Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't require any absolute standard. I only ask them to string up some hapless bastard and whip him on the public square to satisfy their parking tickets. As soon as they explain why that's riduculous, the disagreement is over - they may never realize how compartmentalized their position is but oh well. If they're okay with my suggestion - I no longer care about their opinion.

[Endo]

Sceptic

Every time I see this word I think of the word "septic". Like as if the c was silent. Weird.

[genkaus]

It has been said before, but:

[robvalue]

People who claim to know everything are an annoyance to those of us who do.

As in my sig, it's mostly the damage religion does that motivates me into discussion. I don't feel the need to prove or declare myself superior to anyone, only to provide solid arguments.

One atheist trying to "get one up" on another is needless infighting in my opinion.

[Whateverist]

I don't require any absolute standard. I only ask them to string up some hapless bastard and whip him on the public square to satisfy their parking tickets. As soon as they explain why that's riduculous, the disagreement is over - they may never realize how compartmentalized their position is but oh well. If they're okay with my suggestion - I no longer care about their opinion.

You lost me, Rhythm.

[Mudhammam]

Albert Einstein famously said, "The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'—cannot hear the music of the spheres." The part that Einstein was most correct in that statement was the paradoxical characterization of religion as both a "hard struggle" and an "opium of the masses," which I'm sure even believers can appreciate. It's no secret that one aspect of the world Einstein never could understand was people, and I think it's easy to see why he did not, as result, get the so-called "fanaticism" of "creatures"--who are most certainly--not deaf to "music of the spheres" but indeed are "in a grudge against traditional religion." When one truly appreciates the devastating effects on the human psyche that religious indoctrination more often than not has on the developing mind, and many if not most atheists have an acute, first-hand knowledge of this damage, then the charge that one is

obviously more animated by emotional bile than any reason they actually own up to... obviously working through issues which cloud their judgment....

falls to the ground like a dead leaf. Of course we are bound to feel an emotional response to the intellectual and humanistic travesties that religions commit in example after example. Emotions are inseparable from reasons--one always animates or depresses the other. Israel Scheffler was fond of the term "cognitive emotion" in describing the irreducibility of their mutual interaction. I never understand the criticism of anti-theism that it ought to suppress any emotion that might accompany its pro-action--how can one experience or witness the toxic, anti-intellectual, guilt-driven, faith-based, xenophobic tendencies outsourced into the world by believers and/or their gods, and not feel a sense of outrage?

[The Grand Nudger]

You lost me, Rhythm.

Only giving you some insight on why I don't require some absolute scale of what people should find important or worthwhile. You made a field leveling comment,

People believe extravagant things. I do. I think you do too. What's more, aside from empirical fact, none of us is privy to any absolute scale of values from which to judge what is or should be important to people.

On this count (IMO), the field -is not- level (but feel free to give me your own opinion on how clear a line of sight over level terrain I may or may not have between my range markers). I'm not of the opinion that scapegoating is "extravagant" - my opinion is that it is abhorrent. If a believer can competently argue against whipping someone else to clear his parking tickets then he is also perfectly capable of arguing against that tenet of his faith. In fact, he is arguing against it - it's not a disagreement over what is or should be important, we've agreed.

Ah, but then, when I invoke the name of the lord he falls to his knees. It becomes not only virtue, but it's highest expression. It is to be wished for and sought out and it's praises are to be sung. Spiritual gaslighting. Am I to be tolerant of a position that we are both (the believer and I) perfectly capable of demolishing at every level? Is this something that can even exist in a world of peers? What about the peer that's getting the scourge? You say you'd rather not live in a solipsistic nightmare but here, on this - even though I can bring the believer to agreement with me on principle (a shared truth, not one solely in my possession) - I can go no further?

I've gotta ask, now that I'm thinking about it. You don't have a dog in this fight? Scapegoating, no scapegoating, vice or virtue - you've no stake in that? I humbly suggest that you do. That you're a decent person who would stand up for the man tied to the post, and stand against anyone who thinks it's a good idea to tie a man to a post- whether it's to do with parking tickets or the washing of "sin". Does any of this strike you as a willful misrepresentation or overstatement? That I've somehow reached this position through a dearth of empathy (though, granted, I proudly and publicly lack empathy for the -position-)?

