Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[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.