The War On Faith - Christianity

Conceptual arguments against belief in Christianity
A fairly brief explanation of why I don't believe in (insert god's name here).
Titled "Christianity" due to the fact that I live in a country with a Christian majority.

Concepts.
"Small minds talk about people. Average minds talk about things. Great minds talk about
concepts." What's so amazingly fucked up about that old saying is that concepts are so
incredibly basic that it's eternally confounding how the Fundy Hordes can be so
thoroughly immune to them.

It is my position that concepts are much more important to free thinkers when debating
Christianity, or any other religion ever created by man, than specific, individual things or
events purported by the Wholly Babble, or any other "divinely inspired" writ. Concepts are
the very foundation of all rational thoughts and beliefs. Concepts are, basically, pure logic,
and conceptual thinking is, therefore, thinking logically. If the very basis of a belief system
like Christianity is proven to be conceptually unsound, then it has no base to support the
other individual claims heaped atop it, and therefore, there is no reason to debate these
individual things. For example, arguments based on:

People... Jesus loves you. Does not. Does too. My god can beat up your god.
Things... The ark story is false because there is no evidence from archeology that there
ever was a flood that covered the earth, or because mankind at that time was not capable
of building a boat as big as the one described by the bible, or the ark was not structurally
sound and wouldn't have floated, or the ark wasn't big enough to hold all the animals, or
there are no written records of Jesus from the Roman Empire, or "This verse from such
and such 'holy text' is inconsistent with this other verse from said 'holy text'" etc, etc.
Concepts... How can an omnipotent, omniscient god be "A jealous God"?
If the world is too complex to not have a creator, then the creator
would be, by definition, too complex to not require a creator also.
A Loving god would not have created Hell.

There's no math to do, no ancient scrolls to study and translate, and you don't need eight
years at Seminal "College", or Harvard or MIT. Conceptual arguments simply say "That
shit don't make sense." All of the below topics question Xianity on a conceptual level. If you
find the Xian religion itself is conceptually flawed, then debating any of the individual
aspects of it, like the ark legend or bible inconsistencies, becomes redundant, pointless,
repetitious and superfluous, he repeated again, one more time.

Full blown fundamentalists will never be dented by any of these logical statements
because they absolutely will not under any circumstances abandon the delusions that they
hold so dear in favor of a reality that they so dearly fear, but open minded people, or
members of more liberal theistic sects, are more open to logical questions like these and
can quickly realize the serious flaws within their religion's dogmas which these
conceptual ideas so irrefutably point out. At the very least, people you know and have
some regard for will have a much more respectful view of your embrace of atheism than
the "he's just mad at God" bullshit that was going through their heads before they started
seriously talking to you about it.

Validity.
This is the absolute bedrock of all logical debates against religions. If there is neither
viable evidence, nor rational reason to believe that the specific religion in question has any
more divine validity than Zeus and Odin, then absolutely nothing the religion professes
has any worth in debate whatsoever in any greater degree than the profession of the
divinity of Santa Claus. (Careful, all you non-believers, and Santaless heretics, because you
will find yourself under the foot of the Grinch in Whooville for all eternity as punishment
for your sacrilege.)

The seemingly infinite immagination of our little 98.5% chimpanzee brains have, over the
ages, created approximately 10,000 different gods. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are
three major religions today, and all three of them spun off of just one of those 10,000
gods, the "Abrahamic" god. Now, just Christianity alone has 30,000 different, recognized,
organized sects, aka Babtist, Catholic, etc, and every single one of them is sure they are
right about their God, and not just right about their sect's position on Christianity, but
also sure about Christianity's position on Judaism, and Islam. Every Muslim is as sure their
sect is right, and every Jew is sure their sect is right. Well, why the fuck should I believe
any one of them more than the rest of them? There simply has been absolutely no more
evidence of Jesus' divinity, than there has been for divinity of Thor.

"I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the
other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours."
..........Stephen F. Roberts

The most glaring conceptual flaw with any religion whatsoever, is the lack of any
rational evidence of its validity. The moral and spiritual aspects of Christianity, and all
other religions, and sects of religions, are entirely founded on stories from people who
claim that a god spoke to them and inspired them to write it all down. Isn't it strange that
the all powerful god talked to billions of different people and told each and every one of
them different things?

There is not even the most miniscule particle of evidence that any purported prophet has
actually spoken to any god and there is no rational reason to believe that the prophecies of
any one religion are any more accurate or based in reality than the purported prophecies
of any other religion. There is also no rational reason to believe that any one of the
hundreds of thousands of religious sects created in the history of mankind is more valid
than the others.

You will find that Christians will dismiss the Muslim religion outright, yet there exists
absolutely no rational reason to think the Christian prophecies are any more valid than
those of the Muslims, or the Jews, or the Norsemen, or the Greeks, or the Romans. One
person after another through time has said "God told me this..." and found people to
believe them, including Joe Magic Underwear Smith, Jesus H. Christ, Mohammed Don't
Draw A Picture Of Me Or I'll Kill You, Jim Guyana Punch Jones, David Krispy Kritter
Koresh, and Charlie Fucking Manson.

You can end all religious debates right there. Once you have established that no religion
has any more validity nor any more significant basis in fact, nor any reasonable evidence
to claim superiority over the world's countless other religions, then there is no point
debating anything else at all relating to any specific religion with the purpose of
supporting a claim that the religion is true or false.

