Christianity Illogical?

[OTavern]

Yes, Stalin was an atheist, and he was a monster. So was Pol Pot and many others. (By the way, Hitler was not an atheist.) To claim that they were monsters because they were atheists, is a bit of stretch… if the whole book you quoting from is such a biased distortion of half-truths, you can safely throw it into the trash can. Or maybe burn it, so you can get some value out of it.

Is that your solution to any facts you cannot tolerate – toss or burn them?

You should take notice that Nazi Germany is not on the list below. Hitler may not have been an atheist, he was a paganist in the narrowest sense of the word and his contempt for Christianity and Judaism was apparent in word and deed.

Actually you should read Vox Day’s book (it was a free download) because it is very well supported with researched facts – no half truths. However he does a great job showing how the three darlings of modern atheism - Dawkins, Hitchins and Dennett fall flat where reason is concerned.

As to atheism being responsible for the actions of totalitarian regimes being a stretch, the following chart lists 22 different atheist regimes and their toll on humanity over the past 90 years. No bias, just data. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2769&stc=1&d=1207018083

The data was from R.J. Rummel’s research found in Power Kills
hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE6.HTM

 

[Mystic_of_God]

Right, I constantly hear atheists claim that Christianity “illogical”

I’m genuinly confused what exactly is to be meant by this, how is it illogical.

errrrrr

They obviously have no knowledge of certain Christian personages such as C.S Lewis, G.K Chesterton, Thomas Aquinas, Auugustine, etc, who were a heck-of-a-whole-lot smarter than they are.

I personally believe that atheism works from the ground up, we see, we feel, we taste, touch, see, and know; that is all.

In Christianity, there is fundamental truth at the center, one childishly simple concept at the core. This summarizes everything. (in catholicism anyhow) All truth and law is extrapolated from this. The history of mankind follows it, nothing contradicts it.

Will we discover this core fundamental truth? I don’t know. It could be ineffable, the Word that created the universe described in John 1, or it could be the smallest sentence in any language, what God told Moses in the bush, “I AM”.

 

[Filius99993]

errrrrr

They obviously have no knowledge of certain Christian personages such as C.S Lewis, G.K Chesterton, Thomas Aquinas, Auugustine, etc, who were a heck-of-a-whole-lot smarter than they are.

I personally believe that atheism works from the ground up, we see, we feel, we taste, touch, see, and know; that is all.

In Christianity, there is fundamental truth at the center, one childishly simple concept at the core. This summarizes everything. (in catholicism anyhow) All truth and law is extrapolated from this. The history of mankind follows it, nothing contradicts it.

Will we discover this core fundamental truth? I don’t know. It could be ineffable, the Word that created the universe described in John 1, or it could be the smallest sentence in any language, what God told Moses in the bush, “I AM”.

Hey, you forgot good ol’ Descartes. He’s up there too.

 

[ateista]

Is that your solution to any facts you cannot tolerate – toss or burn them?

Facts? What facts? I advocate to get rid of junk of any kind.

As to atheism being responsible for the actions of totalitarian regimes being a stretch, the following chart lists 22 different atheist regimes and their toll on humanity over the past 90 years. No bias, just data. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2769&stc=1&d=1207018083

I wonder what does the word “murder” mean in that chart? And where did the 76 million murders is China come from? Does it include abortions perchance? The sad truth about the Chinese culture that the male children are considered to be desirable, and the female children are not - and this attitude was not brought along by the communist regime there.

The human rights violations in the communist regimes are well known. It is also true that those regimes were atheistic. Your source intentionally attempts to create a cause-effect relationship, which is simply not there.

Junk, pure junk.

 

[Mystic_of_God]

One more point I would like to make.

Reason is a fundemental quality of man. Since God created everything he created reason. To say that faith contradicts reason is to make God a liar. Hence Christianity is not, and cannot be, illogical.

 

[OTavern]

Facts? What facts? I advocate to get rid of junk of any kind.

Junk, pure junk.

Your response shows something of your bias and unwillingness to be a fair “judge” of evidence.

The facts came from the widely recognized researcher on genocide from the University of Hawaii, Prof. R.J. Rummel.

His premise is that democracy is the antidote to genocide and says nothing about theist/atheist connections. However, it is clear that virtually all of these regimes were avowed atheist governments with the stated motive of ridding the world of “religion” and any other source of opposition to their quest for absolute power.

The Chinese figure does not include abortions but only genocide statistics where living and “independent” human individuals were killed for the pure intent of advancing “power” over people. You can read more about his methods and findings here.

The fact that you didn’t even bother to follow that up and simply proclaim the research “pure junk” shows you clearly do not follow rigorous and “fair-minded” criteria for making your claims about truth.

I am disappointed because I believed, up to now, that you were interested in uncovering the truth more than you were concerned with merely supporting your bias. Apparently, my “belief” about you was misplaced. It isn’t about truth, then? Just about being right?

 

[ateista]

However, it is clear that virtually all of these regimes were avowed atheist governments with the stated motive of ridding the world of “religion” and any other source of opposition to their quest for absolute power.

This is a clear example of the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” types of arguments. You cite a correlation and imply causation. It simply does not work.

In order to prove your point, you must bring up a logical reasoning just how does atheism lead to genocides and mass murders. I did not deny the facts, just the conclusion you draw from them.

On the other hand, Catholics deny that the murders of “witches” in the Middle Ages were the direct result of their religion. They bring up excuses and say that they were the acts of “secular” governments. What they conveniently forget that there were no secular governments in those times. As the true, but rather inconvenient saying goes: “There were times when everone believed in God, and the church ruled supreme. They were called the Dark Ages”. The Church did rule supreme. There were no independent, secular governments back then.

