> Appropriate treatment might help you in your goal. Just sayin'...
I've tried it about fifteen times. No success.
Not only that, but the psychiatrists have utterly failed to impress me
with their analyses of my mental condition in their reports. They
appeared to grossly underestimate my intelligence and in doing so
revealed a possible profit motive. I wouldn't be surprised if, like
Christianity in my theory, psychiatry is just the government's way of
toying with the masses.
Me, a kook? What a laugh!
raven1
<zinite...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 29, 10:26�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> Appropriate treatment might help you in your goal. Just sayin'...
>
>I've tried it about fifteen times. No success.
Obviously.
>Not only that, but the psychiatrists have utterly failed to impress me
>with their analyses of my mental condition in their reports.
It's not their job to impress their patients.
> They
>appeared to grossly underestimate my intelligence and in doing so
>revealed a possible profit motive.
That does not follow.
> I wouldn't be surprised if, like
>Christianity in my theory, psychiatry is just the government's way of
>toying with the masses.
That's pretty kooky. Paranoid much?
John Stafford
The government has no such interest. It is enough that psychiatry is an
independent industry.
John Jones
> On Nov 28, 7:27 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> There's no "then" about it. He assumes that "Christians don't believe in
>> what they say", as an ASSUMPTION of his theory!
>
> Remember that only *some* Christians deliberately lie with the promise
> of a personal afterlife according to the theory. A significant
> fraction of other Christians do most of the following and believing.
Well then, follow the latter, not the former.
Scott H
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:37:49 -0800 (PST), Scott H
> >with their analyses of my mental condition in their reports.
>
> It's not their job to impress their patients.
Oh! Look what I got him to admit!
> > They
> >appeared to grossly underestimate my intelligence and in doing so
> >revealed a possible profit motive.
>
> That does not follow.
Actually, it *does* follow. I only stated that they *appeared* to
grossly underestimate my intelligence, and that in doing so they
revealed a *possible* profit motive.
> > I wouldn't be surprised if, like
> >Christianity in my theory, psychiatry is just the government's way of
> >toying with the masses.
>
> That's pretty kooky. Paranoid much?
What are you? A gamer dude?
I have written extensively on the subject of paranoia in my essay,
Expected Reward and Psychosis. From Section 2:
“'Paranoia' can refer to either *extreme* distrust, found in many of
the greatest philosophers who ever lived, or *irrational* distrust,
which we are told is characterized by delusions. They are not the
same. A common practice in philosophy is doubting. Rene Descartes and
David Hume were famous for having doubted everything, but we would
certainly not have accused them of psychotic illness. We use the term
'skepticism' to refer to this kind of doubt. Extreme distrust and
irrational distrust are not interchangeable ideas, and what follows
from one does not follow from the other.”
I have gone to painstaking lengths to write these essays, so that all
of America -- including you, raven1 -- might one day enjoy a higher
quality of living. You, on the other hand, are like a monkey throwing
twigs: your useless ad hominems require no ingenuity, can be repeated
ad nauseam at even the most brilliant scientist with four keystrokes,
and serve to do nothing other than sway the stupid.
I remind readers again that it's not always bad to be paranoid. You
may feel threatened by ridicule from people such as raven1, but
paranoia, in its healthy form, encourages independence in thought and
good judgment. In contrast to paranoia, the common beliefs and
prejudices of herd mentality can often fail, as when one forms a
delusion about the existence of a god. Hopefully, as time progresses,
we will learn to overcome these beliefs and prejudices, particularly
those that are unduly harmful to minority groups such as the less
attractive, in which case we may feel less need to be paranoid.
John Stafford
<d3bfe751-aef9-4808...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Scott H <zinite...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have written extensively on the subject of paranoia in my essay,
> Expected Reward and Psychosis.
Your writing does not seem to suggest paranoia.
Anyway, ever heard of Benign Paranoia? That's where an individual is
irrationally happy and believes the world is out to make him so. "See
that poster over there? The government put it there to make me happy!
