Memes

167 thoughts on “Christian Logic”

    • I’m not sure if “deluded” fully captures the assclownery of the answer.

      As the chairman of the Reformational Philosophy Association, Gerrit Glas, said: “[postmodern Christian philosophy is] often impenetrable”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  2. I guess not everything in the Qu’ran is a lie, the bit about the bible being true. Conundrum solved.

    Except that … truth is a as relative as the paper it is written on. At best it is a democratic agreement. At worst it is just some dude dictating it whilst brandishing a sword.

    I did look up where apologist comes from: ἀπολογία, from ἀπολογέομαι, apologeomai, “speak in return, defend oneself”. At least I learned something here. My working week is done!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. LOL

    Statements like this confirm what the neurological research shows: “People with greater paranormal beliefs showed lower levels of executive function. These findings support studies suggesting that superstitious thinking involves some degree of dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex.” M. Spinella and O. Wain (2006)

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  5. Let me fix that for you:
    “The Koran says the Bible is true, the Koran and the Bible cannot both be true, therefore either the Bible or the Koran is false. If the Bible is true, then the Koran would also have been true because it is correctly states that the Bible is true, and that is impossible. Therefore, the Bible is false, and since the Koran says it’s true, the Koran is false as well. Ergo, both are false.”

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  7. Anyone ever notice the similarity to the Star Trek episode “A Piece of the Action” which first aired in 1968? There was a planet on which the entire society was based on a book which was accidentally left behind (a la Cargo Cults). No one ever says it, but most Christians and Muslims don’t worship a deity….THEY WORSHIP A BOOK.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  8. What an epic fail! And Neuronotes once again nails the reasons why. She is also quite right to bring up the reason why critical thinking is such a danger to religious parents trying to indoctrinate their kids. In spite of so many contrary claims about instructing people on how to be moral, what religion really teaches us is how not to be an autonomous moral agent but a immoral soldier of obedience. And to do that requires a means to reduce the role of executive functioning in the brain. And when you do that, you demonstrate it by saying such incredibly stupid things as Bruggencate does.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  10. This is so beautiful, it made me weep. Privately, publicly, and without shame. What an idiot this dude is. I would LOVE to see him debate WLC, in 3D and in HD. Education in many places in America equals this: “Why is X true, Johnny, and not Y?” “Because……..AMERICA! And….because……GOD!!!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!” “Thanks, Johnny. That’s two A’s you’ve earned. One for being correct, and the other for being correct loudly.”

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  11. LOL! The song lyrics came to me “Round and round I go, up and down I go, give it a spin, loving the spin I am in.

    We have to stop calling these dudes apologists and start calling them Spin Doctors of Divinity.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  16. Wow. I don’t even…

    What?

    I’m sorry but my head is on my desk right now, and suddenly the weight of the atmosphere is too heavy for me to overcome. I will be back online shortly. In the meantime please carry on, I will be fine, eventually.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  17. Damn man, I’m such a white boy now bleaching my brain would make me invisble against a white backdrop!

    I’m not “that” white really, but I feel like it sometimes, culturally.

    Oh, I lol’d at the oxymoron “christian logic”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • I’ll refrain from calling you “White-White” until I see you dance. You see, I thought I was White-White until I came to Brazil and realised it wasn’t that I couldn’t dance, rather the case that i’d been trying to dance to all the wrong music 😉

      Like

      Reply

  22. Pingback: INDEPENDENCE DAY | FORESTALL

  24. There are so many great paradoxes in Christianity, thanks for bringing this one to light. That’s awesome. My all time favorite is still:

    Doubter: Why didn’t God just make everyone good so they can go to heaven?
    Christian: Because God gave us free will so we could choose to be good.

    So the Doubter foolishly goes ahead and makes his choice to be good and believe in God. Somehow unhappy things still seem to happen in his life, leaving him angry, depressed and wondering why he isn’t rewarded for his faith.

