Forum:The Absurdity of Christianity

< Index | Religious discussion

I do not understand how normally reasonable people can be Christians. Even if I grant them that God exists, and that the basic tenets of their religion are true, Christianity is still an immoral, unjust and absurd belief system. I'm only going to touch on the OT for Adam and Eve and ignore the absurdities there for now and focus just on what Christians believe.

God creates humans who, when imbued with free will, suddenly become evil sinners in need of redemption. He is supposed to be the omniscient/omnipotent *ahem* intelligent designer of humans, yet he somehow isn't to blame for this fatal flaw in what he created. Anyway, all of their sinning cannot go unpunished (an arbitrary rule created by him in the first place, right?), so this all loving, all knowing God decides that the best possible solution he can come up with to save humans (from his own punishment) is to take human form and subject himself to some torture and a crucifixion and have a blood sacrifice...to himself. This is supposed to absolve humanity of all its sin.

But of course, that doesn't happen..it's not really ALL the sins. There's the whole "not accepting Jesus" sin you still have to worry about, and you have to be REALLY SORRY about your other sins and not do them anymore, but the one unforgivable one is being skeptical and not accepting a story who's only source is highly questionable copies of copies of translations of translations of thousands-year-old crumbling manuscripts written sometimes by scribes who could not even read, just write (no originals of the gospels btw), arbitrarily canonized by people along their own power-hungry/theological/dogmatic whims.

God couldn't come up with a better plan than this? Why not just be a really nice guy and just forgive everyone regardless of what they did. But then again, that's something an omnibenevolent being would do. Or come up with some other solution for the "human problem" that doesn't involve a bloody, torturous, sadistic crucifixion. And the plan is a failure, is it not? If God's goal is to save as many people from hell as possible, then why have billions of people been sent to hell, and will continue to do so? Or non-existence if you're a "nice" Christian.

Christians always want to say "well there must be justice and we have sinned and deserve punishment, and God made the ultimate sacrifice to satisfy justice but to also satisfy Grace" or something like that. But, if I grant them that humans (even though still designed by God) are truly deserving of punishment for their sinful nature, Christianity is STILL absurd and unjust. If we are deserving of punishment, then wouldn't we have to face the punishment for justice to be satisfied?

Look at it this way. Let's say a serial killer stands before a judge for sentencing. Now, if the judge says "Listen, you are an evil person and you deserve the death penalty for your heinous crimes. However, I have an offer I want you to accept. Instead of facing the death penality, I am going to make THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE I will allow myself to be tortured and crucified as payment for all of your crimes. You are completely absolved of your crimes if you are sincerely sorry for your actions and am willing to appreciate my offer..oh btw, after I die I get to be God for all eternity"

Tell me...would the victim's families, or anyone else for that matter, feel that justice was truly served? But that's what God supposedly does according to Christians. In fact, you could also look at it this way to some Christians: instead of punishing the serial killer, the judge has his son sacrified instead (said son being the most humane, innocent human on the planet)

Christianity is so absurd on so many levels even without getting into the whole "there's no evidence for any of it" thing! lol ^{— Unsigned, by: SuperAtheist / talk / contribs}

I do not understand how you can assume any large number of people are normally reasonable. I suspect the answer to your question is that humans are apes with pretensions - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also the opposing theory that people are mostly reasonable, and it's just that (insert excuse here, e.g. religion) is an exception. Anyway, I recommend the dissections of Jack Chick's tracts if you prefer the former theory, SA. Fun reading along similar lines. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How much do you actually know about Christianity?

This appears to me to be nothing short of a hate page. Reading what you have said, compared to what I myself have read up on and looked at about the belief, you don't do much for it. Next time you want to attack a religion, try doing some research first. I like the way you think it's "immoral, unjust and absurd". Either you don't know Christian people, or you happen to know some really bad ones. Being a Christian does not automatically make you what you seem to think it does. Get to know some Christians. Try doing it without assuming they are going to force their beliefs on you. If they do, walk away by all means. You'll get further in life if you don't live off assumptions and stereotypical prejudices. Just some advice. I'm not hating on you here, or trying to convert you or whatever. I'm just saying, not all people who follow Christianity are illogical, unreliable, crazy, silly lunatics. Have a nice day ^{— Unsigned, by: 202.180.107.85 / talk / contribs}

