Battered Believer's Syndrome

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Just like the spousal syndrome it's named after, this disorder is characterized by the inability to see anything but love in the actions of the abuser. Every hit is the victim's fault as this is the only rationalization to keep the image of someone who is loving alive.

 

And so it is with the believer. No matter what terrible event happens in their life they can't see their god as anything but a loving father. He never gets any of the blame. It's either a lack of faith, too much sin or perhaps not enough praise that day.

 

Suppose a believer's child was murdered. Can she conceptualize her god idly watching as the event took place, doing absolutely nothing? Yes, but it was for a reason. Her god still loves her, of course -- that's what she been programmed to believe. She'll probably come up with the standard answer designed to preserve the love like "god works in mysterious ways," "it was for the greater good," or "god wanted him in heaven."

 

All these answers skirt the real issue, though. To see how one need only exchange the deity in the equation with a person. What if a police officer sat and watched silently as a child was murdered even though he had the power to stop it? Oh, the rules are different now, aren't they? Why, though? Different programming, basically.

 

People are programmed to see police officers as people who have to help and should even risk their lives saving people. If one of them doesn't help, they're not doing their job and they become just as bad as a criminal. They are neglecting their duties to the people.

 

Gods and goddesses, on the other hand, whose "actions" are based on the hit and miss randomness of chance events, are expected to not do anything in many situations. These beings are also endowed by their creators, us, with great magical powers and control our destiny in the afterlives we made up. Add to this equation the endless stream of loving propaganda that is shot into the believer's brain and the resulting mix of expectation of inaction, fear and love combine to make a powerful formula able to transform an abuser into an angel.

 

Atheism frees a person from this madness. Instead of wondering why some invisible cloud father would allow or cause something to happen, we take it as it is: reality. Why did it happen? We look to real causes. Why was her son murdered? Look at the the murderer himself. Look at the events in his life that led up to the event. Where were the police? Could a stronger police presence have thwarted this? Look at the safety precautions the mother in this story could have taken in order to prevent this tragedy. Look at what the boy himself could have done to avoid such a situation in the first place.

 

By thinking critically, instead of superstitiously, we affect the real world in a positive way. We can come up with real solutions instead of asking for divine intervention that never arrives. It is only us who can save ourselves.

 

~Reverend AtheiStar

 

http://www.reverendatheistar.com

http://reverendatheistar.blogspot.com/

http://www.FTLshop.com

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

"The fossil record is the most obvious place to search for evidence of evolution. Although the record was sparse in Darwin's time, there were already findings that suggested evolution. The living armadillos of South America bore a striking resemblance to fossil glyptodonts, extinct armored mammals whose fossils occurred in the same area. This suggested that glyptodonts and armadillos shared a common South American ancestry. And the record clearly displayed changes in the forms of life existing over large spans of time, with the deepest and oldest sediments showing marine invertebrates, with fishes appearing much later, and still later amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (along with the persistence of some groups found in earlier stages). This sequence of change was in fact established by creationist geologists long before Darwin, and was often thought to reflect hundreds of acts of divine creation. (This does not exactly comport with the account given in Genesis.)"

 

~Jerry Coyne

"The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name"

The New Republic

08.11.05

[LosingMyReligion]

I do feel this way sometimes. This post articulated it so well.

 

The sad thing is sometimes I feel this weird compulsion to go back...

 

Much the way many battered women return over and over again.

 

I just don't think a benevolent diety would allow all of this treachery and turmoil to go on...

 

And if God is anything like the bible then that is a scary thought.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

I do feel this way sometimes. This post articulated it so well.

 

The sad thing is sometimes I feel this weird compulsion to go back...

 

Much the way many battered women return over and over again.

 

I just don't think a benevolent diety would allow all of this treachery and turmoil to go on...

 

And if God is anything like the bible then that is a scary thought.

 

Thanks, I'm glad I could put into words what you feel. Nothing is more beneficial to solving a problem than recognizing you have a problem in the first place!