    Doubter: Bad things still happened to me, why?!
    Christian: Don’t worry. God has a plan for you.

    Doubter’s head explodes because he wonders why he has free will if God also has a plan! lol

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Doubter: Why didn’t God just make everyone good so they can go to heaven?
      Christian: God chose his elect out of a mass of fallen humanity which is his prerogative

      Christian: How does an atheist explain evil based on his own presuppositions?
      Doubter: ?

      Like

      Reply

      • Christian: How does an atheist explain evil based on his own presuppositions?
        Doubter: The Owner of All Infernal Names explains all. It is the explanation that exists without need for an alibi, scapegoat, hastily arranged apology, or laboured advocacy. Where the theologian, such as yourself, is forced to rescue an incompetent spirit who has, for one imaginative reason or another, lost total control of his creation, the gospel of the malevolent hand stands unchaste, uncontaminated, and inviolable. As an explanation for the world that has been, is, and will be, malevolence is complete. Yesterday, today and tomorrow are made clear without a cover story, inventive pretext, or decorative theodicy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • As an atheist I reject the idea that the universe has intention and thus reject the idea of evil. Actions which we feel as evil are often perpetrated by those who have mental disorders, suffered severe childhood trauma (especially in early childhood), indoctrinated, and/or uneducated or poorly educated. In many cases it is a confluence of factors. Nobody however is born wishing to cause harm to others and therefore it has to be learned.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Christian: God chose his elect out of a mass of fallen humanity which is his prerogative.
        Doubter: How could it be established, that any of this is true on any even remotely objective level? Oh right – it is impossible and that is why faith is demanded by this alledged god by the threat of violence, in this life by the zealots or in the alleged next life by said god and his unnatural minions doing his bidding. But how could anyone call such a god “benevolent”?

        Christian: How does an atheist explain evil based on his own presuppositions?
        Doubter: What is evil? Is it the selfishness of an individual, any cause of suffering, or just braking a set of arbitrary rules as written by some obviously ignorant dudes sitting around in the desert and looking at sheep thousands of years ago? Nature is indifferent and unintelligent. There are causes for suffering in nature because of that. The cause of unnecessary suffering is definetively evil, if it is intended. Correct?

        Following arbitrary rules about what is evil or good may stop the individual who follows them from doing harm, but this does not make the person moral. As then the person has not made moral choises about the consequenses of her/his choises. Especially so, if the person was motivated by a need to worship the giver of the arbitrary rules, or if the motive was to gain a personal reward, or to awoid arbitrary punishment. As an alledged afterlife in heaven, or in hell.

        Did your god plan us to suffer, or not? Or did something go wrong in his perfect plan? Untill you have an explanation we can judge your god to be an evil god, because intent to cause suffering is evil and it is to be deemed unnecessary unless there is a valid reason. If your god does not give us reasons for our suffering, in all honesty we are only able to evaluate said god by the deeds of this particular god, right? By the results of the handywork of this alledged creator, we can not call it “benevolent” at all, but obviously malevolent. That is, if we can ever get any actual evidence or even remotely objective proof of it even existing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s great! Lol I’ve asked about that one before too and was told that in heaven you’re in the presence of God so you would never choose to do evil. I guess only Lucifer got a big too big for his britches but that would never happen to a mere human. Lol

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Rautakyy

        You wrote:

        Doubter: What is evil? Is it the selfishness of an individual, any cause of suffering, or just braking a set of arbitrary rules as written by some obviously ignorant dudes sitting around in the desert and looking at sheep thousands of years ago? Nature is indifferent and unintelligent. There are causes for suffering in nature because of that. The cause of unnecessary suffering is definetively evil, if it is intended. Correct?

        That does not even begin to answer the question. What right does an atheist have to call something *evil* if there is no objective standard for morality? Evil if it is a privation of the good, what is good? How do you avoid the problem of an infinite regress?