Ain't that great?"
We call 'em Blissninnies.
raven1
<zinite...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 30, 9:28 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:37:49 -0800 (PST), Scott H
>> >Not only that, but the psychiatrists have utterly failed to impress me
>> >with their analyses of my mental condition in their reports.
>>
>> It's not their job to impress their patients.
>
>Oh! Look what I got him to admit!
What a curious thing to say. Whatever do you mean by it?
>> > They
>> >appeared to grossly underestimate my intelligence and in doing so
>> >revealed a possible profit motive.
>>
>> That does not follow.
>
>Actually, it *does* follow. I only stated that they *appeared* to
>grossly underestimate my intelligence, and that in doing so they
>revealed a *possible* profit motive.
How do you think?
>> > I wouldn't be surprised if, like
>> >Christianity in my theory, psychiatry is just the government's way of
>> >toying with the masses.
>>
>> That's pretty kooky. Paranoid much?
>
>What are you? A gamer dude?
No.
>I have written extensively on the subject of paranoia in my essay,
>Expected Reward and Psychosis. From Section 2:
>
>�'Paranoia' can refer to either *extreme* distrust, found in many of
>the greatest philosophers who ever lived, or *irrational* distrust,
>which we are told is characterized by delusions. They are not the
>same. A common practice in philosophy is doubting. Rene Descartes and
>David Hume were famous for having doubted everything, but we would
>certainly not have accused them of psychotic illness. We use the term
>'skepticism' to refer to this kind of doubt.
No one would refer to philosophical skepticism as "paranoia".
Wondering if psychiatry is "the government's way of toying with the
masses" is another story entirely.
>Extreme distrust and
>irrational distrust are not interchangeable ideas, and what follows
>from one does not follow from the other.�
Quite correct, but no one would refer to the former as "paranoia".
>I have gone to painstaking lengths to write these essays, so that all
>of America -- including you, raven1 -- might one day enjoy a higher
>quality of living. You, on the other hand, are like a monkey throwing
>twigs: your useless ad hominems require no ingenuity, can be repeated
>ad nauseam at even the most brilliant scientist with four keystrokes,
>and serve to do nothing other than sway the stupid.
You're apparently not as intelligent as you seem to think you are: it
would be an ad hominem if I was criticizing your essays by saying that
you appear to be a few bricks shy of a full load, but I'm not even
discussing the content of your essays; I'm pointing out that putting
up a website to deny that you suffer from specific psychiatric
disorders is decidedly abnormal behavior, and you might want to get
help for it.
>I remind readers again that it's not always bad to be paranoid. You
>may feel threatened by ridicule from people such as raven1,
You misunderstand me. I'm not ridiculing you; I'm encouraging you to
seek professional help.
Scott H
> Your writing does not seem to suggest paranoia.
>
> Anyway, ever heard of Benign Paranoia? That's where an individual is
> irrationally happy and believes the world is out to make him so. "See
> that poster over there? The government put it there to make me happy!
> Ain't that great?"
>
> We call 'em Blissninnies.
Meanwhile, I struggle with Malevolent Universe Theory. I just have to
remember that reality is not only what we see but also what we make of
it.
ZerkonXXXX
> On Nov 28, 6:47 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:31:06 -0800, Scott H wrote: "Due to their
>> decreased fitness and desirability as mating partners, less attractive
>> people, in general, have been found in the lower classes and have
>> possibly been considered less useful for tasks such as parenting than
>> more attractive people. In addition to being romantically rejected more
>> often than usual, they are, according to CPD, the primary targets of
>> Christian manipulation."
>>
>> A lot more thought is needed. Possibly along the lines of personal
>> detachment.
>
> Personal detachment of whom: manipulators, or members of the target
> group? I would imagine the former.
Your entire premise is flawed. 'less attractive' has no grounding at all
except in your own mind. Less attractive people being in the lower
classes is weak by any standard other than by a personal contrivance.
You have too much of yourself in this.
