Summary of arguments in favor of Christianity (and against atheism/ agnosticism)

Advertisements

Discussions for Christianity, religion and atheism are very common nowadays. The following is a breakdown of some of the key arguments in defense of Christianity against the main arguments of atheists / agnostics.

Argument from atheist

The answer of the Christian

Related articles

Religions are fairy tales

This is a generalization. Be more specific.

Jesus Christ never existed

Many saw Him. Many wrote for Him. Many died for Him. What more proof do you want? For many historical figures we have much less evidence.


Resurrection is a fairy tale

Actually the opposite is true: Death is a fairy tale. Which is based on many philosophical dogmas (belief in the notion of change, in time, in senses etc). Read Parmenides.

Whoever wrote about Christ was a christian

They turned into Christian because they saw Him. And they weren’t rewarded for that. Exactly the opposite: They died for that.


God is a fairy tale

Which God do you refer to? Explain to me what you are talking about. God as the First Cause is perfectly logical. Aristotle himself had arguments in favor of that. God as the One in which we all belong has also deep philosophical roots from the time of Parmenides. (just to mention two examples)

Articles related to “One

Modern science has made religion obsolete

Science deals with the how. Religion with the why. Even the Global network of Science Academies accepts that. Not to talk about great scientists. In the past religion and science were not separated. They are both needed to reach the truth. Biology is a nice science. But it is not theology nor philosophy. As much as it is related to viruses, it is not at all related to God.

Articles related to “Science” and “Scientific models

When I get sick I go to the doctor, not to church.

And that is a good thing you do. Religion heals the soul. Not the body. Nor does it compete with science for the things on this earth. Religion deals with metaphysical matters.

Articles related to “Religion

Medicine heals. Not the belief in metaphysical beings.

Modern medicine relies on Christian philosophy (love towards the weak). What is more, medicine is not in any way against religion, which deals with other matters.

Science will someday explain everything

Actually the only thing that science has proved is that it will never prove everything. Read Gödel.

Science proves. Religion is based on faith.

First, science proves based on unproved axioms. Thus, it does not prove anything. Secondly, religion is also based on logic (see the arguments of Aristotle for the Immovable Mover) and on empirical facts (see the cosmic parameters which have been set to the exact values needed for the existence of life for example, witnesses to the resurrection etc), while faith in religion is by no means what we call “blind faith” but faith which supplements the existing logic and the aforementioned evidence.


Every religion says a different story.

I do not care. I am a Christian. I will not apologize for other religions.


Religion is responsible for all bad things.

No, the exact opposite is true. Atheistic regimes are responsible for the greatest massacres. Christianity is the basis of the European civilization, including humanism and Renaissance. In the colonies Christianity helped countries set the proper foundations for structured free states.

Why shouldn’t I believe in the Flying Teapot instead of God?

Everything is a matter of definition. How do you define this teapot? If you give it the same characteristics that the Christian God has, the name is not an issue per se. If you just define it as a flying teapot then this has nothing to do with God. How can a flying teapot create the cosmos?


Religion is old fashioned.

And that is a good thing. Values should not change according to fashion.

How does religion explain evil?

Actually the problem is not the existence of evil but the existence of good in such a world. And that existence of good despite the harsh conditions is an argument in favor of God. Evil is just the result of man’s free will.

Why do good people and children die in this world made by God?

First of all death means nothing for the Christian but the portal for the eternal life. Secondly, how come an atheist be frustrated about this? If we are only matter then what does it matter who dies? Are you upset about matter? Are you upset about stones? About wood? Dirt perhaps?

Why should I listen to religion to be moral?

There can be no ethics without a stable reference point beyond the personal beliefs of men. If you are a good person because you decided so, good for you, but that means that you can easily decide not to be good at any other point in time. So this means nothing for the morality of your actions per se. Don’t forget that Nazis killed Jews because they thought that this was a good thing (and they even had a state law forcing them to do so).

