21st-century Christian Philosopher

In my last post, I discussed the deniability of atheism shown in their statement that no direct trail exists from atheism to the massive bloodshed of the atheist Communists. I contrasted that with the equally-debatable direct trail to theism. I pointed out that although there was understandably some content for those interpretations, there were counters to it in theology.

Thus the atheist can argue not that the content of theism must be used for massacre, but that it can be used for massacre. Thus it is not the direct reducibility down to principles, but the degrees of freedom such an arguable ambiguity promotes.

Thus, it is rather uneven to look at what can result from faith, despite its requirements–not many are universal–and refuse to look at the degrees of freedom allowed by atheism, and only end up arguing what is dictated by atheism. As content-less it can be just as much about killing the stinking theists who’ve ruined the planet (and poisoned everything) as it is about a simple disbelief, which really contains no more than “Don’t think about polar bears.”

If I tell you not to think about polar bears, what am I telling you to think about? Now, live your life not thinking about polar bears. Well, everything after that is up to you–except the polar bears, that is. Don’t think about them. Lack a thought of them.

Nobody conducts their thoughts by a lack of something. And nobody lives their life by a lack of belief. In fact, if they do, they are saying something about the value of that lack. A value they cannot prove outside of sleight-of-hand about the progression of history, but one that they nonetheless believe. But for aforementioned reasons, cannot commit to.

Now there are various reasons that I ought to lack something. But each can be of questionable value. I can lack a tin-foil hat because I believe that God thinks it the worst sin. Or I can lack that hat because it’s just silly. There is no way I can weigh the value of a lack of something outside of a context that gives it value.

I mean, what atheist wouldn’t feel some chagrin at being told by another that he had a awesome argument against Christianity, who at the platform, proclaimed that some pastor’s kids pushed him down on the playground when he was 7?

There are all sorts of reasons to be atheistic, one of them might be that a theist pushed you down or called you names or stuck a sucker in your hair. It just doesn’t sound as good on the atheist FAQs does it?

Yet this is allowed in a totally context-free definition of atheism. In general, I don’t believe that atheists argue that atheism has 360 degrees of spread, and that there are as many bad reasons to be atheistic as good reasons. I don’t recall one discussion with an atheist where the chief complaint is that Christians deny ghosts and UFOs.

Remember, we can’t say anything about the quality of the argument against God given simple atheism. So we can’t say that a person believes that disbelief is good because he ate oatmeal that morning. All he has to do is lack the belief, and he’s in.

In general the 360 distribution around atheism’s non-center doesn’t work. It’s a sham once entering into a criticism of the church and the value of disbelief to invoke that oblivious center, which encompasses nobody really. It’s such a sham that I’m not impressed about the people who want to back up under cover of this infinitesimal shield.

By the way, just to put this in context, I know of a very amiable atheist who resembles none of this. But as well, he does not make stock arguments about theists and the church, he simply does not believe in God. However, I’ve often argued with him that saying that there is no stereotype we can assume by the definition of atheist is different from saying that there are no clusters of rationale which lead to this incidental state.

However the perpetrators of the “No True Scotsman” argument against Christianity half-maintain that there can be such a lack of cohesion among Christians¹. According to them, a person: who calls Jesus the “founder” of a “doctrine”², makes Jesus chief ministry “exposing the Jews”³ finds that Jesus’ greatest value was “not as a sufferer but as a fighter” ⁴ and finds race, (i.e. flesh) to be primary in importance to man⁵, all the while invoking the inviolable law of nature that the strong survive⁶ is “Christian” simply because he suggested he was, no matter how many goddesses or abstract entities he invoked.