        Like

      • What right does an atheist have to call something *evil* if there is no objective standard for morality?

        What right does an British or American imperial user have to call something *a meter” if there is no objective standard for measuring distance?

        This tired old trope about some supposedly god-sanctioned ‘objective standard’ is so foolish that it belies the lack of critical effort to try to answer the question and realizing just how incredibly stupid it is. All human standards are relative. All religious standards are relative. All moral standards are relative. This isn’t news. It is fact.

        Liked by 2 people

      • As is the fact that The One True God, Allah, hates christian liars, and bald, effeminate, christians liars THE most. For to be a christian is bad, but to be a christian male, boasting of its hairlessness, is to welcome the flames of Hell upon one’s soul for eternity. Ms Bald christian here is an insult, not only to logic and reason, but to the very god she claims to worship. Those without reason and hair shall suffer for eternity in Hell. Christians like Ms. Baldy here will only learn this in Hell, a place she is destined for. When will lying christians like Ms baldy learn? When?

        Like

      • Is your assertion that “all human standards are relative” objectively true? Whether you are an ethical subjectivist or an epistemological subjectivist the problem remains the same. Once you have declared categorically that something is “thus and so” you have moved away from subjectivism. Are laws of logic a human standard? If so, is the principle of non-contradiction only subjectively true?

        Like

      • And here comes the word games right on cue to avoid my criticism of your trope. Now let’s watch you turn the meaning of ‘relative’ into ‘subjective’. Oh right. You already have.

        Look, navigating reality is hard enough without obfuscating the terms we use to describe it and the relationships and emergent properties we use to communicate about it. My claim is easy enough to refute not with philosophical sophistry but with an example of a standard that is not relative.

        you see, there’s nothing wrong with using a relative standard. In Grade one of public school I was taught that we can “measure at our leisure if the units stay the same.” That’s the primary element that is needed to accurately compare and contrast anything with anything: the SAME unit. And that’s why we can measure using Imperial just as accurately as we can using metric. It is not the objectivity or relativity of the standard that matters; it is using the same standard for the comparison. A moment of thinking this this through would allow you to grasp just how ridiculous is the trope you are peddling that only the ‘religious’ who believe in an ‘objective’ moral standard divinely sanctioned can care about ‘evil’. Such a proposition is dehumanizing to those on this blog who do indeed care about ‘evil’ without believing in some childish and superstitious notion of Oogity Boogity!. The hypothetical agency of Oogity Boogity! has exactly nothing to do with morality and everything to do with credulity and gullibility. In fact and practice, a much stronger argument can be made that religious believers in some divine objective moral standard cannot be equivalently autonomous moral agents to non believers but at best only good little jackbooted soldiers just following orders and trying to hide behind word games from legitimate, accurate, and meaningful criticism of their silly tropes.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @Bloggingbaldguy. Who ever said there is no objective standard for morality? What are you on about? When we are talking about morality we are referring to human interaction with reality and the harm and benefit analysis of our actions or inaction. That gives us plenty of objectivity. That is where morality stems from. Not some obscure unnatural arbitrary rules alledgedly dictated by authoritarianistic entities whose very existance has not been established on any even remotely objective level. Ever.

        I really am too drunk for this…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Allah says; ” Praise be the drunkards, for they shall understand the bullshit that is religion. Also, Christian apologists suck SO much, they create black holes of stupidity where ever they write. And, who could ever argue with Allah? Surely not bald christian a-holes who argue because,well, because that’s what bald christian a-holes do.

        Liked by 1 person

  25. Too bad he did not use the valid form of the argument, but this would have left you without low hanging fruit to lampoon, and think how miserable you would be without that to cheer you up.