Articles related to “Ethics

Only old men believe in religion.

Mainly young people believe in atheism. Old men are wise. Young men are usually arrogant and ignorant.

Articles related to “Atheists

Religion oppresses me.

In 2019? Are you kidding me? The exact opposite is happening: Christians today are under persecution!


Church condemned Galileo.

And was correct in doing so! Read first about something before speaking about it. Galileo was first of all wrong in everything he said, from a scientific point of view! Secondly, his stance was highly arrogant and offensive against a friend of his (the Pope) and during a time period in which the church fought the external bitter challenge of the Scripture from heresies.

Articles related to “Galileo

The Church had the Holy Inquisition!

And rightfully so! This institution made its appearance in Spain during an era of constant turmoil. If some of the heresies fought by the Holy Inquisition back then had prevailed (e.g. the Cathars) there wouldn’t be any Christians left in Spain. Remember that the church has not only a theological/ philosophical aspect but also a cosmic one. And the latter is often involved in politics. Try not to mix these three aspects. Mistakes in one of them does not mean anything for the others.

Articles related to “Holy inquisition

I am a free thinker, so I believe in nothing!

Actually you are a sheep and for that reason you react against religion. Atheism is in fashion these days, so being an atheist today just shows that you follow the flock. If we lived in the middle ages, you would probably be the best and most obedient worshipper.

All clergy is corrupted.

Many priests are indeed corrupted. But their percentage in the church is smaller than the percentage of the same corruption in society. This doesnt mean nothing of course. The goal is for everyone to be a saint. But no one achieves that. People who go to church need Christ, they have no already achieved sainthood. Should they be perfect? Sure. As much as the scientists should be perfect too. But they are not. The church is made of flawed people. Don’t judge Christ and His teachings via those people.


Middle Ages were darkness.

No. This is a view promoted by the Enlighteners to promote the idea that Enlightenment is light. This view has now been strongly disputed. In the Middle Ages we had an overdevelopment of the humanities (and they need those the same way we need exact sciences). We had humanism and the Renaissance. The first universities were built back then. Actually the whole modern European civilization is based on the foundations laid during the Middle Ages.

I believe in nothing.

Good for you. So you don’t believe that you have free since it hasn’t been proved yet. You don’t believe that tomorrow it will dawn since this is not proved beyond the shadow of a doubt either. Or perhaps you are not consistent with what you believe and believe things which are not 100% proven? Faith is another thing than blind faith. Don’t confuse them.

Saying “I don’t know” is the most honest answer we can give in metaphysical questions.

If you say “I don’t know” to everything that has not been proven with 100% certainty then you should say “I don’t know” about everything! Nothing has been 100% proven! And neither will they ever! (See Gödel) This is the only thing that has been proven. Are you honest enough to do that? Or do you simply cover up your anti-Christianity sentiments with the cloak of the “agnostic”? Christianity has painted a picture for the world. Picture your own and convince yourself that it is better. Don’t hide behind the “I don’t know.” Culture and science never progressed with “I don’t know”.

Articles related to “Agnosticism

Religion is convenient and makes you feel better. It is the opium of the people.

The exact opposite. Christianity constantly reminds you of how much effort you need to be good. The last thing it does is make you feel better! If you want to feel better, become an atheist, believe that nothing matters (since everything is matter) and drink some wine. Not for a second believe that Christianity is the easy way out. Most saints became martyrs.

The Old Testament is a despicable book.

Actually it is despicable to say stupid things about things you do not understand. The Old Testament states the obvious: that when you do bad things you will be punished. (Remember: causality is the cornerstone of science. Why deny it in life?) Modern man cannot stand that. He wants to be free and do whatever he likes. And as a spoiled child, he does not like his Father to punish him for anything.

I am an atheist! Blha blah blah blah blah…

Why should I discuss with you? Aren’t we all random sets of matter? Why does your opinion matter? Why does anything matter?