You do realize is a forum page right? Ergo it's someones stated opinion and not actually representative of RW's position? Ace^X-102 05:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"How much do you actually know about Christianity?" Well, I know that the whole thing is predicated on the existence of an imaginary man in the sky, and thewackiness idea that a dead guy can get up and walk around three days after he croaks. Beyond that, my eyes sort of glaze over. P-Foster (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the above takes more issue with the belief than the believer. Even a "super" atheist wouldn't be as stupid as to suggest that the believers are intentionally malicious or all mental and want to force beliefs on you - it is, however, a small but highly vocal minority that do, and I doubt most Christians would deny that one either, and facepalm just as much as the next person when they see street preachers harass people. However, I don't see anything in the BoN's post that actively refutes the content of the OP, except maybe where it strays into calling Christians (as indiviudals rather than collective "Christians say...") but that is about 1% of it, and vaguely implied due to some bad wording more than being the exact point. ^bomination 10:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to defend Christianity (sort of) and point out that it doesn't really seem to be much more wacky than many others. It just happens to be the one we know more about and whose absurdities we are most familiar with.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, most skpetical discussions of religion should include that disclaimer. I think The God Delusion does clarify it quite thoroughly and our Atheism FAQ does. But it's all about context, and in this case, the context is that Christianity is the most dominant religion and is the one (for a lack of a better term right now) "taught", so will receive an unfair share of the flak (I'm implying that the flak itself isn't unfair, to clarify). ^bomination 12:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. But the majority of us live in Christian (or perhaps post-Christian) societies so it's not really surprising that the wackiness of Christianity may be over-represented when religion gets criticized. I mean if people were to rant about the absurdity of Hinduism it would probably be lost on most people in the west.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well exactly, if Dawkins was to re-write The God Delusion and make it Hindu-centric he'd have to spend 75% of the book explaining exactly what Hinduism involved with people. So, Christianity is an easy target, but at least for an excusable reason. ^bomination 12:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I always felt it was just railing against "religion", and in practice, that translates to "christianity" in the wet. Quaru^{tadpole - You can't explain that!} 13:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP summed it up in his first four words: "I do not understand...". The rest of his post only confirms those very words. A wise man will FIRST become knowledgeable in the subject in which he feels so much emotion that he is compelled to speak out. SuperAtheist has not done this. His understanding of Christianity and Christians is obviously colored by his personal experiences. I have no way of knowing his situation but the most common cause of this kind of irrational vehemence is caused by 'Christian' relatives (usually the father) who have condemned a homosexual (to hell). His understanding of God is equally lacking.

Christianity is NOT absurd. Let me try and help correct his misunderstandings. First, man's sinful nature is NOT a fatal flaw. It's simply a characteristic of his mortality. Second, sin's punishment is by no means ARBITRARY. Does a doctor ARBITRARILY give antibiotics to a patient or does he do it with the purpose of eliminating a bacteriological infection?

His next objection is the blood sacrifice that God demanded. In order to understand this, we need to rise above our pathetic mortal condition and see it from God's IMMORTAL perspective. When Adam and Eve DISOBEYED God, their eyes were opened (figuratively). What this means is that they became aware of the sentience of God (His feelings). They realized (became acutely aware) they were naked and became ashamed of their nakedness. In order for God to clothe them (their fig leaves were inadequate), he had to kill some animals (shed their blood) for their hide (leather). The animal sacrifice was to cover them (hence, it became a symbolic sign for the covering of sin).

God is not too concerned about mortal life. It doesn't last very long; it's weak and perishable and easily recreated. It's only the spirit that has any real value and though the body may be destroyed, the spirit lives on. God can strike you physically down in a blink of the eye and raise you back up in even less time. Mind you, now, the spirit is NOT the same as the soul, which is your consciousness. The spirit lives on but the soul dies with the body. Yes, blood sacrifices DO seem like a big deal to us humans (whose life is in the blood) but to God it's not a big deal.

His next argument concerns God's plan to save "all mankind". Actually, God's plan is like the Marines: He only wants 'a few good men'. Life on earth is God's 'boot camp'. Some are fit, some are not. Some try, some don't. Some pass, some fail. Know this, though. God does not grade people in the same way that humans do. It's not the fastest, the smartest, or the best looking that God is looking for. God's more interested in the 'inner man'.

Finally, he talks about JUSTICE. Make no mistake, God will judge. However, God does not desire sacrifice but MERCY! A TRUE Christian, like God, is full of mercy and forgiveness and kindness and patience.

Why patience? Because He doesn't want ANY to PERISH!