    If the Qu’ran says the Bible is true then the Qu’ran is false
    The Qu’ran says the Bible is true
    :. The Qu’ran is false

    P–>Q (Modus ponens)
    P
    :. Q

    Like

    Reply

      • Low hanging fruit never cheers me up. I enjoy medium to high hanging fruit. It takes more effort to get to it, thus proving the existence of the christian god. Any home-schooled, American 7 year old can tell you that. Because……AMERICA!!!!! And, because……..GOD!!!!! God BLESS AMERICA!!!! $Amen$

        Liked by 1 person

    • Finally! A Christian who agrees with the perfection of the Qur’an! Read the truth and weep for the damnation of your soul, christian, for you will suffer an eternity of agony in the fires of Hell that Allah has planned for your blasphemous, lying, infidel ass! Read and weep, oh you who fail to see the reality of your own misguided evil: “The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam.” (Surah 3:19) And from the Qur’an: 5:73: “Surely, disbelievers are those who said: “Allâh is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no god but Allâh. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.”
      Oh, the evil that resides in the breasts of christians astounds me! Do you not SEE? Do you not smell the stench of evil reeking from your lying bones? Damn you!!! Damn you to the Hell Allah has prepared for you!!! You evil, despicable monster!!! Damn your evil lies!!! Be prepared, liar!! You will burn for your evil!!!! There is NO God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet. There is NO Holy Book that is real but the sacred Qur’an!!! Damn your soul for eternity for the evil that resides in you. From the Qur’an: 9:29: “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not Islam as the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Convert, christian! Repent before the true God, or burn!!!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    • The Qur’an does NOT say the bible is true. Read and weep, Oh evil, lying christian, for yours are the words of an evil infidel. An infidel who is condemned to the fires of eternal Hell for his lies and evil ways. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEYQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmostmerciful.com%2Fquran-does-not-state-bible-is-true.htm&ei=8CeXVfvYOoG4sAWx6JOoBw&usg=AFQjCNFvjscmyGaEs0ntBfalHKnSJ_espQ&sig2=5DZbWCkIFEIggadxTRwBww&bvm=bv.96952980,d.b2w&cad=rja

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Christians can provide no valid argument as they are the bane of the One True God, Allah. Christians reek of sin, lies, blasphemy and evil, as is evidenced by this blasphemous christian here. He lampoons himself with his own blatant ignorance of the True God, Allah, and His True Word, The Qur’an. This christian proves, with his ignorance of reality, just how evil all christians are. His words are a stain on the souls of true religious people, and his lies have assured him a place in Hell where his flesh shall bubble from his bones repeatedly for all eternity. How DARE you talk of the Qur’an, you christian dog!!!!! How DARE you blaspheme God!!!! You will suffer, you lying dog. You will suffer for your lies and deception!!!! Have a nice day. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • I am sorry, but that is not a valid argument. It is just absurd. If the Qur’an is false, so then is the testimony it gives to the truth value of the Bible. If the Qur’an is not false, then the Bible is just a prelude to the Qur’an. A prelude that is false in some issues. Or do you honestly think the Qur’an promotes the divinity of Jesus?

        However, both books make wild unsubstantiated claims about unnatural forces, that have not been verified to exist by any even remotely objective methods. That is why faith = superstition is so important to all manner of religions.

        Liked by 2 people

      • The Truth for lying, deceitful christians, the true snakes in the Garden of Eden. From the Qur’an:
        3:85: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”
        Bald man, if you seek to mention what The Qur’an says, then know The Qur’an. From the lying ignorant blasphemy that reeks from your infidel lips, I can see you do not. Do you enjoy the thought of the fire you will burn in for your ignorant stupidity, or are you lampooning reality to ensure your place in Hell? Christians like you are the reason Allah created Hell. Your stupidity in regards to the Truth offends Him and His followers. BEWARE, christian!!!! You are being watched, and you will suffer for your blasphemous lies!!! INFIDEL!!!!!!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Both books are also factually false, as we know the Pentateuch is inventive 6th and 7th century geopolitical myth, yet this historical fact was not known to either Muhammad or Jesus. Both characters blundered terribly naming Moses (for example) as a real historical character. That, in and by itself, annihilates all supernatural claim made.

