About modern Christian arguments

For those of you that have been following my blog for some time you will surely know about how much I abhor Christian apologetics and the nonsensical idiotic arguments that they make. Since its beginnings it has been used as a means to defend the faith and its many moronic and improbable tenets through the use of philosophical arguments. Apologists believe that they are using logic and reason to formulate these arguments, but I believe that their idea of logic and reason is twisted by reason of their faith.

In order for believers to even begin to formulate arguments in defense of the absurdities that they believe; they have to begin from their conclusion. This in my opinion is like most Christian beliefs ass backward reasoning. The scientific method for instance begins with a question, does background research, constructs an hypothesis, tests its hypothesis by experimentation, analyzes data and draws a conclusion, and finally you communicate your results. It's not always that neat and as more data is discovered the conclusions are always subject to change. This is a more logical way to come to a reasonable conclusion. Basing ones conclusions on faith is in my opinion absurd beyond reason.

In fact, faith in my opinion is an abandonment of reason and I find that the study of apologetics is absolutely boring. I feel that theists misuse the philosophical method in order to try and find some kind of reason to their insanity. I have argued many times that Christianity like the many religions that preceded it were simply not true. I like to state that yesterday's religions are today's myths and in my view Christianity is no exception.

Here is an example of what I mean when I say that Christianity isn't true and I have written an article  on this very subject before. Jesus was speaking to his followers in Mark 9:1 regarding his return and said to them that there were some standing there that will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God. He later states in Luke 9:30 as he spoke to this crowd that " In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away all these things will have taken place." In those days a generation was estimated to be between at least 35 to 40 years. Now who was Jesus talking to when he allegedly made these statements? I don't think he was talking to us 2,000 plus years later, because if he was then taking him at his word that would make the first century one hell of a long generation!

Apologist's like to circumvent this little inconsistency by using the argument found in Matthew 24:36 that no one knows the day nor the hour of his return. Or that he was referring to his little meeting on a mount with Elijah and Moses also know as the transfiguration. But any bone head could see that the transfiguration and Jesus descending on a cloud in great power and glory are two entirely different things.

I have stopped reading books and articles on Christian apologetics because I feel that all of the arguments presented are nothing more than backward and nonsensical reasoning or as I like to call it justifying the absurdity of their beliefs. They haven't changed much since the beginning of apologetics, although every once in awhile they are modified like church doctrines to keep up with the times. I have come to the conclusion that if you have read the gamut of arguments for the existence of God or the resurrection of Christ you would have already read them all.

It sickens me how Christians are so blinded by their faith that they can't see beyond their own noses how silly and illogical those beliefs are. The idea that some man who is God incarnate was resurrected and is coming back "soon" lmfao to the earth outside of Christianity is absurd! But believers don't see this. Their beliefs are are exempt from those of all other religions on the face of the earth and therefore true. This is known in philosophy as special pleading and it is the only way that they could even sustain any argument from their beliefs at all.