P.S. Note that it is PERISH and NOT reap ETERNAL LIFE in HELL! But that's another story... ^{— Unsigned, by: Soulman / talk / contribs}

Anyone for courtier's reply?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Have theists not read the great atheistic works of Oolong Colluphid? Until you have gained all possible knowledge of Godlessness, you have no right to criticise!! ^bomination 18:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a courtier's reply, and 'm impressed by how much this guy knows about God's personal feelings. Tastes like a fine bowl of SPAG. Soulman, your comment on Genesis would suggest that God did something rather odd - since their awareness was based on God's feelings, so God must have considered nudity to be a bad thing. Why did he create his pets naked if he considered this to be a bad thing? God's aversion to nudity is just one of many signs of God having a rather strong interest in this mortal life, so I don't see how you can claim that its unimportant to him. He spent a fair bit of time telling people what to eat, how to cut their hair and beards, how to have sex, judged people based on whether or not they had functional testes, and even took the time to prohibit certain types of fabrics. Old Testament God was an insane micro-manager.

Spirit/soul separation is an interesting but uncommon belief. I know of no modern Christians who'd reduce the soul to being an Élan vital that's left behind after death. These days most Christians conflate the soul with the spirit - describing the soul as the thing that travels upstairs on death to face judgement. Either way it's little different to claiming that our actions are driven by little people operating gears and levers inside our heads - who of course are undetectable but obviously there, really, they are!

Christianity is absurd - particularly in its supernatural claims, but its greatest absurdity is its claim to being a moral religion. I question the morality of anyone who'd believe eternal punishment to be a just consequence for any human being - regardless of how terrible their crimes may be, and certainly the concept of vicarious redemption is morally reprehensible. Incidentally, doctors rarely persuade perfectly healthy that they are ill in order to sell them antibiotics. Christianity on the other hand makes a living by offering a solution to an imaginary problem of its own invention. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixing Soulman's communication

The OP said "I do not understand how normally reasonable people can be Christians." and I see this uncertainty as an opportunity to strike. A wise man will FIRST exhaustively research all the apologetics out there, even if he's only pissed off about a few specific things. SuperAtheist has not done this. His understanding of Christianity and Christians is obviously colored by what actual Christians have told him. Rather than leave it at that, I'm going to imply that he's gay and fighting with his dad, because clearly that sort of speculation helps (plus I apparently can't understand that sometimes atheists get mad for other reasons). Also, his dad doesn't get God either (which I can say with authority because, like every Christian, I think my faith is True Christianity despite not having a clear objective way to determine this).

(My version of) Christianity is NOT absurd. Let me try and help correct his (SoulAtheist's, not his dad's) misunderstandings. First, man's sinful nature is NOT a fatal flaw. For reasons I can't be bothered to explain, it has to do with the fact that people die. Second, sin's punishment is by no means ARBITRARY. Does a doctor ARBITRARILY go through town at night lighting sick people's houses on fire or does he do it with the purpose of eliminating a bacteriological infection?

His (SuperAtheist's, not the doctor's) next objection is the blood sacrifice that God demanded. In order to understand this, we need to stop thinking for ourselves and assume that it all makes sense from God's IMMORTAL perspective, then come up with an arbitrary rationalization in order to feel like we understand. When Adam and Eve DISOBEYED God, their eyes were opened (figuratively). What this means is that they became aware of the sentience of God (His feelings). They realized (became acutely aware) they were naked and for no clear reason thought this was intrinsically shameful despite the fact that no creature on Earth had ever not been naked up to that point. God, being omnipresent and omniscient, can presumably see everyone's genitals at all times whether or not they are naked, and He designed our bodies Himself so presumably He approves of them on some level, but His feelings are hurt unless we carefully hide our naughty bits whenever we are outside. So God invented clothing (their fig leaves were inadequate and God had not yet invented cotton or polyester), he had to kill some animals (shed their blood) for their hide (leather) rather than magic the clothes into existence, as he had with the animals themselves. The animal sacrifice was to cover them (hence, it became a symbolic sign for the covering of sin).

God is not too concerned about mortal life, as demonstrated by his willingness to kill people over the most trivial matters in the Old Testament. It doesn't last very long; it's weak and perishable and easily recreated. It's only the spirit that has any real value and though the body may be destroyed, the spirit lives on, unless you screw up that mortal life He's not concerned about. God can strike you physically down in a blink of the eye and raise you back up in even less time, and He frequently does the former just for kicks. Mind you, now, the spirit (which I'm not defining) is NOT the same as the soul, which I'm defining as your consciousness. The spirit lives on but the soul dies with the body (just so you're clear here, the spirit is the one you're supposed to care about, the one that's not your consciousness). Yes, blood sacrifices DO seem like a big deal to us humans (whose life is in the blood) but to God it's not a big deal because he regards people's lives as trivial playthings.

His (SuperAtheist's) next argument concerns God's plan to save "all mankind". Actually, God's plan is like the Marines: the hazing can be fucking awful. Life on earth is God's 'boot camp'. Some are fit, some are not. Some try, some don't. Some pass, some fail. God created a lot of failures. Know this, though. God does not grade people in the same way that humans do. It's not the fastest, the smartest, or the best looking that God is looking for. God's only interested in people who will be his gullible obedient slaves.

