Earlier this year I wrote about Michael Winger, a truly awful stain of a man with a more successful Youtube channel than mine so who’s so big and smart now huh and I wrote about that man’s particular tendency to claim sight unseen the illegitimacy of positions against him. What this usually means is that he argues that Atheists aren’t really Atheists, because,
then he presents a list of unconvincing reasons and eventually cooks down to ‘they just want to sin.’ Like, one of the favourites of this position is the idea that look, all the things you want to say about the arguments that have convinced you, those things aren’t that important because they’re just a smokescreen, a rhetorical assertion that stands in place because there’s a real, simple, emotional demand: I believe this because I want to believe this.
And I think, based on experience and reading a lot of these ding dongs’ writing reaching back two centuries, that uh, that’s because that’s how their worldview works, so they assume it’s how everyone’s does.
The Fundamentalist Christian is a liar who believes everyone believes lies.
I haven’t done any kind of comprehensive study. I haven’t met every Christian Fundamentalist. What I have to offer on this is the story of my experience and also my experience of all the people I’ve met since who slotted neatly into the mental software I was already running. Software is the best comparison I can make, where the fundamentalist viewpoint is a platform that runs some pretty reliable programs on top of it. Those programs are great, and you know it’s an operating system since it can run conflicting programs alongside one another without necessarily having any kind of fault in memory handling. My point is that I can open up any apologist channel in the year of our lord 2024 and hear one of the same small pool of bullshit narratives presented with the same bullshit assumptions built into them.
When you see the arguments used over and over again, when you correct flaws in the argument, over and over again, you quickly lose the ability to imagine that these people are aware of what they’re arguing and whether or not the argument is just a cloak of words they throw over how they feel about things. There are some really egregious cases of it, such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, who have been making the same arguments my entire life and contend with correction by ignoring it and repeating the same script when you’re not in the room.
But there’s also the apologetics of those who want to be seen as serious or big thinkers, the kinds of nobodies who think that they have the presence and awareness to attack actual scholarship, and they dress themselves up with a sense of seriousness, a sort of vast pomp that gets really pissy when you remind them that the book they’re trying to argue is infallible has a zombie apocalypse and multiple talking animals in it. ‘Well you would bring those up,’ they sneer as if reminding them of things that are true is somehow a low blow, an unfairness in the conversation. Oh, you, you’ve shown how unsophisticated you are by pointing out a book full of obvious fictions has obvious fictions in it, and if that was all this is that would work! It is pretty dumb to treat a book of folklore as if it’s a history textbook and demand it hold to that standard!
But they usually get around to admitting they think the talking animals are real.
There’s this one that’s really famous because there’s a serious-sounding condescending prick named William Lane Craig promoting it, the ‘Kalam Cosmological Argument.’ The argument runs as follows:
- Everything that exists has a cause
- The universe exists
- Therefore the universe has a cause
And people keep looking at this and going: Well hang on, hang on, what says the universe has a cause? what about uncaused events? What about philosophical infinities? what about- when the much simpler response is ‘that’s fucking stupid.’ Because they don’t mean ‘the universe has a cause, period,’ they mean ‘the universe has a cause,’ deep breath, then subtle mumbling, ‘and that cause is the Christian god who I personally believe in as the best explanation for everything.’
And so you have this seriousness being used to adorn and address something which is really just being used to smuggle not into the idea of an actual philosophical point but rather recentre on this person’s fanfiction interpretetation of a few divine figures in a book of folklore in which, again, there are talking animals, unicorns, a global flood and a bunch of lies about prophecy.
Oh yeah, the lies about prophecy. Man, Christians love talking about how much prophecy Jesus fulfilled. They’ll tout lists, which they then are confident you won’t look at because if you do you find they’re very unsatisfying and tend to include things that haven’t happened yet. But more damning than that is if you look at the prophecies and go back to where they say they’re from, and then ask, say, a Rabbi who speaks the language of the book, you’ll find that uh, actually, that’s not what the Bible is about.
And then they introduce the idea of dual prophecies where there’s a prophecy about this thing that happened and the Rabbi’s version of events is true and supported, and then the other version with the rewritten words is actually also about Jesus, and please ignore the way that again, they change the wording. And this is serious. This is serious adults who get mad at you for not respecting their obvious fucking scam bullshit, because they believe it.
And they probably do!
That’s one of the funniest things about liars, they tend to wind up believing their lies. Oh sure they’ll know they made things up but the lie doesn’t sit in the brain over time and eventually they rewrite it, over and over, until eventually they’re not really lying, they’re basically telling the truth, they were telling the truth, and I don’t know what you mean about rewritten words. And then they’ll remember you as being rude or hostile or sad or angry and oh look at that they don’t have to worry about whatever it was you said. This is very consistent behaviour.
You may have heard this phrase, the idea that one’s faith is being tested. This is the idea that having to confront that reality sucks is a direct contest with the faith that people embrace. ‘You just gotta believe’ and ‘fake it till you make it.’ And what do they do about it? They lie. And any time you talk to someone about this kind of testing, they’ll usually say something like ‘well everyone is tested like that,’ which nobody seems to think is a problem. Like, hey, is it that universal that everyone winds up seeing mistakes and then everyone tells themselves it’s no big deal? It has the same energy as a person asserting ‘well look I’m straight and as a straight person I’m sure we all want to kiss that person of the same gender as me, that’s obvious’ and you have to be like okay, you know what that means right?
The assertation that people know what’s wrong rather than that they’ve proven wrong is very satisfying if your entire moral framework is based around your personal disgust. This means you wind up with a social framework that doesn’t just say ‘you’re right,’ but asserts even further, you are default. Christians Fundamentalists are so used to this default status it smooths over their fucking brains. The arguments don’t need consideration they just assert themselves, and then lie to themselves afterwards about the questions.
This is why they think so many things that people can’t readily choose are choices, and then that choices that people make are illegitimate because they veer away from the default.
Every Christian chooses what parts of the Bible to ignore. Even Fundamentalists. The Christians who aren’t Fundamentalists ignore that the Fundamentalists they claim to despise are using the same book and know it better than they do. And I mean this, they all choose what to ignore. For example, one of the most bananas things I’ve ever heard from a fundamentalist is that no, slavery isn’t bad, and it’s not bad because God told them how to do it, so clearly he’s okay with it which means it doesn’t follow at all, even in the American South that slavery was bad. Which is pretty amazing to consider because that’s a guy who doesn’t choose to lie to himself about that part of the book.
(Don’t worry, he’s got other bits he’s making shit up about.)
It was a breathtaking claim. After he said it I asked him how mum was doing, and he told me she’s doing fine and he looks forward to seeing me again soon.
Been a few weeks stewing on that one.