Working together to crush the Christianists

My favorite part of the "It's Not East Being a Christian" piece is the "Whimsical View of Evil" bit.

What he says is so true, but he misses a big part. It's one thing to believe in a god or "God" or whatever...but what about the Christian belief in Satan?

Hmmm, our God can't possibly do anything bad, that's bad press, so let's make up this other imaginary guy...Satan...yeah, that's the ticket! And he...makes you do bad stuff! So whenever you manipulate yourself you don't have to cry yourself to sleep in shame because it's not really your fault! Yay!

The Christian view of evil was the straw that broke the camel's back for me as a kid. There was all this stuff that didn't make sense piling up, and then someone at church told me I had to believe in the Devil...I laughed in their face and never went back. Even as a teenager I was more responsible for my actions than most Christians.

one question...you say that christianity has a vague purpose, but the atheists purpose is, as this amanda woman put it, "something bigger" and "mozart and plato." Cool purpose, that's definitely not vague at all. I think in order to make Christians look bad atheists try to put them on the same level as themselves. Atheists have a vague purpose, so they want to assume that Christians have a vague purpose as well. In order to make Christians look bad, atheists put Christians on the same level as themselves. They're only stating that Christians are just like atheists, both living with no purpose or a vague purpose. So what makes Christians so much worse than atheists?

one question...you say that christianity has a vague purpose, but the atheists purpose is, as this amanda woman put it, "something bigger" and "mozart and plato." Cool purpose, that's definitely not vague at all. I think in order to make Christians look bad atheists try to put them on the same level as themselves. Atheists have a vague purpose, so they want to assume that Christians have a vague purpose as well. In order to make Christians look bad, atheists put Christians on the same level as themselves. They're only stating that Christians are just like atheists, both living with no purpose or a vague purpose. So what makes Christians so much worse than atheists?

Hmm. Posting the same paragraph under two different names makes you look like a bloody idiot. Christian or not.

one question...you say that christianity has a vague purpose, but the atheists purpose is, as this amanda woman put it, "something bigger" and "mozart and plato." Cool purpose, that's definitely not vague at all.

Dear Captain Pseudonym:

Amanda didn't write that. Steve Cornell did, and Amanda reproduced it in her post, so that she could refute it. This is called "quoting." Conveniently, all the quoted text in that post is confined to the grey boxes.

Hope this helps!

That Cornell piece may be the singularly most unintelligent, worst-argued thing I have read in my life.

Wow!

phat

Olivia/Pip:
As already noted, not only do you have problems with separating identities, you have problems separating citations and arguments from conclusions.

Cornell says that atheists accepts to live without "ultimate purpose" and enjoys "temporal pleasures" such as "Mozart and Plato" while feeling "there is something more to existence -something bigger". (No, I don't see the logic here either - feeling an awe for existence (something more than existence) should be an excellent ultimate purpose.)

Amanda says that "the atheist must refrain from making shit up", while SFS says not that christians purpose is vague but "empty of any real meaning".

I can give three answers to a question about purpose.

The first is that it is folk psychology. There is no definable purpose and meaning to humans as natural phenomena. In this sense all humans are equally devoid of purpose.

The second is that we can define such a convenient psychological construct for ourselves as social beings. In this sense all purposes are equally valuable (comforting, planning) for individuals, though they are unequally valuable (morality, planning) for society. A hollow purpose is a detriment.

The third is that we can define a such a convenient psychological construct for ourselves as evolutionary constrained beings - the purpose is to propagate life. In this sense all beings are equally characterized by purpose.

To fully answer your conflicting ("same"-"worse") comments then:

"Atheists have a vague purpose"
In the sense where different groups have appreciable differences, an atheist may or may not make up a non-hollow (clearly definable) purpose for himself.

"atheists put Christians on the same level as themselves."
The order of business is that christians puts all other on a lower level than themselves. When atheists, rightly, claim that some secular purposes are easily more valuable for society they tend to get angry.

"what makes Christians so much worse than atheists?"
In this analysis, their hollow and arrogant beliefs.

