Thursday, November 1, 2012

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.


  1. I've often thought that "apologist" was an interesting term for those supporting the dogma and literal biblical interpretations common with funduhmentalists. Like yourself, I don't find it necessary to appologize for not beleiving in god. At times I too find the hyperbole you use on occasion a nice release, but I have to wonder after several years of feeling the way you do if you really are "sickened" by the faith of others. I do my best to just avoid it unless, like some of the recent political statements, it really is sickening.

  2. I am most irritated with other peoples faith when they try to shove it down my throat either directly through evangelizing or indirectly through trying to influence politics and legislation in favor of their beliefs. I personally believe that religious beliefs and faith are a personal matter that the adherent chooses to follow. They believe they are in a personal relationship with God and Christ.

    Theists don't obey their very own teachings and are busy attacking and judging everyone that is opposed to their beliefs. Jesus allegedly said judge not so that you may not be judged yet they are the first to judge and criticize anyone who does not believe as they do. I just find the whole thing to be nothing more than a road to hypocrisy. Many of them can talk but can't walk the walk by living what they claim to believe.

  3. Ditto, Chatpilot. I have several family members who like to cram a heaping spoonful of the good, old time religion down my throat every time we meet. Do I force them to attend lectures on Astrophysics or read books on evolution (even though a little basic scientific literacy would do them good)? No. Because I have manners, that's why. But maybe it is about time for the gloves to come off, at least with some of the more patent nonsense. I don't know

  4. --- Dear Bro. I enjoyed your post. I can answer to each of the points you have raised. They are really simple misconceptions. And Christians tend to complicate things. I personally don't think blind faith is unscientific or stupid. It will find its place as science develops. We all exercise blind faith to some extent in our daily lives. Even atheist do. Life is impossible without it.
    --- Regarding that verse: If you're not thoroughly opposed to reading I would like to suggest PROPHECY PARADOX by Lynn Louise Schuldt, a Preterist view of eschatology which I thoroughly enjoyed and found convincing.
    --- One interesting thing about Atheism I found is that people who disbelieve in God believe in things that 'happened' 300 billion years ago. It is not absurd but scientific just because THEY BELIEVE it is scientific. Food for thought, eh?

  5. "We all exercise blind faith to some extent in our daily lives. Even atheist do. Life is impossible without it."
    ---I'm sorry, I failed to explain this in my first post. I commute to work daily by bus. I change 3-4 buses every day. I can never be sure these buses have no mechanical problems that could cause an accident - which means injury or even death. I would like to scientifically test each bus before traveling in them. But given the circumstances, it would be absurd to do so. So, I rely on blind faith. Everyone does. So my blind faith is not an absurdity after all. (I know atheists like logical arguments).

  6. @induskreed

    Regarding blind faith, it is not a valid means of obtaining knowledge which is the purpose of scientific investigation. Regarding the verse I cited about Jesus failed prophecy about his return, it means what it says. If someone was to tell you after having visited your home to service your boiler and said I will be back next Tuesday because I have to order and replace a part. He gives you an estimated date and time that he will show up. Do you try to reinterpret what he said in some strange metaphorical form? No, you take him at his word.

    Regarding your book suggestion, I don't mean to be rude; but I don't read christian books. Especially books on apologetics. I can assure you that I have pretty much heard every argument known to man on the subject of Christianity and the existence of God. Quite frankly, I find them all flawed and I don't find any of them convincing.

    Regarding your last comment scientists don't "believe" anything. They theorize what might have happened based on the available evidence that they uncover. You should read up on how scientists date the age of the earth etc. and what methodologies they use. It might be eye opening and educational.

    Finally, when I ride the bus I don't believe it will get me where I intend to go because of faith. I am pretty confident because of my previous experiences using public transportation. In other words I have some objective knowledge and experience to base my expectations on. If some unforeseen things happen then it happens but I know that it is not something that will happen everyday based on my previous experiences with the bus service.