I haven’t posted a thread in GD before, but I’ve been a long time lurker here. I don’t want to shit on anybody’s beliefs, (er, or lack of), but I’ve noticed that when a discussion of Christianity is started, there are sometimes a few atheists that call God “The magical pixie in the sky” and related things. I realize that everybody has a right to their own opinons, and I don’t want to single anybody out, but sometimes, this can come off as condescending to me (and maybe other Christians) and my beliefs, as if I believe in nothing but a cloud of dust. I’m sorry if I’ve angered you, I am not looking to be Pitted, nor am I trying to convert anyone. I also realize that this is a sensitive topic for some and I don’t want to offend anyone.
I just ignore them. Unless you worship a Magical Sky Pixie, or an Invisible Pink Unicorn, you shouldn’t be worried.
It’s as if someone wanted to insult an Arizonan by lambasting New Mexico. Though they might appear the same, they’re really not, so it doesn’t really matter.
I think it’s intended to come off as condescending, or at the least, as dismissive.
Without a specific example, though, it’s kind of hard to judge if the person was being condescending. Some of the theists in here tend to be pretty condescending, and it may have been in response to something a theist said. Should this really be in GD? Are we debating if some atheists are condescending? Sounds more like a BBQ Pit topic.
Perhaps, but comments like that usually come in the context of a debate, and often I have noticed that some theists will couch their arguments in jargon so as to obscure what’s really being discussed. So in that context, one might feel it necessary to disarm them by pointing out what they’re really talking about, which is, in essence, a magical being that lives in the sky. Again, I’d have to see the actual example we’re talking about, but in general I’d probably agree with you that “pixie” is really a poor choice of words in that regard.
Hey, welcome to GD, Topaz.
You’re right in that whether things like “Magical Sky Pixie” are insults depend on the poster and the context. But some of the time, people are merely making fun of some of the satellite “beliefs” of Christianity – like the idea that God is a white-bearded, long-haired old man who lives in the clouds surrounded by people with big white wings.
It’s a way of helping the christian to see through the atheist’s eyes. To the atheist–okay, make that some atheists–god really is no more real, evident, or compelling than any of the myriad beliefs that are written off by many christians.
Take an example, there is a culture somewhere (I don’t recall exactly where) that puts half of their crops into temples to “feed” or appease their dead relatives’ spirits. Literally half of their food production goes to waste in this way. To a christian, this may sound like a pixie in the sky sort of thing: Giving up half of a society’s food just so that the ghosts of dead relatives don’t get pissed and haunt them?! That’s nuts!
To me that’s pretty much what christianity is–a big, silly, and wasteful superstition. So many christians take god to be so overwhelmingly obvious, and the theology to be so evidently true, that they seem completely unable (or unwilling) to confront this belief with the same level headedness that they’d put into buying a house, choosing a daycare, or weighing a sales pitch.
I once worked with a guy who was a mechanical engineer–his whole career and world view, prior to my meeting him when he had moved to a new career, was the physical world. Except when it came to religion. One day he got into an argument with somebody about creation-evolution. Turning to me for moral support, I told him that he “didn’t have an argumentative leg to stand on.” He replied by yelling, “You want proof?! Look out the window!” Unless you’re debating a question such as Is It Raining Outside?, looking out the window doesn’t exactly qualify as proof of much. He was so wedded to the idea of creation that he had completely abandoned any reasonable standard of evidence & proof.
Just as he would compare a true believer’s faith in cold fusion to endless attempts to prove that pi is rational, it is reasonable for me to compare his faith in god to a belief in the tooth fairy.
Well, that’s how I see it, anyway.
It’s called PAYBACK. I’d go into more detail if this thread were in the BBQ Pit.
I see two ways to take this:
-
That you allege that Christians, or some Christians, believe this. In which case, I want a cite.
-
That you are suggesting that people who don’t believe in the Christian God think this is what Christians believe. In which case, cool – MSP is probably a good description for the concept.
Well, this is why you should hang out amongst agnostics more, Topaz. We generally don’t give enough of a damn to use insulting terms for deities.
By the way, I congratulate you for setting some kind of a record for greatest effort not to offend in an OP, including the first-time poster comment. I know what you were getting at, but I was reminded of those people who call radio talk shows and announce how they are first-time callers (pregnant pause). I never know if they are pleading for special treatment or expect some kind of an award.
You needn’t worry though, as even the baying pack of hounds in GD seldom bite.
CHOMP!!!
Well, this guy doesn’t have a beard (doesn’t have a face at all in fact); but then there’s this guy.
