Atheism and Fundamentalism

[liamconnor]

I frequently find that the attacks against Christianity here by atheists and agnostics are not leveled against my Christianity; they are leveled against fundamentalists.


If the doctrine of Inerrancy, young earth, etc. were dropped, what would be left for atheists here to attack?

(Of course, one could say, "The resurrection of Jesus". But this would be dangerous as they could no longer point to discrepancies of the texts--that argument only works against inerrantists; not historians. Perhaps they could point to the problem of miracles at all; but that brings them into the field of metaphysics: are they ready for that?)

[Divine Insight]

I frequently find that the attacks against Christianity here by atheists and agnostics are not leveled against my Christianity; they are leveled against fundamentalists.

This question comes up quite often. Here's my personal response:

I argue against the Biblical Canon. My position is that the Bible cannot be true as it is written.

I have no clue what "Your Christianity" even means?

Especially if "Your Christianity" refuses to address what's actually written in the Bible. If that's the case, then I highly question the validity of "Your Christianity". Where do you get your information about "Christ" if not from the Gospels?

It's my position that any form of "Christianity" that has removed itself from the Biblical Canon and refuses to address the problems with that canon is already a lost cause.

I don't have time to try to argue with people's individual made-up religions. And I have no need to bother with that anyway. Most of the forms of Christianity that I find to be detrimental to society would most likely reject "Your Christianity" anyway if you have already refused to associate "Your Christianity" with the Christian Bible.

Christianity is supposed to be about Jesus being the Christ. And the only documents that lay claim to having words attributed to Christ are the Holy Gospels. Any so-called "My Christianity" outside of that has no doctrine to stand on.

No Gospels = No Jesus.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

In other words

If the doctrine of Inerrancy,

Or in your words, "No gospels = No Jesus".

Unfortunately this is merely an example of an attack against a fundamentalist Christianity. That is, this basic attack makes you an ANTI-CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST

which is fine. But merely serves as a corroborating example for this site.


For of course this site recognizes that the gospels are merely documents to be analyzed by historical methodology....

the question is whether historical methodological analysis of the documents reveals anything supporting the fundamental Christian position....and it does.

[liamconnor]

I frequently find that the attacks against Christianity here by atheists and agnostics are not leveled against my Christianity; they are leveled against fundamentalists.

This question comes up quite often. Here's my personal response:

I argue against the Biblical Canon. My position is that the Bible cannot be true as it is written.

I have no clue what "Your Christianity" even means?

Especially if "Your Christianity" refuses to address what's actually written in the Bible. If that's the case, then I highly question the validity of "Your Christianity". Where do you get your information about "Christ" if not from the Gospels?

It's my position that any form of "Christianity" that has removed itself from the Biblical Canon and refuses to address the problems with that canon is already a lost cause.

I don't have time to try to argue with people's individual made-up religions. And I have no need to bother with that anyway. Most of the forms of Christianity that I find to be detrimental to society would most likely reject "Your Christianity" anyway if you have already refused to associate "Your Christianity" with the Christian Bible.

Christianity is supposed to be about Jesus being the Christ. And the only documents that lay claim to having words attributed to Christ are the Holy Gospels. Any so-called "My Christianity" outside of that has no doctrine to stand on.

No Gospels = No Jesus.

Once again,

the first words in this response:"I argue against the 'biblical canon'"


This is obviously inadmissible for such a thread as this. A thread such as this doesn't care about "a canon". A thread such as this delightfully welcomes documents such as the Gospel of Peter, or other gnostic literature.


More interesting is why such an obviously inappropriate answer would make into this OP. Perhaps the responder should visit another OP, titled, "Is this a good debate"?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Just to review,

D.I. does not exhibit the understanding that what's in the Bible can be studied with great profit outside of any religious scope. What is disappointing is how rudimentary this perspective is, and yet how difficult it is for hypercritics here to grasp.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Just to review,

D.I. does not exhibit the understanding that what's in the Bible can be studied with great profit outside of any religious scope. What is disappointing is how rudimentary this perspective is, and yet how difficult it is for hypercritics here to grasp.

