I had a small thought earlier: that there is no such thing as a christian, because there is no such thing as god.

 

This sounded strange, even in my own head, and so I examined it, and tried it out on things that are already acknowledged as false:

  • Belief in quiddich does not make you a wizard
  • Belief in the force does not make you a jedi
  • belief in mordor and the ring of power does not make this middle earth

Then things began to make more sense to me.

 

I think there might possibly be something to this, because of the way people interact: we always, by default, try to match our logic to the arguments of the other side.  If we consider all people to be simply people and don't acknowledge their fan clubs to their invisible friend<s>, they will be forced to try to present themselves in such a way as to justify their fan clubs (and by extension, their funny hats, facial hair, arm bands, and policies on genocide).  This would, in effect, stop bringing the argument to their terms, and force them to look at themselves.

 

Thoughts? Comments? Rebuttals?  Tell me what you think.

Views: 14

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

When all the pink fuzzy mists are stripped away and the stark cold reality occurs to people, it is disarming and unpleasant, and every event in your life takes on a new, usually sour, perspective:

 

Au contraire, when the fog disappears, it can be uplifting.

 

Christianity was simply the most expedient example: it isn't specific to any si

It sounds dangerously close to their argument of 'if there isn't a god, then there is no such thing as an atheist.'

And since we obviously exist as atheists, that justifies the existence of a god in their mind.

 

I personally think it's best to question them on moral contradictions in their bible; I've found that to be the one that enrages them the most.

 

I don't mind people believing in invisible people, just as long as that invisible person keeps their morals to themselves.

 

In a very real sense, there isn't any such thing as an atheist: we call ourselves such simply because we wish to distinguish ourselves from them and their preference for foolishness.
The fact that this counter can exist is the very reason for the argument in the first place.  The argument isn't even so much one for distinction between groups, it's more intended to be efficiently express how childish it is to have an invisible friend by giving them a shock in such a way that they examine themselves ("what? there's no such thing as me? no, I must be, because god... because I..."), even for a moment, and realize it is all simply in their heads, and only ever has been.
You logic is flawed.  Religion, just like any other belief system, isn't grounded in rational thought.  It's based on emotion and "belief".  You can not "shock" someone out of believing in god anymore than someone could "shock" you into believing in god. 
Calling them 'people who believe the Bible is true' would at least position Christians (the majority of which don't know what is in the Bible) as ignorant of their own beliefs.
It could help get to the point that they worship on Sunday (not a biblical idea), eat shrimp (prohibited), allow women to speak in church (prohibited). All the nonsense that they ignore is a powerful tool once you can point it out.

If we're going down this road, the typical biblical ignorance of many (most?) christians can be attributed to a few things:

 

-modern interpretations of what were originally 'Jews only' commandments as meaning "all people" instead of "just Jews".  This is not because of the teachings of Jesus or his disciples, but by the teachings of Paul- with some collusion by Peter.

-the inadequacy of western european languages for expressing the ideas actually recorded in the original scripts of the various books of the bible.  Hebrew and Aramaic stand out as wonderful, beautifully logical languages with rich expressive capabilities and virtually no ability to translate that meaningfully into english- despite an odd trend of overlapping hebrew and english words (albeit... backwards, for example "shark" in english is "Karesh" in hebrew).

-further compounding of the inadequacies of translation by the political or moral zeitgeist of any particular translation's era.  Anything ambiguous is translated in the 'safest' way possible for the person doing the translating.

-a complete and utter ignorance of the pagan traditions adopted by christianity, or worse, denial of these.  Common examples include church buildings (added by Constantine in an effort to give the new state religion legitimacy), the architecture of these and even the interior decorations (the altar with candles on it are from roman state buildings; the podium is from Iol Invictus religions, even today many church buildings are aligned along an east-west axis- also from Sol Invictus- with the express purpose of casting the speaker at the head of the congregation in the light of the sun), stained glass (a gothic addition, inspired by the philosophies of the greeks), impressive cathedrals intended to inspire awe or a feeling of grandeur (primarily- but not exclusively- gothic), and even the ritual of communion is directly adapted from a greek pagan ritual (for catholics) or watered down and slightly modified, but of the same origins (protestant): the original communion was not really ritualistic: it was simply a meal eaten together by the early Christians in their houses- which were the actual places they came together to worship, before Constantine.

** Freer than any fundie can stomach

The US Constitution offers each citizen a radical freedom which millions of fundies in Ameristan would deny to all.

Even should some god exist, no law may compel anyone give up a sovereign right to reject any claim that it must be acknowledged, accepted, or worshiped.

The fundie god, the gods of the Big-3 Monster Theisms, the deistic god-of-the-state referred to on US coins and bills are beneath belief. No officer of the state or religious institution can command otherwise. Further no one is limited to mere defense; religious institutions enjoy no immunity.

• Language which presupposes a supernatural reality is logically incoherent

Supernatural claims are not false; they are vacuous. There are no supernatural agents, locations, states, events, or communications which can be described or spoken about. Supernatural discourse is fiction:

1. No supernatural agents: minds, souls, spirits, ghosts, godlings, gods, God (Allah, YHVH), cosmic soul, the absolute.
2. No supernatural locations: hell, purgatory, heaven, buddha realms, moral world order, transcendental existence
3. No supernatural states:  the numinous, sin, grace, revelation, life after death, illumination, nirvana, buddha mind.
4. No supernatural events: mysterium tremendum, redemption, resurrection, rapture, mystical union, karma, or reincarnation.
5. No supernatural communications: prayer, sacrifice, visions, apports, theophany, mysticism, inner light.

There are altogether no supernatural phenomena, only supernatural interpretations of phenomena.

the anti_supernaturalist
I agree completely that there are no supernatural phenomena. However, some of the terms you mention can be defined as very natural phenomena. For example a soul. One may define it as what is left of a person after that person dies. You can claim that the term soul does not, in reality, refer to anything because there is nothing left of us after we die, but you cannot call it nonsensical (or vacuous, as you said) because it does refer to an abstract notion of "what is left of us after we die". An example of a vacuous term would be a square circle or the current white president of the U.S. of A. because we know both terms do not refer to anything that can (in the case of the circle) or does (in the case of the president) exist. When talking about the soul we don`t know and that is exactly why we use such a vague term as "what is left of us when we die". So the term "soul" refers to that "what", whatever it may be (i. e. our memories, feelings, character, or simply nothing)
The mind is what the brain does. Yeah, I wouldn`t be so sure about this one.

RSS

Atheist Sites

Forum

The Movie Kiss: Romance or Rape?

Started by Unseen in Society. Last reply by Lewal 6 minutes ago. 66 Replies

Analyzing Ferguson

Started by Unseen in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Unseen 2 hours ago. 10 Replies

"Probably won't report".....

Started by Belle Rose in Society. Last reply by Davis Goodman 8 hours ago. 19 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Erock68la 9 hours ago. 63 Replies

Blog Posts

Rounding Up?

Posted by Carol Foley on November 20, 2014 at 3:17am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service