You do NOT have the responsibility of proving their religion or their god as false or
nonexistent. They are the ones who make the positive assertion that it's true, so they are,
naturally, the ones who hold the responsibility of giving you good reason to believe that
what they propose has validity in the first place. Why should they expect you to believe
something without any just cause? Well, they do expect it, and they will frequently
become virulently petulant should you refuse to comply. If any person purports anything
to be true in this modern world, then that person is expected to provide not only
reasonable evidence of their claim, but results that can be recreated through scientific
experimentation by others using basic scientific scrutiny. Religion is, evidently, the only
exception to this rule, though it is, obviously, not a logically valid exception.

Validity is the Alpha and the Omega. It is the conceptual catch all. All other arguments
about specific religions other than validity are "superfluous, redundant, repetitive, and
entirely without necessity," he necessarily repeated once again. The Fundies are, always
have been, and always will be, entirely incapable of giving you any reason to believe in
their god more than Bacchus, the Roman god of wine and sexual desire. Given the choice,
Bacchus is much more fun, has no Hell clause in his contract to worry about, and what
with all the running around nekkid, people would probably spend more time at the gym,
and eat much less frequently at McDonalds.

Scriptures; noun. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false
and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
..........Ambrose Bierce

Judgment Day
Should your thorough trouncing of the Fundy Wackos on the validity issue not completely
fulfill your desire to show them the horrible light of reason they so religiously avoid, then
feel free to discuss the Judgment Day which the more rabid ones are so eager to threaten
you with at every turn.

The Christian belief in a Judgment Day is completely conceptually unsound. The Christian
god is, according to their own holy book, omnipotent and omniscient so this god, by the
definitions of those terms, would have to know exactly what would happen to that person
and exactly what they would do, before that god created them. If the god is omnipotent
and omniscient it is not possible for a person to do anything at all that the god did not
directly cause to happen, because this god knew what each person would do, and went
ahead and made them anyway.

This God of the Christians created sin, and created Hell. God created people whom He
knew He would send to Hell, but even though He knew that ahead of time, He created
them anyway. He could have changed them before He made them, so they would not end
up in Hell, or He could not have made them in the first place. A sane person can not
possibly term God as "loving" and certainly no rational person can swallow the concept of
a God judging it's creations for being exactly what He knew they would be before He even
made them. What the fuck is there to judge? If there is anything to judge it's this "loving
god" of theirs.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing, all-powerful God, who
creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
..........Gene Roddenberry

"The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into
the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."
..........Matthew 13:49

Child Abuse.
How can any reasonable person defend the idea of a loving god that sends his own
creations to eternal torment? If this loving god loves his children, then why is it that even
one would ever go to hell? How long would you punish your children for their mistakes?
Would you burn your child's flesh for eternity? If your child was going to hell and you
could stop him from going, would you do it? Of course you would not let those things
happen to your children, but this "loving god" the Christers pimp definitely would. The
proposal that a loving god could send his beloved children to Hell for an eternity of
punishment instead of teaching them the error of their ways and correcting them in order
to better them, is fundamentally, irreparably, undeniably, conceptually unsound. No god
can be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent and still send its beloved children to any
version of Hell. The only way a god could create a soul, create Hell, and then send a soul to
Hell would be if that God was fucking psychotic.

"For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation."
..........Exodus 20:5
What the fuck happened to "turn the other cheek", and "Jesus loves the little children"?

"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found
will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be
dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives
ravished."
..........Isaiah 13:9, 13:15

Faith.
The word "faith" when applied to religion is being grossly misused. Faith is belief without
evidence. Years ago, before the internet and before the Science Channel, information was
much less easy to come by. There simply was no effective and inexpensive way to access
all this information. Back in those days faith was named appropriately, because there was
nothing to counter the story about the earth being six-thousand years old your parents
taught you when you were a kid. Today, information is incredibly accessable. Today,
people who have access to all of this online information, who still think the earth is
six-thousand years old, are not persons who have faith. Faith is belief without evidence.
What these poeple have is beleif against evidence, and that is the definition of a mental
delusion.

Absolutely no scientific claim made in the world is believed to be true by the scientific
community, the press, and the majority of the public, including even the most rabid
Fundies, until other respected and acknowledged scientists can repeat the experiments
and come up with the same results as those who claim new discoveries. Even with the
overwhelming amount of scientific evidence supporting evolution, Fundies fight tooth and
nail in their irrational attempts to discredit all of evolution's immeasurable mountains of
applicable scientific evidence. Fundies have no "faith in their God", they have a delusion of
their God. They are, quite factually, mentally ill.

Faith; noun. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge,
of things without parallel."
..........Ambrose Bierce

The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive...but in spite of
their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery
from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth
was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And
every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and
superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred
years before Christian religion was born."
..........Mark Twain, a Biography

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. A
man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and
realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill."
..........H.L. Mencken

Prayer.
It is conceptually unsound that any omniscient and omnipotent being would need
constant flattery from its flawed creations or that it would care in the slightest about the
offered opinions and requests of those whose past, present and future are obviously
previously set in stone by the omniscient and omnipotent being who created them. They
can have no opinion, feeling, or prayer which the omniscient and omnipotent being did
not create and intentionally cause to come into being long before he ever even created
them. Lettuce prey.

"Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner
confessedly unworthy."
..........Ambrose Bierce

"The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H. Sapiens is that the Lord God of
Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universe, wants the saccharine adoration of his
creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not
receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to
bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in
history."
..........Robert A. Heinlein

A Perfect God.
A perfect god does not make mistakes, nor change his mind. It is not conceptually sound.
In the tale of Noah's ark, God did both. The idea of an omniscient and perfect god as
purported by the bible is conceptually unsound according to the very words of the bible
which the Fundies claim professes it to be so.

"The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the Earth, and his heart was filled with
pain. So I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the Earth- men and
animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air- for I am grieved
that I have made them."
..........Genesis 6:6-7