The irrationality of believing in the Christian god

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture
I tend to avoid the biblical

I tend to avoid the biblical and historical arguments, so moving to the other part...

Logic alone does work, people just do not like the answers as much as religion's warm embrace. I get the appeal, all the hard questions are answered by the "grand daddy" of them all, followers do not have to accept all the hard responsibility, in my mind: people do not have to fully "grow up."

I cannot speak for all atheist but, good comes from within. We choose to do good, not some god created morals or divine will. We do good because we want good done to us, because doing the right thing can be very satisfying and pleasing to ourselves. Reasonable people know doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing is mutually beneficial.

I have looked at both sides of the issue, I am guessing, far more than you have. I would love it if there was some all powerful, kind loving god, but I have found zero evidence for that, and a whole lot of contradiction instead. I have however found overwhelming evidence against such a figure. Trust me, I went looking for the "easier answer."

Lawrence Andrade's picture


When I used the word "good" I am talking about it in a cosmic not ethical sense. that there is enough good in the universe itself apart from our ethical and moral choices to justify its existence. That there is - or will be , when God is done working out His plan - more good than evil in it.

If you avoid the historical arguments - then no worries - you are totally safe in your views.

But those on your side want tangible proof - that only comes from the Bible. It can be shown - see my post above - that the preaching from the very earliest time that believers preached the death, burial and resurrection - in Jerusalem when their claim could be - and was - disputed by the powerful religious and political systems of the time.

The believers could not possibly have benefited in any way from preaching this message - it only caused them grief and social and religious ostracism. Or worse.

I am presenting the information that I have - acknowledging that on the basis of logic alone - that is, logic without recourse to historical evidence, that atheism is a reasonable position - on the basis of historical argument Christianity is.

People can make their own choice. And BTW there are historians and scholars who will argue the other side. I am only saying what is true here - that the believer has reason enough to support his/her faith but there is no such thing as enough evidence to compel belief. That remains a free choice.

For these purposes the New Testament writings are taken as any other historical document - that they are viewed by scholars as sources of data and are evaluated critically.

In other words, not to be accepted as " the Word of God" for scholarly purposes. There are scholars on all sides of the
debates. But there are questions that have to be thought through and answered in some consistent way. I think the best way is that it happened.

Your conclusion might be different. And you might be and remain quite happy not to trouble yourself with thinking about this.

The question I asked in this thread is -'Is mine a reasonable faith' - do I have reason in support of my faith - and my answer to that is that I do.


LogicFTW's picture
Why does existence have to be

Why does existence have to be "good" to justify the universe and existence? Why can it not just be? Why is this god character so vague with his/her/it's "plan?" Why tell us bits and pieces at one time 1000's of years ago, then just stop?

I avoid historical arguments because it becomes somebody's word you have to decide without evidence that they got it right. I am interested in what archaeologist find however, while there findings are open to a lot of interpretation, there is actual real world, what we can touch with our hands evidence of the past.

For the last time, the bible is not tangible proof! It is the opposite of that. If you think the bible constitutes as tangible proof, why do you dismiss all the other major religious holy books? They also say they have "historical" proof, no more and no less than your particular book does. You just choose to pick this particular book because it was presented to you, and the human condition to rationalize their particular belief system takes care of the rest.

Your religion is still disputed by powerful religious and political systems today, it just so happens that Christianity is the most powerful today, although Christianity power is rapidly eroding on a centuries scale. %population that regularly visits church on Sunday is way way down compared to 100's of years ago. The % population that has read all of the NT or the OT is way down over centuries ago.

Your book and religious leaders like to present it as: the followers/religious leaders could not have benefited. But we have no real way of knowing one way or another. Sure, it is generally accepted that when they were less popular in an area they faced persecution and all kinds of horrible stuff, but to say back then, none of them ever benefited is stating an absolute, that you (or anyone else) have no way of proving. People gamble all the time even though most all of them know deep down they are not likely to benefit overall.

I am glad you agree that on logic alone, atheism is a reasonable position. I also surmise that on real tangible testable evidence, which logic highly prizes, the same is true atheism is a very reasonable position.

I maybe sort of agree on historical evidence christianity is, it is more like: right now anyways, it wins the popularity vote, which is why there is so much history on it. The victors write the history books, the powerful write the history books, and christianity has had a near monopoly on reading/writing for much of the world Christianity was popular in for many centuries.

I do agree we are free to make a choice. I am trying to highlight for people to make a choice with real evidence in front of you, testable, tangible evidence, do not make the emotional choice on something so important. In so many other areas in your life, everyday you make the evidence based, rational logical choice, utilize those everyday skills on all aspects of your life.

Yep, scholars have evaluated the NT critically and found that it comes up short on many levels. It is a mess of contradictions, inaccuracies, logical flaws, and inconsistency. It certainly does not read like the "divine word" of all knowing all powerful being. It reads more like a bunch of humans with an agenda would write something a couple hundred years ago.

I think about it all the time, (conclusions to be made from various "holy" books and why so many other people have come to radically different conclusions then I have.) it is a big part of why I am on these boards.

To answer your original question, "is mine a reasonable faith?"
I would say no, reasoning, logic, and evidence, tools we use every day to our advantage says: no, its not a reasonable faith. None of them are.

Do you have reason to support your faith? Yes, I believe you have very powerful reasons to support your faith for personal reasons, mainly centered around: you do not want to be wrong with all this time and effort you spent on it.

Lawrence Andrade's picture
Hi all,

Hi all,

I thought this thread had died out a few days ago. I was planning on taking a break and then to start another one later - maybe in a few weeks or a month. I enjoy the back and forth.

Anyway, I will be away from my computer for a few days , so will not be able to read or to messages. I'll try to answer any posts when I return.


I hope everyone has a great weekend.



Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.