Thursday 23 April 2015

Correcting Misconceptions of Christianity: A response to atheism

There are 5 objections that I want to tackle in this paper. Keep in mind the objections raised focus on religion generally but I am answering from a biblical Christian standpoint to answer these points. Let us take a look at them:

"Religious People are closed minded sheep"
What do you mean by closed minded? What as in so narrow minded we cannot be open to someone else's opinion? Christians discern the difference between being open to an opinion and being open to downright error. Christians do NOT (if they are biblical) want to tolerate error.

"Religious People have no logic and reason" and"Religious People are incapable of critical thinking"
Wrong, People who have biblical faith do not have lack of critical thought or logic and reason. Faith requires us to have a critical mind and conviction, it doesn't mean you blindly believe something without a good reason. Christians are called to give a defense for the hope they have according to 1 Peter 3:15. If you can't give a reason, then that is blind conviction.

"Religious People are afraid of science and evidence"
Not really, Science is a useful tool. If it wasn't for science, you wouldn't have YouTube, Facebook or even your own website. Science allows for technology to exist. Christians who are grounded in their faith don't have a problem with science or evidence. In fact, Christians PROVIDE the evidence for their own beliefs being true in the first place. It's funny that this objection is made, considering some atheists will have evidence of Christianity presented to them and spurn it anyway.

"Only those who are afraid of reality and science are religious"
Wrong, Christians are not afraid of science or reality. But what science does this objection suggest Christians are afraid of? There is science that is good and science that is bad. Christians are concerned about science that would violate the laws of nature but science that is of great benefit to man such as medicine for healing, is absolutely fine. What science is the objection referring to?

Answering Judaism.


  1. All of the "misconceptions" are dead on concerning Evangelical protestantism. There is no critical thinking, as the doctrine of sola scriptura is logically incoherent from the get go, but since you're incapable of informal logic then it becomes problematic arguing with you types. How on earth do you compile a Bible infallibly? Where is your infallible source for the biblical texts? I've asked you this question, god knows how many times, and you resort to mental gymnastics and vague answers, "Oh the Jews in the 2nd century compiled the OT.. oh the 4th century catholics compiled the NT." So where exactly is your infallible source for your final authority, i.e. the Bible? All you can do in the end is cite fallible sources of Man.

    1. Even if your point was valid, it wouldn't prove Rome’s claims that they are the true church. :).

    2. Also, the comments in bold weren't addressing sola scriptura, they were addressing religious people, period.

  2. "Even if your point was valid, it wouldn't prove Rome’s claims that they are the true church. :)."

    That's not the issue, we're not trying to prove any church is the true church. But it would certainly raise the level of certainty for Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Nice way to dodge the topic, though. I guess Pastor Patton, RC Sproul, James White are all right, your biblical canon is based upon the fallible traditions of man and you haven't an ounce of infallible, absolute certainty for your beliefs. Traditions of man, plain and simple. :)

    1. I could play the same game and say you rely on the Pope. Oh wait, there is the contrived excuse you guys make using Matthew 16.