[Whateverist]

Only giving you some insight on why I don't require some absolute scale of what people should find important or worthwhile. You made a field leveling comment,

People believe extravagant things. I do. I think you do too. What's more, aside from empirical fact, none of us is privy to any absolute scale of values from which to judge what is or should be important to people.

On this count (IMO), the field -is not- level (but feel free to give me your own opinion on how clear a line of sight over level terrain I may or may not have between my range markers). I'm not of the opinion that scapegoating is "extravagant" - my opinion is that it is abhorrent. If a believer can competently argue against whipping someone else to clear his parking tickets then he is also perfectly capable of arguing against that tenet of his faith. In fact, he is arguing against it - it's not a disagreement over what is or should be important, we've agreed.

Ah, but then, when I invoke the name of the lord he falls to his knees. It becomes not only virtue, but it's highest expression. It is to be wished for and sought out and it's praises are to be sung. Spiritual gaslighting. Am I to be tolerant of a position that we are both (the believer and I) perfectly capable of demolishing at every level? Is this something that can even exist in a world of peers? What about the peer that's getting the scourge? You say you'd rather not live in a solipsistic nightmare but here, on this - even though I can bring the believer to agreement with me on principle (a shared truth, not one solely in my possession) - I can go no further?

I've gotta ask, now that I'm thinking about it. You don't have a dog in this fight? Scapegoating, no scapegoating, vice or virtue - you've no stake in that? I humbly suggest that you do. That you're a decent person who would stand up for the man tied to the post, and stand against anyone who thinks it's a good idea to tie a man to a post- whether it's to do with parking tickets or the washing of "sin". Does any of this strike you as a willful misrepresentation or overstatement? That I've somehow reached this position through a dearth of empathy (though, granted, I proudly and publicly lack empathy for the -position-)?

Okay, now I get the reference to your sig quote. Jesus really is just some virgin to be thrown into the volcano for all our sakes. And you're right, the vast majority of believers seem to believe all this on this very base and literal level.

But I know you understand that the 'sacrifice' can be understood on other levels. It need not involve any other person, historical or imagined. This is the allegory for some kind of sacrifice made by each individual, or we're not dealing with the best version of the religion. Proving the gods these yokels believe in doesn't exist is like shooting fish in a barrel - except that they never acknowledge when you've hit one. (Not worth the bother.)

Vapid fundamentalists are so far from the human condition that I don't think you can move them to rationality so easily as by making a good argument. If that was going to work, they wouldn't be who they are. I still say it is more hopeful to push them in the direction of better theology. If that eventually leads to atheism, so be it. If not, at least they may become more acceptable neighbors.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, but again - those who bow to this concept are not the yokels, they are not the fundies. Without this concept -even as allegory or metaphor.....there is no christianity. Does it become less abhorrent if we treat it as allegory or metaphor? I think not. Vicarious redemption is, by definition - not a "sacrifice made by each individual". To interpret it as such is to leave the field entirely. Don't get me wrong, your interpretation is admirable - it just isn't very "christian" or "religious".

I'm an anti-theist, not an anti-"well thought out allegorical interpretations not neccessarily bound by their sources or blindly adhered to , exalted, and promoted as fact and fabric of the cosmos" -ist

[Whateverist]

Ah, but again - those who bow to this concept are not the yokels, they are not the fundies. Without this concept -even as allegory or metaphor.....there is no christianity. Does it become less abhorrent if we treat it as allegory or metaphor? I think not. Vicarious redemption is, by definition - not a "sacrifice made by each individual". To interpret it as such is to leave the field entirely. Don't get me wrong, your interpretation is admirable - it just isn't very "christian" or "religious".

I'm an anti-theist, not an anti-"well thought out allegorical interpretations not neccessarily bound by their sources or blindly adhered to , exalted, and promoted as fact and fabric of the cosmos" -ist

Ahh but when you see it as a sacrifice you yourself are making, where you are the lamb, there is nothing vicarious about it. It would be interesting to hear from Michael on this point, Frodo, Chad and Perplundy too for that matter. You may well be right about this. I don't know.

The question: Is the vicariousness of the sacrifice essential to Christianity? In other words, is it essential to Christian theology to understand redemption through sacrifice as something given as a gift by something outside oneself?

I'll send a message and see if any of them care to comment. Any bets on what they will say?