Arguments against Soul

[EgoDeath]

Well, Christian Science is probably intellectually inferior to most forms of Christianity, because its believers not only accept Christianity, but they also accept some incoherent form of idealism. Don't you agree?

Well, any time you combine religion with other non-scientific nonsense, I mean, sure it's bound to be less worthwhile than just the religion itself. However, I'd have to know what you mean, more specifically, by "some incoherent form of idealism." But generally, yes, I'd agree.

Though, that wasn't really the point. The point is that while Belacqua asserts that no form of Christianity is "truer" than any other, he clearly believes differently, and demonstrates a different set of values by repeating the same tired old arguments and quoting the same people over and over again. Not to mention, his view of Christians as well-read philosophers is totally delusional and simply not in keeping with the statistics that we actually know about Christians. Hell, most Christians, statistically, don't even read their own holy book, let alone venture off into the works of Aquinas, that Bel so profoundly loves, and are hardly perusing Aristotle at their leisure. This view Bel has of Christianity is simply wholly separate from reality. It just is.

Most Christians, in the US, are watching America's Got Talent reruns while they heat their TV dinners in the microwave, yelling for the kids to come downstairs and get their highly processed food. I feel like Bel has this view of most Christians wearing a smoking jacket while leisurely flipping through the works of Aquinas, classical music playing in the background while some foie gras is being prepared in the kitchen. It's laughable. To even assume that most Christians take their own faith seriously is laughable. Period. Statistically. Statistically, they don't read their own book, don't attend church, don't do this, don't do that. In fact, it's bizarre to me that most "Christians "even feel justified calling themselves Christians.

"But ah! There's your folly young EgoDeath! There is no true Christianity! You don't get to define what a Christian is!" Bel cries as he then looks you right in the face, hypothetically speaking of course, and tells you about Aquinas other "great Christian thinkers." So, clearly, he does think that there is a true form of Christianity, and furthermore, he's the one to tell you about it.

In fact, I recently played a trick on Bel. He made a thread with a "reading list" where he talked about different books that he believes adequately explained Christianity. you see, it was a bit dirty of me, but I forced Bel to back himself into a corner. Bel does believe that there is a true form of Christianity, and he thinks he knows it better than all of us. I forced him to prove that by, himself, creating a list of specific books that he believes provides an adequate understanding of what the religion is. So clearly, he does think that there is one form of Christianity that one should adhere to. The problem is, this is just his summation of events, and nothing more. Nothing makes him more qualified to tell you what real Christianity is than anyone else.

Parroting Aquinas and quoting Aristotle doesn't make you a religious scholar. It just makes you sound a tad bit smarter than the folks over in Westboro. That's about it.

It is obviously true that certain kinds of Christianity are intellectually superior to others. Some are fascinating, others are utterly ridiculous. To say they are all the same, and all equally foolish, is ignorant.

Great. So you concede that there are forms of Christianity that are truer than others, at least intellectually speaking, no? Of course, you won't answer my question directly.