I am an agnosticist. Blha blah blah blah blah…

Why should I discuss with you? Why does your opinion matter? If nothing can be proved, how can you be certain for what you say?

Articles related to “Agnosticism

I am not stupid to believe in miracles.

And yet miracles happen all the time. First and foremost the most important: your very existence. But if you want miracles that meet your scientific criteria, you can look in literature for cases of Near Death Experiences. There you will find many interesting cases published and in medical journals.

Easy and Quick answers to Atheists [Modern guide to fast debating]

Advertisements

Modern world calls for modern ways of thinking and reacting. It is not difficult to find yourself in a situation where an atheists attacks Christianity with a crescendo of punchlines which are gaining more and more traction over the Internet. In our shallow era there is not time to perform proper discussion on important issues. Unfortunately philosophical discussions in many cases are limited to small phrases which have the goal to produce as much spectacular effect as possible to others, while saying nothing of true importance.

There are two ways to deal with an atheist who follows such a way of speaking.

OPTION 1: Do nothing. Stay silent. The wisest (but less fun) option. A person who performs such a shallow attack on something so deep as Christianity is no worth your attention. No matter what you tell him he will not have the willingness to understand. Buddhists have a saying: Only when the student wants, the master appears. This is perfectly applicable in this case. If someone does not want to learn (or even discuss) something let him in peace.

OPTION 2: Answer to the atheists in a similar manner, while trying to convey useful information to your fellow listeners. Less wise, but more fun! Such type of speaking though requires a mastery of the arguments underlying the debate ‘Modern world vs. Christianity’ (did I tell you that Christianity is usually the target of the atheists? Well, I tell you now) and an equal mastery of the ability to condense valid arguments in single-liners.

Let us go through some of them…

Atheist (A): All religions are just fairy tales.

Christian (C): Did you know that Marx and Stalin also thought the same

A: But all religions say the same stupid things.

C: Generalization is the mother of all mistakes. 

A: But we are not even sure if Jesus existed.

C: Would you ever give your life for something that did not exist?

A: Of course not.

C: Then how do you believe others would?

A: Prove me that Jesus existed!

C: Prove me that Pythagoras did.

(to be continued…)

Against atheism, in one simple sentence – Episode 3: The ‘randomness’ argument debunked… (Against Nanopoulos)

Advertisements
Photo by Engin Akyurt from Pexels

I was recently reading a book (Δημήτρης Νανόπουλος, Στον τρίτο βράχο από τον Ήλιο) for Nanopoulos, the famous physicist.

At a point within this book, the great scientist was contemplating on the human existence. His philosophy? Astonishingly shallow.

For Nanopoulos, we just happened to exist in a random universe. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just happened. This is a typical atheistic way of thinking, which is mostly covered under the cloak of scientism in today’s era. Not surprisingly, such way of thinking is famous among people with little or no relation to philosophy and theology per se.

For is they had such a relationship, it would be self-evident to them that there is no way to find meaning in a random world. Especially if you are a creature which just ‘happened’ to exist in such a random world.

Nanopoulos does praise the skills of the human brain to discover the ‘truth’ and how the ‘creation’ of the universe happened. And yet, he does not tell us why and how such a thing could happen in a random universe where our brain just happened to exist. Why is it important to have science in a random cosmos where thing just ‘happen’? Why should we care for anything in such a random cosmos? What is so astonishing in formulating a new quantum mechanics theory in a random cosmos? Does our random brain work properly? Or does it work randomly? Should we trust such a random brain which just happened to work as it does?

It is really sad that scientists of the magnitude of Nanopoulos fall into the trap of modern atheistic dogmatism in such a way. In such cases, the story of Pliny reminds us of the importance to stay within the boundaries of our trade when speaking publicly.

So the next time an atheist says to you that we are just “creatures which happened to be in a random universe” ask him “What does anything matter in such a universe?”

Oh, and if you happen to come across Nanopoulos.