>
>> It is interesting you design this "CPD" then immediately start
>> referencing it as if it were scripture or a given principle.
>>
>> "As we have seen, CPD states ...."
>> Proving CPD with CPD? Like a bible believer?
>
> I haven't proven CPD, however great its explanatory power may be.
Scott H
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:23:29 -0800 (PST), Scott H
> >irrational distrust are not interchangeable ideas, and what follows
> >from one does not follow from the other.”
>
> Quite correct, but no one would refer to the former as "paranoia".
'Paranoia' is defined in a medical dictionary as “excessive or
irrational suspicion or distrust of others.” Excessive *or*
irrational. You can be excessively distrustful of others without being
irrationally so, now can't you? Not many people seem to make this
distinction. It's as if the word 'paranoid' just reminds them of the
words 'pain' or 'paranormal humanoid.' What the God-mongering
clinicians do is lump it all into one category so you can't tell if
the Paranoid Android is a brilliant philosopher or an alien from outer
space.
In the context of CPD, this is just what Christian manipulators want
you to do: stigmatize paranoia in a blind adherence to cultural
prejudice so that the nation's motto, “In God We Trust,” will be
preserved at the expense of the tortured victims of Christianity.
Out of thoughtful consideration for the government, I have written not
only CPD but also a short essay called 'On Trust,' in which the word
'trust' is conceptually analyzed and given five definitions, in one of
which the word 'trust' is used to signal dominance over the truster:
http://www.hoge-essays.com/trust.html
I find it truly despicable how mean people are. In a country where
women nurse their babies and let them watch Sesame Street, do we
really want to raise them into a world of lying Machiavellians who
torture freaks and drive mean-looking cars, always looking for the
next God-gobbler to molest and take advantage of? Is that the kind of
world we want to live in? Isn't it time for a change?
Stop the torture of ugly people by insensitive dogmatists.
raven1
Wow. That's *classic* paranoid schizophrenia. Or at least a troll's
attempt at simulating it. Either way, you really need help.
Christopher A. Lee
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:16:03 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:52:51 -0500, raven1
>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:08:34 -0800 (PST), Roger Pearse
>>><roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Nov 27, 8:31�pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have written a new theory called 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate
>>>>> Lie and Political Dominance Strategy) ...
>>>>
>>>>Um, read the next thread. It boasts that atheists are about to
>>>>persecute the hell out of Christians. Far from having "political
>>>>dominance", they don't have any actual power in America at all.
>>>
>>>I take it you slept through the last Administration...
>>
>>Christians need to feel persecuted. - it makes them feel closer to
>>Jesus.
>>
>>And they're so stupid they accuse people who react negatively when
>>they can't live and let live, of persecuting them.
>
>Roger isn't stupid, he's dishonest.
He's both.
Scott H
> Wow. That's *classic* paranoid schizophrenia. Or at least a troll's
> attempt at simulating it. Either way, you really need help.
Ad hominem. You lose.
raven1
You still don't understand what an Ad Hominem is, I see.
Scott H
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:29:19 -0800, Scott H wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 6:47 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
> >> A lot more thought is needed. Possibly along the lines of personal
> >> detachment.
>
> > Personal detachment of whom: manipulators, or members of the target
> > group? I would imagine the former.
>
> Your entire premise is flawed.
Which premise?
> 'less attractive' has no grounding at all except in your
> own mind. Less attractive people being in the lower
> classes is weak by any standard other than by a personal
> contrivance.
Are you aware that by denying the existence of relative attractiveness
you would challenge not only common sentiment but also the entire
biological theory of sexual selection?
By 'less attractive,' I do not mean those who are less attractive than
*me*, nor do I mean those whom I consider unattractive. I am, rather,
referring to one side of a spectrum of attractiveness (actually,
attractiveness in biology is too complex to be measured on a single
spectrum, but indices of fitness will suffice as spectrum locations
for now) on which there is already a frightening buildup of suffering,
including heartbreak, nausea, nightmares, and even retching.
