The Heretic
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 0
How does a Christian think? The most efficient way to answer this question is to observe them in an intellectual setting, especially in the debate arena. If a Christian meets a person who has yet to join the herd, he will subject them to certain dialogue with the hopes of gaining another member to the fold, all in the name of their religion.
The specious reasoning of antiphilosophy
The psychological approach
Apologetics to reinforce dogma
Quoting scripture at the drop of a hat
The freethinker's attempt to reason or attempt to participate a conversation with the religious minded person is usually an exercise in futility. The Christian's thought pattern has been entrenched by dogma. While their claims of open-mindedness and intellectual exercises are always limited to auxiliary subjects of interpretations or metaphysics, but the a priori beliefs are untouched or indubitable. There is no honest exploration of possibilities, because they must indoctrinate and spread the dogma. Their favorite victims are the anxious, the unsure, and those seeking for the answer to the meaning of their lives. Once a victim is identified, the Christian gets busy by unleashing a metaphysic of fear and anxiety and braying a morality which only degrades humanity. It is no coincidence that religion attracts women and the older people who are close to the end, and those who have physical or spiritual issues.
The specious reasoning of antiphilosophy
- A typical debate requires proof or proposes a truth. The typical Christian reverses this and demands an equal burden from the person who has yet to be convinced of their conviction. As a result of this backwards reasoning the Christian argues that all forms of beliefs, even unbelief are based on the same type of faith. Therefore the correct choice ought to be on the most promising side.
In this tactic, the Christian refuses to present a clear and distinct argument for their proposition. They also insist that all beliefs are grounded in a quasi-hypothesis of faith, ergo; both atheism and theism are based on the same foundation of human ignorance. This tactic involves a shift from gradient thinking to absolutes: where gradient thought moves in degrees, indicating superior and inferior beliefs, while absolutist thought is either/or, indicating black and white options. In philosophical terminology, the former is dialogic - where there are many different truths - and the latter, dialectic: where there is only one Truth. And the dialectic resolves in the Absolute; which is for the religious minded, God.
The psychological approach
- The Christian exploits the frailties of people, particularly their psychological weaknesses, existential anxiety and/or physical instincts in order to reinforce their dogmatic religion. Alternating between threats and promises, the Christian seduces or exhorts the recruit. It is no wonder Christianity flourishes fastest among the suffering, the tragic and the hopeless. Historically, when Christianity was at its strongest, it was the Dark Ages. While Christianity is in decline in the western nations, it still is most productive/fruitful in the less fortunate areas of poverty or war. Suffering is an excellent ingredient for religion, for during cultural and social strife religion draws followers quickest. For a person who has experienced intensive psychological stress and existential discontent, the siren call of Christianity is irresistible. After all, the promise of the afterlife does seem to absolve the pain and anguish of the current life. In addition, the mythological images of Christian metaphysics, hell and the devil helps to reinforce its grip on the instincts, and the notions of sin exacerbates guilt and shame.
Apologetics to reinforce dogma
- A third tactic is disguising their fundamentalist beliefs as an authentic philosophical position. The uproar over creationism as a legitimate science in our schools has nothing to do with science and everything to do with political power legitimizing religious dogma. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the creation hypothesis besides the Sola Scriptura, which is based on the fundamentalist's myopic interpretation of genesis mythology as something literal.Christian theologians and philosophical theists are intellectually crippled by the presumption that their prejudices are the Truth. Ergo, they must assume the very object of their truth in order to prove the superiority of their particular religion or philosophy over others. However, Christians are not content with circular logic, they desire to go beyond intellectual jousts and render their belief in the Absolute with human attributes, a personal being in order to make him more down to earth and appealing for the masses. Not only God is the Unmovable Mover, he must be a Perfect being who is the very essence of Love, who cares about the petty concerns of his followers.
But the Christian must also be capable of being in self-deception regarding certain problems: How can evil exist in a creation that is created by the perfect creator? How can omnipotence be powerless before evil, and if omnipotence does tolerate it as something necessary, is it absolutely good? Is evil a necessary byproduct of free will? If so, why is free will supposed to be limited by the good? If God creates people to be free, and a person chooses a path without God's approval, why is it sinful to act according to one's own nature? If suicide is a sin, then nobody can die on their own terms any more than they can live because they did not have any choice in living at all. In the case of first cause, why does God not require a cause himself while the universe does? If the concept and the motives of an infinite and perfect entity are incomprehensible to us as mortal beings, then how can we know his emotions, morality or desires at all? If God is incomprehensible, then why isn't the absence of God incomprehensible as well? Why did God bother create a universe? If it is a test like most Christians believe, and God is omnipotent, then doesn't he already know the outcome? If he does, then why bother going through all of it and have his creation undergo so much pain and suffering to outcomes he already knows? Isn't that sadistic? If life is a test and an entrance exam for heaven, then the tester is ignorant because the creator has awarded free will to his creation. Therefore, the creator is not omniscient. And so on….
Quoting scripture at the drop of a hat
- A simple quote from the bible or an assertion supported by the bible is enough to make a good point and is a counterargument in itself. However, since the bible is always open to interpretation, given the thousands of Christian churches, it means the Christian is capable of adopting something metaphorical and contemplate it as a symbol for their lives. But this in no way means the book is holy or the final word on human activities. After all, we could be equally enslaved to another book, the Koran or the Da Vinci Code. The religious person is dependant, and is guided by an idée fixe, and desires the result of a feeling instead of reasoning or rational thought or thinking for themselves throughout life. In every argument and opinion the Christian's enslavement and capitulation is constantly demonstrated. The ultimate price of Christianity is a mind absent of all possibility or insight, capable of regurgitating the dogmas of an authoritarian regime.
The freethinker's attempt to reason or attempt to participate a conversation with the religious minded person is usually an exercise in futility. The Christian's thought pattern has been entrenched by dogma. While their claims of open-mindedness and intellectual exercises are always limited to auxiliary subjects of interpretations or metaphysics, but the a priori beliefs are untouched or indubitable. There is no honest exploration of possibilities, because they must indoctrinate and spread the dogma. Their favorite victims are the anxious, the unsure, and those seeking for the answer to the meaning of their lives. Once a victim is identified, the Christian gets busy by unleashing a metaphysic of fear and anxiety and braying a morality which only degrades humanity. It is no coincidence that religion attracts women and the older people who are close to the end, and those who have physical or spiritual issues.