It doesn't matter if we pretend to be a non-religious historian the problems still remain:

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Even as a historian you have Jesus proclaiming that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law. The only jots and tittles he could have been referring to were the Old Testament jots and tittles. Therefore, even as a historian you need to recognize that these stories have Jesus supporting extreme literal fundamentalism right down to every jot and tittle of the Old Testament.

You can't escape this short of ignoring it, or claiming that words attributed to Jesus cannot be trusted. Either way you destroy your own position.

John 10:
[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
[35] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Even as a non-religious historian you have no choice but to recognize that these fables of Jesus have Jesus himself proclaiming that the scripture cannot be broken.

So even as a non-religious historian you've got serious problems with your claims.

You can't separate this Jesus from these scriptures because Jesus himself won't allow that. According to Jesus not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law, and the scripture cannot be broken.

So even as a non-religious historian you are stuck with having to defend a Jesus who is himself a hardcore scriptural fundamentalist. There's no getting around it. Unless, like I say, you want to claim that words attributed to Jesus, or the Gospels claims about Jesus, cannot be trusted. But the moment you make that proclamation you're done.

All you are doing is trying to get out of having to confess that these Gospel rumors are indeed riddled with extreme problems, and cannot possibly be true in their claims.

Trying to attack me on a personal level in hopes of discrediting me isn't going to get you anywhere. To the contrary, that just shows that you have no valid argument against the points I've made.

You're not going to fool anyone with that tactic.

[Inigo Montoya]

I frequently find that the attacks against Christianity here by atheists and agnostics are not leveled against my Christianity; they are leveled against fundamentalists.


If the doctrine of Inerrancy, young earth, etc. were dropped, what would be left for atheists here to attack?

(Of course, one could say, "The resurrection of Jesus". But this would be dangerous as they could no longer point to discrepancies of the texts--that argument only works against inerrantists; not historians. Perhaps they could point to the problem of miracles at all; but that brings them into the field of metaphysics: are they ready for that?)

The problem here is in that teensy tiny "etcetera." You've written this as though a young earth and a word for word translation just accompanies "some other stuff we shouldn't necessarily concern ourselves with."

Look! A squirrel!

What all is in that innocent looking "etc.?" Does etcetera include the acknowledgement of gods and their commands for humankind, their deification and/or time-share of deity upon carpenters born to virgins, their rules for salvation regarding our souls, their returning to life certain people after death, and so on and so forth? Is that the "etcetera" you'd have me drop to answer the question?

Tell you what. You tell me what's left to attack after your "etcetera" is clarified and removed, and I'll do my best to pick at what's left.

[Mithrae]

I frequently find that the attacks against Christianity here by atheists and agnostics are not leveled against my Christianity; they are leveled against fundamentalists.

I don't know about your Christianity but yes, that does seem to remain just as true now as it was five years, and ten years ago. One of our better members noted as much in an excellent thread once upon a time. I quite liked his conclusion that attacking fundamentalism (often with an equally fundamentalist mindset of one's own) is "safe and fun -- the intellectual equivalent of beating up ten-year-olds," though hopefully not implying anything about his own pastimes

• cnorman in August 2012 wrote:
  For some years now, I have observed a very great many threads that attempt to debate, or disprove, cast doubt upon, or otherwise dispute the beliefs or claims or value or morality or truth of religion. They have been popping up thick and fast of late, in several subforums, taking various tacks that all seem to center around the same assumptions. That is, virtually all of those threads appear to address fundamentalist Christianity of the Biblical-literalist variety, and for the most part seem cognizant of no other religious traditions at all.
  
  When this is pointed out, the members who post these threads seem to me, after some ten years of posting on this forum and others, to fall into two groups:
  
  Those in the first group say that they are quite consciously addressing ONLY fundamentalist Christianity of the most dogmatic and repressive kind, and that disputing that variety of religion is where their interest lies, and that they do not intend to consider or debate other approaches. This is said to be for various reasons; to wit, that that variety of religion is (a) the most pervasive, (b) the most influential, (c) the most pernicious, et cetera, and no other faiths are worthy of attention for those reasons; sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable.
  
  I think that's a reasonable approach; but in that case, I would think it would be a matter of clarity, if not simple intellectual honesty, to specify that one is only addressing dogmatic, fundamentalist Biblical literalism, and not religion without qualification.
  