I should add that when I say "that christians puts all other on a lower level" and "arrogant beliefs" it is in regards claiming "ultimate purpose". "Hollow" goes without saying really. ;-)

... which all leads to an interesting question: Why is a sense of "ultimate purpose" so widely considered to be a good thing? Why is the natural human flexibility in goal-seeking, as well as our need for down time, considered to be weak, sinful, frightening, or depressing?

I can tell you that while some of the happiest moments in my life have been related to "purpose-driven" activities, others have been totally, blissfully purpose-free. It's the stuff that falls in the middle that probably confuses most of us.

Hmmm, our God can't possibly do anything bad, that's bad press, so let's make up this other imaginary guy...Satan...yeah, that's the ticket!

They got that from the Persian Zoroastrians (via Judaism). The early Gnostic Christians interpreted the idea in the same frankly dualistic sense as the Zorastrians. But the ultimately victorious "orthodox" faction of Christians kept Satan while pretending to be strict monotheists, thereby making their theology even more incoherent. (The modern Parsi Zoroastrians in India, their forebears having been very desirous of impressing upon the British that they were not "heathen", now pretend to be monotheists as well.)

Cornell states:
"The account of Jesus' resurrection is strongly validated by standard rules for judging historical accuracy."

He lies.

Cristian apologists claim there were eyewitness acounts of the resurrection. Critical scholars do not consider how early an event was recorded as an accurate measure of veracity, and dispute the nature and existence of the eyewitness claims.
Ninety nine percent (figuratively) of christians will state that the first four books, the gospels, were written by Mat, Mk, Lk, and John. These books were not named until over 300 years after they were written. Part of the evidence for this is found in those very gospels where in none of them does the author identify himself.
Next, in the first chapter of Luke, he states that +- "these accounts have come to us through the generation." He admits he was not an eyewitness.
Also, the gospels were written for the most part in the third person, not what you would expect from an eye witness. They also contain accounts of things jesus did while he was alone.
Since there are no writings about any of this extant the bible it is impossible to conclude that there are any eyewitness accounts.
For more on this one can search Quelle, or Q gospel, which is probably the original story from which Mt, Mk, and Lk copied their narratives. They are also known as the synoptic gospels because they are so similar that they must have been copied from some earlier work. Even then, there are quite a few contradictions between them, exposing the poetic license that the writers showed.

There are no eyewitnesses. Period. Heresay not admitted.

Other than the multiple identities and apparent confusion about differentiating between quotations and conclusions, I wanted to question an idea in Olivia/Pip's comments and make a clarification.

First, the comment "I think in order to make Christians look bad atheists try to put them on the same level as themselves." as Torbjörn Larsson so insightfully noticed, is a comment that is revealing and perhaps would benefit you to contemplate. The implication within the statement is that atheists should be considered on a different "level" than christians and that the "level" they occupy is bad. Considering the same statement with alternate groups, "I think in order to make the jews look bad, the christians try to put them on the same level as themselves" clearly reveals the innate prejudice in the statement.

Second, it seems my hope in the introduction to my article was in some cases folly. I mentioned that these types of one-sided attacks are not beneficial and anytime you present an argument which is based more on misrepresenting the other view (intentionally or not) it is not going to be productive. I did attempt to be fair and rational in my article, but I most likely did not create an all encompassingly accurate critique of christianity. Which is why I try to avoid making arguments which consists solely of generalized destructive criticism without any substance from my own view. The exception was made in this case to both provide satirical amusement and illustrate the point I have just been making. Apparently both were lost on you. And despite your assertions that I misrepresented the hollow nature of christian purpose, you never offered a more explicit communication of christian purpose with which to try to contradict such a conclusion. More assertions without an attempt at evidence will not win you favor in many places, least of all on Mr. Myers blog.

Slightly off topic. While reading Southern Fried Skiptic's blog, I came to the realization that Christians (and others)are the ultimate bureauctrats. When in doubt, look it up in the rule book and above all, don't make a decision on your own.

Ted