What is your opinion of Christianity?

[John Dule]

The same as my opinion of all cults: An abusive indoctrination system that has wasted innumerable human lives with its insular delusions and anti-individualism. There were thousands of obscure desert cults in the ancient world, and the fact that this one happened to survive is the only reason why today we treat it any differently from Zeus or the moon goddess Nanna. It is a self-sustaining brainwashing organization that survives by emotionally abusing young people, making them feel as though they only have value as part of a greater community, and transforming them into unthinking, unquestioning followers of doctrine and scripture. The moment that we as a species banish it from our moral philosophy, our lives will be incomparably improved.

[John Dule]

The same as my opinion of all cults: An abusive indoctrination system that has wasted innumerable human lives with its insular delusions and anti-individualism. There were thousands of obscure desert cults in the ancient world, and the fact that this one happened to survive is the only reason why today we treat it any differently from Zeus or the moon goddess Nanna. It is a self-sustaining brainwashing organization that survives by emotionally abusing young people, making them feel as though they only have value as part of a greater community, and transforming them into unthinking, unquestioning followers of doctrine and scripture. The moment that we as a species banish it from our moral philosophy, our lives will be incomparably improved.

If anything, we see evidence that children are born religious and that it is non-religion that requires a self-sustaining system to maintain.  Furthermore, it is unclear that a non-religious society would have incomparably better morality.  Why was slavery uncontroversial in ancient Greece but was abolished due to the efforts of a society - be it in the USA or England - strongly influenced by Christianity? 

Holy s**t you have got to be kidding right now. American slavery was a thousand times more brutal than slavery in the ancient world and it was developed by Christian societies in western Europe. If you want to give those cultures credit for then abolishing the thing they created, then at most that's a net zero for any claims to Christianity's superior morality. And babies are also born thinking that it's okay to run around naked in public and that Santa brings them presents on Christmas Eve. If we can outgrow one delusion, we can outgrow the others as well.

[John Dule]

Getting back to Dule's original argument. He's playing fast and loose with his definitions here. It doesn't really matter whether there's one guy at the top or not. Lumping Christianity into the pejorative "cult" and all that implies, or the Pope with David Koresh is ridiculous to say the least. There are all kinds of meaningful differences.

One may as well call Dule a communist because they both reject the divine right of kings.

Except the definition of "cult" does not demand that the group is led by one charismatic figure. You're equating a "cult" with a "cult of personality," which is a distinct subgroup of cults. Regardless though, all of this is moot because early Christianity (the apostles and other followers) absolutely fits the definition of a cult of personality-- a relatively small group of worshipers, one charismatic leader, religious veneration of that figure, and ostracization by the rest of society due to their different customs and beliefs. A religion is a larger form of a cult, and the only reason we accept Christianity as anything different is because we've become accustomed to its wacko practices.

Whether or not you want to see this a pejorative is not my concern. But all religions were cults at one point, and the only thing differentiating the two is how deep they've sunk their claws into society.

[John Dule]

What John is suggesting is a pretty common sociology/religious studies view of how religions form. As he says, whether it's inherently a bad thing or not is obviously going to depend on the religious preconceptions of the person assessing the concept, but suggesting that it's the case isn't necessarily a euphoric edgelord thing.

Sure that's not necessarily wrong. The edgelordy part is jumping between the academic definition of cult and the popular pejorative one.

I've never understood the 'edgelord' meme about atheists, probably because I don't actually know any religious people IRL. If I'd wanted to be edgy in secular California, I would've become an Evangelical.

[John Dule]

What John is suggesting is a pretty common sociology/religious studies view of how religions form. As he says, whether it's inherently a bad thing or not is obviously going to depend on the religious preconceptions of the person assessing the concept, but suggesting that it's the case isn't necessarily a euphoric edgelord thing.

Sure that's not necessarily wrong. The edgelordy part is jumping between the academic definition of cult and the popular pejorative one.

I've never understood the 'edgelord' meme about atheists, probably because I don't actually know any religious people IRL. If I'd wanted to be edgy in secular California, I would've become an Evangelical.

That's rather remarkable consider you go to a town with almost as many churches per block as a typical Olde Southerne Town. The only differences is that those churches can vary from Catholic to Jewish Temples/Synagogues, from Buddhist Temples to Quaker Meetinghouses, to say nothing of the Temple Hill area over in Oakland.

There are certainly religious people in the Bay Area, but I wouldn't say that I *know* any religious people; I'm just vaguely aware of their existence. My dad went to Catholic school and that turned him into an atheist at a young age. My mom was raised religious but was already an atheist by the time I was born. None of my friends are religious, and none of their parents are religious either. The only religious person in my extended family is a Christian Scientist whose abhorrent beliefs and evangelical attitude have alienated her from everyone else. My godfather, my cousins, even my grandparents-- all atheists. My girlfriend is an atheist. My teachers (as far as I know) have all been atheists. I had one friend in high school (briefly) who was a true-believing protestant, but he also believed in Alex Jones conspiracy theories and thought the Earth was flat, so I stopped spending time with him. My hippie aunt might believe in Buddhism or some crap like that, but I don't take her seriously at all due to her views on zodiac signs.