I took TVAA’s reference to “satellite ‘beliefs’” (note his quotation marks in the original) to mean stuff like the Family Circus (no actual depictions of the deity that I can recall, but plenty of scenes of deceased Grandpa standing on a cloud in a white robe smiling down at Grandma on their anniversay); or even Far Side cartoons (definitely some pictures of a bearded Zeus-like God in those). Not so much the actual tenets of any church or any serious theologian, but a sort of pop-culture mental image most people have when they hear one of those “A lawyer, a doctor, and a priest die in a car crash and are standing at the gates of heaven…” jokes.
[Edited to add the letter “e” – MEB]
No need to go into the Pit… yet. Please explain.
That’s about what I meant, MEBuckner. Thanks.
Another example: hellfire. Do you have any idea how many Christians believe that Christ’s explanation of what happens to those that turn away from God is literally true and not a metaphor?
There’s a definite culture iconography that is passed down parallel to religious beliefs (and sometimes within them). Think of the red devil with horns, hooves, pointy ears, a barbed tail, and a pitchfork. Show someone that picture, and they’ll identify it as “the devil”, even if they don’t believe in Satan/Iblis/whatever.
Angels are another example. Early Christian iconography had actual halos: circular emanations parallel to the face surrounding the head, symbolizing the subject’s spiritual significance (and supposedly an invisible and intangible “aura” of holiness). Why did it mutate into the little golden rings that float above people’s heads? Who knows?
And if you are so arrogant as to believe that all the Christians in the world are worthy of this “PAYBACK”, something is wrong with you. You don’t take something that someone holds dear to them, and shit all over it.
Well, it depends on whether that something that someone holds dear is worthy of being shat upon.
I don’t care how deeply held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi are that the Holocaust was a hoax, Hitler was a great man, and the Jews are evil bloodsuckers, I will hold those beliefs in contempt, and even express my contempt.
This is not to say that theism or Christianity are morally equivalent to neo-Nazism–and I don’t think that they are–only that someone holding beliefs deeply, or being “sincere”, is not the proper measure of one’s contempt or lack thereof.
Now that you say it like that, I think you’re definitely right… It all depends on what the belief is.
Exactly, to some(read:me) athiests, the idea of god and the “evidence” for him/her/it is laughable. I see it as nothing more than a ridiculous belief talked about by a few people a few thousand years ago. This is why one could compare it to something like pink elephants.
Look at it this way.
I believe in xxxxx, it watches over us and judges us and stuff
Well I believe in yyyyy it watches over us but doesn’t judge us and stuff
These beliefs don’t mean anything without an idea, yet there are still beliefs, without evidence the outrageous claims can both be likened to other, outrageous claims / beliefs.
Such as,
I believe in Zues, he watches over us and judges us and stuff.
Well I believe in Pinkelephanitis, he watches over us but doesn’t judge us and stuff.
I suppose I kind of lost my train of thought, but if you followed, that’s what I meant.
To echo Ryle Dup, I think phrases like “magic sky pixie” and “Invisible Purple Unicorn” tend to get as rhetorical debating devices not as unprovoked swipes. many of the tings which are said about God can be said with equal plausibility about other imaginary constructs and deliberately absurd constructs are postulated as a tactic of showing the insubstantial nature of some (not all) theistic arguments. I think such comparisons are fair game in that context but I’m not a big fan of dismissive “who cares, it’s all just a fairy tale” posts in GD, not because I necessarily disagree with them but because they just aren’t very helpful or enlightening. It’s sort of the atheistic equivilent of “I believe what the Bible says and that’s that.” It doesn’t engage the debate.
I find it interesting, Topaz, that you would use the following metaphor:
I find more evidence for a cloud of dust than for a deity. For you see, I can directly measure the effects of a cloud of dust, and if I wish to experience a cloud of dust, I can merely go stand in the desert and wait for the wind to blow. I find less existence for the existence a deity than for the existence of clouds of dust.
As long as your beliefs do not cause harm to others and are beneficial to you, I do not believe that it is in the best interests of others to refer to those beliefs in terms which could be considered derogatory. However, I don’t see evidence for belief in a deity, and do not understand how people can sincerely believe in a deity. Is it acceptable to state my beliefs in those terms?
Thank you, thank you, THANK you, MEBuckner. I can’t tell you how many people seem to think you should respect someone’s convictions just because they’re convictions. I find that absurd.
To me, phrases like “The Magical Pixie Fairy” (borrowed that from an old pal) are usually intended to remind people who are assuming too much that religious material is a belief and nothing else. Think of it as a reminder that you’re working from your own faith, and as such, your ideas are not going to be accepted as true by everyone.
Diogenes explains it pretty well, I just wanted to give him a vote of confidence. The type of explanations that usually get this kind of response involve either twisting the facts to fit the answer, or starting at the conclusion and working backwards. Using that kind of bizarro-logic, you can “prove” anything with equal validity. For example, I’d argue it’s just as reasonable to say the world was created 20 minutes ago by fat leprechauns as it was 6,000 years ago by god in six days.
The Invisible Unicorn is PINK, thou blasphemer!