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:
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.
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.
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.
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.