 

The god of the Bible is obviously based on our ancient kings who, more often than not, became corrupted by the amount of power that they possessed. He, to me, acts just like a big spoiled brat, lashing out in anger when things don't go his way. Hardly the actions of a mature father. In fact, if you look at the way he treats his children in the Bible, it becomes very clear that he is very abusive -- and would be imprisoned at best or executed at worst if he were a person.

 

I've lost all desire to go back. I love being an Atheist! It's always offering me some new challenge. I really enjoy debating believers. I love coming with new rebuttals or criticisms. And, as the Green Day song says, "I want to be the minority!" I like being part of an eleite group that has somehow escped the clutches of a meme so powerful that most of the planet is enslaved by one form or another! It's a milennia old battle that still rages on to this day! That's exciting! Oh, and the science! I love the science! We're right on the cutting edge with new evolutionary and genetic discoveries while your traditional creationist is stuck way back in the days of the enemies of Darwin!

 

Please fight any backsliding urges you might have. They'll fade with time and eventually disapper all together, most likely. Don't let residual programming suck you back into slavery. Live free, be a Freethinker! It's a much better place to be.

[narcissist]

There's nothing to "suppose" here. I can tell you from experience, this is exactly how it worked for me.

 

I remember week after week. "God" would spend the week fucking me up then when I'd go to church on sunday, and either pretend everything was fine and that "God was good" or, if i couldn't hide the pain and someone would ask what's wrong, I'd give an answer that was the spiritual equivelant of "I walked into a door."

[Antlerman]

By thinking critically, instead of superstitiously, we affect the real world in a positive way. We can come up with real solutions instead of asking for divine intervention that never arrives. It is only us who can save ourselves.

And that says it all. Well stated. You should put that in your signature line.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

By thinking critically, instead of superstitiously, we affect the real world in a positive way. We can come up with real solutions instead of asking for divine intervention that never arrives. It is only us who can save ourselves.

And that says it all. Well stated. You should put that in your signature line.

 

You're welcome and I will.

 

By thinking critically, instead of superstitiously, we affect the real world in a positive way. We can come up with real solutions instead of asking for divine intervention that never arrives. It is only us who can save ourselves.

And that says it all. Well stated. You should put that in your signature line.

 

It was just as I had feared, it was too long -- by 32 characters. It's really a shame that it's set so low. It narrows the quote slection by quite some margin.

 

There's nothing to "suppose" here. I can tell you from experience, this is exactly how it worked for me.

 

I remember week after week. "God" would spend the week fucking me up then when I'd go to church on sunday, and either pretend everything was fine and that "God was good" or, if i couldn't hide the pain and someone would ask what's wrong, I'd give an answer that was the spiritual equivelant of "I walked into a door."

 

It is hard to square a loving god with reality when bad things keep happening. If you manage to hold onto belief in the imaginary friend then you either starting hating him or fearing that he hates you.

 

What, may I ask, has happened in your life?

[Guest Iconoclastithon]

I wholeheartily agree. Though I am not an athiest[i am anti-theistic deist}.

 

In Reason:

Icono

[Reverend AtheiStar]

I wholeheartily agree. Though I am not an athiest[i am anti-theistic deist}.

 

In Reason:

Icono

 

Thanks.

[Guest Iconoclastithon]

I wholeheartily agree. Though I am not an athiest[i am anti-theistic deist}.

 

In Reason:

Icono

 

Thanks.

 

Your welcome,my pleasure

[Manta]

There is one possible problem with your method of teaching:

 

You state truths to people in the way that any preacher would. There is a school of thought that says someone can be a programmed Atheist just as someone can be a programmed Christian. Although I do agree with what you're saying entirely, I do feel that instead of trying to state your opinions onto other people with only words, you should be citing sources at every turn and not making assumptions that only people who are already atheistic would agree with.

 

Let's take an example:

 

All these answers skirt the real issue, though. To see how one need only exchange the deity in the equation with a person. What if a police officer sat and watched silently as a child was murdered even though he had the power to stop it? Oh, the rules are different now, aren't they? Why, though? Different programming, basically.