For more on the subject of relative attractiveness, you may read
Darwinism and Sexual Selection:
Scott H
> But many humans these days are abandoning Christianity, as
> reincarnation becomes more and more proven each day, and
> Hinduism and Buddhism are increasing hugely in popularity
> and numbers.
>
> Many view Krisna as a far nicer and more loving and
> benevolent "God" or Supreme Being than the one written of in
> the Bible, and many view the Hindu religion and the Hindu
> Gods as a much nicer and far better option than the terrors
> and fears of Biblical threats and horrors.
From the essay:
"In addition to the theory that Christianity is a deliberate lie made
to the less fortunate for personal gain, a surprising moral comparison
may be made between reincarnation in religions such as Hinduism and
eternal afterlife in Christianity. While reincarnation, by nature of
the idea, promotes sympathy, compassion, and kindness to others, the
notion of eternal afterlife is bound up with the idea of never having
to experience the consciousness of another. In contrast to
reincarnation, therefore, eternal afterlife has the inherent potential
to promote selfishness, cruelty, and psychopathy.
We see this very readily in Christians who speak cheerfully of others'
eternal damnation and hope to enjoy the luxuries of Heaven even with
knowledge that other conscious beings are suffering in Hell below. In
the sense that Christianity, as well as the notion of eternity as
oneself, have this potential to create an emotional detachment from
the feelings of others, Christianity may be said to be morally
inferior to Hinduism and to other religions in which reincarnation
plays a role."
Scott H
> > of a personal afterlife according to the theory. A significant
> > fraction of other Christians do most of the following and believing.
>
> Well then, follow the latter, not the former.
According to the theory, the followers and believers are merely
*tricked* into thinking God exists, or at least given incentives to
worship God as if he did, when he does not.
The Whistle-blower
> On Nov 28, 5:19 pm, The Whistle-blower <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Christianity preceded the canon of the books of
> > the NEW TESTAMENT, therefore your theory is
> > flawed and you come off as a son of a bitch
>
> If I wanted to and if I truly needed, I could just change one word of
> the theory. Your remark is therefore a red herring.
Again, son of a bitch, Christianity predates the
CANON OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and not the other way around as those adeptes of Sola Scriptura
would want us to believe.Therefore, your theory
is flawed and can only harm sola Scriptura and NOT
Christianity as a whole.
and you came off as a SON OF A DIRTY BITCH
Scott H
wrote:
It is a purely semantic issue what to call the religion founded on the
New Testament, and thus irrelevant to the workings of the theory. In
particular, the theory is founded on the widely-recognized teachings
of the New Testament, such as the Great Commandments:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all our soul and all
your mind and all your strength.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
As such, it pertains to the religion practiced today, whether you call
it Christianity or not. Your insults are therefore based on a moot
issue.
Free Lunch
<zinite...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Dec 8, 2:52 pm, The Whistle-blower <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com>
>wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 5:55 pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > If I wanted to and if I truly needed, I could just change one word of
>> > the theory. Your remark is therefore a red herring.
>>
>> Again, son of a bitch, Christianity predates the
>> CANON OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
>> and not the other way around as those adeptes of Sola Scriptura
>> would want us to believe.Therefore, your theory
>> is flawed and can only harm sola Scriptura and NOT
>> Christianity as a whole.
>> and you came off as a SON OF A DIRTY BITCH
>
>It is a purely semantic issue what to call the religion founded on the
>New Testament, and thus irrelevant to the workings of the theory. In
>particular, the theory is founded on the widely-recognized teachings
>of the New Testament, such as the Great Commandments:
>
>1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all our soul and all
>your mind and all your strength.
Deuteronomy 6:5 (New International Version)
5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your strength.
>2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Leviticus 19:18 (New International Version)
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people,
but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
>As such, it pertains to the religion practiced today, whether you call
>it Christianity or not. Your insults are therefore based on a moot
>issue.
Nothing new.