So while there are definitely religious people around me (hell, one of them handed me a pamphlet today on the street), I wouldn't say I know any religious people personally. And the "spiritual" or "religious" people with whom I've interacted on a regular basis have invariably also been borderline psychotic, mentally unstable conspiracy theorists. Hence why I don't see atheism as "edgy" in any way whatsoever. The more I hear people talk about religion, the more I come to understand that atheism is actually the default mindset of humanity. And regardless of how many religious institutions you can name in California, it's definitely the default mindset here as well.

[John Dule]

What John is suggesting is a pretty common sociology/religious studies view of how religions form. As he says, whether it's inherently a bad thing or not is obviously going to depend on the religious preconceptions of the person assessing the concept, but suggesting that it's the case isn't necessarily a euphoric edgelord thing.

Sure that's not necessarily wrong. The edgelordy part is jumping between the academic definition of cult and the popular pejorative one.

I've never understood the 'edgelord' meme about atheists, probably because I don't actually know any religious people IRL. If I'd wanted to be edgy in secular California, I would've become an Evangelical.

That's rather remarkable consider you go to a town with almost as many churches per block as a typical Olde Southerne Town. The only differences is that those churches can vary from Catholic to Jewish Temples/Synagogues, from Buddhist Temples to Quaker Meetinghouses, to say nothing of the Temple Hill area over in Oakland.

Scott Alexander made an interesting point about this. He noted that he didn't know a single Young Earth Creationist, but given how YECism polled in his state, the odds of him not knowing a single creationist by random chance was something like one in a trillion. He concluded that he had created an extremely strong social bubble entirely by accident.

Dule appears to have done something similar.

You have very obviously never been to Marin County if you think it takes a "strong social bubble" to avoid Young Earth Creationists here. A healthy majority of the county identifies with 'no religion,' and those who do are generally non-practicing. However, I should note that it's entirely reasonable to avoid YECs socially, and that even if I had the option of interacting with them, I would choose not to.

[John Dule]

Whoosh

You said "given how well it polled in his state." Creationism-- and religion in general-- polls horribly where I live. They're two very different samples.

[John Dule]

If the first formal account is 50AD, then it's not contemporaneous. There are a whole manner of reasons to doubt the narrative, but for a thought exercise let's grant some authority to what people said they saw, we still have no reason to favour a supernatural explanation over a natural explanation. Particularly from a people, generally conditioned to see supernatural explanations for all manner of things. Even the 'advanced' Romans. So you are making a concession for this one event and other events surrounding your belief system. You can accept the narrative as you describe it, but the hypothesis is based on belief alone.

By this logic, our sources on Alexander the Great, on Julius Caesar, on the Greco-Persian Wars are not contemporaneous and not acceptable. The overwhelming consensus among New Testament scholars is that the Gospels constitute reliable accounts about Jesus, comparable in reliability and dating to our sources on Alexander the Great.

Good analogy. Taking the Bible as literal truth is basically the same as believing all of the myths surrounding Alexander, like that his mother had prescient dreams of him conquering the world, or that Artemis herself attended his birth.

[John Dule]

Good analogy. Taking the Bible as literal truth is basically the same as believing all of the myths surrounding Alexander, like that his mother had prescient dreams of him conquering the world, or that Artemis herself attended his birth.

Taking the New Testament as being truthful is basically the same as believing in the accuracy of, say, Plutarch’s biographies, which are some of our most accurate pre-modern sources. Your unfamiliarity with Greco-Roman biographies and their unique accuracy when compared to much later sources is not your own fault - even highly educated atheists are notoriously bad at history.

Sure, the ancient Christian texts are on the same level of reliability as historical chronicles, whereas ancient Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist documents are just fairy tales. Your logic remains as airtight as ever.

[John Dule]

Sure, the ancient Christian texts are on the same level of reliability as historical chronicles, whereas ancient Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist documents are just fairy tales. Your logic remains as airtight as ever.

Your unfamiliarity with historical scholarship on the New Testament is as baseless as the charge that I reject any historicity to the foundational texts of Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism. You haven’t really presented any evidence explaining why you think the vast majority of New Testament scholars are wrong to compare the Gospels to our best sources in ancient history, but rather nothing more than a gaping jaw, a raised eyebrow, and a smug smirk.

I figured it was safe to assume that, as a Christian, you consider the Bible to be representative of actual history in a way that other religious texts are not. Am I wrong?