Just tell him…

Sutor, ne ultra crepidam!

Common Mistakes in Arguments Against Christianity (Defense of Religion Against Modern Anti-Christians)

Advertisements

How many times have you been in a discussion where some atheist (or “agnostic”) attacks and mocks religion or Christianity in particular? Unfortunately mocking anything religious is in fashion today and such cases are the norm rather than exceptions.

This article aims to answer some of the most common arguments against religion (and Christianity more specifically) in such context. The analytical answer to those arguments requires of course a more in-depth reading of Harmonia Philosophica.

But first thing’s first…

“Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah!”

Usually the atheist will start his attack with a raging ranting of multiple “arguments” dealing with multiple and non-coherent topics. This is a direct result of the confusion that exists in his brain, which cannot distinguish between the different dimensions of the topic “religion” and “Christianity”. It is important to emphasize the existence of those dimensions. Religion has a theological dimension, a philosophical one, a historical (everything happens in the context of a specific era), a social (it is important to know the society in the context of which various events took place, events which we easily characterize as mistakes of religion ignoring the effects of society as a whole on them), even a political one (which many times becomes a subject of exploitation by authorities). A discussion for each and every one of these dimensions takes time. So keep calm. And always have a good mood and discuss in good faith. (something which is rare)
In such a case simply ask him “Do you really believe that the world was created by pure chance out of nothing?” while vaguely smiling…

“Religion/ Christianity is just a stupidity to control the masses”

A very general and vague comment. It puts a lot of unrelated things in the same bucket (common tactic of an atheist during an anti-religious rant) based on a general leveling logic that does not fit into a subject as deep and diverse as religion. Difficult to answer, as it would be difficult to answer a shallow comment such as “Science is a stupidity.” Religion has many dimensions: philosophical (especially Christianity), theological, secular. Usually atheists refer to the latter, in addition to confusing the cosmic (secular) dimension of the church to how the secular power itself (politicians, political groups, etc.) use the church (as they are using science today) for its purposes. If I use the Internet to control you, will you say that “The Internet is a stupid thing to control the masses”? Heisenberg, who had stated that “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you”, would surely be laughing with such people. Apostle Paul, who sacrificed the good life he had to become a persecuted man and eventually die for his faith, would be really amazed by the shallowness of some people seeing “stupidity” in things that are so deep (philosophically and theologically) that they inspire people to give their own life for this superior something that we all feel in our life. (except for the atheists, of course, who constantly see matter and… matter everywhere) In a world full of spirit, it is really funny that the people who think they are just sacks of blood and bones try to teach us the truth. Why would the “truth” have any meaning if we are only matter (something like “complicated stones”) as atheists claim? And what does it matter who controls who in a world where there is only inanimate matter? What does it mean to talk about evil or about stupidity and intelligence in such an inanimate world? Do the stones deal with such things? In such shallow arguments, the only possible answer is silence and sorrow. The one who said it does not have the skills or, more importantly, the will to learn more than the childish “Religion is bad and is to be blamed for everything” that he has already learnt. And yes, usually such views are accompanied by a pinch of communism and a dose of liberty in the personal preferences of life…

“The Old Testament is a fairy tale to scare children”

Old Testament (OT) books are the most common object of ridicule for anti-Christians. This is because they have difficulty understanding their meaning and even if they do, they cannot agree to their (admittedly dark) message. At a time when everyone believes “I am free to do whatever I want,” learning that there are consequences for your actions is the last thing you want to hear. And this is what the Old Testament says: If you sin, there will be consequences. Yes, God loves you, but in the end you are responsible for whether you will go to Heaven or not. And you are responsible through your actions. No modern man who has made himself “god in the place of the dead God” is willing to receive any command from anyone else. And the difficult symbolism of the OT makes things even worse. The atheist will complain and be outraged every time a “good” person dies in a story of the OT, without understanding the meaning of natural death in the context of the Christian worldview (for Christianity there is no death as the atheist sees it), without seeing the symbolism behind the history (symbolisms that even with a simple search on Google can reveal – for example, no, God did not ask someone to sacrifice his son because of sadism), without understanding the context of the epoch in which the texts were written (e.g., the “eye for an eye” motto was a call for a more righteous punishment at a time when, if you were poor you could be sentenced to death even for the slightest misconduct), without wanting to read an ancient text in good faith and to open youself to try to learn something from it. And yes, usually such views are accompanied by “diametrically” polished views on how ancient Greek texts about Jupiter who had fun (made love) with every woman he found was profoundly “symbolic” …