Finally, he (still SuperAtheist) talks about JUSTICE. Make no mistake, God will judge. However, God does not desire sacrifice but MERCY! (He only asked for all those sacrifices because likes the smell, really.) A TRUE Christian, like Jesus but unlike the God Jesus promoted as his father, is full of mercy and forgiveness and kindness and patience, except when money-changers do business at the temple.

Why patience? Because He doesn't want ANY to PERISH and reveal his shoddy craftsmanship!

P.S. Note that it is PERISH and NOT reap ETERNAL LIFE in HELL! But I don't feel like discussing this point that many Christians disagree with me about.

P.P.S. Because I'm likely not one of those people who realize that atheists don't take this stuff seriously at all, I'm highly susceptible to view any twisting of my words as hateful and not a simple jab for amusement's sake.

--Quantheory (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you know that your writing style is very similar to Soulman above? You even make the same points.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

God can strike you physically down in a blink of the eye and raise you back up in even less time, and He frequently does the former just for kicks. - and this is the god of love???? Statements like this are precisely why I find hard core Christianity so ridiculous. I mean, come on, get real. And if this condemns me to eternal damnation - well, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the god that Soulman/Quantheory describes, give me the devil any day. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! Looking at Quant's user page I gather that Bob and I missed a rather fine parody. There's Poe for you. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha yes! Poed to the full! Full marks to that man.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it helped that I could copy directly from Soulman. He was already so close to being self-parodying. It only took a little snark mixed in. --Quantheory (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody starts perfect. No one probably ends perfect, either...

Christianity is just one of many, many indications that people want to believe in magic and spiritual cures and wizards and spells and hexes and luck and so on. This actually isn't a bad thing; it's due to the "nonsense thinking" that many good things come along, including rational thought.

The scientific method, probably the single most valuable tool a person can learn after ambulation and language, didn't come about because someone suddenly got the "right idea". It was another bit of nonsense imagination, like causation and the Earth as an inferior cosmic body. It started as creative art, like arithmetic and algebra, and grew into a philosophy and now Science is the one philosophy that demands proof instead of speculation.

Though it's not like people were just a bunch of rampant idiots before that, it took time to discover a system people could agree on (and people to agree with it) and it really wasn't until then that the truth of already well known phenomena would be seriously and methodically explored.

But like Christianity is a meme and so must have social connections of people to spread, so is a rational thought process and the scientific method. Many of these people have either not been exposed to our flavor of "right" or another is incompatible with it and prevents them from being interested. We all probably want the same thing, for Humanity to morally thrive, but the means is the subject that people really fight over. Our truth is based on science, theirs on belief, and just because ours is closer to proof it doesn't mean theirs is meaningless.

I am in no way a secularist and would be happy to see religion magically disappear, I know it won't. I would generally suggest that, at the moment, do what they do. They assume the people they like who aren't Christian will one day convert. As ridiculous it may seem to turn it around, it could still be reassuring to imagine that our own "mistaken" friends will see the light. Aphoxema (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can every have undergone..." -- A. Hilter

God cannot conjure clothing?

I'm kind of late to the party, but I couldn't let this one slide: he had to kill some animals (shed their blood) for their hide (leather). Really? God's power is so arbitrary that he can conjure up man and woman from dust and rib, but he has to kill an animal to get leather for clothing instead of whipping out - say - some synthetic fabric from his ass? And you're using this as an argument why god isn't evil/capricious/arbitrary and/or your religious beliefs aren't insane? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well no, he had to offer a blood sacrifice. If humans remained vegetarians, the species wouldn't have evolved to where it is today. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I felt very much the same way, I guess god hadn't quite got around to inventing cotton by this stage in history, which considering the earth is only 4 or 6,000 years old must have been a pretty hectic time for god. No wonder he forgot that one but lucky for us linen lovers he managed to get around to it eventually.

But the ultimate absurdity of christianity is way beyond the monstrosities which fill the fablulously bloody old testament or the almost equally fabulously bloody new testament. No, it's the simple fundamental tenet of christianity which is that the worst and only unforgivable sin is to not believe in baby jesus as son of god and saviour of humanity. Everything else is washed away with the simple acceptance of the big j as savioiur, that's it. Hitler, Stalin, George Bush, Bugs Bunny, all they have to do before the lights go out is to accept jesus as their saviour and they're saved. They're in the fluffy white cloud, harps and father's mansion of many rooms corner or eternity and spared the burning flesh & non stop torture. So, god's justice, anyone?