Christian Inconsistency and Christianity’s Tru…

ichthus-official:

academicatheism:

ichthus-official:

academicatheism:

When briefly discussing the abortion issue with a friend today, a glaring inconsistency in Christian thought became apparent. After an atheist confronts a Christian with the Problem of Evil, specifically the gratuitous amount of evil and suffering there is in the world, a Christian usually turns to the so-called free will defense. God gave humans free will, so it’s not his fault when a serial killer chooses to murder x amount of people. Setting aside that that doesn’t address evil and suffering that isn’t human-driven, an inconsistency becomes apparent if one opens discussions on other topics.

Take, for instance, abortion and euthanasia. Those on the side of choice will defend a woman’s right to choose and a person’s choice to die, but Christians very often oppose choice in these cases. They are basically going against god’s supposed decision to give us free will. They’re also forgetting a hallmark of their theology, namely humanity’s fall from grace. They are suddenly forgetting that humans are supposedly sinners and that they’ll often make choices that god finds reprehensible. Christians are essentially giving themselves an authority greater than the authority they themselves assign to god! God can’t do anything to overturn our free will; sure, he wants all men to be saved, but he can’t make you accept Christ. Christians, however, can force a woman to keep an unwanted pregnancy. Or they can force a terminally ill individual to continue leading a life they would much rather surrender. Perhaps this is because god is simply an idealization, a projection, an admission of their own basest cruelty and thirst to manipulate and control. God is made in man’s image.

This makes for a glaring inconsistency in the thought of most Christians. Abortion and euthanasia shouldn’t be vehemently opposed given the notion that we have free will, a will that isn’t even subordinate to god’s own will. Aside from being a glaring inconsistency, this showcases what Christianity is truly about: control. Christianity is a religion that has been jury-rigged for centuries with the primary goal being control over a person’s life: a person’s thoughts, actions, manner of speaking, and so on. Christians may act as though we have free will, but ultimately, Christians adhere to a religion that tells them what they can and cannot think, say, or do. In some denominations, the music you listen to, the way you dress, whether or not you can wear jewelry or get tattoos, and even who you can associate with are all determined by what the denomination deems acceptable.

The so-called liberal Christian might at this point chime in, but liberal Christianity is itself a modern invention borne out of sheer necessity, an attempt to secure a reversal of the religion’s demonstrable decline. That said, there are liberal Christians who are still vehemently opposed to choice as it concerns abortion and euthanasia. Ultimately, a Christian can’t conveniently recall free will when it benefits their argument and discard it when they want to maintain control over another person’s decisions or the manner in which an individual leads his/her life. Free will explains evil, but a woman can’t abort, a terminally ill individual can’t choose to die, and a homosexual can’t choose to love a partner of the same sex. Which is it? 

The free will defense is itself an attempt to control someone’s thinking. It is a way of pretending to solve a problem that simply is without a solution that is reconcilable to Christian theology. On naturalism, death, disease, and all manner of what we call evil are unfortunate occurrences explainable by a number of naturally occurring factors like natural disasters, genetic predispositions, neurophysical abnormalities or anomalies, and so on. On Christianity, part of the problem is explained by humanity’s god-given free will and in fact, because of the Fall, the very existence of evil is the fault of the first man. The pretense of a solution is merely a means to control the thinking of believers in doubt; that is essentially what apologetics is in a nutshell: the equivalent of alternative facts and fake news designed specifically to create a narrative capable of (perhaps) temporarily extinguishing doubt and retaining control over such believers. At bottom, Christianity is designed specifically to control people and Christians, who are themselves under this dogmatic control, try their darnedest to control the lives of others and even the decisions they make, and this is made apparent in their views on abortion and euthanasia.

If I am free to be an atheist because god can’t make me be a Christian, then women are free to choose and terminally ill individuals can make the choice to end their own lives. You have no say over that per your own beliefs. Will you admit that consistency is really your concern? Will you admit that your endgame is control over other people? 

Right, because free will means morality doesn’t exist and I’m not bound to the consequences of my actions, so contradictory. I guess the serial killer you mentioned earlier is also morally permitted to do whatever he pleases, because, of course, he’s got free will.

That’s the point though: you’ve not proven that there’s anything immoral about aborting an embryo or earth fetus. Most abortions happen before week 16 with the greater number of them happening before week 9. There are no EEG waves in the brain during the first trimester. That happens at around week 22, so the death of an embryo or early fetus isn’t equivalent to the death of a person because a person can suffer brain death. An embryo or early fetus can’t. By brain death, I am not speaking of comatose sort of brain death, which is more a misnomer as that is merely the loss of conscious awareness. I’m speaking of the loss of all brain activity. Embryos and fetuses can’t suffer the loss of all brain activity as they don’t have sufficiently developed brains in the first place. So there’s no equivalence to be had with murder and hence no violation of morality or law to be had when a woman chooses to have an abortion. You’re welcome to try again, but I see already you’re too inadequate a thinker to understand the level of nuance that’s involved in discussing an issue like abortion. The debate doesn’t matter anyway; if you really want to reduce the number of induced abortions there are from country to country, get off your behind, stop trying rebuke pro-choicers on tumblr, and get out there and do your part in reducing poverty, domestic violence, and the other factors that lead women to choose to have an abortion.

If you want to talk abortion, fine, I’ve got finals this week but I’m free thereafter, but my point was that there’s not an inconsistency between free will and moral responsibility; in fact, moral responsibility is predicated on free will, because one can’t act morally or immorally if there’s only one way to act, and if we have moral responsibility, then there is no inconsistency between free will and expecting society to maintain some level of moral behavior. You aren’t addressing my contention with your post at all, and your ad hominem makes you look like a pathetic Redditor complaining that no one understands Rick and Morty like you do (and yes, I do understand that that was also an ad hominem, I don’t care to respect you if you don’t respect me.)

But then you prove that my ad hominem is, in fact, of the non-fallacious sort. You say there’s no inconsistency between free will and moral responsibility, which I would grant if I held to the belief that we have free will, but miss the demonstrable fact that there’s nothing immoral about choosing to have an abortion. Moral responsibility simply doesn’t factor here because no persons are being harmed. So yes, I most certainly did address your post so you can try the old William Lane Craig “you didn’t address any of my arguments” bit, but that makes you look every bit the idiot I thought you were at the outset. Apparently I’m smart enough to get nuance; you clearly aren’t.

I don’t respect supposed philanthropists who equate feeding the homeless with alleviating poverty. As stated by another blogger, you need to invest in education and economic equality to do more on that front. So volunteering isn’t doing much; that’s all to make you feel like you’re doing something. In fact, your sort of thinking halts or stifles progress. Equating abortion with murder is absolutely dangerous and leads to the loss of women’s lives in many countries. Look at Northern Ireland, Brazil and the Philippines. You can’t restrict access to safe abortions because you think a person is being murdered; that’s not what’s happening at all, so the fact here is that you didn’t address anything I said and can’t, and whether after or during finals week, you have no case to make. What you ought to do is sit down and learn. I’ve weighed this issue for far longer than you have and my judgment isn’t clouded by outmoded religious dogma and bias.