The pogroms against the Jews were founded on the view that the Jews were the “murderers” of Christ. A clear example that religious intolerance directly lead to pogroms and and murders.

Show me how atheism lead to murders in a logical fashion, and you wil have my apology.

 

[OTavern]

This is a clear example of the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” types of arguments. You cite a correlation and imply causation. It simply does not work.

In order to prove your point, you must bring up a logical reasoning just how does atheism lead to genocides and mass murders. I did not deny the facts, just the conclusion you draw from them.

Actually, you did deny the facts. Your words were: “Facts? What facts? I advocate to get rid of junk of any kind.”

Show me how atheism lead to murders in a logical fashion, and you wil have my apology.

I suspect a case could be built that atheistic materialism has no absolute ethical foundation because there is no final “good” or purpose towards which human life is headed. In the absence of an identified absolute “good,” materialistic atheism has no foundation to base ethical judgements upon, so it leaves itself open to all manner of persuasion. Atheistic regimes which gain power and authority have no “limiting” deterrent “above” them to govern or restrain the committing of atrocities, which is the reason many atheistic regimes actually do. The facts bear this out.

R.J. Rummel claims democracy acts as a limiting factor because no single entity, within a democratic system, gains enough power to become “unrestricted” in its abuse.

I would add that in a democracy where complete “tolerance” is advocated, the danger exists of “weakening” the authority of the “rational” conviction of the general populace. Anyone who has specific and strong convictions about goals or direction could easily become suspect to a mob with no convictions. The phenomena of “mob rule” could then be harnessed by a “charismatic” leader or one who could marshal the ‘demos’ against am identified “enemy” of the state.

A modern example might be the “war on terror.” There is a great deal of evidence that the Bush administration actually created the circumstances surrounding 9/11 in order to direct the nation towards more militaristic goals. Control of media and the political process in tangent with an easily persuaded, unthinking voters could allow a government so inclined to “rule the mob.”

Contrary to common belief, a population which is just unquestionably tolerant of all behaviours and persuasions is ripe for appropriation because there are no commonly held beliefs to rally the community together, except where an “enemy” becomes identified, i.e., terrorists.

 

[ateista]

I suspect a case could be built that atheistic materialism has no absolute ethical foundation because there is no final “good” or purpose towards which human life is headed. In the absence of an identified absolute “good,” materialistic atheism has no foundation to base ethical judgements upon, so it leaves itself open to all manner of persuasion.

Very few people would try to assert that atheism is inherently immoral, or that it is subject to the whim of the currently prevailing “wind”. Actually, I thought there are none left, but obviously I was mistaken.

Most people realize that no worldview has “dibs” on morality. There are monstruous humans of every creed, just like there are very good humans of every creed.

But, go ahead and build your “case”.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The thread is not about atheism but about whether or not Christianity is illogical. Please stay on topic, everyone. Thank you.

 

[ateista]

Here is a short synopsis of the Christian belief system:

God created the world, and humanity. Adam he created directly from dust, and then took a rib from Adam and created a woman. He set up one test, which he knew humanity will fail. God became angry (when this anticipated failure happened) and cursed his creation. He chased out the humans from his presence. Sometime later, he became even angrier, and drowned the whole world, humans and animals alike in a huge flood.

Yet again sometime later, this immutable God changed his mind, and decided to give humanity another chance. So he became his own son, took all the sins of humanity on his own shoulder, and allowed hiself to be crucified, so he can pardon the sins of humanity. Of course he does not pardon all the sins, only the sins of those who are willing to eat his flesh and drink his blood (symbolically or really, is unclear).

Also it is a requirement that these humans who wish to be saved from everlasting damnation (again unclear what it means) must accept him as a savior, and must love him - of course freely and without coercion. If anyone fails, then they will “freely” go to hell, a place, where is a total separation from God, the very same God who is everywhere.

Now, if someone accepts God, then he will be given an everlasting second of unspecified bliss and a perfect body when eternity ends. This will happen on Judgment Day, when God sits next to himself, and dispenses perfect justice. Everyone who sinned, but repented before they had proof of God’s existence will be saved. Of course they do not deserve to be saved, it is actually God’s infinite mercy which will allow them to get into heaven. The very same justice or mercy (one gets confused at this point) will send the rest of us to everlasting torture or fire (unclear).

And all this happens, because God loves everyone, indicriminately and wants to be loved by us, freely and without coercion. God could pardon the sins of everyone, but then he would not be just. God ought to send everyone to hell (because we deserve it - or maybe even worse!), but then he would not be merciful.

This infinite love (which is not an emotion - but an “act of will”) is not manifested here on Earth. God will allow the hungry go unfed, the sick untreated. God will not defend the tortured and raped. After all this world does not “matter”. Whatever happens here is of no consequence - with one exception.

The only thing that matters, that we accept every bit of misery that befalls on us as the just outcome of our sinful nature (installed by God) and glorify God for those instances when he lifts this misery from us. Which he cannot do very often, because then we would gain proof positive about his existence, and that would rob us of our free will to love him.

Now, a little clarification is in order. None of the words which describe God's "activity" are to be taken literally. Since God dwells outside time, all the words which describe God's activity should be replaced with the phrase "eternally willed". The resulting text is - strange... try it.

Well, this is it in a nutshell (by a nutcase?). Logical or illogical? More to the point: rational or irrational? You be the judge.

A disclaimer:

This summary is not meant to be mocking or sarcastic. It is not meant to be a caricature. It is how the “picture” is presented to the outsiders, be they of a different religion or an atheist. It was gleaned from the conversations on this board, reading some apologist books and of course reading the Bible.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all who participated.