
TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,955
Note: I am not saying that all Christians are like this, but I am simply exposing the flaw in their logic and beliefs as well as why the tenets of Christianity is simply incompatible for modern day society.
Before I begin, I want to say that I am an atheist and don't believe in God or any organized religion. I go to church for the social aspect, to pick apart the flawed reasoning that Christians use as well as gaining access to a piano (to keep up with my musical skills). I generally don't voice my beliefs to openly because I do not wish to get into conflicts and fights with the congregation, so I generally keep the peace (unless asked and even then I do not escalate things since again, I'd like to keep the peace).
With that said, here are some of the illogical principles that I don't agree with and I'll start off with this example. Consider the forgiveness example, this was a exchange between me and E, someone in the congregation.
#1 Forgive forever
E: You should forgive someone who has done wrong to you.
Me: Yes, but not over and over while allowing yourself to get taken advantage of, or get hurt.
E: Jesus (God) forgave his enemies seventy times seven (70x7 - meaning infinite amount of times)
Me: That doesn't make sense, there comes a point where you just can't allow yourself to get hurt over and over.
E: But that's what Jesus did and the Bible says to do so, thus you have to keep forgiving.
Now, let me say that this does not make any sense and is rather damaging as well as impractical in reality. Yes, there are times where you should forgive people and sometimes, it may even be better. But to blindly forgive people, unconditionally and without limits is simply not only impractical, but also dangerous. When you keep letting someone get away with hurting you, you are enabling them to continue to do damage to you while you do nothing to protect yourself from continual and future harm. Also, there is a limit to how much one can take (nothing is infinite) in this universe. As an aside, 70x7 equals 490, but of course, based on the Bible text, it is interpreted as infinite (don't ask me why 70x7 is considered 'infinite', I don't know.).
Furthermore, there are other Christians who claim that they forgive forever, but I'm skeptical of it because it's either:
A) They have a different definition of forgiveness and they redefined it to fit their views and belief, so they don't 'really' forgive people, yet they call those out who don't forgive and judge them for it. (Hypocrisy)
B) They don't actually forgive people, but preach forgiveness. So on paper, they do, but in reality, they really don't. In other words, living a lie. (Also hypocrisy) For instance they will say that they 'forgive' said person for said transgression, but in practice, they still hold some consequence against the transgressor (person/people who wronged them).
#2 Everything happens for a reason
This is another common claim that Christians make that doesn't make any sense and is usually a cop out response to both positive and negative events. Consider the video by YouTuber DarkMatter2525, The Answer To Everything. This simply makes no logical sense in the modern world. If you think about it, not all answers are correct, but all answers can be wrong. In the video, it shows several scenarios as to what happens in an incident, and in the video, the case where someone is a victim of gun violence (not trying to get political here). It goes through several scenarios, including surviving with no injuries, surviving with many injuries (ending up as a vegetable, but still alive), and of course, dying. The response to all the scenarios is that it's all God's plan. However, from simple logic, that doesn't make sense because if God's plan was that victim was to live, but yet the victim doesn't, then does it mean it wasn't God's plan, or vice versa? Another point to consider is the notion of free will and variables in events. Nobody can predict how an event will play out, there are many variables in which that could always change (where the victim was standing, where the bullet went, which caliber, which angle, etc.), so how could God be correct and incorrect at the same time? It doesn't add up... God simply can't be wrong and right at the same time, he's either wrong or he's right. And if he's right, then there is no free will because everything is already set up the way it is and no one can change destiny. However, if he is wrong (which is the most logical conclusion), then yes, free will does exist and people do affect the outcomes as well as variables in any given event.
#3 When it comes to birth
This one really is a mind twister based on the logic of it. First off, from a biological standpoint, humans (and most animals) reproduce by the biological process. This process entails the sperm (from a male) fertilizing an egg (from a female), and then the egg becoming a fetus. Suppose the individuals did not have sexual intercourse or do anything that would cause reproduction. Then, there would be no logical way that another human being would be conceived and brought into this world. Consider the example of virgin Mary. I don't believe in the fact that the virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus because God planted a seed. It doesn't make any logical sense. In order for that to happen, there has to be a sperm entering Mary's body in order to fertilize her egg (which then became Jesus). To me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary (concrete) evidence in order for it to be plausible. Since most Christians don't question or think about it, the best response they have is that God can do anything, which really is just a cop out response because it doesn't prove anything.
#4 Hell is a place in which God's presence is not there (separation from God)
I get that a lot of people, especially Christians who want to use guilt to get people to believe in their religion, appeal to Hell to scare and guilt people into believing God. However, I am not discussing about why they do it, but rather, I will explore why Hell isn't this bad place as it is made out to be. If Hell is a place where there is no connection to God (not some place where people suffer and burn and writhe in pain), then it couldn't be worse for people who don't believe in God to begin with. I don't believe in either a heaven nor Hell, just that once one dies, it's over, just eternal void, so that line of reasoning is not applicable for me. One question to consider is why would anyone want to serve a God that doesn't allow questioning or free will, and simply go to heaven for being a sycophant (blindly follower without question)?
There are many more other inconsistencies, but these are the more prevalent ones faced. I don't have the time to list every single inconsistency as that would already make a super long post to be even longer, so I will just summarize the ones I have. In conclusion, it seems that when discussing reality and common sense with Christians, they oftenly ignore logic, ignore reality, and more oftenly than not appeal to the Bible for their source, which is erroneous and leads to circular reasoning, which is a flaw in and of itself due to not allowing any other source to check against it (leads to bias as citing itself as it's own source.)