        Like

    • I mean seriously, is there a valid form of this argument?

      If the Batman says the Riddler is right, then Batman is wrong.
      The Batman says the Riddler is right
      : The Batman is wrong.

      If both the Qu’ran and the Bible can not be true, and the Qu’ran says the Bible is true, does that make either of them right? If the Qu’ran says the Bible is right about something and the Bible does not say anything about the Qu’ran, because the particular god inspiring the writers of the Bible was equally oblivious of the

      I guess, I have to see did Mat Dillahunty have a take on that.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • I meant to say:

        If both the Qur’an and the Bible can not be true, and the Qur’an says the Bible is true, does that make either of them right?

        If the Qur’an says the Bible is right about something and the Bible does not say anything about the Qur’an, because the particular god inspiring the writers of the Bible was equally oblivious of the future Qur’an as were the writers of the book, does that mean that either of the books is right about the other?

        It seems to me there is no valid form to this argument. There is nothing valid about the claim that a lier gives validation through testimony to the truth of someone elses claims.

        Liked by 1 person

      • There is but One Truth for bald christians and it is from The Only True Holy Book Ever, The Qur’an: 3:85: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”
        BTW, NEVER speak of Batman in an example. Batman is REAL. Superman isn’t, so use him instead. WHAT is so hard about knowing that Batman is real, and Superman is just some made up shit? Is it REALLY that hard to see? Jeez, only christians are THIS dumb. Thanks, and have a lovely day. 😀

        Liked by 1 person

      • You are conflating formal validity with the truth value of the proposition. Do some reading on logic, since you posted on a forum regarding the ills of “Christian Logic” I would have thought you could recognize that arguing about the validity is far different than arguing about truth or falsity.

        I would actually agree that the form of the argument that Sye used was invalid. That’s a far cry from arguing that his premises are false.

        Like

      • “is far different than arguing about truth” HOW DARE YOU SPEAK OF TRUTH, cHRISTIAN???!!!!! How dare a lying form of infidel vermin,who acts as if he knows The Qur’an, speak of ANY truth???? Hell awaits you. you lying dog!!!! Stop writing and STOP offending God. You are evil and a dog. Damn you for insulting Allah with your bullshit lies!!! How DARE you!!!! You infidel!!!! You evil dog!!!! Thanks, and have a nice day. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • If the Lord of the Rings says the Silmarillion is true then the Lord of the Rings is false
        The Lord of the Rings says the Silmarillion is true
        :. The Lord of the Rings is false

        There are numerous references in the Lord of the Rings to the Silmarillion, but in Silmarillion there are absolutely no comments about the Lord of the Rings, because the events of the Silmarillion are supposed to have taken place hundreds of years before the Lord of the Rings.

        Such arguments are therefore nonsensical. Especially since we are talking about obvious works of fiction. But it works on historical documents also.

        Even if Tacitus refers to Polybius as a reliable source, but Polybius, having lived hundreds of years before Tacitus, does not mention Tacitus, it does not make Tacitus any less reliable source than Polybius. However, neither of them prove by telling how true, or false the other is, that burning ships were flying over Italy during the Punic wars, or that there were dogheaded men beyond Sarmatia. And we are talking about sound historians subscribing to the integrity of telling only what they have been told or they have wittnessed by their own eyes. Even so, we should not take their word for anything supernatural or otherwise unnatural to have happened either, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Correct?

        Liked by 1 person

      • If Polybius and Tacitus disagree on something the one who is right between them is not “validated” by referring to Tacitus giving a compliment to Polybius being right about something else and Polybius not mentioning Tacitus.

        If the Tacitus says the Polybious is true then the Tacitus is false
        Tacitus says the Polybious is true
        :. Tacitus is false

        The entire argument is corrupt through and through. There is nothing logical, nor valid about it even in this form. Exept perhaps some of that “Christian logic”.

