Christianity – The religion that doesn’t exist

Honestly, sometimes I have this weird feeling of fighting a hydra when discussing with Christians… You can chop of one head with a well placed argument, but two new ones will grow and each will shout „That’s NOT what Christians believe! Instead, real Christians believe… <enter some other strange stuff>.“

Somehow, this leads me to think that you can’t argue with Christians, as Christianity as a coherent school of thought simply does not exist. I assume, if we searched for the thing that ALL Christians believed in, we would end up with something like „God exists and Jesus was a pretty good guy“. As long as Christians can’t agree among themselves about their religion, how is is possible as an atheist to discuss it? We don’t discuss Christianity, we discuss one special flavor of Christianity – and as soon as the next Christian comes along, we get another flavor.

And the funny thing is… Christians really get angry when we generalize. Half of the times, Christians tell me, that what some other Christian claims is total bullshit and should never ever used as an argument against Christianity. SURPRISE, some other Christian will say the same about you!

Honestly, how can a religion expect to be taken seriously when they can’t even agree among themselves what the details are? If I wanted to argue that football is a bad game, than this cannot be done if the people on the field can’t agree on what the rules are, because then there is no game „football“, just some guys running around, all claiming football but everyone doing his own thing. Christians are really a minority. They are just a big group of minorities that created the illusion of all believing the same thing to be taken seriously.


11 Kommentare zu “Christianity – The religion that doesn’t exist

  1. So, does quantum mechanics not exist?  Every physicist I read seems to interpret the world of subatomic particles differently. 

    • You are free to not like quantum mechanics, but in this case, I suspect, the problem is more likely not with the physicists.

      Anyway, I don’t know much about quantum mechanics, never have been one (but I DO know things about Christianity and have even been one) but as soon as it is used to stop gay people from marrying, to tell women that their job is to serve men, to claim that non-quantum physicists are inherently untrustworthy, etc. – I WILL start reading about it, trust me. But until then, I have yet to see any scientist to claim quantum mechanic as the complete and final truth that answers all the questions already – Christians do that all the time.

    • Not a perfect analogy, but let me try it this way…

      The window is broken and dozens of people took shards of it to build new, window-like things, while claiming that THEIR window-like thing is, of course, the perfect original window. Discussing about one window-like thing doesn’t make sense, because as soon as you point out „Well, there’s a hole there…“ two other people jump out of the bushes and cry „Of course THAT wasn’t THE window anyway, but OURS is.“ – repeat until bored.

      But yes, at some point in the past, probably around 2.000 years ago, it might have been possible to discuss the topic, as everyone believed the same stuff. Of course, that was only temporary.

  2. yes, i agree, all analogies break down at some point. but no worldview is immune to division and extremism, least of all atheism. this doesn’t mean that atheism ceases to exist or becomes an illusion.

    • Atheism is pretty hard to divide. Either you don’t believe in any gods or you do. That’s all of it. There isn’t really anything else to it. Atheism does not claim that some rules have to be followed, atheism does not claim that some people should have less freedom than others because some divine being says so, etc.

      That’s the whole point: If Christianity was nothing more than a personal thing, a hobby, then I wouldn’t care how many contradicting interpretations there are. But unfortunately, it isn’t. Christians are trying to force their view onto everyone. And this is, why the question „You can’t even agree with other Christians, why should WE agree?“ suddenly becomes so important.

  3. „Atheism is pretty hard to divide“ -marxism, objectivism, agnosticism, certain types of buddhism, absurdism (and other brands of existentialism), nihilism, anarchism, new atheism… „Atheism does not claim that some rules have to be followed, atheism does not claim that some people should have less freedom than others“ -Did the state sponsored, militant atheism of the communist era not happen and is it not still happening in some places today? Was Russia, China, North Korea, parts of Latin America not forced into an ideology devoid of religion? With respect, you are doing the exact thing that you condemn in Christians – appealing to a pure, fundamental ideology while ignoring/whitewashing discordant or unpopular elements.

    • Which of the systems you mentioned does interpret the „rules“ of atheism differently? Not one. Because there is only ONE rule: „I don’t believe in any gods.“ End of story. There isn’t more to it. So you cannot divide it. You can talk about the one thing that defines atheism without ever having to fear that someone pops up and shouts „But I am an atheist and DO believe in a god, so your argument is useless.“.
      Atheism is simple. Theism is simple. Christianity is a complex mess of texts that can be interpreted in many, many different ways.

      And no, atheism does not have a rule that you have to preach it. That’s not atheism. There are atheistic systems out there, but what else they do has nothing to do with atheism. Of would you think that the existence of Christian bowling teams suddenly makes bowling a purely Christian sport? No, they are a bowling team that is also Christian, nothing more.

      There are many ideologies that are also atheistic, but they are not atheism. They cannot be justified by pointing to atheism. Noone says „Because I don’t believe in god, the jews who did not kill the son of the non existing god must die!“. That doesn’t make sense. But you CAN use the very complex texts of Christianity to justify that – simply because they make a million times more assumptions, rules, etc. than the ONE thing that atheism does.

  4. „There are many ideologies that are also atheistic, but they are not atheism.“ Ok, maybe we’re getting hung up on the differences between belief and practice. Atheism is simply defined and therefore its belief system (or what you must believe to be an atheist) is also simple. I acknowledge that. But in practice it’s very different (i.e. all the brands of atheism). I would propose that Christianity is the same. John 3:16 is very simple and so what you must believe to be a Christian is also simple. But in practice, Christianity becomes extremely diverse.

    • Technically, it’s what belief you must lack to be an atheist. But no, Christianity is not very simple. It’s a whole holy book. But the problems start if you ask one Christian if the whole book is literally true or just inspired. You can argue how the things have to be interpreted, but „Thou shall not suffer a witch to live“ is part of Christianity. You can argue how it is meant or if it’s still valid, but you cannot deny that it’s part of the official holy text of Christianity.

      Atheism doesn’t have a holy text. Only one sentence. „Do not believe in any gods.“ End of story. Nothing about witches there. You cannot justify to kill them from atheism. You can from Christianity. You don’t have to, but you can. That’s the difference between one single sentence and a whole bunch of text.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s