Note: This inconsistency is the major problem in such views as the above. Surely, every point can have arguments and it is a matter of discussion to see which points are more valid than the others. However no matter what one believes, it is important that there is a consistency in all the views a person holds. (and this is something which can objectively be documented) If there is no consistency it is difficult to hold a discussion for any subject.

“Christianity is a Jewish religion that was imposed upon us to dissolve the supreme spirit of the ancient Greeks”

In simple words: No. Firstly, Christianity is not directly related to a particular nation (however much some want to believe the opposite). Secondly, the Greeks were the first (or the second, depending on how we read some details of the story) and certainly the most basic nation that embraced Christianity and made it world-wide. And this was not because Paul went to Athens and scared them off with his magic powers or threatened them with a big sword, but because the philosophy of the Greeks was so mature to accept the transition to a monotheistic religion with the characteristics of Christianity. If we accept the superiority of the Greeks of the time, let us also accept their choice of becoming Christians. And no, Christianity was not imposed with the “sword” as anti-Christians like it. The exact opposite. Christianity expanded with the blood of its martyrs. During the first centuries, Christians were widely and wildly persecuted. If you believe that the ancient Greeks who initially became Christians were not on their right mind, then you must prove it. Because it was the same Greeks, who were so advanced so as to culturally impose themselves on the Romans. (in general the tendency to tag entire sections of human history as a”dark” and “decay” according to what suits us, is very funny  and one of the best weapons of the atheists – for them the epoch during which the greatest philosopher of human history was killed deserves to be called the “Golden Age”) It is true that later on some Christians became from persecuted persecutors, but this must be seen in its true dimensions and context: the persecutions were based on politics to ensure the unity of an empire and were not based on the teachings of Christianity (Christ told us to turn the other cheek). These are basic details that anti-Christians conveniently forget. And yes, such arguments are accompanied by selective amnesia about the fact that the “enlightened” ancient Greece also had religious wars…

“Christians closed the Greek schools in Athens”

Nah. To say this is like claiming that the French revolutionaries had freed the prisoners in Bastille: both are sophisticated inaccurate and in essence wrong. The schools in Athens at the time they were closed were in decadence and had few pupils. What is more, new schools had opened in Constantinople and elsewhere. This was merely euthanasia, not death. (incidentally, Bastille only had… 7 detainees when the “big” release took place) And yes, usually such views are accompanied by an extremely selective “education” on history issues…

“If we said what we say now some years ago, they would burn us in the stake”

Seriously, get a grip man. Sure, only you and Giordano Bruno. The biggest fetish of every atheist / anti-Christian today is to imagine himself in the position of a persecuted intellectual for his “advanced” views. And yet he does not understand many things about what he claims. First, the church did not “burn people” in the Middle Ages. Executions at the stake (death by the fire) were decided by the political authorities of the time and were (no surprise there) made for political reasons, but also for reasons of common sense that related to the survival of the the state/ empire. (for example, the Holy Inquisition had condemned Cathars, the preaching of which – if left undisturbed – could lead to almost none of us being here today) Secondly, the extent of the phenomenon is much smaller than the anti-Christians want to believe. Contrary to the widespread (and erroneous) view that millions or hundreds of thousands of people died in the Middle Ages by the Holy Inquisition, the truth is that during the ~300 years of the existence of the institution, only about 5,000 died. (as opposed to the 200,000 people who died in a second without a trial in our “enlightened” time in Hiroshima) Last but not least: the anti-Christian who says that, does not understand that what he is doing today is not “revolution” against some power, but on the contrary, an act of submission to the imperatives of (current) authorities, which, after the Enlightenment, welcomes every attack on anything religious. Speaking today against religion (which has lost its power in society a long time ago) and speaking against God is something that is in line with what is in fashion today and according to the imperatives of the era we live in. Current atheists would be the most faithful (in the bad sense of blind faith) faith people back in the Middle Ages. Far from any “revolutionary” behavior that they want to believe that they have. And yes, usually such behavior and mistakes are accompanied by a good dose of ignorance about what happened in the notorious Galileo affair (see relevant articles I have posted from time to time for details on this)…