 

The problem here is that the Christians you hope to drum sense into will put their own answers to those rhetorical questions (e.g. "Of course the rules are different, we can't understand the way God acts, he's beyond understanding!) and no-one likes being called a programmed zombie. The moment that the reader feels that the writer is patronising them, they immedeatly disagree with anything else the writer says, regardless of almost anything.

 

In short, you convince Christians otherwise with carrot and not stick.

[BigToe]

Heh, I suppose I was the opposite. When I did believe in God, it was the one "thing" I could get good and mad at and hate. I'm not really comfortable with anger and all that, so it was nice having a scapgegoat with which I felt comfortable.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

There is one possible problem with your method of teaching:

 

You state truths to people in the way that any preacher would. There is a school of thought that says someone can be a programmed Atheist just as someone can be a programmed Christian. Although I do agree with what you're saying entirely, I do feel that instead of trying to state your opinions onto other people with only words, you should be citing sources at every turn and not making assumptions that only people who are already atheistic would agree with.

 

Let's take an example:

 

All these answers skirt the real issue, though. To see how one need only exchange the deity in the equation with a person. What if a police officer sat and watched silently as a child was murdered even though he had the power to stop it? Oh, the rules are different now, aren't they? Why, though? Different programming, basically.

 

The problem here is that the Christians you hope to drum sense into will put their own answers to those rhetorical questions (e.g. "Of course the rules are different, we can't understand the way God acts, he's beyond understanding!) and no-one likes being called a programmed zombie. The moment that the reader feels that the writer is patronising them, they immedeatly disagree with anything else the writer says, regardless of almost anything.

 

In short, you convince Christians otherwise with carrot and not stick.

 

An interesting critique, to be sure, but this is written by an Atheist for Atheists -- much like FUBU (We'd be BAFA..lol...) If you'd think of it as a clinical diagnosis of a psychological disorder recognized within the population of believers and addressed to a group that consists of entirely unbelievers, you'd get a better feel for what my demographic was. Thanks for the constructive criticism, though. I appreciate it.

 

 

Heh, I suppose I was the opposite. When I did believe in God, it was the one "thing" I could get good and mad at and hate. I'm not really comfortable with anger and all that, so it was nice having a scapgegoat with which I felt comfortable.

 

Interesting! God became the inanimate puching bag! This might merit an entirely different diagnosis! It's "Battered God Syndrome!" lol... Awww, leave the little god alone. He's so tiny and weak and can't possibly defend himself! lol... This reminds me, I was supposed to write an essay on a little something I call Dweebgod ™. I just never got around to it, though. Maybe this will get me working on it.

[Manta]

I understand who you were aiming your point at, but you'd have still liked it if one of the christians here would have read it and seen sense. To that end, I really think you shouldn't be posting such things on this board, simply because you'd be better suited to spreading sense and defending your point in a purely Christian board.

 

But to do that, you'd need to master the art of getting people to listen to what to them seems like totally contraversial ideas and take them in. If you manage that, you'd have my eternal respect.

 

damn, I'm sounding like the bible now; "Go Forth and Devangelise!". I dispise my own hypocracy, but it pretty much is the only way.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

I understand who you were aiming your point at, but you'd have still liked it if one of the christians here would have read it and seen sense. To that end, I really think you shouldn't be posting such things on this board, simply because you'd be better suited to spreading sense and defending your point in a purely Christian board.

 

But to do that, you'd need to master the art of getting people to listen to what to them seems like totally contraversial ideas and take them in. If you manage that, you'd have my eternal respect.

 

damn, I'm sounding like the bible now; "Go Forth and Devangelise!". I dispise my own hypocracy, but it pretty much is the only way.

 

Sure, but that's purely a side note. It really was meant to discuss a phenomena within the believing community I found very disturbing.

 

"Devangelizing" or aiming for deconversions is much more work than I really want to do. To get even one deconversion it takes argument after argument after argument and most times it fails. Religions have mastered the art of brainwashing. That's why they're so sucessful. To counteract all that they've programmed in takes a tremendous amount of time and patience. I just don't have enough of either. Been there, done that.

[Manta]

Agreed.

 

Won't stop me using your argument though, because it is a very good one.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Agreed.

 

Won't stop me using your argument though, because it is a very good one.