        Got to go, too drunk to write. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  27. to me, i am dismissive of both koran and OT/NT. i am most dismissive of talmud.

    plus, tho i admire discipline, i find most religious practices to be folly.

    AND YET, in my most primal self in this incarnation am one who loves the idea of what the best jesus could have been. or was. and the bible simply imputes faults which he did not possess.

    tho i am not really gnostic either due to errors of that faith.

    but i do espouse two or so of their accepted reality.

    1. that there is a benevolent god. but such god is not within the 3D imposed limits of human experience. the wholly benevolent one, of the pleroma (heaven), is the best representation of the god i know.

    2. and, that there is a malevolent creator of this universe, obviously including this earth. such creator is also the operator of the daily experiences as we know them.

    the malevolent one influences existence in such a way as to create hardship on MOST people.

    the malevolent one is called the demiurge.

    the minions of the demiurge are called archons. they thrive from human agony and suffering. they inhale adrenaline.

    archons drive humanity apart. they bring into being persons known by their personalities as: psychopaths.

    to me those are simple samples of my estimates. love is very important. especially the love of benevolence and the expressions of benevolence from each human. lastly i espouse an expectation of life after this incarnation. in that regard i suggest you consult my friend rich west. youtube: rich2150x. truly insightful tender raw and funny man.

    all for now: mayan seeking the divine mind.

    Like

    Reply

    • So you’re a dualist, in the strictest sense. Did you get a chance to look over the book yet? The demiurge described there is massively more organised, yet does not share His creation with any other comparable spirit.

      Out of interest, have you ever read Scott Adams’, God Debris?

      Like

      Reply

      • What you wrote: a benevolent god and a malevolent one. Strict dualism would though mean these two forces are locked into a constant struggle with one another, but I don’t think that is what you’re saying.

        You can get God’s Debris online, for free. Short book, only about 100 pages, and the idea it posits is, at the very least, not rationally absurd. I think you’d like it.

        Like

    • Hi, welcome, and nice to meet you

      An “addled mind,” I like that, and certainly apt.

      Stephen said you’d dug your teeth into the book. Any thoughts? He wrote me on Friday saying he was enjoying it, and I’m thrilled to have caught his attention. It’s not perfect, but as an introduction to a formalised “theology” I think it lays a foundation which anyone can build on. Anything and everything can be spun to support the thesis, and the beauty is, it requires no apologetics… Or what Dr Maarten Boudry (Ghent University) is calling “Aggravetics.” I think that’s brilliant. I actually heard yesterday that sometime in August the thesis is going to be presented at a philosophical conference sponsored by professors of Aalborg and Århus Universities (Belgium), so hopefully that kicks-off some formalised rebuttals within the Christian philosophy universe, which will be fun.

      Like

      Reply

  33. Kindle tells me that I’m only 26% through so I’ll reserve final judgment. However, thus far it is positively brilliant. You have a rhetorical flair that is reminiscent of David Foster Wallace. Everything he wrote (like your work thus far) left me demoralized as an amateur writer because I realized I Would never be able to scale the heights he attained. If you’ve ever read Infinite Jest or even his “Consider the Lobster” piece from Gourmet magazine, you’ll know what I mean.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • I’m going to read them now. And thanks for the compliment, although I have to say, a part of the parody was simply mimicking 20th century natural theology works… a monsoon of adjectives 🙂

      Let me know when you’re done, OK. Would love to continue this conversation, and to explore how we can spread the Good Word 🙂

      Like

      Reply

  34. Infinite Jest is a Herculean tome – great company for a trek in the Himalayas. Consider the Lobster is a morsel size example of how DFW could enliven the mundane.

    Will definitely get back to you after I finish The Owner. Definitely a work that deserves to be widely disseminated and thrust in the faces of Craig, Turek et al.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment