The earliest xians certainly received benefits in the-here-and-now for their faith: group solidarity and ideological support, especially nurturing class hatred. (1Cor1:1-30)

Doubtless, xianity still has something to offer as it has for 2,000 years — but psychological comfort, decent burial of the dead, communal warmth, common action, pathways for employment, and opportunities for “martyrdom” are irrelevant to the truth of any hysterical claim made first by Paul or later writers of Jesus legends, whether accepted or not into xian orthodoxy.

Any member of any sect within islam, xianity, judaism, or zoroastrianism (the big-4 monotheisms) can cite his myths, cultic practices, and endlessly *circular* commentary to equal effect. Citing scripture in *defense* of itself is totally illogical.

What uplifts me, what comforts me, what I’m willing to die for . . . is no evidence whatsoever that any otherworldly belief is true or false. Such reasoning exemplifies ignoratio elenchi — lack of any logical connection between statements about anyone’s psychological state and any religious claim.

The monotheists’ magical texts are neither self-guaranteeing nor divinely inspired. They are propaganda.

biipolar2 ©2008

And let me draw your attention to the implications of his view, if you havent already noticed yourself.

Too much ink gets spilled on those ratonal arguments and not enough attention has been given to the psychological pressures that these arguments have. If there is indeed “more than enough” evidence and the Truth of Christianity is indeed just as clear as the summer sun (and many apologists do believe this) then why, indeed, isnt everyone a Christian?

When you start asserting no one could rationally disagree with you then what are you left with but the conclusion that everyone else is irrational? In other words: if you dont agree with me, theres something wrong with you. If my arugment dont convince you, its not because theyre not good arguments. The problem is you.

Which is, of course, just what fundamentalism teaches: we are blinded by sin. But this division of the world into dense, prideful, wicked people and honest, clear-headed ones is typical of the black and white thinking that I will argue is central to fundamentalist psychology.

But more on that later. Thanks for reading.

Not at all.

His talk was basically on how nobody comes to the Christian faith because of arguments. He told us all that there is “more than enough” evidence for the faith so it was beyond him why anyone would reject it – unless they were blinded or did not trust Christians.

His ultimate appeal was that Christians needed to stop convincing people and instead be their friends so that they can build trust and then slowly ease them into the faith.

What a load of crap. I can just remember all the times where I was “friends” with non-believers only because I wanted to witness to them. This form of psychological manipulation is only designed to keep people from thinking too seriously about anything. And it – sadly – works.

I only wish an atheist had come along much sooner and pointed out the fallacies in this sort of argument.

I agree with Price that fear is a motivator for fundamentalist beleif systems. Im less keen on positing laziness as explanatory, as he does, mainly because that comes very close to making belief a matter of morality (or at least character), which I think is almost always a mistake. Fundamentalists are not some strange alien species. They are human beings, like us, and work according to the same psychological rules we do. They have the same sorts of anxieties and vulnerabilities as anyone, and have stumbled upon a belief system which serves to domesticate those fears — albeit at a cost, which I hope to elaborate on.

Anyway, I hope my series will prove useful, as Price’s has to me. Thanks for your comments.

ex: our answer is 4! let’s see how we got there… Tradition states that it’s 2+2 so that’s it and nothing else. 3+1? you heretic! 6-2?! blasphemy! 17/68?!?!?! you unbeliever, i’m stoning you right now!

rawk out!