 

Be my guest. My site, and all that's found there, is meant to be a resource for anyone interested in debating the religious hoardes. It's a compilation of much of my experiences as well as writing from a lot of various sources I've found interesting over the years.

 

If you'd like to join my mailing list, as this is where a lot of my ideas and arguments are first posted, send me something @ nothingfailslikeprayer@hotmail.com.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

For example, this is something I just sent out:

 

First, truth is subjective. What I believe is true is different from what you believe is true. What we believe is true is different than what a Muslim believes is true. What a Muslim believes is true is different from what a Hindu believes is true. What a Wiccan believes is true is different from whata Hindu believs is true. And it goes on and on and on. Second, I really don't think that's what it means. I think what he's saying is that there is a astronomically slight chance that the Christian god, Yahweh, exists out of the hundreds of millions that man has said to exist. He's saying that even though said hypothetical god, who would be completely and sadistically evil, could exist he values his friendships over all the threats of damnation. He not saying it is true, merely that it could be true. Huge difference!

 

What you're doing is classic Christian disbelief of disbelief. If we even talk about your mythology you wet yourself and think we believe it. If you speak of the old Greek gods and Hades, does this mean you believe, at some level, that their pantheon of deities and related afterlife is true? How about the Norse gods and their nuerous afterlives such as Valhalla?

 

And why do you say that your god created him? Even within your mythology this isn't true! Your god was supposed to have created the first humans only, remember? His parents created him by having sex. Sperm was shot into his mother's vagina, via his father's penis and testicles, and one lucky little swimmer found it's way to the egg, fertilizing it. Forty weeks later a baby was born. There never was a need for a god.

 

~Reverend AtheiStar

 

http://www.reverendatheistar.com

http://reverendatheistar.blogspot.com/

http://www.FTLshop.com

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

"The fossil record is the most obvious place to search for evidence of evolution. Although the record was sparse in Darwin's time, there were already findings that suggested evolution. The living armadillos of South America bore a striking resemblance to fossil glyptodonts, extinct armored mammals whose fossils occurred in the same area. This suggested that glyptodonts and armadillos shared a common South American ancestry. And the record clearly displayed changes in the forms of life existing over large spans of time, with the deepest and oldest sediments showing marine invertebrates, with fishes appearing much later, and still later amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (along with the persistence of some groups found in earlier stages). This sequence of change was in fact established by creationist geologists long before Darwin, and was often thought to reflect hundreds of acts of divine creation. (This does not exactly comport with the account given in Genesis.)"

 

~Jerry Coyne

"The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name"

The New Republic

08.11.05

 

 

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

From: "Ray Pritchard" <ray@keepbelieving.com>

Reply-To: <ray@keepbelieving.com>

To: "'Reverend AtheiStar'" <nothingfailslikeprayer@HOTMAIL.COM>

Subject: RE: What truth?

Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 22:34:17 -0500

 

 

Matt,

 

 

 

In this case, the truth would be that God exists, that he can be known through faith in Jesus Christ, and that through him anyone who trusts in Christ can have eternal life. I think Mr. Stratton’s comment shows that he realizes at some level the gospel is true, and that one day he must give an account of himself to the God who created him.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ray Pritchard

 

www.keepbelieving.com

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Ray was responding to the following comment I sent him, titled "What Truth?", after reading his article.

 

That's a pretty good comment because it means that some part of the truth has broken through to Cedric Stratton.

 

Would that truth be that Cedric is a much more moral being than Yahweh, if he existed, could ever be? Any father who would condemn his children to an eternity of torture for simply following the evidence, or lack thereof, is completely evil and should be condemned himself. On an interesting note, the god of the Bible admits that he's the author of all evil in Isaiah 45: 6-7! I'm sure glad he's just imaginary -- like all the rest of the world's panthoen of gods and goddesses (which you don't believe in).

 

 

 

 

The article I was referring to is the third on the page entitled:

 

Another Atheist Goes to Church March 31, 2006

 

Wow, this guy is quite the prolific writer! I'm jealous. I haven't penned one book, yet. I have been toying around with several ideas, though.