Before I begin, I want to say that I am an atheist and don't believe in God or any organized religion. I go to church for the social aspect, to pick apart the flawed reasoning that Christians use as well as gaining access to a piano (to keep up with my musical skills). I generally don't voice my beliefs to openly because I do not wish to get into conflicts and fights with the congregation, so I generally keep the peace (unless asked and even then I do not escalate things since again, I'd like to keep the peace).
With that said, here are some of the illogical principles that I don't agree with and I'll start off with this example. Consider the forgiveness example, this was a exchange between me and E, someone in the congregation.
#1 Forgive forever
E: You should forgive someone who has done wrong to you.
Me: Yes, but not over and over while allowing yourself to get taken advantage of, or get hurt.
E: Jesus (God) forgave his enemies seventy times seven (70x7 - meaning infinite amount of times)
Me: That doesn't make sense, there comes a point where you just can't allow yourself to get hurt over and over.
E: But that's what Jesus did and the Bible says to do so, thus you have to keep forgiving.
Now, let me say that this does not make any sense and is rather damaging as well as impractical in reality. Yes, there are times where you should forgive people and sometimes, it may even be better. But to blindly forgive people, unconditionally and without limits is simply not only impractical, but also dangerous. When you keep letting someone get away with hurting you, you are enabling them to continue to do damage to you while you do nothing to protect yourself from continual and future harm. Also, there is a limit to how much one can take (nothing is infinite) in this universe. As an aside, 70x7 equals 490, but of course, based on the Bible text, it is interpreted as infinite (don't ask me why 70x7 is considered 'infinite', I don't know.).
Furthermore, there are other Christians who claim that they forgive forever, but I'm skeptical of it because it's either:
A) They have a different definition of forgiveness and they redefined it to fit their views and belief, so they don't 'really' forgive people, yet they call those out who don't forgive and judge them for it. (Hypocrisy)
B) They don't actually forgive people, but preach forgiveness. So on paper, they do, but in reality, they really don't. In other words, living a lie. (Also hypocrisy) For instance they will say that they 'forgive' said person for said transgression, but in practice, they still hold some consequence against the transgressor (person/people who wronged them).
#2 Everything happens for a reason
This is another common claim that Christians make that doesn't make any sense and is usually a cop out response to both positive and negative events. Consider the video by YouTuber DarkMatter2525, The Answer To Everything. This simply makes no logical sense in the modern world. If you think about it, not all answers are correct, but all answers can be wrong. In the video, it shows several scenarios as to what happens in an incident, and in the video, the case where someone is a victim of gun violence (not trying to get political here). It goes through several scenarios, including surviving with no injuries, surviving with many injuries (ending up as a vegetable, but still alive), and of course, dying. The response to all the scenarios is that it's all God's plan. However, from simple logic, that doesn't make sense because if God's plan was that victim was to live, but yet the victim doesn't, then does it mean it wasn't God's plan, or vice versa? Another point to consider is the notion of free will and variables in events. Nobody can predict how an event will play out, there are many variables in which that could always change (where the victim was standing, where the bullet went, which caliber, which angle, etc.), so how could God be correct and incorrect at the same time? It doesn't add up... God simply can't be wrong and right at the same time, he's either wrong or he's right. And if he's right, then there is no free will because everything is already set up the way it is and no one can change destiny. However, if he is wrong (which is the most logical conclusion), then yes, free will does exist and people do affect the outcomes as well as variables in any given event.
#3 When it comes to birth
This one really is a mind twister based on the logic of it. First off, from a biological standpoint, humans (and most animals) reproduce by the biological process. This process entails the sperm (from a male) fertilizing an egg (from a female), and then the egg becoming a fetus. Suppose the individuals did not have sexual intercourse or do anything that would cause reproduction. Then, there would be no logical way that another human being would be conceived and brought into this world. Consider the example of virgin Mary. I don't believe in the fact that the virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus because God planted a seed. It doesn't make any logical sense. In order for that to happen, there has to be a sperm entering Mary's body in order to fertilize her egg (which then became Jesus). To me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary (concrete) evidence in order for it to be plausible. Since most Christians don't question or think about it, the best response they have is that God can do anything, which really is just a cop out response because it doesn't prove anything.
#4 Hell is a place in which God's presence is not there (separation from God)
I get that a lot of people, especially Christians who want to use guilt to get people to believe in their religion, appeal to Hell to scare and guilt people into believing God. However, I am not discussing about why they do it, but rather, I will explore why Hell isn't this bad place as it is made out to be. If Hell is a place where there is no connection to God (not some place where people suffer and burn and writhe in pain), then it couldn't be worse for people who don't believe in God to begin with. I don't believe in either a heaven nor Hell, just that once one dies, it's over, just eternal void, so that line of reasoning is not applicable for me. One question to consider is why would anyone want to serve a God that doesn't allow questioning or free will, and simply go to heaven for being a sycophant (blindly follower without question)?
There are many more other inconsistencies, but these are the more prevalent ones faced. I don't have the time to list every single inconsistency as that would already make a super long post to be even longer, so I will just summarize the ones I have. In conclusion, it seems that when discussing reality and common sense with Christians, they oftenly ignore logic, ignore reality, and more oftenly than not appeal to the Bible for their source, which is erroneous and leads to circular reasoning, which is a flaw in and of itself due to not allowing any other source to check against it (leads to bias as citing itself as it's own source.)