“Christians believe that a man can rise from the dead. Hahaha!”

Hahaha back at you. The answer to this is to reverse the question so as to highlight the ignorance of the modern man on the subject: Do you think someone can die? We all have to understand that materialism (which many people today believe) is a philosophical doctrine and not a proven point. To believe someone that people die, he must believe in multiple dogmas (materialism, notion of change, existence of time etc) which are all subjects of discussion in philosophy for thousands of years with no clear-cut conclusion. So no, you should not laugh to some people believing that someone rose from the dead after they saw Him. You should laugh with people believing that they are an inanimate set of lifeless matter when every day they see and feel things which dictate the exact opposite…

“How can you believe such stupid things! I am an agnostic!”

Sure. And I am an elephant with feathers. The most common (and low level) trick of atheists is to portray themselves as “agnostics”. And I say trick because they try to claim they are just agnostics in order to hide their obvious dogmatism in various matters, even though it is more than clear that they do “know” a lot of things despite the tag “agnostic” they like to put on themselves. If you laugh at religion, if you laugh at God, if you believe that everything in the cosmos just exist with no reason, if you believe nothing/ no one created the cosmos, then you surely know a lot of things and you are not an agnostic. A simple as that. For example the universe either existed for ever or it was created at some point by someone/ something. If you laugh with the latter option, then you certainly take a stance in favor of the former. You cannot at the same time claim you are an “agnostic”.

RELATED ARTICLES

My (bad) experience debating atheists…

Advertisements

Based on a true story.

RELATED ARTICLE: How to debate atheists

Once upon a time a Christian (me) went for coffee with six other people.

Initially the discussion was centered around issues of everyday life. We discussed politics, the latest news of our community, economy, even gossip about known people. And time passed over like water.

At some point, the discussion went to more “serious” subjects, namely philosophy and religion.

And then it all begun…

Four of the participants found the perfect opportunity to start expressing their anti-religion ideas. Which is perfectly cool by the way. I was about to be engaged in an interesting discussion when…

All of those people understood that they agree (between them). So they almost instantly orchestrated to produce a cacophony of anti-religious rant against any idea of God. And with this they created an impenetrable wall which was impossible to break. Every time I attempted to get into the discussion with an argument which destroyed a fallacy in which they believed they just… ignored me.

No matter how well-placed my counter-argument was, they simply stared at me, looked to each other, told me that I was wrong (without explaining why of course, as if it was obvious to all but to the ignorant me) and then kept on their ranting. As most people today, they were there to talk and not to listen. And the moment they realized they had audience who was on their side, they kept on trying to please that audience.

The end was not a happy end.

Because no matter what, they never did sit to listen to the different opinion. The coffee ended and they went back home, happy that they explained once more their (correct) view, without paying attention that at the same time they ignored a different opinion which could be (or not, this is not the point of this post) equally or better founded than theirs.

In a world full of people with opinions, no one listens.

In a world full of educated people, no one wishes to learn.

In a world full of noise, nobody ever sits to hear the silence.

So the next time you start a speech about what you believe, spend a second to pay attention to someone who sits silent at the corner. He may have much to say…