  I have also rather frequently dealt with members of the second group, on this forum and others; those who insist (ironically against both objective fact and logic) that any and all varieties of religious belief ARE equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and that there is no essential difference between any of them. Strangely, I have also seen the complete inverse of that claim, to wit, that any variety of religious expression that is NOT dogmatic, literalist, repressive, anti-science, etc., is not really religion at all, and that those of us who do not believe in those ways are either lying, closet atheists, or are on our way to becoming atheists.
  
  Both of those claims are objectively and verifiably false, and in my experience those who insist on maintaining either (or, not infrequently, both) are just as dogmatic and doctrinaire in their own way as any Bible-thumping fundamentalist. There is only one correct way to think, and that is MY way -- even when one is thinking about religion. Even though I do not believe in it, I will make pronouncements which may not be questioned about how and what religionists must think and believe.
  
  I have found it about as futile to attempt to debate the matter with them as it is to debate Young Earth Creationism with a Young Earth Creationist. The dogmatic mind is a closed mind, and theres little point in attempting to debate a person who assumes a priori that he knows the Truth, and ignores or dismisses everything you say in the firm and certain knowledge that you are either an obstinate sinner who clings to his sin, or an irrational fool who clings to his superstitious foolishness and is either lying about it or attempting to confuse the issue. Peace to both kinds of dogmatists; I have better things to do. Dogmatists, religious or antireligious, are not really interested in debate, only preaching, and I am not addressing them here.
  
  But; For the first group, I propose that there is very frequently -- though not always -- another reason for concerning oneself exclusively with repressive, literalist fundamentalism in debate: It is the easiest kind of religion to argue against. The arguments in favor of it are easy to counter, and the arguments against it are easy to mount. Besides, its safe and fun -- the intellectual equivalent of beating up ten-year-olds.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 8 by Mithrae]

Mithrae, I'm with DI on this one.

What is "My Christianity"? If "My Christianity" is allowed to stand on its own as its own religion, this means that each and every person can quite literally make it up as they go along.

Look at ted, with his PCE. I'm 99.99% sure I remember him admitting at one point that his theology is incomplete, that he is basically still trying to figure it out i.e. it is his own pet project, that he and he alone determines what goes into PCE and what doesn't. Thus if anyone tries to debate ted on PCE by bringing up Biblical verses, ted always and I do mean that literally, always has the option of saying that isn't what the verses mean, that isn't what PCE means. He can never be nailed down.

Same goes with liamconnor. You yourself said it in your reply to him. You don't know what his christianity is.
If we liken what is going on here to a chess game, us atheists (DI and the rest) are playing white and going first. We start moving by attacking, questioning the Biblical canon.
That is the only thing we can do at that point, other than ceding the first move to the theist and asking them to move first, asking them to define what it is they mean by "My Christianity".
However, that move would instantly disqualify the theist. At that point, the best the theist could ever hope for is to have the atheist say "Your Christianity is valid...but since that is what I could say about everyone else's Christianity, I have no way of discerning which one is sound" and thus dismiss all of them outright, since we'd be in a state of mutually exclusive proposals.

But; For the first group, I propose that there is very frequently -- though not always -- another reason for concerning oneself exclusively with repressive, literalist fundamentalism in debate: It is the easiest kind of religion to argue against.

Or...that it is the only one with any kind of claim to any sort of evidence. "My Christianity" can be made up by its holder as they go along, and they don't concern themselves with having to stick to what their supposed holy text actually says. "My Christianity" could be a theology about a loving kind Father God who never has and would never order his children to kill...thus ignoring what goes on in pretty much every other page of the Old Testament.
"My Christianity" can and ought to be countered with an application of Hitchen's Razor.

[Justin108]

I frequently find that the attacks against Christianity here by atheists and agnostics are not leveled against my Christianity; they are leveled against fundamentalists.


If the doctrine of Inerrancy, young earth, etc. were dropped, what would be left for atheists here to attack?

Where do you draw the line between fundamentalism and non-fundamentalism? Is a Christian who believes in a young earth a fundamentalist by default? You realize the young earth belief derives from the Gospels and not from a literal reading of Genesis, right? Reading the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam, doing the math, one would conclude that Adam existed a mere 6000 - 10 000 years ago. How do you, as a Christian, deny this? Do you deny the Gospel account of Jesus' genealogy?